I write in reference to the article “The education of children of African origin” published in your Trinidad Guardian dated 24/25 January, 2020.
The education crisis in the country as reflected by in the article is partisan and even prejudiced. The article which has no writer is endorsed by 23 prominent citizens.
The view that the education system in the country must be “equal and equitable” and must “access the education as would apply to other children,” is invisible in the article, as it overlooks the majority of children in the education system. The “poor educational performance” of children of African origin is a question that must be posed to the majority of children and parents in the system and not for the writer and his 23 endorsers to determine.
The writer calls for a “comprehensive review and overhaul of the system of education is urgently needed, especially to address the crucial question of the right of the black children.” This is a black first position, a black race position, the primacy of black race!
The “Singapore model” is cited in the article where “the education performance of students is race.” As such, the educational performance of children of African origin in the country, as articulated in the article, wants the State to intervene in the education system and the country.
“Our view is that entry into a quality secondary school must not be a matter of competition, but a matter of democratic right.” The writer and his endorsers further argued that “the only criterion for secondary school placement is proximity of residence.” This is an extreme black agenda which the majority of the population must reject.
This article aims to exclude the majority of the children of the nation. This writer and his endorsers want members of the public and stakeholders to deal with the education of children of African origin but exclude the majority of children in the system.
The writer and his 23 endorsers are raising issues but have offered little solution within the article to the crisis plaguing the education system. May be they should revisit the article and propose meaningful solutions for positive change rather than excluding and ignoring the needs of the majority of children in the system.