Adopt The Same Criterion With Computer Awareness

| Monday February 26, 2007 00:00

Computer awareness in our schools is relatively a newly introduced course. It came as a recommendation of the Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE). When it was pioneered in our schools not a lot of teachers had undergone direct training to the levels of Diploma or Degree. As such, the Ministry of Education embarked on a national Induction Course on IT for teachers who had been selected to undergo the training from various schools. It follows therefore that if one teacher had been trained at the expense of the taxpayer, he or she ought to gain or be given the opportunity to lead the computer department in schools as a matter of first come first serve. He or she possesses the requisite skills and that is why they hanged in there.

Many of us have started the computer awareness programmes in our schools and we have done successfully and satisfactorily. It ought to be remembered that during the training, Senior Education Officers and Principal Education Officers were in charge of it on behalf of the  Ministry of Education. These officers were honest and bold enough to inform teachers that in five year's, time, almost every attendant would reap the benefits. This came as a response to our suggestion that computer awareness should be remunerated accordingly. It boggles one's mind to find that when advertisements for promotions came out, the same teachers who had persevered for a good number of years without remuneration for the aforementioned positions were turned down. Most had even acted on the posts for the first time since their commissioning. WHY? Is it a question of poor planning? Or is it that the relevant people who are supposed to promote teachers are reserving these lucrative positions for their younger brothers and sisters still at colleges and universities? We are in the dark but we are watching. Remember the legitimate expectation principle?

During the time when Guidance and Counselling was introduced as a post of responsibility, many teachers were inducted because there was a shortage of teachers with such qualifications. These individuals today as we speak are in schools as senior teachers. The same goes with library studies. They started the programme hence their quick advancement. The same criterion has to be adopted with computer awareness. Infact, it was not to be the case.

It baffles the mind to be rejected on the basis of not holding a certificate on computers yet the amount of experience one holds goes more than five years. I would also hasten to posit that where one is lacking in terms of the number of years at C2 scale (the post required two or more at C2), he or she makes up the deficit with either having had the chance to act or having taught Computer awareness continuously for more than 12 or 24 months. Some teachers have taught computer awareness for more than five years continuously.

By the end of April, the same teachers would have been acting as Senior Teachers Grade I Computer Awareness for eight months let alone the coordinating of the department for many years. These people cannot be left in the lurch because they contributed immensely to the development of computer awareness in our schools.

The way these applications were handled has left many teachers discouraged and disgruntled. The Southern region fares very badly in this issue as compared to other regions. One wonders why this region alone?

As a way forward, I wish to urge the Ministry of Education to review this matter urgently. Times are past where simple administrative issues could pose a threat to the stability of our education. Teachers are again getting disgruntled by this turn of events. I still want to think that it is not yet too late to rectify the oversight before it becomes a time bomb. That is if it was really an oversight!

The school heads also have to have a say in this particular issue. Their voices have to be heard. They know very well that deserving teachers have been left behind. They are the ones who recommend teachers for promotion. They have to use this powerful tool of communication to put their message across. If as a school head you recommended a teacher to act, what stops that teacher to fully attain the position? Ask yourselves such critical questions. Does a teacher become eligible today then tomorrow the same individual becomes redundant? I doubt.

I also want to urge our teacher unions to stand guard against this matter and if push comes to shove, we might as well seek relief elsewhere. You cannot start a project and when the profits now come to fruition, someone else emerges to claim your wonderful deeds as hers or his. I for one wonder whether to act in a position is a curse or empowerment. I am inclined to conclude that with us at Education, acting in a post is much of a curse. Perceptions are dangerous as they may induce people to adopt a certain mindset. I am sure our Ministry of Education would not want to find itself embroiled in an avoidable tussle with its partners such as teachers. I also believe that a negative image is not what our ministry wants taking into account the negativity that has always surrounded it. We as teachers do not want impediments in our profession. Therefore, whoever the buck stops with has to put things in order while there is still the benefit of time.
 
Concerned teacher
By email