MPs challenge ECYS on school shortages, repairs, and donations

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament on Monday used a public meeting on the state of operational and sanitary conditions in public schools to press Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport Melissa Gumbs for clearer timelines, stronger intervention, and greater flexibility in responding to urgent needs in schools.

The meeting focused on operational and sanitary conditions in public schools, including supply shortages and instructional resource constraints. During the first round of Parliament’s deliberations, several MPs raised questions about school supply procurement, infrastructure conditions, sanitation standards, the ministry’s donation policy, and the need for a more visible plan of action.

MP Egbert Doran opened the first round of questions with sharp criticism of the minister’s presentation, saying he believed too much of the explanation focused on blame rather than accountability and solutions. Doran said he had hoped to hear a clearer plan and way forward, rather than what he described as an attempt to shift responsibility to others.

He asked the minister to share with Parliament the policy governing donations and access to schools, and called for a full status overview of public schools to determine whether the shortages and conditions being discussed were isolated or widespread. Doran also questioned why urgent action on basic items such as toilet paper and soap appeared to come only after public concern was raised, and sought clarification on how schools currently report shortages to the ministry.

Among his other questions were whether schools are truly submitting requests late, what the ministry’s response time is when schools run out of essential sanitary items, whether minimum stock levels exist, and what the current condition is of printers and copy machines across the public school system. Doran also questioned the ministry’s position on public assistance to schools, asking whether potential donors and supporters are being turned away because of stricter enforcement of the donation policy. He called for timelines, including a 30-day and 60-day plan, and asked whether the ministry would conduct and share an audit of operational readiness across all public schools.

MP Darryl York also challenged the minister’s presentation, saying the main conclusion he drew was that schools were being blamed for the lack of basic necessities because supply orders were allegedly submitted late. York said he saw a process being described, but not a clear plan. He questioned why, if planning had been underway since 2025, the minister only recently sat with school managers to address the immediate concerns now being discussed in Parliament.

York then presented a detailed set of questions about the condition of specific schools, including the Ruby Labega School, the Marie Genevieve de Weever School, and the Oranje School. He asked whether comprehensive technical and safety evaluations had been carried out, on what dates, and what the findings were with respect to plumbing, roofs, electrical systems, structural integrity, mold, air quality, drinking water access, water dispensers, and cosmetic repairs.

He also requested a cost breakdown for the recommended works per school, asked whether there are outstanding obligations to contractors for past work, and wanted to know which schools are most at risk if repairs are delayed. York further questioned the status of Parent-Teacher Associations at public schools, particularly where documentation issues or non-functioning PTAs may affect the ability to receive donations. He also asked the minister to clarify repeated public statements about protecting students from “political ping pong,” specifically asking from whom students are being protected.

MP Omar Ottley said he was disappointed by what he described as the absence of a “what now” response from the minister, arguing that while past administrations may have had shortcomings, the current minister now holds responsibility for delivering solutions. Ottley pointed to past interventions in schools, including donations of iPads, school bags, sanitary napkins, and support for a school feeding initiative, to make the case that temporary relief measures can and do matter while longer-term systems are being developed.

He said parents are still facing requests for items such as paper, microwaves, water, and other supplies, and made clear that he would not hesitate to donate needed items if his child’s school required them. Ottley also referred to a video in which a fellow MP allegedly promised students that the message about air conditioning needs would be relayed to the minister. He asked whether that had in fact been done and, if so, whether action had followed.

MP Lyndon Lewis focused his intervention on fairness in the distribution of sanitary supplies and instructional materials. He asked how the ministry ensures that supplies are distributed consistently across all public schools and whether yearly requests from teachers and administrators are formally reviewed and incorporated into procurement planning.

Lewis also asked whether complaints about the lack of hand wash dispensers in school bathrooms had been verified, whether any public schools are currently operating under conditions that pose health or safety risks, and what corrective action is being taken. He requested information on whether the ministry has conducted a recent assessment of instructional and sanitary supplies system-wide, what the main findings were, and when schools currently facing shortages can expect relief. Lewis also asked what budget allocations were made this fiscal year to address sanitation, maintenance, and supply deficiencies, and what long-term strategy exists to keep schools safe, sanitary, and properly equipped. She added a broader education workforce concern, asking why more is not being done to attract St. Maarten students trained abroad to return home and work in the public school system.

MP Sjamira Roseburg said she understands that the issues are longstanding and that the ministry has outlined a process, but questioned why willing members of the community should be expected to stand by when schools are facing obvious needs. She said many people, including Members of Parliament, parents, and residents who care about children, are prepared to help while structural solutions are being worked out.

Roseburg asked directly what the ministry expects from MPs and others who are willing to assist schools in the interim. She said she does not believe people who are able to help should be told to sit still while schools wait for structural fixes. Referring to earlier involvement in school activities and youth support programs, she also raised the issue of air conditioning in schools, saying students had openly voiced that need and deserved clarity on whether it forms part of the ministry’s plans. Roseburg further asked for more detail on the donation policy, the timeline for its approval, and the temporary measures being put in place while longer-term projects are still being developed. She also linked the discussion to past debate over a breakfast program, asking where the ministry stands on creating durable support systems while still filling immediate gaps.

MP Ardwell Irion focused heavily on implementation, internal responsibility, and the legal or administrative basis of the policy being enforced. He questioned who, in public schools, is actually expected to monitor supplies and submit orders each month, especially given that public schools may not have the same level of staffing support as subsidized schools. He suggested that if schools are already carrying multiple burdens, the ministry itself may need to play a more hands-on role in checking supply needs on a regular basis.

Irion also said he had been unable to find the donation policy published anywhere and asked whether it is an actual published policy, a draft, or an internal protocol. He further questioned whether the ministry trusts school managers to use their own judgment regarding who may enter schools and who may donate items. He raised concerns about what he described as possible micromanagement by Cabinet and sought clarification on whether schools need “approval” or merely to “notify” the ministry when outside support is offered.

On procurement, Irion asked what procurement policy the ministry is currently operating under and revisited the long-discussed issue of a national procurement law. He questioned why unpaid invoices dating back several years were only being addressed now, and whether the 2026 budget contains enough to prevent repetition of the same problems. He also pushed back on explanations related to budget and cash flow constraints, arguing that government appears able to find funding for other priorities while schools continue to struggle with basics. Irion asked whether the monthly ordering system should be adjusted if it is clearly not working and whether Parliamentarians would still be allowed to visit schools during events such as Literacy Week under the current policy framework.

MP Ludmila DeWeever said the debate appeared to be as much about the policy on donations as it was about the actual conditions in schools. She noted that many MPs seemed upset about the public announcement of the policy, and asked the minister to provide greater clarity on what it means in practice.

DeWeever argued that if public donations continue to routinely fill the gaps, schools may never get an accurate picture of their actual requirements, which in turn weakens accountability and planning. She questioned why school supply needs are being approached month to month when student populations and their basic needs are largely known in advance. She also said that government’s poor financial management and misplaced priorities remain a central part of the problem. While not opposing support for schools, DeWeever urged a more honest discussion about accountability, planning, and the difference between temporary relief and a functioning system.

The Minister is expected to return in three weeks to present her answers to Parliament.

‍