On the ongoing Career Progression Guidelines review and the comprehensive school debate, allow me to weigh in.

First, we welcome several proposals emerging from the CPG review. Where they improve career paths, clarify job groups, and reward professional growth, they deserve support. However, there should be clarity on the period at each new cadre even as we anticipate increased allocations for promotions in the coming years. That process is important and we engage it fully.

Second, on the question of Junior School structure and autonomy, our position has been consistent and clear.

1. Our position has not shifted

From day one of my campaigns I said it: Junior School needs _administrative and/or operational autonomy. That is the minimum structure to protect teaching, learning, and accountability for Grades 7–9. As we had proposed to the relevant authorities on the autonomy, we don’t move from that.

2. The policy space as it stands

Talks at policy level point toward a comprehensive K–9 structure. We have tabled our case for full JS autonomy. Policy is decided by many actors, not one. Our job is to shape the outcome, not to react after it is written.

3. Autonomy in the proposed structures

Should it go as the leaking proposed structures, JS teachers have secured operational autonomy. And with the numbers and structure, it shall be autonomy in substance. This is what it means on the ground:

* JS runs through its own designed departments.

* A proposed JS Deputy Principal position to handle daily JS affairs.

* JS HODs decide on schemes, timetabling, assessment, and learner programs.

* With the critical mass of JS teachers in every school, plus a dedicated office and departments, JS will run its affairs. Daily operations will not sit in a queue waiting for other levels.

Let’s be plain: When you have the teachers, the departments, the deputy, and the budget line, you have autonomy. Comprehensive or not, JS will operate as a distinct entity. That is what the proposals carry.

4. The line we are still holding

On administrative autonomy, as we had proposed to the relevant authorities on the autonomy, the qualifications for a comprehensive school head must be explicit in law. That office must understand JS pedagogy, curriculum, and adolescent learners. JS will not be run as an afterthought.

It is already in the wind. From the glimpses during our Nakuru workshop, and I quote: "don't be worried about who becomes the principal, there must be qualifications." The signal is clear. From the winds, current HoIs who don’t meet the intended thresholds may be deployed to stations without JS. They retain their cadre to retirement. The argument being floated is that "majority of them are facing out naturally".

We take note. But our demand stands: Qualifications must be written, specific to JS competence, and non-negotiable. Natural exit is not policy. Black and white is.

5. The bottom line

We went for autonomy. In the proposals, operations give JS real autonomy of function and structure. Numbers don’t lie. The framework for administration is now before the relevant authorities. That is the record.

Judge the work by what is on paper, not by speeches. The dignity of the JS teacher and the quality of the JS learner remain non-negotiable.

Solidarity in Service

Owuor Philip Adede (PK'ADEDE)

JS Secretary, KUPPET HomaBay Branch