This is an opinion piece submitted by Myron Piper, chairman and founder of the Bermuda Educational Parents Association on education reform in the public schools system.

"All students must be taught the same things" Bermuda Sun editorial February 29, 2008 Reporter Meredith Ebbin's editorial, based on an interview of Dr. Henry Johnson, education consultant for the Ministry of Education, seems to solely focus around testing and the curriculum.

Dr. Henry Johnson has spent in excess of seven months in Bermuda. He inherited the Hopkins review of the Bermuda Government Education system (completed in May 2007).

However, he tells us very little or virtually nothing not already stated from the Hopkins review. What amazes me is the Bermuda public is sitting quietly by demanding nothing of him or the Minister of Education while another generation of our children is ruined.

The Hopkins report outlined a number of improvements that could have taken effect in September in order to have an immediate impact on Education. These were the first three recommendations of the Hopkins Report:

1. Dramatically improve the quality of teaching. Particular emphasis was about poor teaching standards. "Schools need to ensure that every lesson counts, by instituting quality assurance of teaching and learning, led by the principal."

2. Move quickly to improve the quality of leadership by principals. "The quality of principal leadership is pivotal to the raising of standards of learning and teaching.

3. Radically reform the Ministry of Education. This includes "a thorough reconfiguration of the Ministry in order to develop a culture that focuses on the schools as clients. This reform should result in a major restructuring of the Ministry with appointments to all posts on the basis merit, with five year contracts and robust performance management. The performance of the Ministry will be subject to scrutiny by the interim Executive Board.

The Hopkins Report clearly states that, "Significant progress needs to be made in these and other areas during the school year 2007/08." That did not happen. According to the Hopkins review the curriculum "may need some alignment vertically and horizontally" but the reasons given for Dr. Henry Johnson's curriculum audit is vague at best. He states "opinion is divided on how rigorous the school's curriculum is".

Whose opinion and what specific data does he have to back up his assertions? How will he measure the new curriculum, if there is a need for a new curriculum, or the existing curriculum if it remains since it is obvious he doesn't know whether we need a new curriculum or not. Dr. Johnson seems to be solely focusing on curriculum and testing but the Hopkins report clearly talks about inadequate teaching that is widespread.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the best curriculum and assessment practices mean nothing if the delivery is poor. It's ironic that the Bermuda Union of Teachers is in agreement with the curriculum not being rigorous enough. A question begging to be asked is, 'how does the Union explain the low graduation rates from a curriculum that is not challenging enough?' Surely it speaks to instruction. How has the Union addressed the delivery of the curriculum by its members?

Is the Union prepared to support its members being certified, ensuring professionalism, insisting on professional development instead of personal days so its members can go shopping?

Dr. Henry Johnson goes on to state "things are getting better" as a reassurance to parents. Parents should not be contented with these reassurances while another year has been lost; another generation of our children's hopes has been dashed.

The reason he gives for his assurance is that "adjustments to the way the curriculum is administered were made at the start of the new school year". If the curriculum only needed adjustments, then why hire more overseas consultants to carry out an audit.

If we agree with the premise that what is taught and what is tested should be the same, which seems rhetorical to me, then why do we need more experts to audit the curriculum? It seems to me that a lot of people are being paid a lot of money with little in the way of results to show for it, and may be herein lays the problem.

There has been no communication with the public, the unions and teachers for their input. With all these interim committees being set up, have parents been polled to determine what they actually have experienced from Government schools/teachers or how they can contribute for more effectiveness in the system?

Collection of this kind of data can lead to some collaborative, buy-in support from parents. The Union representative has been rejected. Who represents the parents or the principals? Instead we have boards setup surreptitiously rather than on merit as the Hopkins Report calls for.

All of this begs the question "How are decisions being arrived at?" Why would consultant expert Dr. Henry Johnson need more consultant experts to do this job? Surely he could use the expertise of the curriculum technical officers to revise the alignment of the curriculum or to even do a comparison study of other jurisdictions.

Why not use the current highly qualified Ministry personnel under his direction to achieve the same goal. Surely that will lend collaboration and buy-in with Ministry stakeholders.

Dr. Henry Johnson states "staff development programmes aimed at improving the effectiveness of principals and teachers are also being ramped up". Can we assume that extensive research has been carried out to get to the root of staff development needs? One would have to bear in mind that we are not all created equally. The needs of principals and teachers will vary with ability. How is this being addressed?

Another interesting statement by Dr. Johnson "schools will be recognised and rewarded for meeting certain performance standards."

What happened to passion and commitment, qualities that are more revered qualities? Are we setting a dangerous precedent in thinking rewards equals performance in education? How do the private schools deal with student/ school success where teachers are paid less, have greater expectations put on them, teach bigger classes and get better results. In conclusion, I ask: "Will there be an assessment of what has been accomplished by Dr. Johnson against the Hopkins Review?

Perhaps we can get David Hopkins back for a further assessment, since we accepted his review. The clearly articulated televised Hopkins review findings may now need to be revisited in order to get a grading of Dr. Henry Johnson.

More importantly, let's get some more definitive, specific changes occurring. No-one was fooled by the press release of a new or revised bureaucracy at the Ministry of Education. As shared with the listening audience, 15 new positions are to be implemented at the Ministry. The questions not asked: are these positions in addition to existing ones; will current Ministry staff be made redundant or reassigned or retired if the new positions replace the old; what salary scale will these positions absorb from the tax payers.

With all the financial resources we are putting into Education, we are throwing money at an already over priced, over financed Institution. We need to demand performance from the consultants we hire. They get paid more money coming to Bermuda than they would ever receive elsewhere. We have to make sure that they are not lining their pockets at the expense of our children.

It is important that Parents, Principals, Teachers and the Unions accept responsibility for the needs of our children and put that first and foremost when making decisions. There is enough blame to spread around. We have to stay focused on the common goal of improving The Education System.

We must each offer up concessions to fulfil this goal, each participant willing to give in order to maintain the spirit of the initiative. Our children are our most valued resource, they are the Future. If we don't prepare them well we will set them up to Fail. Education is the Key.