Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 601688,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/601688/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 163,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ngikor",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2933,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Ngikor Nixon",
        "slug": "nicholas-ngikor-nixon"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me this chance to contribute to this Bill. I will start by raising my concern on the Committee’s definition of sponsors of schools. “Sponsor” is defined as “a person or institution that owns land or property on which an institution of basic education is instituted, and who provides foundational objectives to the institution and ensures that the educational and non-curricular objectives of the institution of basic education are met.” This definition will bring confusion or conflict in our schools. In a school where the sponsor has not given land, what will be the interpretation of the sponsor by the other stakeholders? I am saying this because in my county, most of the land is given by the community. The sponsors only come in when the land has already been given. So, I would like the Committee to re-look at the definition. The definition should give the sponsor, the community and the school their right partnership. On the membership of the County Education Board or Sub-County Education Board, the Bill says the Member of Parliament may attend the board’s meetings. The Bill does not say the Member of Parliament is a member of the board. It must be made clear when it comes to the composition of the boards. One should attend either as an ex-officio member or as an appointed member. The Committee must make that clear. You cannot just say the Member of Parliament may attend the meetings of the board. It is not about the meetings. We want the status of the Member of Parliament in those boards to be clear. We represent people and not just things. I have seen many committees and boards shying away from our involvement because we are elected to represent the people. It is not about removing someone from a committee for unclear reasons. For example, you Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker as the Member of Parliament for Nairobi City County, you know more about Nairobi than the people who will be given the mandate to be in that board. That is why I am saying the Committee must be clear about the membership of the boards. On the issue of representation of parents and other stakeholders or interested groups in the boards, the parents must be given more numbers, unlike the proposal to reduce their number. This is because it is the parents who have a lot of interest in the schools, given that their children go to those schools. The Bill proposes to have three representatives of the sponsor on the board. It would be good enough to have only one representative of the sponsor on the board so that the number of parents’ representatives can be increased. The parents will present issues affecting their children. Teachers also need to be represented in the boards so that they can give progress reports of the school and highlight challenges that the school is facing. There is the issue of motivating children to go to school. In semi-arid areas of this country where children have no food, the Government needs to provide food so that the children are motivated to continue learning. With regard to the term of office for the members of the boards, three or four years are long. The term of office should be two years so that members can do their work to achieve the set goals instead of giving them more years while they cannot perform as expected."
}