High qualifications not productivity - Daily Nation

The directive by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) that teachers who aspire to be promoted to secondary school principals must possess a master’s degree in the relevant subjects led to shortlisted candidates being barred from the interviews.

Though since suspended, it raises issues that have repeatedly been debated internationally concerning education qualifications, productivity and earnings.

Angela Little, an authority on the subject, coined a title for these three interrelated issues: "The eternal triangle. In Education Versus Qualifications".

She observed that “the proposition that education is directly related to productivity is a truism so deeply self-evident that few have thought to question it. The human capital theory has entrenched the belief that more education will lead to increased productivity in all sectors in all corners of the globe.

The belief sustains and reinforces the activities of education and manpower planners. In turn, these activities perpetuate this belief.”

This train of thought is that the more educated one is, the more productive one becomes and, therefore, deserves more earnings.

However, an analysis of the issues raised by the TSC and the Kenya Union of Post-Primary Educational Teachers (Kuppet) in relation to contemporary international management practices proves otherwise.

First, the duties of a principal are many and diverse. They, of necessity, must have some training on administration, finance, psychology, planning, philosophy, curriculum implementation, human resource management, human and public relations and team building techniques, among others.

A first degree holder in education would have had some basic training in these areas upon graduation.

A teacher who enrols for a master’s degree would have to specialise in only one area of study of the wide array these subjects or a secondary school teaching subject.

The master’s degree holder will, hence, still largely rely on their undergraduate training in carrying on most duties.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that a teacher who acquires a master’s degree in, say, chemistry, geography, history or physics becomes a better principal than undergraduate teachers in the same school, and yet the TSC will treat these subjects as relevant for the purpose of promoting the teacher to be a principal.

I would rather have such master’s degree holders promoted to equivalent grades as principals but retained in the classroom as subject expert teachers but not administrators.

On the other hand, a teacher who qualifies to be a certified public accountant (CPA), which is equivalent to a master’s degree, may not be recognised for promotion as a principal because accounting is not a stand-alone teaching subject, and yet accounting of school funds is now one of the critical duties of a principal.

Secondly, in an era of performance management, each employer would reward an employee on the basis of meeting all their targets.

If a principal with a first degree can meet all the targets in the management of a school, why would they need to possess a master’s degree?

Thirdly, the basic qualification of the chairperson of the TSC, the commissioners and the chief executive officer is a first degree.

The TSC is a massive and strategic organisation whose policy decisions and activities impact greatly on all sectors of the economy.

Since its bosses are, by law, required to posses such qualifications with that level of responsibility, why would they insist on master’s degrees for principals?

Fourthly, there are thousands of primary schoolteachers who have acquired first degrees over the years but have not had their salaries adjusted accordingly.

The TSC’s argument against the upgrading of these teachers, apart from budgetary constraints, has all along been that the acquisition of degrees would assist them to perform better, leading to promotion.

This narrative follows the internationally accepted norm that better qualifications lead to higher productivity, hence more earnings. This makes sense.

However, the insistence on a master’s degree for one to be appointed as a principal negates the TSC’s argument against promotion of first degree holders, as it implies that the employer will be rewarding master’s degree holders with higher earnings before they prove their productivity. That is ironic.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Well over 20 years ago, Little questioned employers’ insistence on particular qualification levels for particular jobs.

This is what has been described the “diploma disease”. The TSC could be perpetuating it.