Parents win right for legal review of principals’ move

Make text smaller Make text larger

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley will review a controversial decision by Government to move two popular school principals away from their posts.

The Parent Teacher Associations of TN Tatem Middle School and Victor Scott Primary Schools are trying to block the moves. According to Mr Justice Kawaley, they have an “arguable case”.

The associations do not wish the schools to lose their valued head teachers Francine McMahon and Valerie Williams.

They launched legal action earlier this month as “a last resort,” having already marched on Parliament to protest the moves without success.

They argued via lawyer Eugene Johnston at Supreme Court yesterday that they should have been consulted before the decisions were made.

They also questioned whether Government had the legal right to make them at all when the schools are not listed as “failing”. They successfully asked Mr Justice Kawaley for permission for a judicial review.

Government announced on March 14 that Ms McMahon of TN Tatem would be sent to Purvis Primary School at the beginning of the next school year, to be replaced by Idonia Beckles of East End Primary.

Meanwhile, it was announced that Ms Williams of Victor Scott would be sent to East End Primary and replaced by Judith Alexander of Purvis Primary.

Speaking out after the news first emerged, Victor Scott PTA president Azuhaa Coleman said of Ms Williams, who has been in charge since 2009: “Our principal doesn’t want to leave, we don’t want her to leave, and we don’t want a new person coming in here after just two years of stability to ‘see’ if she can run this school.”

Asking the Chief Justice for a judicial review, Mr Johnston said the associations and principals learned of the reshuffle on the same day that it was publicly announced.

Summarising the position set out by the protesting associations in court documents, Mr Justice Kawaley said: “In both cases, your complaint is [the principals] were being transferred on an involuntary basis in circumstances where the schools had not been underperforming and you say — and this is likely to be controversial — that legally, that was wrong.”

Mr Johnston agreed with that summary. He went on to argue that public statements issued by the Ministry about the education system gave parents a “legitimate expectation” to be consulted over such decisions.

“It seems to the PTAs to be quite an unreasonable decision at this stage, although we don’t know what Government is going to do to rationalise it,” said Mr Johnston.

He complained that the way the Ministry of Education handled the situation was symptomatic of a “paternalistic” approach to managing schools.

Mr Justice Kawaley described the application for a judicial review as a “rather novel” one.

He said that “it’s obvious to me that there’s an arguable case” and therefore granted permission for a full judicial review in due course.

However, he opted to “accelerate” that process rather than placing a “stay” on the controversial decision, indicating his desire to have the matter settled before the new school year begins in September.

“The court has to be cautious abut making any premature decision which has unforeseen consequences,” said the top judge. “The court has a duty to ensure that the matter is determined as quickly as possible.”

He ordered that the respondents in the case, who are listed as the Commissioner of Education and Minister of Education, should reply to the case set out by Mr Johnston within two weeks rather than within the usual eight week period. Mr Johnston will then reply within a week after that. A further court hearing has been set for June 7.

Lawyer Noriette Cartwright-Parry attended today’s hearing on behalf of the respondents. However, she said she was not in a position to address the court because the main lawyer handling the matter, Martin Johnson, is busy with an inquest.

Invited to comment afterwards, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Education said: “The Ministry will not comment on an ongoing court case, except to say that they welcome the transparency of a judicial review.”

Make text smaller Make text larger

Take Our Poll