By Azael Masese
Classroom teachers are not properly monitored and evaluated on the effectiveness of their teaching methods and the expected outcomes, Teacher Service Commission (TSC) has revealed.
Consequently, it will take a while for them to measure up to the Performance Contracting (PC) and Teacher Performance Appraisal and Development (TPAD) expectations.
The lapses are further aggravated by poor communication between the County Directors (CDs), Sub County Directors (SCDs) and Curriculum Support Officers (CSOs) on issues that touch on the Commission.
These observations were made after the Commission carried out a county level assessment on the implementation of PC and TPAD between 9th and 13th, 2017 across the country’s 47 counties.
PC and TPAD are tools aimed at supporting teachers improve their teaching competencies.
Through this appraisal and development system, it is envisaged that teachers will become more empowered to regain the lost glory of the teaching profession and earn public confidence and support.
In most cases, lack of proper documentation on teachers classroom work such as lesson attendance and lesson observation reports for 2nd term 2017 lays bare failures by the teachers to justify their work.
Besides, some of the teachers’ targets were overrated with no or little evidence to show for it as well as incomplete and varied schemes of work.
While some teachers are well versed with the TPAD, others have no clear indication of preparedness and lack thereof and the varying learning outcomes likely to be registered in the country.
In Kericho County for example, there was no monitoring schedule done for the whole county only fragmented schedule for sub counties independently done.
In Elgeyo Marakwet, learners’ exercise books were rarely checked and the lesson plans not regularly updated.
Pockets of challenges were also identified in other counties such as Nairobi where evidence for lesson observation report was not made available.
The report further indicates inconsistencies in the data provided by the CDs in terms of the number of schools and teachers with what was provided by SCDs and CSOs.
“They (CDs, SCDs, and CSOs) did not know the number of schools or teachers they had and there were instances of performance management copies not countersigned by the county director,” the report says in part.
A further indictment is that rarely did the CDs visit the CSO offices and could not show evidence that they monitored the performance of the officers they supervised especially the SCDs and CSOs.
Besides, there was no evidence to show that the CDs had mechanism to supervise SCDs and CSOs in PC and TPAD implementation programme.
It also noted of an ill-prepared Commission to supervise teachers as some of the tools from the Ministry of Education were being used by CSOs for lesson observation and lesson attendance.
It was noted that the field staff did not maintain data or updated records on PC and TPAD reports and some of the county reports did not reflect the reality on the ground.
Non compliance with guidelines and timelines was noted in that the heads of institutions were rated before the end of the year instead of January, hence the reports might not capture the true reflection on the ground.
In some cases, monitoring schools close to the County TSC offices had not been done.
It noted of laxity in performance of duties in that some of the CDs, SCDs and CSOs did not have adequate information on their areas of jurisdiction.
On communication, the report indicates that there was poor collaboration amongst the three levels of CDs, SCDs and CSOs, coordination and harmonization of reports was lacking.
“It was observed that most of the CDs did not adequately share information with other field officers, for instance, it was noted that CDs had not shared PC and TPAD monitoring feedback report given by the Commission with other officers.
An internal memo by TSC Acting Director (Teacher Management), Mrs. Mary Rotich noted that though there was some improvement registered in the implementation of PC and TPAD, she urged County Directors to be more precise on some areas.
“You are expected to specifically ensure maintenance of updated data on teacher management at all levels, (Zonal, Sub County, and County),” she says.
The internal memo dated 19th February 2018 states that the data has to be specific with reference to teacher absenteeism, number of schools, and number of teachers.
It is also expected to have issues of learners enrollment, teacher-learner contact hours, teacher appraised and those not appraised signing of performance contract for heads of institution.
“The above data for term three 2017 should be displayed in the respective offices and subsequently by the 15th day of the first month of a new term,” she said in her communication to the TSC County Directors.
The teachers’ employer is now mulling over some interventions to remedy the situation in future. The Commission notes that the next monitoring and evaluation exercise will focus on Sub counties and the role of the SCDs in the implementation of PC and TPAD.
This is aimed at improving the quality of instructional supervision, professional support offered to teachers and dissemination of information and feedback to both officers and teachers.
It will then be extended to tertiary level institutions as part of maintenance of teaching standards.
Visiting the best and poor performing schools in national examinations will then follow.
Ranking the counties per their performance in PC and TPAD implementation will close the chapter.
