A GUY'S VIEW

The most recent evidence of the terrible state interfering in the lives of people comes in the form of the debate over whether parents have the right to choose not to educate their children in the normal way or to determine what education their children should have. This is a subject that the Education Act adequately addresses.

PART IV of the Education Act, Cap. 41, deals with attendance of pupils at schools. This part captures well what is expected of parents and the interest of the state in ensuring that all children of school age receive an adequate education.

 

Section 41 speaks directly to the obligations of parents: “The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall ensure that the child receives full-time education suitable to his age and ability (a) by regular attendance at a public or private school; or (b) in any other manner satisfactory to the Minister.”

 

This provision makes it clear that the state accepts that there may be other arrangements made for the education of children besides the traditional path taken by most people. 

Section 41 (a) allows for either public or private school education. There was a time in Barbados when private schools played a major role in our education system. Most of the private schools which educated many Barbadians have disappeared. Those that have re-emerged have a tinge of privilege attached to them and may be outside the affordability of some of us, but this is not an indictment on them. They should be judged on their results. Their results should be a matter of public record. That may be the best advertisement of their services. 

 

More importantly, that subsection speaks to regular attendance at school. This more than anything else in the section exposes the heart of the provision. Regular attendance at school is required for a good education. If the quality of instruction is excellent, but a child is not there to benefit from it, the process is wasted. 

Section 41 (b) opens the door to non-traditional instruction. Instruction may be in any manner other than school attendance, as long as the Minister of Education regards the method as satisfactory.

 

Satisfaction here can mean no more or less than that the alternative proposed meets the expected education needs of the child. I could hear one of my friends mouth the ridiculous question of who should determine what is the acceptable standard of education for a child in question. He might argue that if a parent is happy with his or her teenage child, who has no disability, not being able to read, no one should object. I can find no basis for agreement with that idea.

 

Section 42 puts the entire issue in perspective: “42. (1) A child of compulsory school age may be exempted from compulsory attendance at school on any of the following grounds: (a) the child is receiving special education; (b) the child is receiving instruction at home in a manner and to a standard satisfactory to the Minister; (c) the child is unable to attend school because of sickness, danger of infection, infirmity, sudden or serious illness of a parent, or other sufficient cause; (d) religious observance; (e) the child is suffering from a physical or mental handicap that, in the opinion of a registered medical practitioner, makes the child incapable of being educated by ordinary methods of instruction; (f) the grant by the principal of the school of permission for the child to be temporarily absent from school for good and sufficient reason; or (g) the child has successfully completed a period of study in secondary education to the satisfaction of the principal of the school. 

 

“(2) The parent of any child of compulsory school age who wishes the child to be exempt from compulsory attendance at school may apply for a certificate of exemption from attendance in accordance with subsection (3). 

 

“(3) An application under subsection (2) must be made, in the case of: (a) any of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (e), of subsection (1) to the Chief Education Officer; and (b) any of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) and (f), of subsection (1) to the principal of the school, and the Chief Education Officer, or the principal as the case may be, may grant or refuse the certificate. 

 

“(4) A certificate granted under subsection (3) exempts the child to whom it relates from attendance at school to the extent specified in the certificate. 

 

“(5) Any parent who is dissatisfied with refusal under subsection (3) may appeal to the Minister, who may confirm or overrule the refusal. 

 

“(6) The decision of the Minister on an appeal under subsection (5) is final.

 

“(7) Section 61 does not apply in the case of a child with respect to whom a certificate has been granted under this section.”

 

Section 61 referred to at subsection 7 above provides thus: “(1) Where a child of compulsory school age, (a) being a registered pupil at a school, fails to attend regularly at the school; or (b) not being a registered pupil at a school, does not, in a manner satisfactory to the Minister, receive full-time education suitable to his age and ability, the parent of the child is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $50.”

 

I thought it useful to reproduce large portions of the actual text of the Act rather than to produce a commentary because there were a number of by-standers who were confused by reports of a matter which was recently reported on heavily in the press. Too often, persons are ready to speak about things of which they know nothing. The Education Act is absolutely fair and places emphasis on the interest of the child.

 

Education outside of the regular system is not an issue. The only issue is producing children who can competently navigate through the world ahead of them, and who would not find themselves in a position where they must resort to criminal activity to support themselves or be a liability on the state later in life when their supporting parents are no long around.