Sir Winston Churchill, in his book, My Early Life, asserted that “headmasters have power at their disposal with which prime ministers have never yet been invested”.
This statement, coming from a prime minister — of the United Kingdom, no less! — is quite telling.
Among the functions of boards of management (BoM), legally mandated through the Basic Education Act 2012, are to promote the best interests of the institution and ensure its development; promote quality education for all pupils in accordance with standards set under the Basic Education Act or any other written law, and ensure and assure the provision of proper and adequate physical facilities for the institution.
BoMs would, ideally, prepare strategic plans, complete with implementation matrices for sequential and predictable all-round development of the school.
However, a situation has arisen in the past few years that the Ministry of Education imposes additional Form One slots, ranging from one stream of 45 students to as many as three streams of 135 students at the beginning of the year.
But these are students that the BoMs are not prepared for in terms of availability of classrooms, laboratories, boarding amenities and teachers.
This leads to haphazard quick-fix solutions by the BoMs to accommodate the extra students. This quick unexpected expansion is neither contained in the schools’ strategic plan nor the official registration certificate of the school that is, ironically, issued by the ministry.
On the other hand, the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) has been administering performance contracts to principals of secondary schools over the past few years. Unfortunately, the templates used do not provide for BoMs to participate in setting targets for the boards through its secretary, who is the principal. This is as if the principal runs the school to the exclusion of the board!
Furthermore, the commitments that the TSC makes to the principal are not as exhaustive as one would expect in views of its core mandate of supplying teachers to public schools.
The third area of assault on the authority of the BoMs is at the school level.
In the past, schools needed to mobilise resources through fundraisers to meet their development needs.
The principals would engage BoM members exhaustively on this matter because they were able to organise and mobilise resources for the schools’ benefit.
In the past one and a half decades or so, however, fundraisers in schools have reduced considerably while, at the same time, schools are fairly well funded by the joint efforts of the ministry and parents through the user charges.
An effective principal who can organise and mobilise parents to pay more than 85 per cent of the user charges on yearly basis can actually run the school comfortably.
In such situations, the principal may not attach much value to the presence of the BoMs because the school would be fairly well resourced.
In the interest of harmonious and co-ordinated delivery of education in secondary schools, in line with the provisions of the Basic Education Act 2012 and the TSC Act 2012, and in the interest of the child, is that the following need to be considered for implementation.
First, the enrolment of pupils in Standard Eight, Seven and Six are known.
Through the 100 per cent transition policy of primary to secondary school, the government can plan well in advance for the needs of these pupils before they join Form One.
There is a need to identify the schools that need to be expanded at least a year in advance and, hence, involve the relevant BoMs in the task so that the schools are ready to receive the additional students in the respective years.
Secondly, the TSC should use data on the schools identified for expansion to plan for the provision of the required teachers as projected.
Thirdly, the TSC need to involve the BoMs in the performance contracts that it signs with the principals, either as signatories or witnesses.
Furthermore, the TSC’s commitments need to be more specific on its core mandate of the supply of teachers to schools than currently stated.
It may need to specify the percentage of teachers that it can supply on a continuous basis.
Fourthly, BoM members must assert themselves through the powers conferred upon them by the relevant laws.
The option of BoMs playing second fiddle to the principals in schools is detrimental to the objectives of setting up the schools.
Their oversight role on the principal, teachers and non-teaching staff cannot be replaced in spite of Sir Winston’s assertion.
Credit: Source link