Unfit teachers: Kaduna’s conundrum

The Kaduna State government’s efforts at re-jigging the foundation of the education system in the North-West state are far from being concluded, even though the journey started in 2017. After laying off the 22,000 primary school teachers who failed a competency test based on questions meant for primary four pupils, it has been unable to fully replace the incompetent teachers. The Kaduna State universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) had earlier advertised 25,000 vacancies for classroom teachers. But only about 15,897 teachers were recently offered employment based on a supposedly competitive recruitment exercise. Even then, it was discovered that 4,562 of that number could not write intelligible letters accepting the offer of employment. The state Commissioner for Education, Alhaji Ja’afaru Sani, explained that these teachers were not employed because they found their ways into the final list through dubious means.

Sani said: “At the end, 4,562 incompetent ones, believed to have found their way into the final list illegally, were fished out, leaving 11,335 competent ones. The 11,335 newly-recruited teachers, predominantly degree holders, including a few with Masters degrees, have already been deployed to over 4,000 primary schools. This was after they had undergone vigorous induction training, along with the remaining old teachers, to equip them with modern teaching techniques and effective classroom management. We are hoping that between now and next month ending, we will be concluding the recruitment process of the balance of 13,665 teachers.”

But the question may be asked as to how incompetent teachers found their way into the final list illegally in a competitive exercise that was specifically targeted at very competent hires, especially against the backdrop of where the state was coming from. It will be recalled that we had commended the state government in our previous editorials when it insisted on disengaging some unfit teachers because we believe that incompetent teachers are a problem for the system. In other words, we supported the government at a time when its action was trailed by condemnations from many quarters, most of which, though, were based on emotions and sentiments. However, the government deserves to be reprimanded for unduly delaying the filling of the vacancies occasioned by the initial sack of the 22,000 unfit teachers.

To be sure, it is not being suggested that the 4,562 teachers who could not write proper job acceptance letters  should have been foisted on the educational system in the state. The state government acted right in not employing them. But the point being made is that they should not have found their way into the final list in the first place. Clearly, the state government has a bounden duty to find out and prosecute those who smuggled the names of the incompetent teachers into the final list. Their action could have cost the state very dearly if not for the seeming rigour introduced into the recruitment process.

Besides, if the actual vacancies were 25,000 teachers and only about 11,335 have been filled, what has been happening to the pupils the balance of 13,665 was supposed to cater to?  Could it be that they have been left in the lurch since the gap was created and will remain so for as long as the shortfall exists?  That is not good enough, especially because it was avoidable. There is no way  11,335  teachers  will  do the work meant for 25,000, particularly at that  level of education where much attention is needed to lay a solid foundation for children of impressionable ages.

We align with the determination of the state government to sanitise and reform its education system by ensuring that a very competent faculty is made available for primary school education in the state. We however urge it to ensure that a more thorough job is done in the next round of teacher recruitment in the state so that the wheat is separated from the chaff very early enough. The pupils who currently do not have teachers should not continue to suffer through no fault of theirs.