Education Minister El James and the chairman of the Education Board, Mark Byrne, recently announced that Bermuda would adopt the Cambridge International Curriculum for Bermuda's public schools.

That was a good decision that ends Bermuda's attempts to have its own curriculum designed specifically for the few thousand students in the Bermuda system.

That effort, well meaning as it was, has led to chaos, both because of the need to reinvent the wheel in certain subjects and because of the inability of the Department to coordinate the curriculum both across different schools — for example from one primary school to another — and from one level to another, for example between middle schools and senior schools.

Furthermore, the school certificate struggled to gain recognition from other countries, especially the United Kingdom, which is an increasingly popular choice for university now that Bermudians pay the same low fees as their British counterparts.

Now, Bermuda will have a credible and internationally recognised curriculum which will make it possible to compare Bermudian attainment to other countries and give the Island a baseline to measure performance from year to year within the system.

The transition will not be easy. The IGCSE, which the Cambridge system uses for a certificate for 16 year olds, is rigorous and much of the grade depends on the final exam, unlike the British GCSE exam, which tends to be more project-oriented. It is possible that students who are not academically gifted will end up with poor grades. What should be clear is that the schools need to emphasise trade and vocational training as well as academics.

For now, the curriculum will only be used to teach English, maths and the sciences, but it is to be hoped it will be extended to the social sciences, modern languages and so forth in time.

Overall, the move is the right one and seems to have wide support. The major concern of teachers and principals was that the curriculum would be introduced this September without sufficient training and preparation. This is not a small concern, because this change is substantial.

So Mr. James was absolutely right to decide, with the board, to introduce the curriculum in 2010. He deserves support and credit for this.

Having said that, Mr. James is also right to warn teachers and principals that having given them time to prepare for the change, they will have to do it.

Mr. James' statement that "difficult decisions must be made in those cases where teachers, principals and administrators are not meeting the required standard" is stark, but correct. There is no point in introducing a curriculum if it is not going to be taught well.

Historically, teachers have received wide support in the community. It is recognised that they have a difficult job, compounded by parenting failures, and that the best teachers are dedicated to their students.

But there has to be recognition that some teachers in the system are there for the wrong reasons and are not up to the job. Mr. James is right. As the new curriculum is introduced, teachers who are not up to teaching it need to go. Too much is at stake.