BPTSA Members To “Abstain” From Meeting

June 4, 2015

The Bermuda Parents Teachers Students Association [BPTSA] said that their “Executive members at our monthly meeting on June 2nd 2015 voted to abstain from participating in the June 4, 2015 Ministry Of Education [MOED] “Information Session on Parental and Community Involvement and the Education Amendment Act 2015”.

A statement from the group said, “It has been made known to the MOED that the BPTSA represents its island-wide PTA members.

“The basis for abstention is that the MOED has consistently failed to consult PTAs in accordance with the Ming Decision 2012 in spite of the BPTSA’s efforts to invite it to do so.

“At this time of consequential reforms in Bermuda, parents should consider our meaningful engagement vital to the process to ensure that our educational system is improved for our children and future generations.

“Furthermore, recent passage of the Education Amendment Act 2015 will undermine the already existing rights of parents to be consulted.”

click here banner education

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cs says:

    It is unfortunate that at a time when more dialogue and collaboration is required to solve many public policy problems that we find the BPTSA choosing to abstain from participating in critical policy decisions. It’s time to put political agendas aside and get on with addressing the shrinking population and subsequent right sizing our education system. Put the past behind you and start talking at the same table in the same room for the sake of the next generation.

    • mai says:

      Cs don’t you understand that this is what the bptsa is trying to accomplish? Have you not read the article? Moed made the decision to amend the act without consulting the bptsa or the ptas which is against the law. And this new amendment displaces the right which the bptsa and all ptas have towards consultation. According to the Ming decision, we have the right to be consulted before any major decisions (such as an amendment to the Act). But the MOED denied us those rights and surreptitiously amended the Act so it will displace the our rights. Now they want to liaise over what we can do with those little rights?! I don’t think so. They had NO legal right to amend the Act especially since this new amendment Makes the role of all ptas obsolete and completely thrusts the bptsa to the side.

  2. An attempt, ( by you know who) to “place another stick in the spokes” of progress :-(

    • PBanks says:

      Who’s “you know who” in this, Raymond? Can’t be one of the major union voices.

    • mai says:

      Who is the ‘you know who?’ I’m curious. Please tell us who we are…

    • Ian says:

      Are suffering from dementia? Or perhaps derangement is affecting your sensibilities? Youre entire world paradigm is centered how everything is the “you know whos” fault…LOL

  3. Xaxa says:

    How petulant!

  4. Starting Point says:

    LOL we are protesting not being included by refusing to be included!

    that will show them……..

  5. Vote for Me says:

    @CS and Raymond Ray
    Why do you insinuate a political agenda as opposed to legitimate parental concern from parents of children in the public education system?

    • cs says:

      Because I know Bermuda and too often common sense gets sidelined. Parents concerns are best dealt with around a table with all the stakeholders. Staying home prevents progress.

  6. Cow Polly says:

    So let be get this straight. You are abstaining from participating in a meeting set up at the invitation of the Government because you’re sulking that you don’t get invited to Government meetings?
    Wow – excellent example for our children.

    • Dennis Williams says:

      It sounds like they are protesting the fact that the changes were made without the legal consultation. Now the MOED want to “share information” as a token gesture on how they will proceed within these changes. Talk about rubbing it in your face.

    • clearasmud says:

      @cow poly clearly you missed the point. They are arguing that the Ministry is asking them to opine on decisions that they should have been consulted on. They feel that by participating now they are effectively saying it was OK for the ministry to have not included they in the first place.

  7. jt says:

    No problem. Just don’t bi*** and moan after the fact.

    • Ian says:

      God you people are vile as “countrymen”… Bi*** and moan?? Really!?