News Feed

October 27, 2016 - United win Manchester derby Juan Mata struck to win a tight Man ... +++ October 27, 2016 - IAAF wants Bolt’s services KINGSTON, Jamaica – IAAF Pres ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Proper shutdown protocol needed, says Bynoe The Department of Emergency Managem ... +++ October 27, 2016 - ‘Out of touch’ Economist Ryan Straughn says the la ... +++ 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 ... +++

Broomes faulted

Alexandra Principal Jeff Broomes.

The commission of enquiry into the Alexandra School has apparently blamed Principal Jeff Broomes for any non-teaching that might have occurred with teacher Amaida Greaves.

In Chapter five of his report, sole commissioner Frederick Waterman said: “Regulation 18 (a) requires every principal to supervise the teachers of his school. This paragraph is designed for the effective management of the school and when coupled with the other paragraphs …, requires the principal to cooperate with other stakeholders in order to have a well run institution for the provision of the learning and education for all students of the school.

“However, the commission is satisfied that the whole saga surrounding the non-teaching for “a whole term” by a senior teacher as the principal alleged, could not have occurred if he was exercising proper supervision over his teachers as required…

“Does the principal do the normal walk about he school? Dwayne Bryan, in his evidence, says that he drew to the principal’s attention on more than one occasion that Mrs. Greaves was not teaching her class. The principal himself stated that it was brought to his attention by two female students in the corridor.

“This points to possible dereliction of the duty imposed on the principal … and he may well be found to have fallen short … in that he did not effectively the teachers of his school.”

The report also suggests that the commissioner did not place much faith in the principal’s “student court”. He said that Regulation 17 provided that “subject to the policy of the minister and the general direction of the board, every principal is responsible for the discipline of the school”.

“The evidence is that the current principal sees discipline as existing in a sort of hierarchical structure, commencing with the student court, then the form teacher, the head of department, deputy principal and finally the principal.

“Even though it may be laudable to have student courts which have met the approval of the chief education officer, legislation does not provide for such a structure. It seems to the commission that the discipline of the school is the responsibility of the principal, advised and otherwise assisted by the deputy principal.” (RRM)

Leave a Reply

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