A new academic year kicked off across Trinidad and Tobago on Monday, and the national education landscape has quickly become the center of a heated public debate over school discipline policy, sparked by comments from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar over the weekend.
In a back-to-school address delivered Sunday, Persad-Bissessar put forward a controversial call for educators across the country to adopt a strict zero-tolerance approach to both disruptive students and unengaged parents. The Prime Minister argued that school staff should not have to shoulder the stress of supporting students who refuse to adjust their behavior or parents who dismiss schools’ concerns about their children’s conduct. She instructed teachers and principals: if a student will not comply with school rules and their parents will not collaborate to address the issue, send the student straight home to have the problem worked out within the family.
The proposal has drawn sharp pushback from Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly, a former education minister and opposition Member of Parliament for St Ann’s East, who framed the Prime Minister’s plan as nothing more than a superficial band-aid that ignores the deep, systemic roots of student misbehavior. In a public Facebook post published Monday, Gadsby-Dolly questioned whether removing disruptive students from campus entirely was the full extent of the government’s strategy to address school discipline challenges, arguing that every child deserves an equal shot at an education as a pathway out of poverty.
Gadsby-Dolly emphasized that disruptive conduct in schools is rarely a random choice; more often, it is a visible symptom of far deeper struggles that many young people face outside of the classroom. “Hungry children misbehave; abused children misbehave, children with undiagnosed learning disabilities misbehave, angry children misbehave, children who lack attention misbehave,” she noted, asking how sending vulnerable students home could possibly resolve the underlying issues driving their behavior. She clarified that her argument does not excuse harmful conduct in schools, but it demands a more thoughtful approach that accounts for the unstable, traumatic home environments many misbehaving students navigate daily.
The core of Gadsby-Dolly’s criticism centers on the current ruling United National Congress (UNC) administration’s prior cuts to student support infrastructure. She pointed out that the UNC dismantled the Student Support Services Division (SSSD), an agency that specialized in addressing root causes of misbehavior by providing parenting support, mental health guidance, and targeted coping resources for students facing life challenges. The administration chose not to renew contracts for hundreds of specialized support staff, including school social workers, guidance counselors, restorative justice practitioners, learning support assistants, diagnostic specialists, special education instructors, and school psychologists. Without these support systems in place, Gadsby-Dolly argues, the education system is abandoning the students who need intervention the most.
“Sending misbehaving children home will not cure the problem of school discipline; nor will it help thousands of students and parents who need counselling, guidance and support to overcome their challenges and succeed educationally,” she said. She also raised urgent questions about the long-term public safety impacts of the policy: “What effect will sending misbehaving students home with no help have on crime and criminality? How do we help misbehaving students to transform their behaviour?”
To replace the superficial zero-tolerance plan, Gadsby-Dolly called on the government to reverse course and restore the SSSD, expand targeted education sector support to address the root causes of disruptive conduct, and reinvest in residential youth programs like MILAT and youth camps. These programs, she explained, provide structured alternative environments for young people who need a full change of scenery to reorient their lives and grow into productive, engaged citizens. Closing her statement, she emphasized that the debate is not about partisan politics, but about the future of Trinidad and Tobago: “This is about the salvation of Trinidad and Tobago. We must think deeper.”
The Prime Minister’s proposal also faced pushback from Crystal Ashe, president of the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers’ Association, who shared concerns about the plan’s long-term consequences during an interview on TV6’s Morning Edition Monday. Ashe noted that many disruptive students actually want to be sent home, as they have little investment in staying in the classroom. He echoed Gadsby-Dolly’s call for structured, supportive systems, arguing that removing students from campus without any rehabilitation or social support does nothing to help them grow.
“When you send them home, they going and watch TV, they going on Facebook, they going on social media. How is that benefiting them? And when years pass and when they become adults in society, how are they going to provide or make any input in society? Will they be productive? No. You are breeding and cultivating bandits,” Ashe said.
The debate comes as the new academic year begins, with educators, policymakers, and families across the country grappling with ongoing challenges of school discipline, student mental health, and equitable access to support resources for vulnerable youth.