В Ямайке родительская ассоциация осудила идею лишения пособий PATH за пропуск собраний

Discriminatory or necessary? Strong views on JTA suggestion of compulsory PTA meetings for PATH beneficiaries GREEN ISLAND, Hanover —The National Parent-Teacher Association of Jamaica (NPTAJ) has flatly rejected a suggestion, from the Jamaica Teachers’ Association (JTA), for Government to withhold Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH) benefits from parents who do not regularly attend PTA meetings. While the call, made by JTA President LaSonja Harrison, has received support from other quarters, NPTAJ President Stewart Jacobs described it as discriminatory. “To hold it over PATH parents that if you’re on PATH then you must come to the PTA meeting, that is not something that the NPTAJ will support — and I would say that publicly,” Jacobs told the Jamaica Observer Tuesday. “It is discriminatory to some degree, and not everybody wants everybody to know that they are on PATH… So are you saying to me [that] what you’re going to do is stigmatise a PTA meeting now?… And so the students of those parents are going to feel a way,” he argued, his voice heavy with annoyance. During an investiture ceremony at the JTA’s 62nd annual conference held in Trelawny last Monday, Harrison argued in her speech that such a requirement could force parents to become more involved in their children’s schooling. In making the suggestion the JTA president cited data that approximately 70 per cent of the school-age population is enrolled in PATH. “Could a requirement therefore be introduced for parents receiving PATH benefits to attend at least three-quarters of the PTA meetings held annually in order to receive their payments? This could form part of the reporting process conducted by schools,” mooted Harrison who noted that the individuals school educators want to see at parent-teacher meetings are often the ones who do not show up. She said linking PATH benefits to meeting attendance could strengthen collaboration among schools, parents, and the National Parenting Support Commission, potentially enabling greater success in equipping parents with effective strategies to successfully raise their children. However, Jacobs disagrees. “You’re saying to me that if I have a job that prevents me from leaving my desk to come to a meeting, my child is not going to have a lunch tomorrow morning or for the next term because I never came to 70 per cent of the PATH meetings?” he countered. The NPTAJ president argued that the Government provides PATH out of its generosity and a desire to help its citizens, and should not be used to hold parents “at ransom”. “What the schools, the PTAs, and my organisation are to do is to make the PTA meeting relevant, attractive, and timely — not to hold it as a big stick over parents,” he added. Jacobs noted that while it is important for parents to attend PTA meetings, the factors that limit their participation must be addressed. He referenced studies conducted at the PTA level which show that the time of day meetings are held, their duration, and the frequency of meetings per year are among the primary challenges faced by parents with limited resources who are trying to make ends meet. However principal of Hanover’s Green Island Primary School, Vaccianna Moseley threw his support behind the JTA president’s suggestion. “I endorse it 100 per cent. Too many people are having children and just expect that other people are going to shoulder the responsibility and they are out scot-free. They need to contribute. And trust me, taking part in PTA is significant. Coming to school to see what they can do for the betterment of their child or their children is significant. The handout mentality needs to stop. As a nation it’s going nowhere,” he argued. There were also mixed views among parents who benefit from PATH. Sasheia Munroe argued that while parents need to attend PTA meetings, she does not agree with Harrison’s suggestion and also described it as discriminatory. She pointed out that part of the existing PATH requirements is that a child who is absent from school for more than three days without explanation may be suspended from the programme. In contrast, a parent who is an active PTA member at a rural primary school in Hanover voiced her support for Harrison’s suggestion. “I am sick… and I attend every PTA meeting, [and] almost every sports day. I would say 99 per cent of what is happening at school, I am there. I am a single parent and I am doing it. I don’t see why they can’t do it,” stated the mother who asked not to be identified by name.