The new teachers’ evaluation points system should be revised

RECENTLY, the Ministry of Education released a new points system that will apply to the promotion of teachers for the current round of promotions to senior positions in schools across the country. Let me say from the outset that I believe the points regime is defective and does not reflect the national realities.

I am simply writing on an issue that has grave implications for the development of the nation. I recognise an attempt to incentivise acquisition of higher-education degrees by teachers. However, this seems to be couched in a vacuum. The current structure, by design, has stretched back into history and erases a big part of the very structure that held the system up, thereby discarding a major part of the existential realities of our education system. Let me hasten to explain.

The current points system gives no points and recognition to any time spent in the classroom while having an untrained status. This should not be, given our history where a significant proportion of schools were staffed almost entirely by untrained teachers. If this sounds extreme, let me put it another way. From about 15 years going back, among the staff complement of most schools around the country, the greater number of teachers in the system were untrained. This was especially true for rural and riverain schools. There were several factors. In the earlier days, the Cyril Potter College of Education (CPCE) ran only one campus in Georgetown, catering for the entire nation. Naturally, only a certain quota could gain entry. So, teachers had to remain untrained while they wait their turn, through no fault of theirs. It was simply a lack of access.

Nevertheless, they contributed to holding the system together and picked up valuable experiences in classroom management, teaching and everything else that goes with the profession. I will go so far as to say that 20 years ago if all untrained teachers were removed from the system in one day, our entire education system would’ve collapsed. That’s how valuable they were. Now, to come 20-25 years later after those teachers (still in the system and) endured those harder and darker days and completely disacknowledge their contributions is a travesty.

With the advent of branches of CPCE in the outer regions which provide expanded access to training (over the last 10-15) years or so, along with the ministry taking decisive steps to enable and ensure that 100 per cent of teachers have access to training, there is now no excuse for not seeking training. The ministry is well within its scope to disincentivise untrained status. This is applicable for the current situation, but it would be patently unfair to reach back 15, 20, 25 years ago and derecognise efforts already in the bag. So, the system would be fairer and reasonable if it gave recognition points to untrained teachers up to a certain time period.

The same applies to those who were trained back in those days. It was nearly impossible to attend university if you were a rural or hinterland teacher. It was first necessary to apply to and wait years to be assigned a teaching spot in Georgetown, then go on a waiting list to attend our lone university. Only four teachers were allowed per a school at any given time. If a teacher is the nineth in line, he was required to wait eight years to allow two batches to complete their degrees. This doesn’t take into consideration that some teachers had setbacks and took additional time to complete their degrees. This lack of access meant that teachers remained undergrads much longer than they desired, but kept on the grind picking up valuable experience. After enduring all of this, the new points regime gives scant value to non-degree holders of yesteryear.

My argument here is the same as above, it is probably easier now to access university education, but this was not so 15, 20 or 25 years ago. If the points system uses today’s reality to evaluate people who are in the system from 20, 25 and 30 years ago, a natural disenfranchisement will take place.

I understand the desire to incentivise higher diplomas and degrees, but awarding 14 points for attaining a “Trained Graduate” status but 18 additional points for gaining a master’s degree. Something is out of sync if at the same time there is not a concomitant recognition for years of graduate service.

A trained graduate used to be the gold standard and core qualification in teaching up to last month.

A G$10,000 incentive was given for a master’s degree. Suddenly, a master’s, which is a mere add on, is now worth more than the core qualification and all the 20 plus years of classroom experience put together. This can’t be right in any fair system.

I would like to use this forum to call on the Chief Education Officer and his technical staff to revise this points system. I understand what is being attempted, but it has missed the mark big time. I hope the players are humble enough to reconsider their output.

In its current form, it will disenfranchise an untold number of teachers, especially those who up to last month had reached the gold standard.

Incidentally, I have a MA degree, which was a double degree and joint award from two leading German universities, one of which is the Berlin School of Economics. One degree in International Economics and the other in Labour Policies, for which these technical issues formed a major component. So, apart from my commentary on a public-interest matter, I believe I am qualified to speak on this subject. Please consider the thinking espoused in the alternative table below.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.