CUMULATIVE IMPROVEMENTS SALIENT CAVEAT FOR ASSESSING SCHOOLS` PERFORMANCE.

Education experts do not agree on much in education, but there is one point on which they agree: having an effective teacher is the single most important school ingredient to a child's learning success. But the problem again lies in the identification of the specific benchmarks used in the selection such effective teachers. The government has over time relied on the often deceptive summative national examination results in determining and rewarding teachers whose students post impressive scores in the examinable subjects. The Ministry of basic Education and TSC has promoted such teachers to higher job groups while those in low socio-economic schools (most of which are in rural and hardship areas) lag in promotions because their schools fail to post impressive scores in the same examinations. However, over the years it has become increasingly clear that stakeholders in the basic education sector are not in agreement as to what factors determine the competence of effective teachers or how effective teaching can be evaluated and given recognition. In my opinion, a teacher`s competence must be measured based on three distinct aspects of students` achievement. These include: current levels of the students` performance, students` improvements over time, and achievement equity where students` results are weighted against schools` socio-economic status. Over time it has become crystal clear that the so called “best performing schools” fair badly on these caveat. A more thorough reading of the results presented in such National summative examinations provides a more nuanced perspective on the educational condition of the nation. For example, teachers in national schools have always been ranked as effective basing on the fact that their schools are ranked first in the summative national examinations, however, the same schools will rank poorly in terms of cumulative improvements in the four year period since KCPE. When using this new format, it will for instance be unsurprising that despite average or below-average current achievement in summative national examination, a village school in a hardship area like central Pokot is likely to be ranked among the top performing schools nationally as a result of very strong improvements on students` entry behavior in the four years. It is therefore incumbent upon the government and TSC to credit a teacher handling such students. This is because the teacher is effective in content delivery and is in fact also effective in terms of maximizing on the limited resources available to add value to students` entry behavior within a four year period. I therefore commend the Head teachers who in their just concluded conference in Mombasa identified this caveat as particularly salient for quality assessment in schools` performance. It has made the public to realize the fact that national schools (most of which are blessed with abundant resources) do not necessarily outperform the so called village schools/third world schools. TOME FRANCIS, BUMULA. http://twitter.com/tomefrancis

PROTECT TEACHERS FROM FAITH BASED DISCRIMINATION.

In Kenya most secondary schools are nondenominational and are supported by parents and partly funded by the government. The government also funds faith based schools that meet certain standards. Part of the government funding to faith based schools includes the provision of state employed teachers. However, many of these teachers continue to remain uniquely vulnerable to religious discrimination. This is because there have been numerous instances where majority of the so called sponsors/management in the state funded faith schools have indirectly or otherwise discriminated on the basis of religion in hiring decisions. If for instance, TSC allots an employment opportunity to such a school, and the school`s BoG decides to rate religious devotion higher than numerical felicity when appointing a math teacher, then there is nothing in the law that can stop them. Secondly, if a TSC employed teacher is unfortunate enough to be transferred to such a state funded faith school despite his or her beliefs, his or her problems may just have started. This is because, such school boards can decide levels of promotion on the basis of the beliefs of such a teacher, meaning that there can be a de facto ban on senior posts if he or she is of the "wrong" faith. Thirdly, sometimes such BoGs can influence a teacher to be dismissed for conduct which is “incompatible” with the school's faith. Here, it is up to the BoG of such a school to define the "precepts" of the school's religion and what forms of conduct are incompatible with it. In this context, one is left wondering just what forms of conduct could be considered cause for reprimand, interdiction or even suspension by TSC. It will perhaps not be unsurprising to hear that a teacher was interdicted and suspended from service without pay for a couple of months or even dismissed and removed from the roll of teachers simply because such a teacher refused to take students to a Sunday Service or that a teacher failed to turn up for remedial teaching on a Saturday irrespective of whether such a teacher is obliged to observe it as his or her Sabbath. I have even heard of instances where a teacher was charged with insubordination for refusing to participate in a compulsory praise and worship session in school! In many instances, TSC has always taken the agent`s words as the gospel truth irrespective of whether their actions or inactions are contrary to the TSC Code of Regulations and the code of conduct and ethics. Unfortunately, TSC has made no coherent or principled defense of this situation. It is time that TSC protected teachers against any form of religious discrimination. TOME FRANCIS, BUMULA. http://twitter.com/tomefrancis