Education officers sue Ministry

Gothataone Moeng | Monday June 16, 2014 06:59

The 187 education officers have registered a case with the Gaborone High Court and are awaiting a trial date, The Monitor has established.

Tshiamo Ndebele and 186 other education officers argue that they were overlooked, as their pay grades were not elevated. 

The applicants are all holding positions as Principal Education Officers I and II (PEO I & II), with PEO II being junior to PEO I. 

The applicants’ biggest gripe is that in terms of pay grade, they are now equal or lower than primary and secondary school heads, whom they supervise. While PEO II are remunerated at D3 level, PEO I are remunerated at D2 level. 

In March 2013, when MoESD implemented the LoO, secondary school heads were elevated to D1, while their deputies were elevated to D2. Primary school heads were elevated to D2, and their deputies to D3.  The education officers make a case that as supervisors and superiors of school heads, they were entitled to and had legitimate expectations of having their pay grades adjusted. While the MoESD disputed the fact, the applicants argue that the main duties of some PEO cadres is to act as supervisors of primary and secondary school heads.  

“They review the performance of head teachers, attend to their applications for leave and the teachers report directly to them. This is common cause in the ministry,” the applicants argue.

Further, the applicants argue that even when jobs for the PEO Inspectorate and PEO I are advertised, supervising school heads is indicated as part of their duties. The applicants also state that all education officers who are responsible for primary schools were previously school heads.

“They were actually promoted to the PEO II cadre, although this was not an automatic promotion as they had to apply for the posts. Equally, some of the PEO I (inspectorate and in-service) were school heads at secondary schools and were promoted to the posts after applying. 

“Although their job descriptions do not indicate that they directly supervise school heads, other cadres of PEO II play a supervisory role over school heads,” they argue.

The applicants also contend that they are generally more qualified than school heads. 

However, the MoESD disputed that PEOs supervise school heads, arguing that as management themselves, school heads need little supervision. “The role of the inspector is to check that the teaching, learning and educational policies are implemented, not to supervise school heads,” the ministry’s answering affidavit stated, adding, “school heads are members of management in terms of existing labour laws. They do not require close supervision hence there is no need to employ someone to supervise them.” 

The ministry further argued that since the implementation of LoO, PEOs have never reviewed school heads and school heads do not report directly to them.  

The ministry stated that primary school heads report to Chief Education Officers while directors of regional operations review secondary school heads. Further, the ministry stated that education officers are not necessarily more qualified than school heads. 

The ministry also stated that the directive, which led to the LoOs introduced, affected teachers only and no other cadres.