Teachers’ promotion preliminary list…Schools Board Secretariat makes almost two dozen changes

Apr 11, 2017 News

---

Similar to the mandated review completed by the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) over a week ago, multiple changes have been made to the list of senior promotions that has been completed by the Schools Board Secretariat.
Like the TSC, the Schools Board Secretariat was mandated by a court ruling, to review its preliminary list of promotions.
Based on the information this publication has been privy to, 22 changes were made to the preliminary list of promotions that was completed in 2015. According to the information which has been substantiated by President of the Teachers’ Union, Mark Lyte, the Schools Board 2015 list contained 35 appointments.
These included promotions for head teachers, deputy head teachers, senior masters/mistresses, heads of department, administrators, senior lecturers and vice principals.
According to Lyte, when the new list was scrutinised by the union it was revealed that there were 22 changes.
The current list has “26 appointments reducing the number of appointees by nine. These changes were necessary due to the fact that some appointees did not satisfy the criteria as set out in the advertisement; applicants were awarded points for qualifications that attach no points.”
“Generally, GTU is extremely satisfied with the review process since it indicates that the School Boards were doing their own thing much to the detriment of the system,” said Lyte.
“We are ready to move forward in the new term and it is hoped that with the move to have TSC do all senior promotions, employment and discipline in the next phase and onwards that the system will allow for fairer treatment of all applicants.”
In November, Chief Justice, Yonette Cummings-Edwards, ruled that the TSC and the Schools Board Secretariat must review their process of promotion for 2015.
This followed on the heels of months of prolonged delay to the process caused by a court matter that was set in motion by the GTU. The union initially filed an injunction to halt the process against the background that there were concerns with how the preliminary list was derived.
The mandated review commenced earlier this year.
The TSC review, according to Lyte, revealed more than 70 changes. It was ascertained that the TSC found several teachers who were identified for promotions on the previous preliminary list of senior promotions. It was deduced that these teachers following the court-mandated review were found to not be suitably qualified for positions for which they had applied.
According to Lyte, “The union feels vindicated that its call for a review has yielded substantial changes. I have perused the document [new promotion list] and found that there are 73 changes. They include people changing in terms of the names that were on the previous list,” said Lyte of the TSC list.
“We insisted that something was amiss with the promotion process and we are happy that the court ruled in our favour. The list[s] we are now seeing prove that our concerns were valid,” Lyte underscored.
As he emphasised the changes in the TSC list, the GTU President pointed out that while there were about four teachers who were named on the previous list to be promoted to Mathematics Head of Department, at least one of these names has been removed from the list.
This is in light of the fact, Lyte noted, that the criteria for this promotion required that eligible teachers have a degree in the subject area.
“We found that one person who was appointed there, that person has since been removed from the list because upon their [TSC’s] perusal that person was not eligible,” Lyte noted.
Under the promotion category of English Head of Department, Lyte said that the previous list contained seven names.
However, the reviewed list reveals that four of these names have since been removed as these persons again were found to be not eligible for the senior promotion. Further, Lyte revealed that two names that were not previously there have been added.
There were similar occurrences for the position of Allied Arts Head of Department whereby TSC in its earlier preliminary list had promoted one individual who is no longer on the revised list since they did not meet the criteria.
Lyte also detailed multiple instances where there were identical occurrences in the promotion of Head Teachers and Deputy Head Teachers of various levels of schools. “All of these are significant and most of the [promotion categories] had several glaring insertions,” related Lyte.
According to him, although the wait for the changes to materialise was long, “it was worth it. Now the eligible teachers are being duly placed in their various positions.”
The promotions will be retroactive to September 1, 2015.

---

---