school system in Bermuda -- under the spotlight.

The Act was discussed at length last week by Senators, but yesterday they dissolved into committee to analyse the new law in detail.

Issues raised included the curriculum, alternative education, school boards -- even the definition of the term "child'' and the use of the word "suitable''.

The Education Act 1996 aims to reform the entire education system, including creating the so-called "mega-schools'' for senior secondary pupils and separate middle schools for younger secondary pupils.

There are also controversial proposals for a code of conduct and drugs testing for pupils. School boards will also be set up so parents have a voice in the running of schools. Debate yesterday began with questions from Progressive Labour Party senators as to why the new school at Prospect was in a different section of the Act to other maintained schools.

Sen. Milton Scott (PLP) said he feared the move meant the school and land would be handed over to the school's board -- although Sen. Larry Scott (UBP) said the suspicion was unfounded.

He said the school was in a different situation because it was coming into the education system for the first time.

Sen. Norma Astwood (Ind) asked about the definition of a child in the Act -- which was for a person up to the age of 21 -- and pointed out that definitions in other Acts varied.

But UBP Senate Leader, Sen. Lynda Milligan-Whyte pointed out that Government wanted a broader definition to be included in the Act to cater for people up to the age of 21.

Even the use of the word "suitable'' was discussed as Sen. Milton Scott , the PLP Senate leader, said: "If there is any word in this particular Act that has caused concern it is the word `suitable'.

"What is suitable to one is not suitable to another. We do not want to see that word used as a way out of meeting the needs of particular students whose needs at this time are not being met.'' However Sen. Milligan-Whyte countered: "We must use broader definitions so children with different needs can seek redress under the Act for different needs.'' Senators also asked about the lack of alternative education. "We need to look at the lack of alternative education and the public concern about the unavailability of alternative education to a level it should be in schools,'' said Sen. Milton Scott.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said it was against the philosophy of the Act to segregate children, giving the impression that a child needed special treatment.

Debate then moved into the administrative structure with Sen. Milton Scott saying the Act was the last chance to have an Education Board and Teacher Service Commission responsible for employment and transfers -- rather than just one person -- and possibly an elected Board of Education.

However, Sen. Milligan-Whyte said Government did not want to introduce politics into the schools and said the system to be introduced in Bermuda was similar to other jurisdictions.

Sen. Milton Scott also said he hoped that every school would, under the Act, have the same standards as "the buildings on Front Street'', saying prefabricated buildings were of no use and pointing to substandard washrooms in some schools.

"I hope there are rigid examinations of schools by Health and Safety to ensure that adequate standards are being maintained,'' he said.

According to Sen. Milligan-Whyte registration standards will ensure suitable premises, accommodation, efficiency and construction.

One issue that concerned the PLP Senators was the apparent discretion of the Education Minister to dictate the curriculum.

"The subjects have to be appropriate for all students and not just at the Minister's discretion,'' said Sen. Neletha Butterfield (PLP).

"It gives the Minister the opportunity to select one school for one programme and another school for another programme,'' added Sen. Terry Lister (PLP).

"It should be a requirement of the legislation that all schools have the same curriculum.'' Sen. Milligan-Whyte said the Minister had to be guided by the core subjects and he would use his powers to see there were appropriate levels for each core subject.

Opposition Senate Leader Milton Scott asked why the Minister of Education would be given the power under the Act to appoint and dismiss principals and teachers when the schools' board of governors would not be given the same powers.

Sen. Butterfield moved that Clause 26 of the Act be amended to require consultation between the board and the Minister before anything was done.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte responded by saying she could not support the amendment because clause 26 set standards for the Minister and not the board of governors. Consultation between the two would bring the board of governors under those standards which was wrong because it was the Minister who was responsible for appointing and dismissing teachers.

The amendment did not carry as it was defeated by a vote of six to three.

Sen. Milton Scott then questioned Government's plans to continue the education of a child who was expelled from public schools.

He said in the case of suspension, a child would be provided with work intended to allow him to keep up, but what about a child who was expelled? Sen. Milligan-Whyte said Government would provide an alternative education programme for expelled children.

This would not be an alternative school, she continued, because Government felt that concept created problems.

Sen. Milton Scott said he was concerned that Government had rejected the concept of alternate schools because many individuals felt they would help children with difficulties.

Alternative programmes would be provided that the child could possibly do at home, continued Sen. Milligan-Whyte.

This was because the Minister accepted the responsibility of the continued education of children, she said.

However Sen. Astwood pointed out Government's Code of Conduct defined expulsion as removing a student completely from the public school system.

This suggested Government completely washed its hands of an expelled student.

So was an education system at home not relative to one in a school? Sen. Milton Scott slammed Government for misrepresentation at this point.

He said he knew of people in the compulsory school age who had been expelled and not received any further education, adding that he could provide names and information if required to do so.

But Sen. Milligan-Whyte said the new Act stressed that the Minister would have an ongoing responsibility to a child -- in the compulsory school age -- if they were expelled.

Sen. Alf Oughton (Ind.) warned Senators at this point not to draw on what had taken place in the past because this was an Act for the future.

It was important to assume, he continued, that the Minister would take action in the future.

Sen. Milton Scott replied that Sen. Oughton had more faith in the system than he did.

Community Affairs Minister Senator Yvette Swan said the Act was a piece of legislation for the future but Senators were allowing the past to cloud their arguments.

The Education Minister saying that a child of the compulsory school age must receive some form of education clearly showed how serious Government saw education, she said.

This would give hope to saving those young people who fell through the cracks of the system.

Sen. Lister said the Act pushed the responsibility of a school's financial affairs and maintenance to the board of governors when it belonged to the Minister of Education.

This should not be the case when the Minister already had programmes in place to handle these details, he added.

But Sen. Milligan-Whyte stressed that this was a principle part of the Act because it created two pillars of authority with the Minister on one side and the board of governors on the other.

This decentralised management and maintenance affairs and allowed the board of governors the chance to work closer with the community so the school could be managed appropriately, she said.

This did not mean the board of governors would be required to, for example, put out tenders to get their school painted, she explained, as they could still work with the Ministry involved.

Sen. Lawrence Scott said this made the board of governors accountable for making sure their individual school was run and maintained properly.

Sen. Astwood said very positive things could come out of the section of the Act which dealt with the general functions of the board of governors provided they determined the needs of their various schools.

She said she expected there to be teething pains but as long as the board's advice was heard then it would be workable.

Sen. Lawrence Scott agreed and said the individuality of each school must be understood and added that the Minister must monitor each board to make sure they continued to look after the best interests of each school.

Sen. Butterfield then moved that clause 26, section 3, which concerned expulsion be deleted as it was not clear but that motion was defeated by a vote of three of seven.

Sen. Butterfield said inspection of schools by the chief education officer should be carried out within a time frame and not when deemed necessary by the Minister of Education because many schools were in desperate need of changes and upgrades.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte explained that the language of the Act gave the Minister the discretion and authority to establish the necessary timeframe for each individual school's inspection.

Sen. Butterfield said the Act did not recognise the problem of children playing truant or missing school for other reasons.

She said Government should employ people to specifically ensure the attendance of students and moved to amend the Clause 39 of the Act to state this.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said Government recognised truancy was a problem and was looking into whether it should employ a specific individual to deal with it or have another public officer responsible for it.

She said she could not support the amendment because it would restrict the definition of the attendance officer.

Sen. Milton Scott questioned if the Minister was serious about attendance and added that the last time an attendance officer was employed was four to five years ago.

If Government was serious about the problem, he continued, it would put an attendance officer in place.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said Government were serious about truancy which was why it had made the provision for the appointment of an officer to deal with the problem.

Sen. Astwood said problems would arise if the job activity of an attendance officer was assumed by someone not appointed to the post.

Others had frequently been asked to assume the role of making sure children were present at school but someone should be appointed to the position with a clear job description of what they were required to do, she said.

And she reminded Senators that truancy was not the only cause for absenteeism.

Sen. Lister said truancy was a serious problem and it was wrong to give the demanding job of attendance officer to another public officer who already had a full workload.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte stressed that the Minister had to have the power to appoint an attendance officer in the future so that power had to be in the Act.

The vote on the motion was tied at five apiece so the motion was lost.

Sen. Butterfield then moved to amend clause 41 which linked suitable education to what was already available on the Island.

The vote on this motion was also tied at five apiece and was defeated.

However Sen. Astwood further questioned clause 41 also, although she did not offer an amendment.

She asked why the Ministry saw itself as exempt from the Island's new era of being on-line and involved in cyberspace by allowing the clause to limit itself and defeat the sting of the Act.

Sen. Astwood said this section of the Act should be expanded to include the curriculum and facilities for the time being available to Bermuda, not just within its shores.

This would provide for all the outside forces and opportunities available to the idea in the area of education.

A controversial section of the Education Act allowing drugs testing of school pupils was passed by Senators yesterday.

Senate, which was in committee working through the act clause by clause, approved drugs testing plans by seven votes to three.

Sen. Astwood pointed out that some parents may choose to go for private treatment for drug-abusing children -- the cost of which could become the responsiblity of Government.

But she said there were some who would benefit from such treatment and that it would not be a large expense for Government to bear.

She used the same argument to press for special treatment for special needs children.

She pointed out they were a tiny minority of the school population and a Country of Bermuda's size may only have one or a handful of children with specific problems.

She said that children would get on better if they were educated with children with the same disability -- and even if it meant education abroad, the likely numbers made it feasible for Government to pay for it.

Sen. Lister said he could not give approval to drugs testing without knowing exactly what was involved.

And he asked what type of treatment programmes would be available -- and pointed out Bermuda's previous residential programmes had not been very successful.

He added: "We have got the punitive elements in place but we don't know yet what the rehabilitative aspects will be. I really can't give approval to this.'' A bid to amend the Act by Sen. Butterfield -- designed to give parents greater rights to financial support to treat youngsters with drugs problems -- was defeated seven votes to three, with the Independents supporting the UBP.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said the drugs testing clause was a major step forward.

She said: "Society has spoken very loudly and clearly -- we have to deal with drugs problems, in our schools in particular.

"When we have this disease in our schools, we are really destroying the seeds of our future generations.'' She added the drugs testing clause had only been drawn up after lengthy consultation with drugs professionals, teachers and the community.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said: "They all agreed that what was needed was the testing requirement.'' Sen. Milton Scott took issue with a clause exempting the Minister of Education from legal action if a child is suspended or expelled for drug abuse.

He said that would not only mean the protection of people's rights, but a greater sense of responsibility on the part of Government.

Another amendment by Sen. Butterfield also fell seven votes to three. She wanted to change the procedure for renaming schools after the introduction of the middle school and senior school system to an affirmative resolution from the existing negative resolution procedure.

Sen. Astwood said the changing of long-established names would have an effect on former students of the schools.

She said: "I look at the Whitney Institute as an example -- that school has lost its identity almost totally.'' Sen. Astwood added that the people of Sandys maintained a school with a "major struggle'' until Government gave them funding.

She said: "It's a long history which we will wipe out with the stroke of a pen. A number of former students would like to see the name of their school maintained.'' She added that school boards should be beefed up and cited their role in the UK, where they have a greater say in matters like staff selection.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said that the point on name changing was a valid one.

Earlier, Sen. Milton Scott said he was concerned about a possible conflict of interest in the planned appeals committee, to be set up under the Act.

He said top officials responsible for the administration of the commitee would be also responsible for advising parents on the appeals process.

Sen. Neletha Butterfield added that the appeals committee should be drawn from as broad a cross-section of the community as possible.

Sen. Milligan-Whyte said that appointments to the appeals commitee would be in the hands of the Governor, not Government.