The behaviour of teachers and parents at Nicosia’s Pancyprian Gymnasium was, to put it mildly, disgraceful. This was a shameful exhibition of mob rule, with all its features – ignorance, intolerance and callousness. The only thing we did not see was violence, although the education ministry was the recipient of threatening messages.
And for what? The education ministry had set up an ‘Alternative School for Study and Re-integration’ within the Pancyprian Gymnasium, with the aim of providing support to children suffering psychological and educational difficulties and helping them return to school classrooms. These are children that have suffered major trauma and as a result are struggling with fitting in and adjusting to school life.
The alternative school was set up especially for such children, who are not violent or a threat to others but require special care and support so that eventually they would be re-integrated into the school system. Its design was based on international practices and it would have operated as an autonomous entity housed in an isolated classroom in the Pancyprian Gymnasium. Three teenagers were due to attend the alternative school and would have minimal interaction with the rest of the school population.
When parents heard about the education ministry’s plans they were up in arms, claiming that the presence of the alternative school would disrupt their children’s education and put them at risk. How three teenagers, who would not come into contact with the school’s students because their ‘school’ would be separated by a wall would have any negative impact, only the small-minded parents could say. Parents also got their children to demand the removal of the alternative school from the Pancyprian’s premises.
As if this were not bad enough, teaching union Oelmek, which should have stayed clear of the dispute, also joined the mob, saying that children with “extreme delinquent behaviour,” should not be housed in the school. The real gripe of the union bosses was that they had not been consulted by the ministry about the plans for the alternative school; and because they had not been consulted, they took a public stand against the decision, describing it as “anti-pedagogical” and claiming it “did not serve, on any account, the educational targets of the programme.” Education was no place “for the implementation of arbitrary decisions,” Oelmek said.
The union, instead of backing the ministry decision, sided with the bigoted parents because it had not been given a say in the decision-making. It had no qualms about making three children, who had been through traumatic experiences and were unable to fit in, feel rejected. Was this not an anti-pedagogical stand by teachers?
Ideally, the education ministry should have ignored the mob and gone ahead with its plan, but as it explained in an announcement it was forced to drop it because the “misinformation and reactions by parents and teachers created a climate of fear and confrontation.” The “lack of empathy and the unjustified targeting of children struggling to be integrated into the education system,” had left the ministry with no choice, but to back down.
Our society should be very worried when an angry mob targets vulnerable children, most in need of our support.
