I’m trying to work out what teachers actually object to in the new evaluation system. Even the union bosses representing them haven’t given us a straight answer.
All we hear is: “If the final text doesn’t incorporate our organisation’s positions, OELMEK will proceed with dynamic measures of resistance”. That’s OELMEK, the secondary teachers’ union. And POED, the primary teachers’ lot? Same script.
So I’ve gone hunting through other informed sources for their main gripe, and it turns out to be this: they don’t want the school head involved in evaluating them. Which is frankly bizarre.
There isn’t a single private company or government department where the director doesn’t have a say in assessing their staff—whether for promotions, pay, performance, or dedication. Whatever’s at stake for an employee, the person who has the right—and the duty—to weigh in is their line manager, their director.
In schools, heads aren’t descended from heaven on a sunbeam. They’re teachers with years of experience. Why shouldn’t they have a say? And after all the consultations, their input’s been whittled down to 15%.
That’s right—according to discussions in Parliament’s Education Committee, the head’s contribution to the numerical grade will be worth 15%, with inspectors accounting for 85%.
Not only that, but because teachers flatly refuse any evaluation by their director—they’re “afraid” he’ll be biased (get that logic, as if this could only happen in schools and nowhere else)—MPs agreed to bring in the deputy head or the senior head as well, to provide safeguards for the teacher. They won’t accept even that. They don’t want evaluation by their line manager, full stop.
But seriously, who actually decides on an absolutely necessary reform? The government, Parliament, or the unions? Because when the government and Parliament spend months listening to the union organisations, respecting their objections, and agreeing to modifications that ought to satisfy them, it’s absurd for the unions to keep digging in their heels simply because the final text doesn’t incorporate every single one of their demands. If that’s how it works, the unions should just draft the evaluation system themselves, table it in Parliament for a vote, and save everyone else the bother.
At some point the talking has to stop and the state has to move forward, regardless of who disagrees. You can’t please everyone on everything.
The teachers, whom we respect (the ones who deserve respect, naturally)—if we always did what they wanted, education would still be stuck in Makarios’s era.
Let me remind you, shall I, about the teaching appointments system and the eternal waiting list. It was recognised as archaic and counterproductive in 1989. A reform decision was taken in 2015, to be fully implemented in 2027.
That’s 38 years of studies, discussions, rows, and party political meddling (with teachers outside Parliament shouting themselves hoarse) over an essential reform.
Nine education ministers pushed this reform forward, and when the tenth in line (Costas Kadis) took it to Parliament for implementation three years later, the parties pushed full implementation of the new system—and abolition of the list—back another twelve years.
Come 2027, we don’t even know if implementation will be postponed yet again, because that’s already being discussed.
This time, let MPs, parties, and the government show more backbone. Push the reform through democratically, with the modifications they’ve agreed on, and let the unions and AKEL complain—AKEL loses all sense of proportion on these issues. After all, perfection was never on the cards.
