Sat | Jan 3, 2026

Principals body warns, slow down on JTC bill

Published:Thursday | May 1, 2025 | 12:10 AMSashana Small/Staff Reporter
Jennifer Williams, president of the Jamaica Association of Principals and Vice-Principals.
Jennifer Williams, president of the Jamaica Association of Principals and Vice-Principals.

Jennifer Williams, president of the Jamaica Association of Principals and Vice-Principals, is cautioning lawmakers not to rush the Jamaica Teaching Council (JTC) bill, contending that its implementation must be a “win-win” for all stakeholders.

The proposed legislation is aimed at establishing an improved accountability framework within Jamaica’s education sector. It was passed in the Senate last Friday with 38 amendments and will now go to the Lower House for approval.

A key feature of the JTC bill is the establishment of a council that will have the responsibility to regulate the sector and issue licences to teachers.

“It is always a good thing to be licensed. However, it should not be rushed. Teachers should not feel threatened by this bill,” Williams told The Gleaner.

Her statement follows similar concerns from the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) that the bill may cause a financial strain on teachers and further demoralise the profession.

Addressing a press conference on Tuesday, PNP caretaker for St James East Central Rushell Reid Knott, who is a former educator, highlighted what she described as risks the bill posed to the operational flexibility of school management.

UNDERMINING PRINCIPALS

“[The bill] undermines the ability of principals to lead, to respond to challenges, and to deliver consistent instruction. We must protect students’ learning, and that starts with empowering principals, not tying their hands,” she said.

She noted provisions in the bill which mandates that only registered and licensed teachers should teach, and does not give allowances for emergency situations.

“A principal cannot ask a retired educator, a trained graduate awaiting paperwork, or a volunteer to step in during an emergency, not even for a single day,” she said, adding that this will have a deleterious impact on students’ learning.

Section 24 of the bill stipulates that an unlicensed or unregistered teacher commits an offence and can be fined up to $500,000.

Williams, who is principal of The Queen’s School in St Andrew, also said the fine is “exorbitant”, especially when the salaries of teachers are taken into consideration.

“It is impossible to register all the teachers at the same time and engage in the teaching and learning process simultaneously. Therefore, we have to think this through thoroughly and with the best intentions, allowing good sense to prevail,” she said.

During a post-Cabinet press briefing held yesterday at Jamaica House in St Andrew, Minister of Educator Dr Dana Morris Dixon said there would be a two-year moratorium after the bill is enacted.

TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM

“When the regime comes into place, teachers have two years before they need to be registered,” she said.

The minister also hit back against criticisms about the bill from the Opposition. She suggested that the PNP members on the joint select committee that reviewed the bill did not fulfil their responsibilities, as they had the opportunity to bring these issues to the committee.

“So there is a real governance question: are we doing the work we are supposed to be doing? Are we as attentive to our joint select committees? Are we reading the bills?” she asked.

Subsequently, however, the Opposition accused Morris Dixon of mischaracterising the circumstances around the debate on the bill.

In a statement, the Opposition noted that on the day the Government intended to open and close the debate on the bill, approximately 35 amendments were circulated to the senators.

“The very intention to debate and close such a significant and far-reaching bill the day after circulating 35 amendments, and with no meaningful time for review, betrays the seriousness the Government claims to attach to this legislation,” the PNP said.

“The Opposition, having not been given prior notice or sufficient time to review these substantive changes, responsibly indicated that the debate could not fairly or meaningfully proceed under those circumstances.”

sashana.small@gleanerjm.com