Mixed views on sanctions against unlicensed teachers

CONCERNS ABOUT the varying sanctions applied to an unlicensed teacher, the principal of the institution to which the teacher is employed and their employer, dominated Wednesday’s sitting of the joint select committee currently reviewing the Jamaica Teaching Council (JTC) Bill.

Section 24 of the bill, currently under review, gives an unlicensed teacher 42 days to apply for a licence upon notification of the contravention. Failure to do so within the specified timeline will result in a notice from the JTC for the person to cease practice as a teacher.

A copy of such notice will also be sent to the principal and the employer, either of whom has a responsibility to ensure that the instructions from the JTC are carried out unless the person can produce evidence that they have now been licensed.

However, if the teacher or employer does not comply with this direction, then he or she is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction in a parish court for a fine not exceeding $500,000.

The principal who fails to comply shall be subject to an inquiry by the professional practice and conduct committee.

Committee member Jeffery Foreman first pointed to the disparity in sanctions.

”Those two things are very different in terms of the severity of the actions, and I am concerned about … the justification for treating them in that way,” he said.

His concerns were supported by committee member Senator Dixon Dana Morris Dixon, who was adamant that the same sanction be applied to teachers, principals, and employers in contravention or only the teacher be sanctioned.

“The two sanctions cannot be different, and I know it’s difficult to sanction an employer, and I understand the motive behind it because if we want to sanction the teacher, there is a responsibility for those who hire the individual without the certification to ensure that this person actually has the certification. So I agree that we want to put some kind of onus on the employer and the principal to ensure that those who are teaching our children are properly certified and licensed,” she said.

“But I can’t envision a way in which the employer can be sanctioned. I think where we go up to notifying them that the person needs to, within 21 days, get licensed, I think that’s as far as we can go. I don’t think we can go any further than that.”

However, chief executive officer of the JTC, Dr Winsome Gordon, argued that in order for the act to be effective, there needs to be greater accountability by both the employer and teacher for the professional standing of the teacher.

“Minister ... the education act requires all teachers to be registered before they go before the classroom, we are still trying to get that act to work. And if that is any example to go by, then in making this decision, the employer has to be held accountable,” she contended.

But legal officer for the Ministry of Education Anastasia Gordon-Jones noted that the ministry also acts as an employer within the public-school system.

“As you know, the appointment of a teacher in relation to a public-education institution is the responsibility of the board, but then it goes to the Ministry of Education and Youth for confirmation. And so if the board sanctions that appointment of that person who is not licensed to teach and it sends it to the inmistry for confirmation, it means that the ministry will also be a part of that,” she said.

But it was Solicitor General Marlene Aldred who received consensus from committee members that the sanction should only be applied to the teacher, to be reviewed in the next five years as per a provision in the bill.

“I would suggest, perhaps, you consider going with the provision where you focus on the teacher where the committee will encourage the regulatory body to ensure that they enforce the provision and then you see how it works because there will be a review” she said.

sashana.small@gleanerjm.com