Why School Heads Will Be Accountable To The Ministry
Before 2010, the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) used to appoint provisional education officers (PEOs) and district education officers (DEOs) as its representatives for teacher management. If TSC was dissatisfied with an agent’s performance, it could withdraw their authority, and the Ministry of Education would reassign them non-teacher management duties.
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 Presidential Working Party on Education Reform (PWPER) has suggested that the ministry designate heads of basic education institutions as its representatives. PWPER argued that the principal secretary responsible for Basic Education lacked control over the appointment, deployment, and discipline of head teachers, even though they managed schools on behalf of the ministry.
This proposal resembles the previous TSC agency, but it raises several issues. Firstly, teachers, especially head teachers, have been conditioned to respect ministry officers, such as quality assurance officers and auditors, who visit schools periodically. Even during periods when the ministry did not provide funding (1990-2003 in primary schools and 1990-2008 in secondary schools), head teachers respected ministry officials. Therefore, the claim that teachers only respect TSC officials is unfounded.
Also Read:Retiring Teachers Can Now Be Assigned 3 Year Contract on Consensus
Secondly, any negative quality assurance report from the ministry sent to TSC would result in immediate action, a fact known to school heads. For instance, when several principals were implicated in KCSE examination irregularities in 2002, the ministry provided evidence, leading to their immediate interdiction by TSC. A PEO faced similar consequences.
The third issue pertains to the audit department of the ministry. In procedural terms, any adverse audit report with recommendations for action would be submitted to TSC. TSC would promptly interdict implicated school heads and involve the auditor in disciplinary proceedings. A representative from the ministry’s head of professional services also participated. Therefore, PWPER’s claim that the ministry is not involved in this process is inaccurate.
Fourthly, the appointment, deployment, and promotion of head teachers are interconnected. The ministry previously had a provision for merit-based teacher promotions. While well-performing teachers were recognized and promoted, some with discipline cases at TSC were also promoted by the ministry. TSC, as the teachers’ employer, had no role in these promotions.
The task force did not provide an explanation for why the existing system failed, warranting the recommended changes. These matters need evaluation, and a seamless structure and procedure should be developed to prevent the resurgence of past challenges through procedures that create loopholes and discord.
Why School Heads Will Be Accountable To The Ministry
