Dear Editor,
The recent Preliminary Senior Promotion List published by the Teaching Service Commission and the School Boards Secretariat has sparked widespread concern about the credibility of the application process. With that said, I write to express my concerns regarding the publication of a preliminary list that appears to contain significant irregularities and the unfairness of the measures a teacher has to take to seek redress.
Firstly, teachers have been disadvantaged by the late publication of these senior vacancies. These senior vacancies were advertised only after an approximate three-year period during which no senior vacancies were advertised. Since teachers’ pensions are calculated on their last substantive position, many teachers seek promotions to headship and deputy headship to acquire a higher pension as they retire. In the past, once a teacher was nearing retirement, he or she was promoted to facilitate the aforementioned. However, the non-publication of vacancies for that extended period, from 2023 to 2026, has resulted in many teachers who were eligible for senior promotion to retire without being promoted. This situation can be seen as a great injustice to teachers, many of whom have given in excess of thirty (30) years of service.
Secondly, many eligible teachers were not given the opportunity to apply for the vacancies advertised at some of the secondary schools. The criteria that once qualified a Senior Master/Mistress or a Head of Department to apply for a Deputy Head position at a senior secondary school changed which restricted these categories of teachers from applying for a position that was once opened to them. The new criteria stated that a teacher had to be a deputy head or a head of a junior secondary school to apply for that position. Many find this to be preposterous since in the past, these very teachers were promoted to these schools and have served with distinction. Additionally, the absurdity is evident in the administrative appointments of a select few from junior secondary schools to serve in those same leadership positions. Also, many teachers have expressed dissatisfaction with the current point system which awards one point for every five trained years of service.
Many teachers are of the view that even though the Teaching Service Commission and the School Boards Secretariat had three years to execute a seamless promotion exercise, they have executed a promotion exercise far from seamless, and which may result in court proceedings similar to July, 2015.
Next, I continue with the challenges teachers experienced during the application process. The applications were completed online, and after submission, there was a pop-up message confirming the successful submission of the application. Many teachers took screenshots of this message since they did not receive any other confirmation. However, when teachers enquired about their non-appointment to schools, they were reportedly told that there is no application for them in the system, and that they need to produce an email from TSC which they did not receive. Allow me to substantiate the non-receipt of emails with statistics for those who will try to refute this. On the 5th July, a Google Form entitled, “Senior Promotions 2026 Concerns” was circulated and of the 160 teachers who responded, 69% of them did not receive a confirmation email, but they are being asked to produce something they did not receive.
Of equal concern, the non-appointment of teachers to some of the advertised vacancies is questionable. This has inevitably given rise to speculation that the vacancies may later be filled administratively, thus undermining the integrity of the process. It is therefore fair to ask: Why was no one appointed to those schools? After all of the injustices faced by teachers, the School Boards Secretariat has published a form which I have attached to this letter, that requires teachers who are seeking redress through the review process to provide information such as the dates of appointments as a Trained Teacher, Graduate Teacher and Senior Teacher along with the qualifications of the successful applicant. This information is neither publicly known nor ordinarily accessible to applicants, so how are teachers expected to access such information about the successful applicant to appeal the decision. This requirement is reportedly perceived by many teachers as an unnecessary obstacle to seeking redress.
In closing, I humbly offer the following recommendations, and call on the Teaching Service Commission and the School Boards Secretariat to implement measures that will restore trust in their ability to conduct fair and credible promotions:
Teachers deserve a system that is not only said to be fair, but is seen to be fair.