THE ‘Because We Care’ Education Grant has of late attracted some attention, but largely due to misinformation bring peddled by the political mischief makers on social media and a local daily.Some of the comments expressed on social media are likely to be bypassed because it is an uncensored forum, but for the misinformation to find its way into the pages of a mainstream newspaper smacks of poor journalism.
Only recently, the Guyana Times reported that the Ministry of Education will be scrapping the ‘Because We Care’ $10,000 education cash grant, and ‘this great initiative which benefitted thousands of Guyanese will be a big loss to parents’.
In a follow up on Tuesday, Guyana Times carried a report on former Education Minister, Priya Manickchand pleading with the Administration to review their position to scrap the grant since it was of great help to the needy.
Manickchand is quoted as saying thusly: “(I am) truly saddened to learn that the APNU/AFC Government is terminating the ‘Because We Care’ cash grant programme…The PPP/C fully intended to continue this programme and said so in its 2015 election manifesto. Here’s hoping that the new Government that promised positive change will revisit its harsh decision and reinstate this programme.”
The report went onto state that many parents will be affected and even quote an invisible one in the Pomeroon.
At first glance, the manner in which the story is told makes it appear as though the report is credible, but this is far from the truth. Manickchand pronouncement at best was drawn from allegation-based rather than verification-based journalism.
First up, Education Minister, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine never spoke about the Government scrapping the programme but indicated that like many other programmes initiated by the PPP/C Administration, the education grant is being reviewed.
It would have been more prudent for Manickchand to first verify what Dr. Roopnaraine said about the Education Grant before making a plea based on misinformation or a baseless claim.
Furthermore, a review of the programme should not be news to the former Minister. Manickchand, herself has said that the granting of the grant will be reviewed.
And, why not, it should. The grant though a laudable initiative was implemented at a time close to the Regional and General Elections and the method of delivery was wholesale distribution.
Not even a scintilla of attention was given to how regularly the child attends school, the child’s performance at school and parents’ involvement in the child’s education.
The awarding of the grant to all and sundry close to the elections can only be viewed as a handout by the former Administration to buy support ahead of what turned out to be a very close election.
A review of the grant is therefore a laudable step by the David Granger-led Administration as it will trim wasteful spending and channel money where it is needed most.
It would make better sense if the grant is awarded to the most vulnerable children in the school system and the award is based on students’ attendance and performance in school.
The investment in the form of a grant, if approved, must be geared towards achieving a positive impact on beneficiaries, enabling the Government to get value for money.
This can hardly be achieved through a willy-nilly distribution. Worst yet, children of the rich and the poor receive the same sum in the grant.
Realistically speaking, to address the conditions of the most vulnerable would require a grant more than $10,000, and this should by a consideration of the Administration.
In short, it would be more prudent to reduce the number of beneficiaries, increase the grant, focus on the most vulnerable children and based the awarding of the grant on the attendance and performance of beneficiaries while stressing strong parental support.
This approach will mesh well with the Government’s trust of promoting greater accountability in public spending.