News Feed

October 27, 2016 - Lowe looking to protect the south coast A senior policymaker has warned tha ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Road Hockey 5s hit halfway mark After three weeks of competition th ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Sutherland rubbishes Green Economy Scoping study Member of Parliament for St George ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Switch to solar power still too expensive, complains Clarke Member of Parliament for St George ... +++ October 27, 2016 - TVET council looking to improve its offerings – McClean The Barbados Technical Vocational E ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Skills lacking A recent survey has found that Barb ... +++

Broomes always up against it

Members of the Commission of Enquiry – (from left) Hal Gollop, Guyson Mayers, and Vernon Smith – in discussion.

Principal of the Alexandra School Jeff Broomes was up against it from the beginning.

That’s the view of one of the teachers who withdrew their labour from the educational institutional institution in January, senior teacher Sophia Ifill.

Ifill, who teaches physical education, was the latest witness today when the Commission of Enquiry into Alexandra continued at the Wildey Gymnasium, Garfield Sobers Sports Complex.

The teacher said she knew of Broomes before and therefore “accepted him as the person assigned to Alexandra” when he took up the job in 2002.

This, she added, was not the same with other teachers, who were mainly female and senior.

“When he came in the early days I know that people seemed unhappy with him there. It appeared as though they were not happy with him in the early stages,” she told the tribunal headed by sole Commissioner Frederick Waterman.

Ifill said this later changed “to some degree because he was assigned there”.

“We made an attempt to buy into his system and trying to understand the changes he was trying to implement, we tried to flow, to allow things to go, but then things started to break down, the communication,” she stated.

This acceptance, she said, was relatively short lived, especially in relation to her, noting that her interaction with the principal was minimal.

Ifill also recounted one instance when she and Broomes got into an argument over a matter he did not think she should be involved in.

“He chased me out of his office because, during the interchange, he started to shout at me and while he was shouting at me I said to him, ‘I am none of these children in this school, neither am I your wife or daughter and I do not appreciate you shouting at me’, to which he started to shout more. And he told me basically I had no right bringing his wife and daughter into the matter,” she said.

“And I reminded him that in previous meetings when we were discussing serious matters he often mentioned personal facts about his family, whether we wanted to hear them or not he brought in his family.

“So I told him ‘do not shout at me’, that is when he told me get out of his office, which I did not do because, for me, the meeting was not yet completed.” (SC)

2 Responses to Broomes always up against it

  1. Delores Morris July 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Why are our children being exposed to these extremely negative comments about their principal whom they adore. Was the effect of this inquiry on our children taken into consideration? Why are we undermining the faith they have in their teachers and principal by showing them how adults could be at each other’s throat in the most vicious manner. We expose our children to sexual immorality, hypocrisy and now serious conflict where harmony needs to exist, (I mean open hatred) by persons who should be more responsible. What role models are they expected now to follow. This whole fiasco is appalling and then we taxpayers have to pay for it? Will somebody please spare our children the details and solve these problems in an adult manner.

  2. Richeman Hardly July 29, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Of course the effect on the children was considered.

    In spite of what has been said publicly about the purpose of the COI, there is no escaping the fact that it is designed to achieve the stated objective of the BSTU.

    Note how it is being suggested that after all the evidence and testimony hearsay that has been presented so far, it will be impractical for the Principal to return because he will no longer be respected by students, parents and temporary teachers.

    In fact, if his good friend the Chairman is to be believed, it is possible that even the birds and stray dogs in Speightstown will no longer respect him.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *