Teachers’ appointment


AS a concerned Lutheran, I wish to raise my concern and disappointment over the most-striking manner in which principals and head teachers were appointed by Eastern Highlands provincial education hoard (PEB) for 2019 academic year at our agency schools.
In an unprecedented move, the PEB effected the appointments prior to the close of the school year, creating chaos for affected teachers in ending the school year successfully.
While it is the prerogative of the PEB to make appointments, it is the norm and standard practice for it to consult the church when principals and head teachers are being considered for its agency schools.
Consultation is the key note to the selection and appointment process.
Under the existing arrangement, the church plays the aprinciple and decisive role in recommendation of its teachers.
Appointment of teachers, especially in the Lutheran Agency schools, has reached a critical juncture.
There is substantial evidence of ignorance church principles by the district Lutheran education board (DLEB).
The district education secretary is the representative of the church to the PEB.
The DLEB has repeatedly swept the philosophy and identity of the church under the carpet when it comes to selection of Lutheran teachers at its agency schools.
In marked contrast to fulfilling its explicit roles and functions, the DLEB has lost sight and refuses to respect and protect rights and interests of the church.
Potential Lutheran teachers are destroyed in whole or part by the environment create.
This is permitted by the DLEB and leaves them in total insecurity in terms of recognition for promotion.
This is not so much a matter of argument, but should not be tolerated at the expense of serving Lutheran teachers who often fall helpless victims.
There is a crying need for the hierarchy of the church at Ampo to step up its role and take a decisive stand on this issue.
The situation at Asaroka Lutheran Secondary School in Eastern Highlands is a case in point.
The church has recommended its teachers to head the school pursuant with relevant provisions in the Education Act.
The director of the education division, who is the chairman of the PEB, is arguing and protesting against the church nominee.
The church has clearly stated its position and given explicit direction to the director of education through the office of the provincial administrator.
I appeal to the PA to intervene in this matter and resolve it amicably to respect and protect the right and interest of the church.

D. Inapero, Goroka