The possibility that the implementation of the new criteria for entry into Form I in ?national schools? will be postponed until January 2008 is a good sign. It gives hope that the minister of Education, Dharam Gokhool, will come out of his silence and explain the reasons for such a reform. This would give a chance for a real debate to take place. But this will happen only if his aim is genuinely to reach a consensus and not just bide his time so as to implement the reform as it is?

The possibility of postponing the reform was mentioned at cabinet level last Friday. Some ministers might have taken advantage of the fact that the prime minister, Navin Ramgoolam, had stated that ?the government will take the necessary time to see whether the reform should be implemented as is or of it needs some changes? to express their reservations to the minister of Education. The Prime minister?s office is said to be working on a new system of admission (see inset).

Despite the PM?s declaration before leaving for Athens and Washington, minister Gokhool went on with his plan by making the A+ grading a reality through the amendment of the Mauritius Examinations Syndicate (MES) regulations. He also clearly stated that it was out of the question that the reform be reviewed or delayed, as there was ?nothing wrong? in giving a chance to those who deserve it .

But more recently, he has looked more willing to consider an eventual revision of the reform. At least, he admitted that a ?diversity of opinions? was being expressed by the public ? which he had firmly denied so far. He came out of his silence ? an attitude he had kept since he had announced the details of his reform: ?The government will pay particular attention to all responsible and sensible contributions to the debate and examine all the avenues. And, if we find it justified, then we will take appropriate action.?

Such a declaration appears hopeful in the present circumstances but minister Gokhool had appeared far too convinced about his reform to change his mind so quickly. He remains evasive on any possible delay. His statement only shows that he is ready to meet the stakeholders of the sector to discuss the reform but it might not mean that he intends to change his plans.

The meeting he had with union leaders last week was a bit disappointing for those who attended it. They expected the minister to come forward with answers to all the questions they had about the reform. ?We are disappointed,? admitted Prakash Rumjeet, member of the Primary Schools Inspectors Union, after the meeting.

?Things could appear hopeful in the present circumstances but minister Gokhool had appeared far too convinced about his reform to change his mind so quickly. He remains evasive on any possible delay.?

As for Vinod Seegum, president of the Government Teachers? Union, ?We?ve been waiting for far too long. This issue is really sensitive and the minister must clarify the situation. If he intends to go on like this, he should postpone the implementation of the reform for next year.? And this comes from somebody supposed to be in favour of the Gokhool reform. The minister should see this as a sign that rushing in with the reform could only lead to traumatic consequences for children? and his own reputation. Public opinion does not like to be taken for granted!

<B>Looking for a ?fairer? method</B>

The prime minister?s office is working on another method of admission to the nine national colleges. Instead of favouring only those who obtain four A+, pupils obtaining four As could be asked to take part in a second exam if they want a seat in one of these colleges. This test would resemble the former ?petite bourse? in place until 1977 when it was decided that the end of the primary school was far too ?exam-oriented?. This test, if implemented, would however assess pupils? abilities ? not only at the academic but also at the ?multiple intelligence? level. If the recent moves of the authorities are not just a way of gaining time then they will be positive. If the authorities are ready to accept that they might have made mistakes in the reform as it was proposed and to rectify them, then the public will know that the government they have voted for is a responsible one.