Rather than change education system let's address congestion

 

Little public consultation preceded introduction of the 8-4-4 system in the 1980s and was monopolised by university-level academic leaders, under the belief that they were the only people knowledgeable enough to discuss the future of education in Kenya. The actual introduction of the new system was abrupt. People who had studied for up to six years under the previous system were suddenly told they had now converted to 8-4-4 simply by adding two, rather than one more year in primary school. How were they 8-4-4 when they had already learnt for six years under the old system?

The main argument for 8-4-4 was that the existing system was too “theoretical” and the country needed more “practical” education, to equip learners with skills to pursue self-employment. Already, the government had directed significant effort towards revival of village polytechnics, based on the same argument about self-employment.  

To accommodate the rather large subject load that 8-4-4 was bringing in, the curriculum was altered, abandoning the teaching of industrial education, whose subjects included metal work, electricity and power mechanics, as these subjects could no longer be accommodated in the congested curriculum. While the rhetoric remained that 8-4-4 was more practical, the truth was rather different, as the system had no place for the teaching of these traditional practical subjects.

Like 8-4-4, the proposed system is driven from the highest political levels. That fact alone makes it difficult to debate the merits without appearing to be questioning the political wisdom behind it. After its establishment, public debate on 8-4-4 was stifled and since criticism was seen as disloyalty, praising the new system soon became one of the ways of affirming the wise leadership of the government that had established the system. This context also forced schools to accept support they did not need, while foregoing their real needs. Unfortunately, the Jubilee government has needlessly staked a claim on the proposed system in a manner that discourages open debate on its merits.

Because of the initial rush, the decision to delay implementation of the new system reveals a hesitancy that is hardly confidence-enhancing. However, the delay is welcome because it removes the pressure to implement what looks like an under-processed decision. In coming days, the government should institute more consultation, that provides answers to such questions as why it would like to change the system, what the new system would look like, what levels of preparation are necessary for the new system to work, and what would be the reasonable timelines for its introduction.  Since the tendency to reveal the preferences of the government in power only introduces political pressure and inhibits free debate, the government should make it clear that it has no preferred outcome.

By switching to 8-4-4, the country abandoned an education system that was the product of more than 70 years of incremental public investment, rendering a significant amount of that investment redundant. As an example, in the school that I attended, a multi-million shilling complex offering industrial education, a gift from the people of Sweden, became redundant once 8-4-4 came in and was demolished. The infrastructure invested in establishing “A level” schools was also suddenly rendered redundant.

Today, one of the most pressing issues facing public schools is severe overcrowding of the physical infrastructure as the number of learners swell. In the face of the practical difficulties the country is facing in trying to cope with increased numbers, the debate about a new education system begins to sound like the now-discarded project of providing computers to primary school children. While computers are needed, these were probably not a priority, given the basic needs the education system is struggling with. In the same way, coping with large numbers, at all levels of the country’s education system, is surely the priority of our time.

Whatever the future holds, the problem of numbers will not go away and will only worsen in future. However, this problem does not receive the requisite level of political articulation. In the same way that the government provides assurances that all learners will transition to the next level, it should lead debate on what is needed to make this possible and sustainable.

Two main interventions towards meeting the increased demand for places in public institutions are, first, to increase the capacities of existing institutions so that these can admit larger numbers, and second, the upgrading of established institutions to offer the next level of education. As an example of this second intervention, the government has turned a large number of diploma colleges into universities. 

Clearly, however, these approaches have limits and building fresh new schools from scratch cannot now be postponed. However, the back-breaking work of building new schools will only start if we openly talk about the problem of congestion. Rather than a change of the education system, how to address congestion should be the next public debate in education.

- The writer is the Executive Director at KHRC. [email protected]