Nearly a year ago, the Ministry of Education launched its anti-bullying and anti-violence campaign, promising a comprehensive approach to a persistent problem that appears to be getting worse. Nationwide consultations concluded in June this year, and on Sunday via a Facebook video, Education Minister Sonia Parag said that a draft report had been prepared. The ministry had reviewed “thousands of recommendations,” she said, and would develop policies and standard operating procedures. She offered no timeline for the implementation, but called for closer supervision by teachers, stronger parental involvement and more serious attention to complaints.
There is nothing wrong with consultation. Indeed, a policy intended to protect children across the country needed to take account of the experiences of students, teachers, parents and other stakeholders. But when the process drags on for months, followed by an indefinite period of drafting and review, it begins to look less like a determined response to an urgent problem and more like bureaucratic inertia. Meanwhile, bullying has not taken a break to allow officials to decide how best to protect our children.
Further, one particular stakeholder, the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) has been particularly vocal about the ministry’s failure to enlist its assistance. In January this year, following several violent incidents involving students and teachers, GTU President Coretta McDonald complained that the ministry had repeatedly refused to engage the union, which represents the very people expected to implement school-level measures. She called for a coordinated national campaign involving the ministry, the union, parent-teacher associations and the wider community.
If between then and now Minister Parag, who said she was going to be integrally involved in addressing bullying, has reached out to the GTU, that is not public knowledge. If not, suffice to say that policy developed without meaningful input from teachers’ representative organisation risks being detached from the realities of the classroom. Consultation cannot be described as inclusive if cherry picking is involved.
Last November, the ministry launched its Management Information Systems Unit reporting platform as one of the means of addressing the burgeoning bullying problem. It said then that the platform was intended to facilitate confidential reporting of incidents between schools and the ministry. It is a potentially useful tool, but its existence is not proof of its effectiveness.
In April, the ministry disclosed that 58 reports had been received since the system’s launch, with 48 reportedly resolved. That was useful information, but where is the updated account? How many reports have been received since then? How many originated with students, parents or teachers? How quickly were complaints investigated, how many were substantiated, and what action was taken? Most importantly, what does the ministry mean when it says cases were resolved? A complaint being closed administratively does not necessarily mean that the victim is safe or that the behaviour has stopped.
In addition, the number of reports alone would not establish whether bullying is increasing or decreasing. An increase might reflect a worsening problem, but it could also indicate greater confidence in the reporting system. Conversely, fewer reports could mean that bullying is less prevalent, or that students do not trust the process, fear retaliation or simply do not know how to use it. The ministry should be publishing regular, appropriately anonymised statistics and explaining what they reveal. Without such information, the public is being asked to take the effectiveness of the system on faith.
The introduction of moral and civic education from nursery through Grade Nine is another initiative that may have merit. Children should learn empathy, respect, responsibility and the consequences of their actions. However, the inclusion of a subject on a timetable does not automatically translate into better behaviour. Furthermore, have teachers been specifically trained to deliver this subject and address difficult issues such as intimidation, exclusion, peer pressure and online harassment? If existing teachers are absorbing this additional responsibility, are they receiving support and compensation?
Moral and civic education must be more than another subject to be completed and assessed. Its principles must also be reinforced in the way schools are managed, discipline is administered and adults treat children. It is difficult to teach respect for the dignity of others while tolerating practices that undermine that dignity. As previous discussions on bullying have highlighted, corporal punishment also deserves scrutiny because the use of physical force by authority figures can contradict lessons on non-violence and empathy.
Equally troubling is the apparent absence of a comprehensive system of guidance and counselling in every public school. The ministry has spoken of supervision, investigations and disciplinary action, but bullying is not merely a disciplinary problem. It can be rooted in emotional distress, family difficulties, social pressures and a desire to exercise power over others. Victims need somewhere safe to turn, while children who bully others may also require professional intervention to address the behaviour before it becomes entrenched.
Teachers, however committed, cannot be expected to fulfil all these roles while managing classrooms and their regular teaching responsibilities. Guidance counsellors and other appropriately trained professionals can help identify problems early, support victims, work with parents and intervene with perpetrators. They can also help schools distinguish between ordinary disagreements and sustained bullying, which involves a pattern of behaviour and an imbalance of power. Reintroducing and adequately staffing guidance and counselling services across public schools should therefore be a central component of the national response.
The recent reports of school violence, including assaults on teachers and confrontations among students, underline the urgency. The reported death by suicide of a Grade Ten student amid allegations of online bullying has made the need for effective safeguards even more pressing. The circumstances must be established carefully, without prejudging the findings of any investigation. But no child should have to reach a point of profound distress before the adults responsible for their welfare recognise the seriousness of the problem.
The time for announcements has passed. The ministry must set a firm date for implementing the policy, involve the teachers’ union and other essential stakeholders, publish regular data on bullying and the performance of the MISU platform, and provide schools with the trained personnel needed to prevent and address abuse. Parents and communities have responsibilities too, but they cannot be asked to compensate for gaps in the public system.
Every day of delay leaves schools relying on uneven responses to a problem that demands a consistent national approach. Minister Parag emphasised in her Facebook video that no child should be afraid to attend school. She and her ministry must demonstrate that commitment through action, not another round of promises.
Discussion