[ad_1]
The design and implementation of the metrics deployed to gauge teacher effectiveness in Kenya leave the powerful policymakers, who are the real enablers, safe while targeting the frontline practice deliverers regardless of whether the failure was in their control or not.
Out of this national confusion, we are forever in battle mode, not on what we are measuring and what the education system values, but more on who is willing to be held to account. More naturally, the accountability hammer falls on those at the lowest rung of the ladder.
Our performance appraisal system focuses more on objects — classrooms, textbooks and lessons delivered — other than what students do or learn.
The national education data is manipulated even when our collective indicators look solid and pointing towards the right direction. The alteration and data gaming is evident in the lack of improved learning outcomes that are clear, distinct and laudable with all the investment happening in the sector from the primary to tertiary level.
This evidence is even made crystal-clear in the surveys by the Kenya National Examinations Council (Knec) and Uwezo learning assessment reports. Systematic discrepancies are evident when the two sets of data are placed side by side and the household surveys post lower achievement levels than school-based ones.
The system lacks effectiveness since too much data and information is collected and obtained in a format that is not very useful for decision making. The situation is made worse by decision makers not actively engaging in the tool improvement process and, therefore, lack a direct connection with the frustrations the lower cadre, who collect the data and use the tools, go through.
The data collection and processing phases are in a cycle that fails to deliver feedback to schools and, when effort is made, it is too late and schools have to move to the next level or cycle of data collection.
The tempo and vigour in the reform has not been sustained since the leadership in the sector has failed to develop an engagement framework to eliminate the rampant cases of engaging with stakeholders and end users through a scattered approach that incrementally steps down (incremental appeasement and watering down of reforms) on issues a section of the players may not be comfortable with.
Looking at PISA results from OECD countries in 2003, it is likely that the tools we are using are limited and fail to tell the completeness of the learning experience. The questions we need to keep asking are: Are we measuring learning using the right tools and in the right way? Do we need to be on the left (leave) and what we are doing on the right? This is evidenced by over 60 percent of primary school-going children in developing nations being unable to achieve minimum proficiency in learning.
The protests by the teacher unions and the muted voices of individual teachers are not unfounded and need to be dealt with in context. The unions should not use their numbers for convenience by exerting pressure on the Ministry of Education and Teachers Service Commission (TSC) to drop some of the otherwise non-progressive changes we need to move the sector to the next level.
The suggestion by TSC that teacher career progression and promotions be pegged on acquisition of a particular skills set and knowledge is not only laudable but needs to be refined and defined properly.
The ministry and TSC ought to co-ordinate further to help to alleviate the administrative load on the shoulders of the head teacher to help them set aside time to support teachers and to structure professional development plans for tutors who need mentorship and support.
TSC needs to develop a deliberate feedback loop for the appraisers and appraisees to give feedback not only on their professional development but also the frequency of appraisal and quality of tools. The ministry should ensure that teacher training colleges set aside time in the final years to prepare the teachers to be on the exigencies of the profession and what they will be appraised on. This can be rolled out during teaching practice for the trainees.
The framework to improve teacher quality is well grounded; but we need to ensure that, as we increase the contact hours, we also give the trainees time to have a feel of the tools they will use to collect data and obtain feedback.
We need to move the reform impetus from the learners to the colleges, where a new crop of teachers need to be produced urgently. Quality teachers will lead a quality world-class education system.
Mr Wesaya is an education and public policy expert at Tathmini Consulting. [email protected]
[ad_2]
