Education could well become a bone of contention within the government. The Gokhool reform may lead to a major rift between the Education minister and the Prime minister, Navin Ramgoolam, himself. The reform has been subject to so much criticism that the PM said the government would ?see how the reform could be improved.? But the minister of Education returned to the fray: ?We are bringing change so that children such as Seewosagur Ramgoolam can go to Royal College?, implying that he does not intend to retreat.

After he announced the creation of nine national colleges where only the 1,260 best performers would be allowed seat sas from January 2007, most stakeholders of the education sector have made it clear that this would mean reverting to the ?rat race?. But the minister does not see it in the same way: ?Our objective is to open colleges such as the QEC or Royal College to other children as from 2007. We will do this regarding the efforts made. Where is the problem??

<I>The PM has agreed to meet Bishop Maurice Piat who had vigorously critised the reform. This could be a sign that the government is seeing with stakeholders how to make it better. </I>

Yet, the United Nations committee for children?s rights clearly stated in their second periodic report that they were worried about the implementation of this reform. ?The committee is worried that the proposed reform can introduce an unfair method of classification in the access to national colleges through high cut-off marks.? The UN committee actually refers to the ?A+? proposed as a new level in the grading to separate the ?elite? from other students. Only candidates obtaining between 90% and 100% - the new ?A+ grade? ? in four subjects would be allocated a seat in one of the nine national colleges.

Last week, the ministry even went further with the inclusion of the ?A+? in the regulations of the Mauritius Examinations Syndicate (MES). The amendment of Article 5 (Grading) of the Regulations and Syllabuses for CPE examinations 2006 was presented by the MES last Friday to unions and all bodies concerned by primary education. The MES took note of the observations made by those present. The next step is the publication of this amended regulation in the Government gazette to make it legally binding.

But the PM?s recent attitude seemed to imply that he would not take any hasty decision. He has agreed to meet Bishop Maurice Piat, the head of the Catholic diocese, a major stakeholder in education. The latter vigorously criticised the reform as soon as the minister made it public. This meeting could be a sign that the government is thinking of changing course or at least ?seeing with stakeholders how to make it better?.

At the political level, the reform has also been severely criticised. The opposition has even started thinking of suing the government. When the former government ? today the opposition ? wanted to include oriental languages in the CPE grading, a Supreme court ruling stated that such a change would only be possible with a one-year advance notice.

For one of the most ardent defenders of the Gokhool reform, Sutthydeo Tengur, the present reform has nothing to do with the issue of oriental languages. ?The examinable subjects or the programme do not change. The grading, implemented in 2002, is not being questioned. In my opinion, no one can say that his/her constitutional rights have been jeopardised.? In any case, it is clear that the minister has to rush to implement the new regulations if he wants the system to change for the 2006 CPE exams scheduled for next October.

According to ministry sources, the reform could be reviewed even if the regulations have been gazetted. But Sutthydeo Tengur is on his guard. ?If the government decides to go back on its decision, this will go against the electoral promise that helped them to be elected. As a result, they will have to step down.?

The message is clear? The government is trapped between divergent pressure groups ? But the challenge will be to respect the needs of all the children of Mauritius (because they have no right of vote) and of no one else?