THE GOVERNMENT deserves credit for its attempts to tackle the criminal, waiting-list system for the appointment of secondary school teachers. Understandably, it has not gone for the radical approach of abolishing the waiting-list and introducing a rational and meritocratic system because such a move would have caused a rebellion by graduates waiting to be appointed as well as the teaching unions.
It opted instead for a gradual approach, opening up the appointment process while also giving jobs to people on the waiting-list which would be phased out over a period of several years. Unions, as well as the ludicrously named, Movement of Un-Appointed Teachers, which had vehemently opposed any changes to the waiting list system, unexpectedly, accepted the government’s compromise proposal. They have however rejected the idea that the selection of candidates for teaching jobs would have to be through exams.
The argument against the exams, used by the state teachers’ union, is not without merit. It has said that an exam cannot establish whether a candidate would make a good teacher. But the other argument used, that an exam would nullify the qualifications of a candidate who may have a Master’s or a PhD, is far from convincing. Someone could have all types of qualifications, but this is no guarantee that he or she would make a good teacher. A PhD is of no value to someone teaching secondary school children?
While an exam is not the best way to evaluate a candidate, who may be good at written tests and incapable of teaching, there must be some objective criteria for choosing teachers. After all, the idea of scrapping the waiting list is to open up competition among the candidates, as is the practice for all other job applications. We want our schools to hire the best applicants for teaching jobs, irrespective of age and how many PhDs they may have.
But the unions and the un-appointed teachers want as little real competition as possible to enter the hiring procedure. The latter have proposed that points should be awarded to candidates, for years spent on the waiting list, for qualifications and for service in private schools, and those with the most points would be given priority. This would minimise competition, if not eliminate it altogether. Although far from ideal, an exam seems the only way to introduce a certain level of competition.
Of course the best solution would be for each state school to advertise vacancies and hire its own teachers, by interviewing candidates instead of the cumbersome centralised system that exists at present. And to ensure there is no favouritism, there should be a parents’ representative on the hiring committee; parents would want the best applicant to get the job because the decision would affect their children’s education. This would remove the politicians from the hiring procedure, eliminate favouritism and create real competition for teaching jobs.
