ISLAMABAD: The abrupt and ill-timed change in the annual evaluation system of teachers by Federal Directorate of Education (FDE) a few days back and shifting this responsibility to the Area Education Officers (AEOs) has perturbed the teachers.
According to an official source, the decision came when many principals had already written the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the year 2020 adopting previous procedure.
If new procedure was adopted, hundreds of written ACRs will be wasted and thrown into bins due to late decision of FDE.
In its notification issued on January 22, FDE allowed the Area Education Officers (AEO) to evaluate the annual performance of BPS-19 officers like principals, vice principals and associate professors.
He will also be responsible to countersign the ACRs of lecturers (BPS-17) and assistant professors (BPS-18) of the institutions under the umbrella of the FDE. The ACRs of principals BPS-20 and 21 will be written by the concerned director and director general will countersign the ACRs.
Logically it should be the prerogative of the immediate boss or an officer who directly supervises the work of a subordinating official as it used to be the practice previously.
Only the principal and vice principal of the institution can ideally evaluate the performance of any other senior officer working in the same institution.
It is illogical and ridiculous that an officer (AEO) who never interacted with the officers of a college/school will countersign the ACRs of the staff of educational institutions and write the ACRs of principals and vice principal of BPS-19, expressed a senior officer in grade-19 while talking to APP on condition of anonymity.
A lecturer at Islamabad Model College for Girls (Postgraduate) F-7/2 said, “Earlier vice principal wrote the ACRs of lecturers BPS-17 and assistant professors BPS-18 and principal countersigned the ACRs. In case of associate professors BPS-19, principal wrote the ACR and concerned director countersigned the ACRs.
This is so because principal, vice principal and concerned director had the instant knowledge about teacher’s performance as they possessed the personal files and all other record of teachers. It was the good system of evaluation.
Conversely, AEO does not have information about teachers because he never interacts with them and he does not have any record of teachers in his office. How can he write or countersign the ACRs of teachers?, she questioned.
An associate professor at Islamabad Model Postgraduate College H-8 said, “Writing ACR is very sensitive as promotion of teachers depends on their performance. If performance is not evaluated justly, it will cause unrest and dissatisfaction among teachers, he warned authorities who are acting arbitrarily.
Talking about the disordered administrative hierarchy, he added, the AEO in urban area of Islamabad is like a misfit in the administrative hierarchy of FDE and colleges so the ACRs should be written by the immediate bosses.
Moreover, a clear and effective administrative structure should be established for various levels of communication within an organization. It is ridiculous and unnatural that a BPS-21 principal has two bosses i.e director and AEO, both holding BPS-19.
He further elaborated, “Neither, the AEO posts for urban areas were not sanctioned nor were such officers needed in the presence of the FDE directors and director general. However, the remote rural areas needed AEOs to monitor and assist in operation in a large number of primary, middle and secondary schools.
The two AEOs for urban Islamabad are no more than mere bureaucratic burden on the set up and public exchequers. There’s no harmony between urban area AEO and college heads as there is already a director who looks after the matters of urban schools and colleges.”
Professor Tahir Mahmood, the representative of Federal Government College Teachers Association (FGCTA) said, “ACRs system will be ineffective and will not serve the purpose until clear role and responsibilities of director and AEO are not defined.
There existed no idea of AEO in urban areas of Federal capital some 4 years ago. Only director was overseeing the institutions situated in urban area of capital. With the induction of Urban AEOs, chain of command at FDE became disordered. As Urban AEOs are alien to the teachers, the ACRs should be written carefully by the principals and vice principals because outcome of ACRs consequently affect the teacher’s career in future.
When contacted, the Director General, FDE, Dr Ikram Ali Malik told APP that the slight changes have been made in the policy however still principal and vice principals are the reporting officers for evaluation of the ACRs of teachers.
Principal will be the reporting officer for all its employees including professors or lecturers and write the ACRs while the Area Education Officers will be the countersigning authority, he said.
The DG pointed out that the only difference will be that the ACRs of the principals will be written by the Area Education Officers while the respective director schools or colleges will be the countersigning authority.
Comments
Comments are closed.