School Heads Will Be Accountable To The Ministry
School Heads Will Be Accountable To The Ministry
Prior to 2010, provisional education officers (PEOs) and district education officers (DEOs) served as the Teachers Service Commission’s (TSC) representatives for teacher management. The Ministry of Education would shift an agent to non-teacher management responsibilities if TSC withdrew their power due to dissatisfaction with their performance.
During my tenure as Secretary of TSC, I applied this practice to a DEO, which was unconventional and raised concerns within the ministry. However, it motivated the agents to perform better.
The ministry should appoint heads of basic education institutions as its representatives, suggests the Presidential Working Party on Education Reform (PWPER). PWPER claimed that although while head teachers ran schools on behalf of the ministry, the principal secretary in charge of Basic Education had no authority over their hiring, placement, or disciplinary actions.
Although this plan is similar to the previous TSC agency, it presents a number of concerns. First of all, ministry officials who frequently visit schools, such as quality assurance officers and auditors, have been conditioned to respect teachers and head teachers in particular. Head teachers respected ministry officials even during the years (1990–2003 in primary schools and 1990–2008 in secondary schools) when the ministry did not give funding. Therefore, it is untrue that teachers respect only TSC officials.
Second, school leaders are aware that any unfavorable quality assurance report from the ministry delivered to TSC will result in swift action. For instance, the ministry produced proof when numerous principals were charged with KCSE examination violations in 2002, which resulted in their swift interdiction by TSC. A PEO experienced comparable effects.
The third problem relates to the ministry’s audit division. Any negative audit report with recommendations for action would be delivered to TSC in terms of procedure. The auditor would be subject to disciplinary action, and TSC would swiftly arrest any involved school leaders. The chief of professional services for the ministry dispatched a representative, too. The ministry is therefore involved in this process, contrary to what PWPER claims.
Fourth, there is a connection between the selection, placement, and promotion of head teachers. Prior to this, the ministry had a policy for merit-based teacher promotions. While recognizing and promoting teachers who performed well, the ministry also elevated several instructors who had discipline issues at TSC. There was no involvement from TSC, the teachers’ employer, in these promotions.
The task force did not explain why the current system was ineffective and required the suggested adjustments. To avoid the reappearance of old problems through methods that leave gaps and cause strife, these issues need to be evaluated, and a seamless structure and procedure should be constructed.
