Civil service in any country is not known for being very civil, nor especially very fast. In fact, if there were a race between a civil servant and a turtle to see who was quickest the turtle would win most times.

Most times.

However, in a response from Cayman’s civil service over the quizzing of the chief officer in the education and employment ministry, Mary Rodrigues, by members of Cayman’s Finance Committee last Monday (23), Usain Bolt would have come second.

Cayman’s media, including iNews Cayman, were quick to latch on to the confusion from not only Rodrigues but other members of the education staff over three different reports based on an independent review of local schools.

See our story published June 24 2014 under iNews Briefs “Cayman teachers not doing their job properly says a report that later appears watered down” at: http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/inews-briefs-143/

Almost as soon as our story reached our server in the sky a “Statement from the Chief Officer and Chief Education Officer, Ministry of Education, Employment and Gender Affairs” was in our inbox.

Damage control, at its speediest.

For those not familiar with the story it was revealed at the Finance Committee there had been an independent behaviour report executed in 2012 and the version that was used for the Final Report, and the one officially recognised was not the only report. There had been an earlier one THAT HAD BEEN KEPT HIDDEN!

In this day and age there is “No Hiding Place”. There is always a copy and east End MLA Arden McLean had a copy of it. Leader of the Opposition, McKeeva Bush knew about it. I am not sure the Education Minister, Tara Rivers, knew about it. Its discovery was very bad news for Rodrigues and company.

This ‘secret’ report painted an even more damning picture that our education system was very ill and it wasn’t just the pupils that had the virus. So did the teachers.

This first independent report said teachers were “negative, indifferent, dismissive and sarcastic towards students, including primary school children, even humiliating them”. They were also described as being “overly aggressive in their manner and failing to understand the learning needs of their students”. The report also said there were “significant disparities and inconsistencies in the quality of teaching throughout the local system and even, in some cases, within the same school”.

Very little of this found its way into the second official report. Even the eight pages of recommendations in the first one were condensed to just a page and a half in the second one.

A member of the ministry’s staff was said to have produced the second report with all the changes now making it NOT independent.

The implied reason for the changed second report given by a visibly shaken Rodrigues was there were some concerns about the evidence to back up the findings of the original report and a review was undertaken, but she was not sure of the details.

Now she is sure of the details as in the Damage Control Instant Press Release from the Ministry – see our Lead Story today “Education Ministry Statement on students and teachers ‘negative behaviours’ in Cayman’s schools” it states:

“There is a first draft of the report and a final version of the report. As supported by emails sent to the consultant by the Chief Policy Advisor in the Ministry, there were serious concerns about the quality of the first draft of the 2012 report, which were addressed in a clear and frank manner with the consultant. The final version of the report, finalised by the Senior Evaluator, a 22 year veteran of the education system, ensured it met the quality standards set out for all reports.”

My question is why after the “clear and frank manner [the “serious concerns about the quality”] were discussed with the consultant, didn’t the consultant change the report him/herself if he/she agreed with the ministry’s concerns?

If you don’t like what you hear you can suppress it completely but you cannot change it and use the bits you like and issue it as an independent report.

This is not addressed in the Ministry’s Press Release.

The correct procedure would and should have been to issue the first report completely as is (if the consultant refused to change it) WITH the ministries own reservations.

What the ministry did was underhanded and suspicious no matter how much they have tried with their attempt at damage control.

The cost of the 2012 review was over 23,700 British pounds equating to approx. US$40,350! It wasn’t cheap and presumably the bill got paid even though the Ministry said there were “serious concerns about the quality of the first draft.”

It also appeared from the Finance Committee Meeting that the Final Report Rodgriguez had was not the same as the second report the ministers had. Was the Final Report watered down some more?

I am sorry Chief Officer and Chief Education Officer, Ministry of Education, Employment and Gender Affairs, there are still too many unanswered questions, too much suspicion and too much confusion relating to all three reports to be resolved from your attempt at damage control.