Dear Editor,
The editorial titled ‘Violence in schools’ in the November 22 issue of Kaieteur News proposed the appointment of welfare officers in schools as a potential solution for what was projected as dysfunctional relationships between teachers and students to the extent where both male, and increasingly female students are physically attacking both male and female teachers.
Such (mis)behaviour might very well reflect changing/deteriorating mores in our society, as indeed appears to be the case in other countries. It will not hurt to survey what counter or ameliorative measures have been or are being tried elsewhere so that we do not re-invent the wheel or repeat their mistakes.
This notwithstanding, I wish to share this thought based on my many years of experience as a primary and secondary school teacher: We must be wary of exacerbating the situation by unwittingly introducing intermediaries in the basic student-teacher relationship; any change that is likely to dilute the bond that must necessarily be cultivated and sustained between the student and the teacher might in the long run do more harm than well-meaning good.
A welfare officer in each school to deal with issues that cannot be dealt with by the hierarchy that currently exists (eg Senior teacher, Deputy HM, HM with other professional support available on-call regionally, including psycho-social counsellors) might very well undermine the authority-figure that must reside in the child’s teacher with support, if necessary, from parental involvement. Such undermining does no one any good.
It merely increases the bureaucracy which in turn encourages buck-passing and reduces accountability for achievement.
I can also draw parallels with my decades of experience as a human resource management practitioner and consultant in industrial, governmental and international organizations in various cultural contexts. In too many instances I have seen and advised against the dilution of the primary supervisor-supervisee relationship which resulted from the introduction of unnecessary intermediaries.
To me the most effective solution lies in:
* the professional empowerment of the teacher (or the supervisor as the case might be) by ensuring that the technical knowledge of the subjects being taught and the skill of teaching have been acquired;
* the necessary pre-appointment orientation and aptitude to deal with the human aspects of the job are fully satisfied initially;
* continually being upgraded in the light of contextual changes and new developments in substantive subject matter as well as societal dynamics.
In this regard one must ask to what extent are teachers trained in inter-personal relationships, counselling and leadership before they start working as teachers. My guess is that most entrants into the teaching profession get very little, if any pre-appointment preparation for the most challenging job as a teacher. How many just move overnight after graduating as a student to being a teacher where some may indeed quickly learn to swim while several others just float or sink?
I do believe that much more will be gained if we select and prepare our teachers better to perform as the gurus of yore, the real teachers, rather than propping them up with school counsellors or welfare officers.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
