The Committee began this morning with Resolution No. 7-189, which is on the nomination of Vincent Tafileluw who was requested to appear before the Committee to answer questions in relation to the improvement and advancement of the State Department of Education.
In his testimonies, the nominee said that perhaps one of the first things he would like to see it happen if he ever wins the favor of the Legislature is that the Management of the Department and the Board work along side each other and pursue the same goal instead of having each party pursuing its own interest.
Questions on how the nominee would view the effectiveness of the New Baseline Curriculum was raised by committee members to which he shared his belief that working together the management of the system will help in identifying weaknesses that may need improvement.
The nominee was also reminded that the board is not an advisory but a governing board created by law to set policies for the system.
During the hearing, he was also asked the one characteristic that would make him a suitable candidate to the board.
The nominee responded by saying his good grip on cultural values and their significance should strike a balance for academic performance.
From the Executive Government, both Director Margou of the Department of Education and Director Raigetal of the Youth and Civic Affairs Department were present to provide their testimonies to the nomination.
The Committee held discussions on another resolution in the afternoon. The resolution is on the nomination of John Gilmatam to the same board. Similar kinds of questions asked in the morning hearing were also asked of the nominee.
In his testimonies, Mr. Gilmatam stressed the importance of looking at the results as a way to gauge performance and put in place possible remedies to weaknesses.
When asked by committee members of the one area within the education system that might need improvement, he said it is difficult to look at only one component of the structure as he think a holistic approach that focuses on results and outcome is perhaps a suitable way to go.
Other questions were asked relating to his views on the existing law that creates the governing board and if he is willing to meet the demand on his time to carry out his duties as a board.
He said if managed properly, sufficient time will be extended to the board to be able to do their work. He said if confirmed he will work closely with other member to ensure efficiency of the board including making needed changes that might be viewed by others as “harsh” on the system. If confirmed to sit on the board, “we will not accept non-compliance” as a finding of any management, performance audit on the system.
