One would have thought the debate on the computation of oriental languages for grading in the Certificate of Primary education (CPE) had come to an end. It should actually be over. The theories and arguments of the opposers of the government?s new formula look so futile and groundless that they should not even be considered as part of the real debate.

Unanimity has finally been reached among the various stakeholders of this controversial issue. While public opinion has qualified this step as a ?historical event?, some trade unions are now strongly opposing the formula. Not only have they not reached a real compromise within their organisations, but they also have no concrete argument to prop up their theory.

According to Government Teachers? Union (GTU) president, Jugdish Lollbeeharry, ?the government has chosen to give way to group lobbying against the recognition of Asian languages?. How can we accept such a declaration when oriental languages have never enjoyed such a status before? Jugdish Lollbeeharry says the government?s attitude is ?damaging and deplorable.? Damaging for whom? If this is not demagogy, it sure looks like it.

The unions? attitude is all the more annoying since they remained rather silent when the controversy was raging. When a solution had to be found to resolve the injustice caused to some children, they could have made well-founded suggestions. Because a solution had to be found. We had to solve a problem of injustice done to a pupil, who may have fewer chances than another of obtaining a better grading because he has not taken an ?optional? subject.

The government has succeeded in causing no prejudice to any child while giving more importance to oriental languages. This was the demand of both the Platform for the computation of oriental languages without injustice and the Common front for the computation of oriental languages and they have recognized that they have got what they wanted. Why do the trade unionists oppose the formula then? Is it merely protest for protest?s sake?

The opposition has taken the same stand. It says the formula will prejudice English and Mathematics. This hardly makes sense as children have to pass in English, French and Mathematics to have their certificate. Will it be in any child?s interest to neglect these subjects? To add insult to injury, the opposition is now asking for the rehabilitation of the previous formula, which it strongly ?opposed? before.

The trade unionists say they are fighting for the Mauritian child. As pedagogues, should they not forget political battles and focus more on the well-being of their pupils? In its reform project introduced in March 2001, the ministry of Education wanted to renew the primary curriculum to be closer to what Unesco calls the basis of education ? learning to know, learning to do, learning to be together. It wanted to introduce subjects like Health and Physical education, Arts, Information technology, Citizenship education and Science. How close is the government to implementing this project? Maybe the unions should continue to put pressure for this project to become concrete. Should not they be the first ones to remind the government that reform must favour knowledge given to children, and not political matters?