School administration 'dismissed' eye-poking incident on teacher

An incident in which a teacher was poked in the eye by a five-year-old student was dismissed by school officials, saying they had done their utmost, the general secretary of the Malta Union of Teachers told the court yesterday.

Franklin Barbara testified that following the incident, in October 2008, the Birkirkara primary school authorities acted dismissively and said they had done all they could about the matter.

The 32-year-old teacher, Josefa Sammut, took the Education Ministry, the general director for education services and the principal of St Theresa College, of which the school forms part, to court claiming that her health and safety was not adequately safeguarded.

She was hit in the eye with a crayon as she sat at her desk in the classroom and claims that her vision diminished by 20 per cent as a result.

Mr Barbara said that, before the incident, the pupil in question had been assessed after demonstrating worrying behaviour. Usually, when a child acted in a particular manner, an assessment was carried out by the Education Department which then sought ways and means to help the child.

The MUT had often complained that, in some cases, years passed between the initial stages of the assessment and when something was done. Such delay led to children with certain difficulties remaining in class together with the other children and the teacher, which was not fair on all involved.

He added that, following this particular case, the union had directed Ms Sammut not to allow the student back in class until a solution was found. A learning support assistant was provided shortly afterwards, he said.

When questioned how the school had reacted to the incident when he had contacted them, he said the reaction was purely emotional. The school administration had wished Ms Sammut well and augured that her medical condition would improve. The administration had argued that, as far as they were concerned, they had done all they could because the evaluation process had already started. However, in the eyes of the union, Ms Sammut's health and safety were not safeguarded.

When asked who was responsible for the child, Mr Barbara said the responsibility "falls squarely on the authorities' shoulders".

Under cross-examination, lawyer John Paul Bonello representing the Education Ministry, asked Mr Barbara if he had spoken to anyone else other than Ms Sammut before issuing the directive. He said the procedure was to contact the school first.

Pushing harder on the matter, the lawyer asked Mr Barbara to be specific and on oath declare that he did speak to the school before the directive.

Mr Barbara said he was not in a position to say so because he could not remember speaking to the school authorities before issuing the directive although, according to procedure, speaking to the school authorities was the norm.

Lawyer Alessia Zammit Mckeon appeared for Ms Sammut.