On the face of it, it appears a good idea, one which we would support.

We cannot, however, be sure for we do not have the details. Neither does the public.

That, unfortunately, is too often the case with declaration of plans and policy by the Government, as happened again with last week's announcement by the Education Minister, Maxine Henry-Wilson, of a programme to take maladjusted and disruptive children out of school on a temporary basis for rehabilitation. This arrangement, apparently inclusive of residential facilities, will come on stream in September.

Most Jamaicans, we feel, will instinctively back such an idea. We are all concerned about the serious problem of anti-social behaviour in the country, particularly among young males.

This crisis of dysfunction manifests itself not only in our high homicide rate - at over 60 per 100, population last year - but growing violence in schools. There have been a worrying number of cases of student-on-student attacks, including murder, as well as attacks by students on teachers.

Clearly, the solution to these ills rests not only with schools. They are mostly the symptoms of deeper social problems that demand a wide range of interventions, not the least of which are sustained economic growth and improved parenting skills. But there can be no question, we feel, about the right of the state to intervene to protect vulnerable children from potentially destructive behaviour before it becomes so deep-rooted as to blight their life prospects.

It is in that context that we are partial to the 'time-out' proposal, pending the provision of further and better particulars.

Similar plan

For instance, five years ago, Mrs. Henry-Wilson's predecessor, Mr. Whiteman, announced a plan that sounded similar to the one about which she spoke. Students with an overly-disruptive bent were supposed to have been removed from schools for a period, and have the benefit of psychological and other behavioural counsellors. There were also plans to have residential facilities and the children's education would continue, in some form, during the 'time-out' period.

Mr. Whiteman's proposal, for whatever reason, did not get off the ground. At least, not in the fashion he outlined. He, at the time, spoke of the need for specific legislation to facilitate the removal from schools of children with behavioural problems and for the establishment of the specialised facilities. Instead, there were occasional camps, from which, according to Mrs. Henry-Wilson, the authorities have learnt substantial lessons.

What lessons these are, we do not know. It would seem to us that rather than spring the dusted-off project on parents and the wider community, Mrs. Henry-Wilson's ministry should have long ago engaged the society in its plans and what would be required to make them work. She might have been giving specifics of the curricular and other interventions to be employed in the 'time-out' facilities and saying whether they actually exist and have the specialised staff. We do not recall any law or regulation going to the Parliament to allow the removal of students from schools. Neither have we heard of parents being asked about these views.

In other words, we do not perceive any attempt at a community buy-in to the project. This is hardly a great recipe for success!

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.