The Ministry of Education’s decision to release updated photographs of the washroom facilities at Mahdia Primary School may have challenged the impression created by images circulating on social media, but it has also raised a different set of questions about the management of obsolete sanitation infrastructure at the school.
In a statement issued Wednesday, the ministry rejected what it described as a “misleading portrayal” of the washroom facilities at the Region Eight school.
According to the ministry, the photographs circulating online show two old toilet facilities that are no longer in use. The ministry said the facilities had been secured and locked, but alleged that a parent broke the locks and photographed them, creating the impression that the toilets were being used by pupils.
The ministry subsequently provided updated photographs showing what it described as a newly rehabilitated block containing eight washrooms, completed under the WASH initiative.
If the ministry’s account is accurate, the social-media photographs do not provide a complete representation of the sanitation facilities currently available to pupils.
But that explanation does not eliminate the need for scrutiny. It raises another fundamental question:
If the old toilets are no longer fit for use, why are they still there?
The sanitation question remains
Calling an old toilet facility “unused” does not necessarily settle the issue from a public-health or environmental perspective.
If the structures have been abandoned because they are obsolete or defective, the ministry should be able to explain whether they have been formally decommissioned.
Are they still connected to a water supply, septic system or sewage system? Have the connections been permanently disconnected? Are there broken pipes, stagnant water, leaking waste or other potential hazards? Could the abandoned structures attract rodents, insects or other pests?
And most importantly, have the relevant health, engineering or education authorities determined that the facilities pose no sanitation risk to pupils and staff?
These are legitimate questions, particularly at a primary school where young children share the compound.
If the facilities are simply awaiting demolition, the ministry should say so and indicate when that work is expected to be completed.
If there is a reason they cannot yet be demolished, that explanation should also be provided.
The issue is not necessarily evidence that the ministry has failed to provide sanitation facilities. Rather, it is a question of whether replacing old infrastructure also requires properly removing or decommissioning what has been replaced.
Eight new washrooms need verification too
The photographs of the new washroom block are important because they demonstrate that investment has been made in Mahdia Primary’s sanitation infrastructure.
However, photographs can establish the existence and appearance of facilities; they cannot by themselves establish how effectively those facilities are functioning.
The ministry should therefore be prepared to provide basic information about the new block.
Are all eight washrooms operational? Is there a reliable water supply? Are there functioning sinks and hand-washing facilities? How frequently are the facilities cleaned and maintained? Are they adequate for the school’s enrolment?
Those questions are particularly important because sanitation infrastructure can deteriorate quickly when maintenance arrangements do not keep pace with usage.
A newly constructed or rehabilitated facility is only an improvement if it remains functional and accessible to the children and staff who depend on it.
More than a social-media dispute
The ministry has accused those responsible for circulating the photographs of creating a false impression and warned against political point-scoring.
There is a legitimate concern here. Photographs stripped of context can produce a narrative that is materially different from conditions on the ground.
At the same time, government cannot reasonably expect parents to remain silent when they encounter conditions they believe are unacceptable.
The stronger response to a disputed photograph is not simply to condemn its publication. It is to provide enough verifiable information to establish what the actual situation is.
In this case, the ministry has taken the first step by producing photographs of the new facilities.
The next step should be greater transparency about the old ones.
The bigger issue is maintenance
The Mahdia controversy highlights a recurring challenge in public infrastructure: construction and rehabilitation often receive greater attention than what happens after the work is completed.
Government can point to a new washroom block as evidence of investment. Parents can point to deteriorating structures elsewhere on the same compound as evidence of neglect.
Both can technically be true.
A school may have new facilities while retaining old, unsafe or abandoned infrastructure that has not been removed. It may have modern toilets but inadequate water. It may have completed construction but weak maintenance.
The real measure of success, therefore, should not be the number of projects completed or photographs released.
It should be whether children consistently have access to safe, clean, functional and properly maintained sanitation facilities.
The ministry should answer the questions
The Education Ministry is right to insist that information about schools and children should be accurate.
But accuracy must work in both directions.
If the old toilets are genuinely unused, the public deserves to know why they remain on the school compound and whether they have been properly decommissioned.
If they are scheduled for removal, the ministry should provide a timeline.
If they have been assessed and determined not to constitute a sanitation or environmental risk, that should be stated.
And if any deficiencies exist with the new washrooms, those should be acknowledged and addressed rather than allowed to become another social-media controversy.
The Mahdia issue should therefore not become a battle over which photograph tells the better story.
The more important question is whether the entire sanitation environment at the school meets the standard that Guyanese children deserve.
The new eight-washroom block may represent meaningful progress. But replacing inadequate facilities is only part of the responsibility.
Government must also ensure that the facilities it replaces are safely decommissioned, the new ones remain functional, and the school compound as a whole is maintained in a condition that protects the health and dignity of its pupils.
