It is intriguing that the NLC leadership will trade its prestige and honour for the defence of its members who had demonstrated indefensible incompetence. The NLC leadership probably premised its agitation to sway the state government from terminating those teachers’ appointments on an aspect of the NLC’s objective which is “to continually promote, defend and advance the economic, political and social well-being of Nigerian workers.”
Coming from the viewpoint of defending his members, the position of the NLC President may be understood but to stop at that point is to stand logic on its head. What kind of members does the NLC protect? Incompetent members? Members who are not creating any value? Members who are destroying the country’s foundation for development? Teachers who cannot spell ‘commissioner’? Teachers who cannot spell ‘professor’? Teachers who do not understand the basics of letter writing? Teachers who cannot write an essay on how the last vacation was spent or how the last sallah was celebrated? Teachers who cannot carry out simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division exercises? Teachers who cannot effectively discharge their duties to the pupils they were engaged to impart knowledge to?
The first assumption for engaging those teachers was that they had the competence to impart knowledge to pupils assigned to them. But since they were unable to answer questions meant for those pupils, what is the basis for retaining them? By failing the competency test, they have destroyed the basis for remaining in the employ of the state government. So, why keep them? Is the NLC saying that retaining those individuals as teachers by the state government is of more importance than the proper training and grooming of those young minds? Pray, how will those individuals be able to continue as teachers knowing that the whole world is aware of their gross incompetence as pedagogues?
It is a surprise that Wabba and the NLC leadership would defend this kind of teachers. While unionism is about protecting the rights of members, it does not condone the violation of basic rules of engagement. If teachers fail the examination meant for their pupils, are they any better than the pupils? Are they worthy of being called teachers? Should they be retained by the state government to continue dishing out incorrect information to the pupils? Unionism is about defending what will improve the society, not what will destroy what the society holds dear. Unionism is about guarding against the degeneration of societal values, not championing it. By leading the protest against the sack of teachers who failed tests meant for their pupils, Wabba and his friends just demonstrated their contempt for our value as a people. They just showed that they would rather protect the interest of a few of their members than fight for the wellbeing of the society.
If Wabba or any of those protesting national leaders of the NLC were to run private schools would they employ any of the teachers who could not correctly mention the name of the state governor in their schools? Would they subject any of their children to the tutelage of such teachers? The education system is too critical to national development to be left in the care of those who do not value continuous personal development.
Rather than the disgraceful road show embarked upon by Wabba and company, they should have made representation to the state government to ensure three things. First, that nobody who failed to meet the cut-off point of 75 per cent is retained in the system, while no one who met the cut-off point is disengaged as a way of ensuring fairness to all the concerned teachers. The Congress should also have insisted on the continuous training of teachers who remain in the system and the 25,000 new ones the state government plans to employ as a way of ensuring that they continue to deliver value to the system. The Congress should also have prevailed upon the state government to effect prompt payment of the entitlements of the affected teachers so that the moment they are out of service they can start a new life on their own terms; a new life which may enable them to contribute more significantly to the uplift of the country.
Had the NLC leadership done this, they would have earned the respect of many Nigerians rather than the opprobrium they have subjected themselves to.
and then