Probe into education sector stressed need to complete reform Act

-lamented inadequate support to inquiry

Dr Rupert Roopnaraine may have been removed from his post as Minister of Education over the failure to complete a revision of the Education Act and provide adequate support to the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Education Sector.

The swiftness of his reassigning last week to the Ministry of the Presidency has raised questions about the reason behind the move.

A press release from the Ministry of the Presidency on Monday in response to the June 18 Sunday Stabroek editorial , said that having reviewed the CoI report which Roopnaraine had submitted on June 1, President David Granger “recognised that immediate action needed to be taken to address the findings of that report”. The press release did not state what in the report led to the reassigning of Roopnaraine.

The release continued by noting that the findings prioritised the need for reform and innovation within the sector.

Stabroek News was able to secure a copy of the CoI report submitted to Roopnaraine on April 28, 2017 which recommends that “urgent consideration” be given to the tabling of the draft education bill in parliament as many of the issues identified in the sector can be resolved with the enactment of this piece of legislation.

It is the only CoI recommendation which includes the word “urgent” while several other recommendations refer to how critical it is that the draft Education Bill captures these relevant findings.

Guyana’s Education Act was first crafted in 1877 and while an Education Bill which would’ve seen a sweeping overhaul of public education was read in the National Assembly on June 20, 2014, its passage was derailed when then President Donald Ramotar prorogued parliament. Since that time there have been many references to a draft education bill from both Roopnaraine and his advisor Vincent Alexander but no copies of this draft have been made public.

Instead, the Minister has authorised several fact-finding missions on the education system. In 2015 Roopnaraine authorized a countrywide audit of public schools which he revealed found the public education system to be on “life support”.

In July 2015 Minster Roopnaraine revealed that audit teams had been sent “to schools in every region to assess their current situation and gain information on issues that plague them. The teams had also been tasked with conducting environmental audits of the schools.”

While the Minister said that these audits had found schools to be “outmoded” with vast differences in the services offered on the coastland and hinterland, there was no evidence of any policy being crafted to address these issues.

Instead one year later a CoI into the education sector headed by former Chief Education Officer, Ed Caesar was authorized. This CoI which took another year to complete was tasked with conducting a “far-ranging inquiry into the public education sector, one that would paint as accurate a picture as possible of the state of the sector at present.”

According to the preliminary report the period to be reviewed by the CoI was stated as September 2010 to July 2014 though scope was provided for the inquiry to proceed outside the stated period if necessary.

Despite these terms of reference and the emphasis Roopnaraine repeatedly placed on the importance of the CoI, the team reported that several of the documents requested by the commission were never received.

“One of the most critical ones related to expenditure over the last three years,” the report notes.

Also reported is a failure by the Ministry to provide adequate resources for the conduct of the inquiry.

The report mentions that though requested in a timely manner transportation was, on several occasions, not available or not provided early enough for the team to arrive at its destination on time.

This failure according to the report saw, Commissioner Ramesh Persaud who represented the private sector on the commission finding it necessary to “assist from time to time.”

Further concerns were raised about the attendance of Commissioners at 99 consultations held.

Their absence was recorded as “somewhat disappointing.”

“Members were highly qualified and extremely competent but extraordinarily busy. Had the original plan to have fifteen Commissioners been maintained, three teams would have been established and an effort would have been made to complete the task in four months and absenteeism/ unavailability of members might have been less pronounced,” the report notes.

Specific mention was also made of the deficiency of the rapporteur who was attached to the Commission who ‘was not very computer literate.”

As a result of this deficiency “completion of individual consultation reports in a timely manner was not realised.”