This took place when parents were electing a new SDC executive that would best represent their interests. Police details could be seen sitting in the school hall, monitoring the developments. The frustrated parents wanted to vent their anger on the former SDC, whom they accused of diverting money meant for teachers’ incentives towards other uses that had not been agreed upon.
“As the parents association, we had agreed to pay US$150 for teacher’s incentives and US$100 for non-teaching staff,” said one furious parent at the meeting. “We were surprised when we learnt that teachers were receiving a hefty US$300 incentive, contrary to what we had agreed.”
Some parents felt that the headmistress, Maud Makore, should be dismissed. “By regulation, the school account must not be opened by any one member of the committee, where he or she banks,” said one parent.
Members of the previous SDC were not in a position to comment, referring questions to the new committee. A district education officer, who only identified himself as Muguwe, told the meeting that a newsletter would be helpful to inform parents, as stakeholders, about developments occurring at the school.
“With regard to teacher incentives, there are policy guidelines as stipulated in circular number 5 of 2009. Of the total levy, 10% goes to teacher’s incentives while 5% is for non-teaching staff,” said Muguwe.
“These allegations (about the previous committee’s fraudulent activities) need to be proved. So in that regard, issues about the school are solved right here at the school.
“Government saw that it did not have the money to maintain standards at the dilapidating schools, so parents were called in as stakeholders. It’s all a matter of collective responsibility.”