Not another brick in the wall

Michael Falzon (The Sunday Times, March 26) tries to put the Malta Union of Teachers in a bad light with your readers because of the action it has taken as a consequence of the escalating incidences of violence perpetrated against teachers.

The MUT is being taken to task because it is giving publicity to incidents of violence in schools. The MUT has been very prudent in this regard and has refrained from giving publicity to many incidences, especially of verbal abuse, that would shock even Mr Falzon if publicised. There have been many instances where the MUT has kept a low profile but, once accused that it was exaggerating, it could not but decide to bring the issue to the forefront.

Teachers are being continuously faced with not only unruly behaviour, but with unacceptable behaviour and it is the MUT's duty to safeguard the health and safety of its members at their place of work. In so doing, the MUT is also defending the rights of all those students who, in the vast majority, want to learn but are being held to ransom by the few who feel that they can do as they please. Schools continuously lodge reports but decisions to discipline students take too long to be implemented and this has prompted the MUT to take this matter seriously before it deteriorates any further.

Teachers need to feel safe and secure in their school environment. They should be able to enjoy teaching and, while it is their duty to teach, it is also their right to do so. It is a fact that there are only a few students who are disruptive but they still need to be taken into consideration because their behaviour cannot be tolerated any more. In some schools the situation is much worse than in others and that is why the MUT is requesting the authorities to identify those schools that are considered to be at high risk and start implementing measures that will help them to regain full control of the situation.

The MUT's campaign is not aimed at garnering public sympathy. It is aimed at creating public awareness and in so doing the MUT is also voicing the concern of the great number of parents who are seriously concerned but who are afraid to speak out because of the repercussions of bullying on their children.

Mr Falzon contends that the MUT council's decision to order teachers to report for work one hour late was misguided. The decision was taken after a lengthy discussion and was considered to be one that would do the least possible harm. The MUT could have opted for much harsher directives but decided not to because it felt that this directive should send a clear message to all that enough is enough. The teachers' response was one of massive support and a clear sign that they were rallied behind their union in its campaign for safer schools. The authorities decided that schools were to open as usual on the day of the one hour stoppage and said that it was the duty of all heads and assistant heads of schools to ensure that the schools were opened at the usual time and students allowed in. This meant that a school with a student population of 1,000 would have had only five adults supervising the students. Who would have been responsible if anything had happened during that time?

During normal school days the ratio of supervisors to students is 1:40. Who decided that under these circumstances it should be 1:200? The MUT would have acted most irresponsibly if it had not brought this to the attention of all heads and assistant heads. It is not the MUT who put the safety of students at risk and it was right to lay the responsibility fully and squarely on the authorities.

This is not the first time that the union has ordered its members to report for work an hour late and there were instances when the authorities advised parents to take their children to school one hour late. This time round it was claimed that no agreement was reached with the transport providers. Could this be because the latter wanted additional payment? If so, it could have been easily resolved because the authorities could have balanced the extra payment from the amount that they were to save as a result of the deductions in pay that teachers are to receive for working one hour less. If there was any chaos in schools during the one-hour stoppage this can never be attributed to the MUT's action because even though the law provides for one day's notice in respect of any industrial action, the MUT gave 16 days' notice - ample time for the authorities to decide on the best possible action to take so that students' safety would not be put at risk.

Mr Falzon wrote that "removing disruptive students from mainstream education and relegating them to some backwater institution may do them more harm than good - even if they are supported by more teachers and counsellors than normal". The MUT begs to differ; it is in the student's best interest to address his problems in the most professional manner through the services of a multi-disciplinary team that is professionally trained to deal with such situations. It is also in the best interests of the other students to allow them to get on with their education peacefully and without disruption.

It is in this direction that the MUT would like to see progress being registered and its commitment and support in this regard will continue to be forthcoming.

Mr DeGiovanni is general secretary of the Malta Union of Teachers