What is happening to Our Education System? . , 13/10/2009
Voting to decide the faith of our school children and
adolescents can be catastrophic if and when such vote does not have a
professionally and morally sound footing because they are the future of this
country. It is easy to cast a yes or no vote and subsequently enact policy or
law. What is unclear to the concerned public and teacher educators is
explanation or clarification of the footing underlying the votes in parliament.
To date no minister, deputy minister, expert consulted in the process leading
to the votes, or an officer-in-charge has come out to give the concerned public,
teacher educators and curriculum experts any clarification or justification regarding
the basis for the vote for change. What should we expect to happen next? Are we
playing a cat and mouse game with education in the country? Stop playing the
musical chairs game with our youths’ lives.
There are a number of issues we deem problematic in education
about the vote for change. As curriculum developers and instructional designers,
some questions are necessary to ask. For example, in changing the years of
schooling for the secondary school age students;
What content knowledge has
been defined as “good” knowledge and for whom? How was that content
knowledge derived and based on what factors?
How much time for
instruction has been earmarked based on the allocated time for instruction
and schooling? Were the factors considered in calculating the available
instructional time for covering the content defined adequately? This way,
teachers can be held accountable for student learning in a meaningful way.
What are the learning
standards to which the defined content can be objectively directed,
sequenced, and aligned? Defined standards of learning are necessary if
teachers can be held accountable for student learning in a meaningful way.
What is the size of the
content knowledge to be offered to students (referring to scope) based on
the available instructional time?
What are the provisions in
place for content alignment across various levels of learning? This way,
there is continuity and progression in what students learn in school?
What are the provisions in
place regarding the impact of the change on teacher education and
admission to teacher education in the country? There is no doubt teacher
training institutions will adjust their programs to meet the needs of the
new breed of teachers required to meet the demands of the change. We cannot
assume that there will be no impact on pre-service training and in-service
teacher performance.
What are the provisions in
place for exit from junior secondary to senior secondary schooling and
entry into institutions of higher learning? If there are, have they been
efficient in ensuring easy and smooth transition?
We believe that these and many
more questions and considerations are necessary and perhaps should constitute a
major part of the discourse pertaining to the impact of the shift in the
educational structure in the country. Let us not be fooled to believe that
“the” answer to the problems in our educational system is changing the number
of years of schooling for secondary age students. In fact, it is rather the
opposite. Merely changing the years of schooling in a sub-section of the total
educational structure is an additional problem rather than an answer. In the
educationally true sense, many sectors are affected by the change including
exit requirements for secondary school age students, requirements for entry into
higher education, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge for teachers,
structure for pre-service teacher education, and many more.
Perhaps we take for granted or
assume that for example;
Current teachers in our
schools are flexible and adaptable to the extent that they will be able to
adjust to the new change without any problem. False.
Current teachers will be
able to revise existing curricula within the shortest possible time to
accommodate the change. False. Curriculum restructuring is not as easy as
envisaged. May be because we do not really have curriculum in place, the
assumption is real.
Content knowledge can be easily
re-packaged within the shortest possible time to accommodate the change.
False. A change to a sub-section of the educational structure affects the
total structure- not just part.
Assessment protocols can
be prepared concurrently and seamlessly infused into the new change in the
curriculum of study. False. Assessment should be developed based on a
refined or a redefined content- yet to be done.
We may rather be creating more
problems in teaching and learning in our schools by merely changing years of
schooling without regards to the factors that matter in educational improvement.
How many of the children of the politicians go to the real public schools?
Perhaps, the children of the politicians will be less affected by the change,
as their children are not part of the public school system they keep joggling
back and forth. The schools that make a difference are not affected by the change
in any way. So, why don’t we learn and re-structure years of school and
curricula with reference to the existing schools that make a difference in
academic gains and achievement? If their children go to the schools that make a
difference, why can’t they play the political musical chairs game with the
lives of the critical mass of Ghanaians whose children go to public schools?
We strongly believe that our
politicians are knowledgeable and will acknowledge that some schools exit in
the country that make a difference in learning and student achievement. How do
these high-achieving schools operate so students realize success? Where do the
teachers in those schools train to impact the lives of the kids of the wealthy
and the politicians? The teachers in the high achieving schools are mates to
those who land in the public sector. In some cases, teachers in the public
sector did better in their professional training programs than those in the
high achieving schools. So, what is it that the teachers in the high achieving
schools do that is missing in the public low-achieving schools? A very careful
look at the factors that distinguish high-achieving schools from low-achieving
schools is worthy a discourse for consideration. Change without a reference to
a better state is a disaster to say the least. Educational change without a
purpose is a suicide and or miseducation. We need a purpose-driven change. If
we change because we want to see more gains in achievement then we must try to
replicate the practices as seen in the high-achieving schools in the country. The curriculum division in the ministry of
education has not uttered a word of caution about the change, meaning that they
will just do something called change and the musical chairs game continues and
our children get poisoned and miseducated.
Merely selecting topics to
constitute the school syllabus is not curriculum. However, we have lived with
various forms of syllabi for the past several years to the extent that
curricula don’t exist as we are made to believe. We believe the curriculum
division in the ministry and its personnel across disciplines are aware of what
a curriculum entails. Would they be able to say with expert precision that we
have real curriculum in our schools? Or do we just have something called
curriculum in syllabus disguise? What standards do we refer to as driving the
curriculum and so we can hold teachers accountable in a meaningful way? There
is more for the curriculum division to make noise about than to stay put
without letting the public know about the implications and problems to envisage
with the new change? The change does not affect the senior secondary alone as
mentioned in the news papers and media- but the entire educational structure.
Is it surprising that there are repetitions and redundancies in pockets within
our education and training systems? For the past several years we have
experienced such gunshot changes and the impact has been severe creating
imbalances in the educational system in the country. Let us take a look at few
examples of cabinet actions that created imbalances, mis-alignment in our
educational structure;
1.Creating
a university college of education (now university of education) was a great
idea but today, the curriculum between the training colleges (colleges of
education) and the University of Education remain problematic and misaligned.
Repetitive content and redundancies permeate the curricula at both
institutions. Why so? This practice is costing the country a great deal from
both a financial loss point of view and wasted learning time and resources.
2.Despite
the misalignment in the curricula, cabinet further changed the status of the
teacher training colleges to colleges of education. In most of these colleges
of education, subject specialization has dominated the process of pre-service
teacher training. Yet, we have primary schools where teachers are required to
teach all subjects on the time table. Subject specialization is not good for
teachers who intend to teach at the primary level. Is this change purpose-driven?
If so, the purpose is unclear. There exist overlaps in the curricula between
the colleges of education and the University of Education. If the purpose of a
university of education is to further train and oversee the training or
retraining of pre-service teachers and in-service teachers why are the programs
not aligned and sequenced in a meaningful and productive way?
3.Supposing
the change or elevation of teacher training colleges to colleges of education
is a laudable idea that is long overdue, for the fact that our training of
teachers should be comparable to what pertains across the globe, what
preparation did we put in place to re-train the teachers who were already in
the training colleges to upgrade their knowledge to meet the demands and
challenges that exist in high level institutions? Can we put the cart before
the horse?
4.The
reason for classifying “middle” age students as basic is unclear. Grades 6/7
through 9 require special classification and attention beyond the current
“basic” classification. Teacher training institutions have not clearly defined
knowledge for training teachers for these middle age students. Study about this
age group is either a sub-section of the content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge associated with primary or secondary education. The classification
for our middle age students in terms of “basic” is demeaning. As teacher
educators we have to remember that if we classify students in low terms, they
will perform to low standards. This is what we know as the Pygmalion effect in
education. If we set the standards high and provide the right environment to
support learning students will learn. This is a characteristic of a
high-achieving school. Middle age students are not as basic as the term connotes
or as basic as grades 5 or 6 students. Let us show professional expertise in
our decision-making. How can we have school building and administration as JSS
or JHS and yet teacher training programs offer programs in basic education? We
seem to be conceptually confused.
5.We
classified middle school age as JSS and then changed to JHS. What is the
educational relevance and value for this change? What is the educational
relevance and value for changing SSS to SHS? Who is in-charge of the mess?
End Notes
·We do hope that curriculum planners will do a
good job to refine the alignment in curriculum necessary to allow students in
pre-university education to be successful.
·If the change is to stay, then we need a
redefinition of the scope to be covered within the framework of the instructional
time within the time allocated for instruction.
·Government will develop level grounds for all
schools or as many schools as possible to be able to show high achievement. The
differences and gaps between high-achieving schools and low achieving schools
should be bridged if not closed for mass success.
·Assessments should be targeted to content covered
rather than blanket testing based on topics outlined in a syllabus in view of
the disparities that exist within learning environments and teacher incentive
systems. We cannot continue to blame teachers for our inability to provide conducive
learning environment and good incentives systems for teachers, particularly,
for those working the low achieving school.
*Please
note that, this article is a friendly reminder to curriculum developers in the
Ministry of Education to be aware of the implications of the change in the
number of years of schooling and to put the appropriate and professionally
justifiable mechanisms in place to support a purpose-driven educational culture
in the country.
Contact
The Ghana
Physical Education and Sport Thinktank (GPES Thinktank)
