Dear Editor,

I find it very unfortunate that too many of our local opinion leaders appear to think monolithically and are not nuanced in their analysis of both complex and straightforward issues. Some appear never to approach the age-old problems we face as a society from different lenses and are minded to use the same hackneyed philosophical approaches to all our problems.

The latest example of this scourge among some opinion leaders is Dr Michael Abrahams, who was woefully off the mark in his most recent column in a local newspaper that was entitled ‘Sabotaging our education system (and our country)’.

Abrahams is a doctor by profession, but he is better known as a comedian who has taken on the role of social commentator. The role of social commentator is an important one because the views of such an individual acts as a mirror, which reaffirms already held views, and an amplifier, which projects personal views into the minds of the masses. It is important that those who take on the job of social commentary bring depth and perspective to the discourse; otherwise, the people will be led in the direction they are already going.

I perused Abrahams’ latest column and am compelled to point out that the problem of teacher disaffection is not new. Teachers have been migrating from Jamaica since I was in high school in the 1970s. In fact, the greatest exodus of teachers, indeed professionals generally, was during the period 1976 to 1980. Dr Abrahams would have been a tiny tot then, so he wouldn’t be able to add this context to the current situation.

I start the analysis of the problem at that point in history because the thesis of Dr Abrahams is that the Government’s compensation policy does not encourage teachers to stay in Jamaica.

In fact, he posits that the Government, by not paying the teachers more, is sabotaging the education system. Therefore, if Government pays the teachers more, they will stay. In fact, we could stretch Abrahams’ argument to its logical intent, that we should pay the teachers more than everyone else and that would automatically lead to better outcomes. This may be a generally true statement and one which is easy for everyone to agree with. While it may be a common sense analysis, it does not demonstrate common intelligence.

Here are some points to consider. Teachers represent the largest single group of public sector workers. They account for the largest share of the wage budget. In our current economy, paying the teachers more will mean paying everyone less. Let us say we took the pay increase of all the councillors and parliamentarians and distributed it equally among all teachers, the increase in their salaries would be negligible. Paying the parliamentarians less doesn’t mean a benefit for the poor teacher. Giving the teachers even a 5 per cent increase of their current adjusted salary would mean an additional $3.5 billion on the current wage bill. The point here is that the wage bill, with the settlement of the large groups, like teachers, police, nurses, and doctors, is at its settled limit. Any further moves in these groups would create a fiscal crisis.

This leads to Abrahams’ second point to note about paying people more. Whenever we have engaged in massive wage bill adjustments the country has had to impose a wage freeze. This was the case after central government salary adjustments in 2002. A wage freeze followed in 2003. In 2008 to 2009 Government adjusted wages of teachers to 80 per cent of market, gave nurses a sizeable increase, adjusted the police’s pay, and started the process of adjusting the health sector workers’ pay.

By 2012, a wage freeze had to be implement, which lasted until 2016. The point that commentators like Abrahams should note is that it is not possible to give the increases we would all like and deserve without paying attention to the fundamentals. The money doesn’t come from air. There is no secret reserve or external gifts. The money to pay comes from the value we create. If there isn’t enough money, then we need to focus on creating more value.

This is where the argument of people like Abrahams breaks down. He diagnoses the symptom but doesn’t really understand the treatment of the disease of low productivity. The Government has sought to adjust the wage level all at once while keeping inflation in check so the wage benefit can be sustainable. We should now start to talk about increasing our output and fundamental but meaningful actions, such as attending work on time, attending classes, marking papers on time, innovating new teaching techniques, speaking properly in classes, and exercising patience with students.

The lack of accountability and productivity in education, which is the largest call on our social expenditure budget, is the real sabotage of the education system. Abrahams made no mention of this in his list latest missive.

Michael Abrahams should do better and apply more rigorous and cerebral depth to his analysis of both complex and straightforward issues. A shallow assessment of the crucial issues of our time is not acceptable.

Veronica Blake

veronicablake959@yahoo.com