TO GUYANA’S credit, much work has been done on child rights. Among the first things done by the Government of Guyana was bringing a laser beam sort of attention to education. Guyana stood out among her counterparts in the Caribbean and further afield in early childhood education, which initially began at 3 years and nine months. More schools were built, allowing for greater accommodation of children; and at the post-primarily level, the then common entrance school examination was used to place students in schools, based on their evaluated intellectual abilities and interests.In recognition of secondary education, the programme was expanded and augmented beyond the known schools — inclusive of the so-called elite that carried only specific curriculum — to include the multilateral and community high schools. The multilateral secondary curriculum allowed for expression and pursuit of academia based on interest and ability, whereas the community high was geared toward the more technically-inclined, with opportunity presented at the 4th form to sit an examination to enter into the secondary school.

The nationalisation of schools allowed all to benefit from a national education programme designed by the Government, besides aiding in eliminating discrimination against a child attending a school based on religious ideology. Prior to the advent of public education, some schools were managed by one or other religious denomination, and there were instances when access to those schools was denied children based on their religion; those children, and sometimes their family members, had to ‘convert’ in order to gain admittance to certain schools.

Where newly-independent Guyana embraced religious freedom and pursued universal education as important to nation-building, it would have been engaging in double-standards to continue the practice of accepting a child into, or rejecting that child from, an educational institution based on religious considerations.

In the area of economics, some expenses were offset by the State through various measures. The State assumed responsibility for programmes such as free uniform, textbooks, meals, transportation, and tuition from nursery to university.

Taking some financial responsibilities from the family and placing them on the State had two-fold benefits for a young post-colonial society which, at independence, was met with high unemployment and limited economic opportunities. In the sphere of the family, this eliminated economic stressors and served to ensure the child pursues an education. In regard to the State, it ensured creating an educated society equipped with skills and talents needed for development.

The tier-ship, or rather discrimination, in the legal system and ‘shame’ in the society that children were subjected to because they were not born in ‘wedlock’ were removed through repealing of the law that referred to such children as ‘bastards’, not entitled to inheritance from their fathers. This labelling would have been applicable to children whose parents did not have a registered marriage, which meant it included all across the ethnic divide.

Examination shows that this holistic multi-prong approach to education was aimed at leaving no child behind. With the child’s psycho-social and economic wellbeing taken care of, education became one of the nation’s greatest equalisers. More importantly, in the area of childhood development, there was this sense of equality and assurance that God-given talent would be allowed to bloom and grow irrespective of a child or family’s socio-economic status; and he or she can be whatever he or she wanted to be.

In that some of the economic and supplemental benefits stated above are no longer available, some being aborted during the period of economic downturn, it does not prevent examination of new ways to ensure children are not denied an education in keeping with their ability.

It was a mistake to scrap the community high school programme, because that scrapping has prevented the streaming of children based on their abilities and interests at the time of examination. Taking the approach of lumping children in programmes in which they show no aptitude is tantamount to creating and churning out functional illiterates, which in itself is a denial of the right of the child, based on ability. This is an area deserving attention by the authorities.

Outside of education which is foundational and considered very important for growth and development, personal and national, other laws have been put in place to protect and advance child rights. And to the extent that some of these laws are not being enforced, or are partially enforced, such acts constitute denial of the right of the child.

More importantly, the Child Rights Commission — whose role is, among other things, to oversee national policies, provide recommendation to enforce and strengthen existing laws, and to create new laws — is comatose. It is a crying shame on Guyana, whose record has been one of pioneering child rights and breaking barriers in this regard, not to have this commission performing at its optimum.