adminOF late daggers have been drawn and pointed at the Primary and Secondary Education Minister Dr Lazarus Dokora owing to an array of controversial changes he has adopted since assuming office. Some of the contentious issues that have put the minister on a warpath with teachers, especially those in urban areas, include the banning of extra lessons and scrapping of teachers’ incentives.
The Manica Post education columnist, Morris Mtisi (MM), this week caught up with the president of the newly formed Zimbabwe Rural Teachers’ Union, Mr Martin Chaburumunda (MC), to get his opinion on what the new union has to offer, the welfare of the rural teacher, the learning conditions and standards in rural schools, the poor pass rate and the contentious issue of incentives.
Chaburumunda said Government must invest in the construction and rehabilitation of rural schools to bridge the academic gap and exposure between the urban and rural child. He said his union was fully behind the ministerial directive banning incentives and feels a multiplicity of factors were contributing to the poor pass rate and merely blaming it on teacher incentives equals alleging sabotage on the part of teachers.
Here are the excerpts:
MM: I want to welcome you to this interview, Mr Chaburumunda. First of all, can you tell us if your union is recognised and registered? You may be aware that the minister was recently quoted as saying there were only three registered and recognised teachers’ union in Zimbabwe.
MC: Thank you for granting me this opportunity to shed light on the operations of the Zimbabwe Rural Teachers’ Union. We are a fully registered and recognised union with a membership exceeding 3 500 across the country. Registration of the union was done on October 4, 2012 and the protocol number is PS 02 / 12. We have offices in Harare, Mutare and Rusape and we are in the process of establishing offices in growth points, which are closer to our members.
MM: It is generally true that there is power in unity. Why have you chosen to further split the voice of teachers by forming a new union?
MC: It has been noted that some of the unions specialised in urbanised communities while neglecting the rural areas, where we feel we need more representation given disadvantages associated with the geological and marginalised location. The formation of this union was borne out of the need to fill this yawning gap. The rural teacher was a Cinderella. Nobody visited the rural areas to get an appreciation of what they were going through.
MM: What does your association offer which other teachers’ unions or organization have failed to offer?
MC: Our arrival has already made a positive impact in the representation of the rural teacher. We have carried out an audit of needs of our members – and we are engaging Government to capacitate them with land, mineral claims, farming inputs, livestock and irrigation facilities as self-starter projects. We are also engaging rural district councils to allocate these teachers residential stands at growth points, at affordable prices and relaxed terms, to bridge the gap between them and their urban counterparts.
MM: You have one employer, and one Government. Do you think it views further divisions as a sign of seriousness or sheer appeal for attention and greed?
MC: This is not a matter of division, but an addition of representation from foot soldiers in marginalised areas who can give a verbatim of their working conditions and the plight of the rural child and parent. In the past negation outcomes were influenced by an urbanite mentality, thereby widening the gap between the rural and urban teacher and child. The majority of the schools are in the rural areas, but rarely have we had negotiations championing the interests of the rural teacher. The outcomes elbowed the rural teacher and child out of the equation. So it ceases to be an appeal for attention when, as you see, the rural teacher is operating from a disused tobacco barn, in grass-thatched structures, with kids seated in dust, without textbooks, blackboard and chalk. When you champion for corrective measures to be taken — with the aim to advance the academic pursuance of the rural child, and resultantly the working condition of the teacher and the learning environment — are we not fighting a genuine cause with a buy-in of the impoverished rural parent? We want churches, Government and councils to build and improve the learning environment at the existing rural schools. Standards at rural schools have gone down.
MM: Why do teachers talk loudly about their welfare at the expense of final examination results and teaching standards?
MC: Our approach is different from the rest. Our experience as rural teachers has taught us to view the challenges and solutions as intertwined. We are saying the welfare of the teacher can improve with an improvement in the learning environment and standards at rural schools. If new infrastructure is built, the schools electrified, computerised and accessible, these will impact positively on the learning environment and subsequently the welfare of the teacher. For the rural teacher to meet or exceed the expectations, we need to reinforce these rewards, the operating environment, which is the bottom line. The results are symptomatic of the operating condition of the rural teacher.
MM: What is you organisation’s view on the issue of incentives and holiday lessons?
MC: If ever they were necessary, they were supposed to benefit the rural teacher and rural child. The fact that they were meant for the urban teachers depicts their irrelevance. Our membership never benefited from them nor has the rural child. Our counterparts were getting between $300 and $500 while we got $5 to $20. The employer is the same, the job is the same, but the reward is less for the rural teacher operating in an already disadvantaged and marginalised environment. Our expectations are the same — and what did the incentives seek to achieve when there was no uniformity? We actually added a strong voice on their banishment because they were divisive and unfair.
MM: Why are teachers louder than other civil servants on the issue of incentives? Is it fair if Government addresses teachers’ incentives and becomes silent on other civil servants incentives?
MC: Have you ever heard rural teachers joining the chorus of incentives? We never benefited from them, and this question, as noble as it is, must be directed at the unions whose members were beneficiaries of the scheme. We prefer the status quo or a situation where they (incentives) are equitably distributed.
MM: Do you foresee a future situation where all teachers’ unions come together to speak with one voice for the common improvement of your working conditions and welfare?
MC: It is possible for as long as the worst condition of the rural teacher is used as the bargaining point. We must articulate these issues from the perspective of the disadvantaged. If we cease to have sectoral interests that disadvantage others, yes.
MM: What does you association view as the main cause of the dismal national pass rate?
MC: Several factors contribute to the dismal performance of candidates in final exams. Our education system was plagued by numerous problems for the past years. The impediments include low pass rates, shortages of teachers and schools, the marking scheme and the general attitude of candidates and teachers. The low pass rate, to an extent, is reflective of the low morale among teachers, but blaming it on incentives and extra lessons issues implies sabotage on the teachers’ part. English, Maths and Science are most failed subjects and hence contribute mostly to our low pass rate. We have a shortage of teachers in these subjects plus most schools, especially those in the rural areas, do not have proper laboratories and equipment to conduct science subjects. The other thing is the lack of parental involvement in our education sector. They tend to believe that the learning process is a student-teacher relationship only yet they have a lot to do monitoring the progress of their children. We need to properly investigate this matter for the country to avoid repeating the same ills.
MM: What is your comment about Government’s idea of Result Based Management (RBM) against the teachers’ pressure for incentives? Why should teachers demand incentives if they are not bringing the results in the schools?
MC: We are aware of Government worry about claims that teachers are not being serious. As such it is drafting mechanisms aimed at compelling its workers to deliver. We need the basic resources at the disposal of the rural teacher against which out output can be measured. However, an intensive survey we did in our constituency proved that this RBM initiative does not work because there is no straight edge to measure the results. Some schools have nothing and others are well up. In some cases teachers end up between the proverbial rock and hard place. We work with little human minds. Imparting knowledge to the next person needs concentration and style. We need an environment where teachers are not worried about anything else but their divine calling. Why should teachers in this era worry about working conditions and supplementing their meagre salaries than teaching? These are issues that need to be solved first so that teachers focus on actual teaching and manage the learning process. There is need to improve teachers’ conditions of service so that teachers of high calibre can be attracted and retained in the field and massive investment has to be directed towards the construction of rural schools and rehabilitation of existing ones.
MM: Thank you, sir. We can rest our case here. It was a pleasure talking to you.
MC: Thank you for recognising our existence. Please, come back again.
Online Reporter