Dear Editor,
I note with interest the article titled, `Central High School not being downgraded or phased out -St Mary’s High to go’ (SN January 12). On the Central (or New Central High) side that has some positives; in the next instance, while the St Mary’s picture is a work in progress and is not as clear and acceptable as it should be, it is, also, somewhat at odds with the above caption.
First, I focus on the pluses. It is encouraging to read that the students in Form 5, who are preparing for the CSEC challenge will do so under the tutelage and conditions to which they are accustomed, and which makes for solid sense. By conditions I rely on the official from the Ministry of Education representing that “the only separation within the school are the Grade 11 students.” I think that is a wise step, since the children from St Mary’s are pursuing studies in a stream that is outside of the CSEC standards. It could be mixing aviation fuel with diesel.
Second, I am heartened to learn that the government did offer some options. Regional Education Office, Ms. Marcia Paddy-Andrews, noted that multiple areas were identified for relocation of the school, but the parents did not agree to any of the spaces suggested. I regret that the parents decided upon that course of action. It had something to do with being “out of the catchment area.” At the risk of being in error, I am going blindly into this one by interpreting “catchment area” to mean within the old Georgetown boundaries. It is unfortunate that multiple choices were offered and matters still ended up in the place that it did, which none find satisfactory. Sometimes hard choices and harder sacrifices have to be made by responsible adults for the long-term welfare of the younger ones. As a quick, but pointed, aside, I assert that not all of us can reside in gated communities or find everyday parking right in front of our destinations; many times, we have to creep before we can walk. The optimal comes only when the complete canvas is studied.
It is why I am hard pressed to understand whatever space-precious in narrow and congested Georgetown- was offered and could repeatedly fail to pass muster. Certainly, transportation and neighbourhood could be problems; but unless the areas named were in highly dubious places, dangerous ones, then one of them ought to have been grasped, if only for the upside. There is only so much that any government can come up with, given real estate limitations in this town and its immediate outskirts. So, to St Mary’s was the sorry resort, and which looks to me like a last gasp effort to keep going under difficult (and unsafe) circumstances.
Third, from the good and unfortunate, I proceed to what I will describe as questionable. The article in SN pointed out that “lower school students from (Grades 7-10) are working together so as to prevent segregation and conflict between the students who came from the various schools.” I do not understand the part about “various schools” as I thought only two are impacted; while I have some trouble peeling this particular onion relative to “segregation and conflict.”. The students from Forms 1 through 4 from the merged schools are working in tandem “to prevent segregation and conflict.” Management of conflict is the obligation of the administration of the schools, with the assistance of the parent ministry, to oversee and police by running a very tight ship, with consideration to all the attendant factors.
But I submit that conflict is neither better controlled nor overcome by putting the students in the same space, when those from St Mary’s are recognized to be of a lesser academic calibre and possess possibly lower intensities to sustained effort. As much as I recognize that we live in a politically correct time, and that there are bound to be behaviours reflective of superiority and the related inferiority complexes, I think that this is not best handled by bundling them together and delivering to they and their parents the equivalent of swim or sink; or take it or leave it. To enforce this “to prevent segregation” is a step in an ill-conceived direction.
I am not so concerned about the fourth formers from Central High, since they are almost on the threshold of departing. Unfortunately, I am unable to say the same thing with regards to those in Forms 1 and 2. They have a long 3-4 years ahead, with their new companions. For some, it might prove to be insurmountable, and potentials may dwindle. I am forcing myself to look on the bright side, and believe that the lower Grade students from the New Central High can lead the way, through exemplary work ethic and excellence and, hopefully, lift their new environment up, in more ways than one, and carry some of their peers. In view of the journey embarked upon, and where things stand presently, this is going to be an arduous orientation, continuation, concentration, and transformation process. I wish it were otherwise and that parents were wiser.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
