There we are! The public was wrong in believing that the government would be wise and responsible enough to take time before implementing the reform in education. That would have allowed a constructive exchange between the authorities and the education stakeholders, thus leading to a negotiated consensus. But everyone was caught unawares when the PM announced last Friday that the reform would be operational as from this year. ?We will do exactly as the minister of Education has said. There will be no modification.?

The haste in this decision appears all the more so unexpected as the State Law Office (SLO) stated last week that a minimum delay of one calendar year was necessary before any change in the syllabus and regulations. The minister of Education, Dharam Gokhool, had thought that such a reform could be implemented with an advanced notice of a school year so far. The public had thought the legal advice would force the government to step back ? giving time for a debate to emerge and opposing versions to confront each another ? but it was obviously wrong.

The government has decided the reform will go on even though some cabinet members have expressed reservations on the decision. It indeed appears that all ministers do not agree with the Gokhool reform; some had voiced their feelings a few days ago and were waiting for the PM?s return from Washington to try and change the course of the reform.

They must have been very disappointed: as soon as he came back from his trips in Athens and Washington, the PM said the government would go ahead. The ministers might have not even dared to express their disagreement at the cabinet meeting? And they have just had to toe the line. The minister of Education himself had said that the government would take ?necessary time? and that ?dialogue would be favoured?.

We are yet far from a situation where dialogue prevails. Even since the reform has been ratified, there has been no clarification on the ministry?s side. All pupils obtaining four A+ (between 90 and 100) are supposed to be eligible a seat in one of the nine national colleges. There are only 1,260 seats in such colleges and the minister has not said how it will proceed if there are more than the 1,260 children. Likewise, the public still doesn?t know how children will be channelled into the nine colleges ? who will go where?

Such clarifications would have been a minimum before ratifying the reform. Instead, the government has engaged blindly in it ? and most probably in a tug-of-war with civil society.

In view of the reactions, stakeholders do not seem eager to give in. The great majority who have expressed their opinion on the Gokhool reform appear dead against the formula. And many are ready to resort to the courts to change this situation.

The bishop of Port-Louis, Mgr Maurice Piat, has expressed his firm disagreement with the reform as soon as it was announced. After meeting the minister last week, he had thought he had some time to talk him into changing his mind (at least partly): Dharam Gokhool asserted to the bishop last Wednesday that ?we have to take necessary time to take decisions that will be in favour of the global interest of the child.? The bishop?s disappointment and sadness was once more expressed after his meeting with the prime minister yesterday.

Clarifications would have been a minimum before ratifying the reform. Instead, the government has engaged blindly in it - and most probably in a tug-of-war with the civil society.

Other leaders in the education sector have expressed their concern at the rapidity with which the decision has been taken without debate ? or explanation. The reform in itself appears like a major injustice in view of the competition it will undeniably bring about; but the fact that there has been no clear explanation makes it even more serious.

The opposition has also said it would not hesitate to take the case before justice. It should soon say whether it will take action or not. Parents and teachers have been threatening to take to the streets to show their discontent. The result of the government's stubborn attitude might not correspond to their expectations.

First of all, the fact that it has not shown any compassion or will to engage discussions will probably make people believe that it is an uncaring government that doesn?t consider it worthy to listen to its electors. Some parents are already turning to private schools to prevent their children from being subjected to such barbaric competition.

Some are stopping their wards from studying oriental languages to concentrate on the four major subjects that could bring them the expected four A+. Tengur's long crusade to promote oriental languages might thus suffer a natural death? And finally how will the minister ensure his 'world-class education' if his concern is only for a few of the elite at the expense of the many!