Newsday
FROM time immemorial, extra classes have been a part of school. Teachers have, of their own free will and often at no charge, encouraged students to attend lessons before or after regular teaching hours and even during lunch.
But is there a need to look more closely at this practice?
The matters aired at a meeting of the Parliament’s Social Services and Public Administration Joint Select Committee on January 29 suggest there is.
Independent Senator Dr Paul Richards described the practice of teachers charging for lessons to complete the prescribed curriculum as “obscene.” PNM Senator Avinash Singh questioned whether there is a connection between course design and that practice.
National Council of Parent Teacher Associations (NPTA) president Walter Stewart said there was no reason a teacher should not be able to deliver the full syllabus during class, and raised the disturbing notion of a “lessons mafia.” But he also admitted there needs to be a deeper understanding of why teachers resort to extra classes.
>
In this vein, TT Unified Teachers Association president Martin Lum Kin strongly rejected the notion that teachers “hold back” to make money, noting that classes might be disrupted or hindered, requiring lessons to catch up.
We agree lessons for a fee might appear, prima facie, unethical.
And without proper analysis or empirical grounding, the resort to the justification of “curriculum overload” for this practice is potentially a mere cover for the failure of teachers to do their job.
At the same time, if there is simply too much work for teachers to cover each day, then it would be equally unethical to require them to bear the burden of a poorly designed curriculum. Free lessons are noble.
This issue stems from two core problems within our education system: excessive competition and administrative dysfunction revolving around the Teaching Service Commission, the Ministry of Education and school boards.
The first means it matters not whether a teacher has justifiable grounds to provide the service of extra instruction or not. Parents are under incredible pressure to fork out money to avoid the risk of their child being left behind in the race for school placements and scholarships.
In this regard, Minister of Education Dr Nyan Gadsby-Dolly’s statement that there should be no repercussions for a student who does not attend lessons expresses an academic ideal.
In the real world, failure to take lessons might put a child at a disadvantage.
And the second problem of dysfunction leaves much room for doubt about whether lesson plans are being robustly reviewed, teaching standards enforced, and officials properly compensated for the work they do.
>
For all these reasons, and given all these gaps, stronger rules regulating extra lessons should be introduced.
