Minister of Education Ruel Reid made the announcement concerning the abolition of auxiliary fees the first major announcement of his incumbency. This has led to much public debate and disquiet, if not opposition, within the life of the nation and primarily those involved in secondary education. Now the Minister has been using the two daily newspapers as the media to inform the public regarding his ministry’s policy and to discredit those who would question the wisdom of the policy and its implications for the delivery of quality education to our students.

The latest of the two media sit-downs was with The Gleaner on Wednesday, June 29, 2016. In offering its report of the minister’s position, the newspaper may be quoted as saying: “According to Reid, the issue of the fees has taken on a political life of its own given that the new policy of abolishing auxiliary fees could influence electoral outcomes.

“ ‘I have found over the years, though, that the whole business of education and the funding of education has become a very big political issue to the extent that if you are giving a service now that people don’t have to necessarily pay for in any mandatory way; it could be a potential benefit that influences voting, so, therefore, if that is what is on the table, both parties, politically, are going to cross swords on it, and so it’s a big political issue,’ he said.”

The minister insinuates that those who have kept the issue on the front burner have some kind of ulterior motive as follows: “Clearly, there are stakeholders who have vested interest who have kept it on the front burner for other reasons that I am not absolutely sure of.” He then goes on to insinuate that the motive is political, even as he offers the most partisan political statement I have heard issued in the public arena and among those who are concerned regarding the announced auxiliary fees policy.

While not being a career politician, it is unfortunate that the minister has taken the issue down this pathway, as it is an insult to suggest that those of us who are concerned about the issue are concerned about partisan political outcomes, but the truth is that the nation needs to be able to discuss issues of such national import without turning it into a partisan affair. This has been a ploy by many of our politicians, over decades, which has retarded the development of this nation and which has only served to stifle criticism and input by concerned citizens.

There is no question that the increase provision offered by the Government, through the Ministry of Education’s budget, is a positive move. Whether it represents adequate funding of the operations of our schools without input from other sources, including auxiliary fees, is another matter. The increased provision which the Government has offered will cover such budget heads as instruction materials, utilities, maintenance (only some), office and cleaning supplies, and security. The operation of secondary schools includes much more than these limited provisions. We make light of extra-curricular activities, for example, and then as a nation we want to boast of the achievements of our athletes at the National Championships, and at this time look forward to their participation at the Olympic Games, but never ask ourselves how do the schools produce such talent. It is the auxiliary fees that make this possible.

But we must ask ourselves further, from where does the vision for the development of each of our secondary schools come, and how is it funded? It comes from the board of management of the schools, working along with the principals, the parent teachers’ associations, and the input of students and other stakeholders. It is for this reason that the minister of education was able to make a difference while serving as principal of Jamaica College where, during his tenure, the most elaborate auditorium of any school in Jamaica, a large cafeteria unlike any other, flats for teachers, and a new facility for boarders was constructed. Every school and every child in high school should look to nothing less for the learning environment within which they have to function. The funds for the development of the institution did not come from the Ministry of Education, and if that institution was hoping to undertake any project of this nature funded by the increased provision of the ministry, which the minister is now advancing, it would never become a reality.

What is perhaps disconcerting in all of this is the repeated call which was restated at the Jamaica Observer Monday Exchange that “administrators fully disclose funds at their disposal, as well as prepare budgets to ensure transparency” and that, “One of the things that has been happening is that people are just reporting one component and not the totality of the income, including income from canteens. An average school of 1,500/1,600 students can easily earn $300,000 a month from the concessionaire, and all of these incomes need to be accounted for in terms of operating a school.”

Implicit in these comments is the notion that there is something surreptitious and immoral going on in the schools surrounding the handling of auxiliary fees and the income from other sources. Having been a principal of a leading high school, and knowing how auxiliary fees have been handled, does the minister know something that he is not disclosing? And, if so, why not call in the relevant authorities to apprehend those so responsible?

As one who has oversight of some 11 high schools in this country, and who maintains contact with the churches and trusts that own and operate the leading high schools in this country, I challenge the minister to state publicly what has been happening with auxiliary fees in these institutions that is unbecoming.

As one who has chaired the board of management of institutions at the secondary and tertiary levels, I know the classrooms, administrative facilities, and student services which have been made possible from auxiliary fees and the input from shareholders and income earned by the institution. If the country is going to be frightened by the fear of a partisan political label, so let it be.

According to the Observer‘s report, “The minister said that income derived from past students, trusts, and rental of property must be put into the mix. ‘…You are to state all of your income sources, because it is still a public institution’,” he said.

He continues: “Don’t say you’re charging $6,000 for lab fees and when you look the $6,000 is not being used entirely for lab fees; it is being used in other areas.” This is precisely part of the problem the schools face and why the nation must be involved in the debate. To construct a classroom block today involves millions of dollars, and where is that to come from when the ministry makes no provision for such expansion?

I have had to preside over the board of a high school where classes were being held in trailers which were to be temporary, but which continued for countless years, in which the heat was unbearable at times. Is that what we want for our children? Or, when the number of students registered for home economics in Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate examinations exceeded the facilities of the existing home economics rooms, what is the school to do with the children? It is then that I have had to see that the income from these sources help to provide the facilities for our children.

If, as the ministry is proposing, each year’s income from past students, trust funds, and rental of facilities must be applied to the budget for meeting the budgetary expense of each year, while at the same time abolishing auxiliary fees, what is to be the future of our secondary schools and their development?

The current direction in which the discussion surrounding the implementation of this policy of no auxiliary fees is moving is less than desirable. To suggest that our boards of management, principals, churches which own and operate schools, as well as committed parent teachers’ associations and citizens who are concerned about the policy of the elimination of auxiliary fees, and who believe that their concerns have not been addressed, have some sinister or partisan political agenda, does not make for amicable relationships and the partnership which is necessary for the advancement of education in this country.

Right Reverend Howard Gregory is the Anglican Bishop of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands.