Guest Writer

Politics of learning

The current minister of education can probably expect to earn some ‘love from the people’ for his recent moves to begin the much needed redevelopment of local primary schools. And why not? After all, who doesn’t love a minister who spends on learning? Oh hold on — of course one that spends on high school learning.

Recent comments by Rolston Anglin over his primary school project have been delivered without the slightest hint of irony, and while he is absolutely correct that primary school kids are in environments not conducive to learning, that modular classrooms are horrid and expensive, that schools are cramped, we all know where we heard similar comments before.

The minister’s goal to improve the facilities at primary schools is to be welcomed. However, what undermines this laudable goal to redevelop the primary schools is that, while the current minister’s plan is a marvellous and brilliant step towards transforming education, his predecessor’s plan to transform secondary education was – apparently –nothing but a foolish endeavour to build monuments to himself .

The kids at the John Gray High School are plagued by all of the same problems that younger children attending primary school face. Their learning environment challenges are compounded by the fact they have a building site on their school campus in a state of limbo and the kids who are now allocated to Clifton Hunter don’t even have a school to go to. These are kids that are facing their exams and at an age when anti-social behaviour is more challenging to deal with and more likely to escalate. They are at an age, too, when learning difficulties are far trickier to address and when kids are less likely to endure adversity and still excel.

The issue that everyone sees and which the minister seems to be hoping they will ignore is that this is all a lot more about politics and lot less about learning. Anglin, like all politicians, is looking for his own monuments to his time in office. After all, politicians who lose their seats or step down from the political fray, as history reveals, soon disappear from the public space unless they can tie their names to enduring  projects.

Anglin could have used the $10 million he is spending on primary schools to hurry along the secondary school projects. However, had he made that choice he would have not only faced the pressure from parents regarding the desperate need for primary school expansions but at the same time he would have helped to secure another politician’s  place in the history books, while risking his own immortalization.

A tough call no doubt.

The issue is that both projects are worthy, desperately needed and very positive ways of spending public money. Around the world politicians are vilified and criticised for over spending on countless infrastructure projects, but schools are rarely on the list. Education ministers that don’t build schools or that cut spending on anything to do with education are far more likely to suffer the wrath of the voters.

Here in Cayman, the vilification of Alden McLaughlin, not least by the current education minister, for choosing to build state-of-the-art schools and making a real effort to turn around the way in which children have been taught in the Cayman Island, which was demonstratively failing, has been nothing short of astonishing.

Now, however, the minister who time and time again said that children can learn anywhere if the teaching is good enough is suddenly the flag bearer for better learning environments. With his tongue far away from his cheek, Anglin has spoken widely in recent weeks about the need to improve learning environments and about how difficult it is for children to learn in cramped conditions. He is right.

No matter how often the myth is blogged on CNS, it is not possible for children to succeed in the modern world if they are taught under coconut trees. If that were the case, we would not have the appalling low achievement levels that we record year after year. Nor is it just new classrooms that will produce successful students.

Modern learning is not just about encouraging children to study and look at the blackboard in a new clean more spacious classroom. It is about making them yearn for and be enthusiastic about learning, about understanding science and technology, dealing with emotional intelligence, being equipped to compete on a global jobs market, and so many more complex elements that traditional methods ignore.

It is even more significant here in Cayman where achievement is particularly low and where traditional classroom teaching has failed many many students, who in more innovative environments may have excelled.

Anglin himself has noted that in the local school system even children capable of high achievement have failed. This probably is down to myriad reasons, including a cultural disconnect with education, or poor parenting and low standards of teaching, but it is also down to the physical structure of the learning environment.

The high school projects were intended to be new, modern, dynamic and exciting learning spaces that would have given local students new hope and transformed the way they were taught. How much the delays and changes to the design to revert them back to more traditional classroom spaces will undermine the hopes for a revolution in local education remains to be seen as the completion dates still seem a long way off.

What everyone must be able to see by now, however, is that the secondary schools must be finished as soon as possible and that learning should not be sacrificed on the altar of politics. Anglin is right to want to get the primary projects underway but he needs to be as equally enthusiastic about the high schools.  His war of words with his predecessor is becoming tired. The high schools will always be associated with McLaughlin, no matter what Anglin does.

What he should do, which could endear him to the wider public even if it doesn’t secure him a place in the history books, is to take the moral high ground, to forget the point scoring and openly acknowledge the pressing need to get the high schools finished. 

The problem, of course, is that the words ‘moral high ground’ and ‘politicians’ rarely seem to make comfortable bed fellows.

Continue Reading

Lasting conservation

The hundreds who are following Captain Bryan Ebanks' Save Cayman campaign, waiting for government's response, can donate their monies to pay the National Trust or any non-profit organization to have purchases and expansions made to the islands' nature reserves.

Know that the goal of what we have now, the National Trust (not-for-profit organization), is to preserve the environment, marine, and cultural treasures of the Cayman Islands. I understand that the foundation's reserves are protected from government legislation. The foundation is also quarantined from governmental corruption in that their own financial activities are audited by accountants not within their organization.

From KPMG statements, which are posted on the National Trust's website, for the year ended June 30, 2009, state that the National Trust received in donations of goods and services the amount of $295,533, and government grants for the fiscal year estimated to $308,000 C.I. From fundraising events they've made $94,447 C.I. The total from their revenue and support operations, KPMG recorded $800,103 C.I.

If the National Trust can make such figures within a fiscal year, just imagine how much it can make if there is a spearheaded campaign (like this petition one) to fill the coffers of the Trust for the purchasing of lands and marine zones!

So far, the National Trust has been able to purchase valuable reserves, which are a testament of what donations can do. The financial statement ended June 30, 2009, stated the acquisition of Booby Pond Nature Reserve, which was valued in 2009 at $1,232,424; the Brac Parrot Reserve – valued at $1,177,931; the Mastic Reserve – valued at $1,133,315; the Salina Reserve – valued at $997,440; the Central Mangrove Wetland – valued at $501,400; Uncle Sammy's Pond – valued at $315,000; Governor Gore Bird Sanctuary – valued at $223,862;  Brac Splits – valued at $222,220; Dr. Roy's Ironshore – valued at $178,252, et cetera. There you go!  No one can say that the National Trust's net assets were not achievable.

If people really want to "Save Cayman", would they not donate and pursue towards this foundation's cause like they would give to their church every Sunday?  Wouldn't they want to also save Barkers in West Bay, a very very valuable nature reserve?

My view is if you can sign a paper (play defensive) to stop government from destroying Cayman's wildlife and environment, you should be able to reach down in your pockets to also play offensive by capturing and securing areas like Barkers in West Bay and parts of the North Sound.  Don't say that it is impossible at this time or we don't have the money to capture lands. Every cent makes a difference.  The National Trust is an important organization made up conservationists who at least have an understanding of what our ecosystem and environment needs. They should know what to secure best from the grasping hands of greedy politicians and developers.  And if you don't trust the Trust, then there is always the option of starting a non-for-profit group.

If anyone is interested in donating to the the National Trust, it is located at 558A South Church Street, George Town. Their website address is www.nationaltrust.org.ky.

So don't only sign a petition and hope in government. Do something better – put your money where your mouth is! 

Continue Reading

The ‘big hole’ absurdities

The more I read the Environmental Impact Assessment on the proposed commercial port in East End, aka the “big hole”, the more I wonder if the author of the report, no doubt paid handsomely for the work, recognised the absurdity of the project. As a result of the apparent hopelessness of saving any of the marine or terrestrial environment in the vicinity from disaster she just wrote anything, hoping people would read between the lines – an almost ironic attempt, if you will, at saying “you must be kidding me?”

Sadly, however, the developer does not appear to be kidding.

He really does want to dig a big hole and dredge a channel to get the rock out and he has come up with what appears to be a cunning plan to con the people into thinking it’s not a “big hole” but a splendid commercial seaport that will make us all rich beyond our wildest dreams.

In order to get at what the developer believes is his rock, as some of that rock is definitely on land he owns, he has faced a few stumbling blocks over the years. Given the planning zones, the area at High Rock where the land is located is not designated for industrial use, and given its outstanding natural beauty an application for a quarry there was never going to cut it.

The developer knew he needed a better plan. Enter stage left: East End Sea Port! Now while the cargo plan is not without its hurdles, so far he seems to be mounting them very well.

The hurdle of “the premier and the government” in general was leapt very easily and the promise of jobs vacuuming cruise cabins, rolling oil barrels or washing down yachts appears to have leapt the “some of the people outside of East End” hurdle. Now, with few independent expert environmentalists or green campaigners among us, he may well manage to leap the “natural disaster” hurdle as well.

The EIA, all two hundred and forty some pages of it, is unlikely to be read in full by most people and sadly it is unlikely that they will pick up on what must be the subliminal messages of the author.

Despite some obviously absurd mitigating suggestions, like collecting seeds to replace 500 acres of mature unique terrestrial environment or just moving the coral heads down a bit when the developer rips up the reef, it’s possible people might miss the joke, because really, that’s what it must be.

From the perspective of the EIA’s authors, if a developer plans to build a commercial seaport that includes oil and gas storeage, commercial transhipment, and cruise home porting that requires a 55-foot deep inland port basin, over four-million square feet, a channel cutting through a reef and a jetty sticking out into the sea, it's common sense that it’s not ideal for the environment.

The idea that it won’t be is, of course, absurd. The job of the EIA writers is to say, well, if you’re going to destroy everything here’s a list of stuff that those who can’t read between the lines might buy in exchange for destroying everything.

The EIA makes it clear that this would be a disaster for the environment both near and far and won’t necessarily be a bed of roses for the community either, but in order to fulfil the remit the writers have come up with some half-hearted efforts to suggest how the developer can soften the blow.

When the authors suggest that architectural design features can mitigate the loss of the outstanding natural beauty of that coast line by creating a visually appealing facility, you know that’s the pay cheque talking.

The problem is thereis a real danger that people may be sold on these mitigating factors combined with the promise of jobs and economic riches at a time when they are feeling vulnerable. Some people already appear to be taking the developer at his word and have bought into the promises of an economic wonder —  just take a look t the blogs on the CNS stories related to this! They can’t all be written by the developer.

But in five years time when all we have is a big hole and no money and no other investor willing to build the infrastructure, the question of what will the people do then will be a hard one for the government of the day to answer.

Do we really expect the people of East End to feel “mitigated” because there are some seeds down at the Botanic Park, rescued from the 500 acres of mature and unique terrestrial habitat torn from its ancient roots?

I doubt either that there will be a warm fuzzy feeling of comfort that at least one or two of the coral heads that were rescued from the acres and acres of reef that was crushed under the dredger lasted for a little while when they were moved before they died. Nor, I daresay, will the people of East End be smiling fondly when they look back at the once fine quality of their water lens as they drink from their bottles of ‘Wata’ imported from Jamaica.

The EIA makes it clear to those who read the whole thing that the “big hole” project has limited, if indeed there can be said to be any, benefits to the public at large, which are far far outweighed by the negative impact it will have on the environment and the community.

However, if government is planning to go ahead and approve this development, the opposition and the people of East End alone cannot stop it. This will require a much broader island-wide opposition, otherwise the developer will be allowed to leap the “natural disaster hurdle” and allow the absurdities in the EIA to become realities.

Continue Reading

Where are the “bean counting” police?

The following will show that 46% of Caymanians do not have jobs. Last week the ESO (Economics and Statistics Office) released employment figures based on the recent Census 2010, although they claim this is a preliminary report because the final results of the census will not be known until the end of 2011. According to the ESO, the current unemployment rate in Cayman is 6.7%.

That doesn’t sound too bad until you see how they used “creative license” in arriving at this figure. The 6.7% figure just seemed too low and too good to be true, which caused me to do some digging. Here’s what I found:

ESO reported the following numbers (I rounded them off to make this easier):

The total population is 54,400 people.
The total labour forcein Cayman is 35,860 (people ages 15 and up).
The number of unemployed is 2,400.
Therefore the unemployment rate is 6.7% (2400 divided by 35,860 = 6.7%).

This all seems okay at first glance. However, don’t forget that there are 21,000 work permit holders (foreigners) who are wrongfully included in the labour force figures. Remember, the total population figure includes foreign workers (work permit holders) as does the labour force figure. By definition, work permit holders cannot be counted as unemployed when they lose their jobs because they must leave Cayman if they are no longer are permitted to work.

In other words, they are not hanging around to be counted as unemployed. They are gone. Since work permit holders cannot be counted amongst the unemployed, it is only fair not to count them as employed either. It is unfair and dishonest to count them on one side of the employment equation and not on the other. This skews the data in ways that mis-represent the truth and make the unemployment rate look better than it is. Therefore, I propose that to arrive at a realistic unemployment figure we exclude the 21,000 work permit holders, which leaves us with an all Caymanian work force figure of 14,860.

Now let’s calculate the unemployment rate of the Caymanian work force.

Total Caymanian Labour Force = 14,860
The number of unemployed = 2,400
The unemployment rate is (2,400 divided by 14,860) = 16.2%

Also shown in the ESO report was a figure of 8,000 people of working age who were not included in the labour force figures. I eagerly await an explanation as to why people of working age are not considered a part of the labour force when the term “Labour Force” is defined by the ESO only as people greater than 14 years old. It does not say people who chose not to work or are unable to work or gave up looking for work. Therefore, it is only fair to include these 8,000 people of working age in the labour force figure. Look what happens when we include them:

Caymanian Labour Force (14,860) + (8,000) = New total Labour Force of 22,860 people.
Unemployed = the original (2,400) + (8,000) = New unemployed figure of 10,400 people.
Total unemployed Caymanians (10,400 divided by 22,860) = 46%

WOW! Imagine that, 46% of all Caymanians above age 14 do not work. This is a fact!

It doesn’t mean the unemployment rate is 46%, it just shows that 46% are not presently working either by choice or other circumstance. The 16.7% unemployment rate amongst those willing and able to work is reasonable. Another way to justify the exclusion of work permit holders (foreigners) from the employment picture is because they are taking jobs that Caymanians either don’t want or are unqualified to fill. These jobs are not available generally to the local work force. To include these jobs in the labour force picture only gives results in a lower unemployment number. In the ESO report, comparisons were made between 2010 and 2009. Similarly, 2009 figures included foreign labour which should not have been done.

In hindsight, it is beginning to look more like politics as usual rather than giving the public a true picture of how dire the situation is here. I would like to know the reason ESO presented such a rosy figure at this time and who ordered it to be done when the report states that the final 2010 Census figures won’t be finished until the end of this year.

It would be helpful in future reporting to break down the work force figures into detailed sub categories in order to show Caymanians the truest picture of their employment and how the sliding economy is affecting this country.

Continue Reading

The manipulation of Christ

Pagans, infidels, and blasphemers are usually (dis)credited for supporting what some consider to be the detrimental, offensive, and at most extreme sacrilegious, doctrine of separation of church and state. In Cayman we point north to the United States as an example of what happens to a nation when “God” is taken out of the decision making systems of a government.

The US is the political version of the cautionary tales of our youth as political leaders will not fail to tell us that such would be our fate should we choose to embrace said concept.

What then is one to make of the believer who supports said doctrine, not because of the assumed “allowances” that it makes for immoral but not illegal actions on the part of politicians, but instead out of a sense of protection, respect and true deference to something that is so personal and sacred as one’s faith?

It has become more commonplace for people in our Islands to refer to our “Christian” nation while pointing out the numerous shortcomings and contradictions which are becoming more blatant as social unrest grows and meaningful strategies to combat this trend are nowhere in sight.

The word“Christian” and references to “Christian principles” are said with utter disdain, as the hypocrisy of the reality of Cayman and this self-imposed sense of grand moral and ethical standing drips from our mouths as it sours our tongues and our hearts in the face of so much lip service and so little Christian-like action.

We are told that our Christian heritage is under attack by these “outside influences” who wish to take Cayman and its people away from its “roots” and “God-fearing” ways.

The truth is that Cayman’s Christian heritage IS under attack and in many ways we have already lost our roots. The uncomfortable second half of that reality is that the culprits are not outsiders but the very people who profess their “godly” ways to any and all who will listen.

The very “Christians” who will choose to evoke Jesus and His teachings by quoting scripture as fuel at political rallies, those who use their faith as justification without reason or thought for decisions and comments made at the Legislative Assembly, and most recently those who will bring their Sunday fervor to the courtroom as a distraction and a LEGAL TACTIC; these are the people making a mockery of their “beloved” faith.

Christianity is the smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the issue at hand. Call on the Lord enough times, sing enough songs, make enough references to the external forces of evil and poof: crisis averted.

There are those within our political leadership who will go as far as talk about their trials and tribulations, their personal persecutions, the victimisation which they have suffered, all the while drawing imagery from the crucifixion of Christ as if there was a parallel between being a politician in Cayman in the 21st century and the Christian Savior who was nailed to a cross.

It begs the question: how are these actions NOT offensive to Christians? If we are to believe that the majority of our people believe the story of Jesus to be the truth, share this faith and its values, how is it that they have not joined forces to decry these truly sacrilegious comparisons?

“Politicians will be politicians, and will use whatever tool they can to gain support, further their cause, and fill their pockets.” That is the argument which we will make in an effort to explain or justify this behaviour, though it is completely contrary to those values which they so vehemently proclaim to hold. In that way, even though we would like to hold ourselves to higher standards, Cayman is like every country in the world.

What then of the lack of acknowledgment, much less response, on the part of our moral leadership on this clear manipulation of Christian doctrine?

One’s inner pagan will guffaw at the question given the churches’ own sordid history with the manipulation of Christian doctrine, but let us put our scepticism aside (how jaded our lot) and acknowledge that there are churches who are undertaking their God given missions. How much more disturbing is the perception that the churches’ silence on this matter has been bought by the patronage, now called “nation building”, of these same individuals?

If the hope was, from the church perspective, that the lack of separation would assist in maintaining the churches’ influence on the government and as such keep our nation from “straying” from the Christian path, then perhaps now they can see just how clearly mistaken they were. In fact, turn on the radio and listen to truly concerned believers talking about the undue influence that politicians have on their places of worship – with some even claiming that certain individuals “own” particular churches.

Christianity in Cayman has been reduced to currency. It opens doors, it assists in making transactions, it gives you facetime with the “right” people, it gives you a job, and it certainly gets you votes.

Like currency, Christianity is recognised to have worth within our community, but whether it is of any actual value to the individual who spews said doctrine in every occasion is questionable at best.

If Christians continue to condone this manipulation of their faith in the most prominent and visible stage (nationally and internationally), then their beliefs will continue to play an unflattering and antiquated leading role in the circus which has become our political arena, and thus will continue to be fair game in the criticisms and observations about the failings of our society. After all, if the believers of a particular faith fail to respect it, why should those outside of it act any differently?

Continue Reading