OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT MILLS AND EDUCATION MINISTER

Dear President and Minister

STRATEGIC INVESTMENT SUSTAINS EDUCATION

It has become generally accepted that education paves the way for expedited development. Yet for education to yield the desired development in a country, its leaders must have the political will to invest in quality education in all forms ranging from infrastructure, enrolment, teaching-learning materials, human resources to classroom instruction, to mention five. That there is a link between education and development should be of interest to every country which desires to compete well in a world, the “scientific and technological advancement” of which has yielded the “knowledge economy”. Thus a nation’s development is conditional not upon its finances alone but also on its human resource capabilities. To bring educational systems to standards such that its beneficiaries can adapt to the speedy changes in the world, policymakers, educationist and other stakeholders must constantly strive for the inclusion of positive global trends in school curricula. Moving with the world has become necessary because the world has become interdependent so much that a community risks destabilization in many ways if it refuses to develop at a certain rate and in relevant areas at the appropriate time.

Every educational system, like society, is dynamic; subsequently, if a learning system remained stagnant, it would cease to serve the general interests and needs of its people. From that perspective, formal education in Ghana has not been allowed to stagnate. It has undergone several changes in the hope of staying abreast with the times. However, the changes are yet to yield the type of human resources prepared to put the nation first. This failure is largely due to poor management of resources and partly due to untimely changes in national governance. Additionally, sometimes, educational reforms are introduced merely for political expediency not for improving standard.

Successive governments have failed to continue educational policies started by their predecessors. Sometimes, a reform planned by one government is hastily implemented by another, many years after the proposed change. In its haste, the implementing government would fail to consider pertinent details of the reform, available resources--human and material--or simply implement selectively, ignoring those areas that might stretch resources and actually test government’s level of commitment. Oftentimes, the reforms have been mainly theoretical, creating a huge gap between theory and practice at all levels of education. Also, teachers are hardly educated well in the use of new syllabi, often leading to poor classroom instruction or worse situations where teachers use old syllabi instead of reverting to new ones. Due to poor supervision, such instances go undetected for an unacceptable period, putting some school children at a great disadvantage.

In many situations, hasty implementation of educational reforms has increased the frequency of school failures and dropouts rather than extend learning opportunities. In certain situations, the funds and resources available or targeted by originating government are no longer available at the time of implementation; or the implementing government may simply have other plans for funds available. Therefore educational changes are made without the crucial elements of improved infrastructure, teaching-learning materials and the human resources instrumental in executing curricula change. Worst of all, when ruling Governments are overwhelmed by the cost of implementing educational policies, rather than explore innovative ways for funding, they resort to educational reform. We are currently at one such crossroad.

Due to time constraints and declining performance, the duration at the secondary level was changed to four years. Anamuah-Mensah, chairman of the Committee that designed the reform, has opined that the increase may have been due to unavailable infrastructure and other resources for effective implementation of the hitherto three-year programme. The recommended strategy, however, was for Government to “devote infrastructure and resources to ... the kindergarten, the primary ... the junior high school levels (JHS) levels”, in order to secure a solid learning foundation for the secondary level. However, in an apparent attempt to rectify the situation where currently most high school graduates communicate very poorly in English and vernacular, possess woefully inadequate knowledge in mathematics and science, and are thus so limited in life, the previous government increased the years to four in order to make up for some of the lapses at the fundamental stages. Though not the ideal situation, educationists were prepared to accommodate it for a period to judge its effectiveness, while urging the government to strengthen the foundation.

But your government could not be that accommodating; after only three enrolments of the four-year group, you have reversed senior high school duration to three years. Educationists are concerned about the disruption; also the short duration could hardly be used to evaluate that system effectively. Some had suggested a ten-year pilot basis for the four year system. Even after parliamentary approval of the reversion, concerned Ghanaians still question its justification and lament the long-term damage to the generation whose education is being toyed with. A critical analysis creates the impression that the cost involved in providing infrastructure and human resource development for the extra year might have motivated the reversion. Whereas the previous government had planned to provide the resources over four years you promised to change the curriculum and offer free school uniforms to pupils, leaving out infrastructure.

A month to re-opening of the 2010/2011 Academic Year, the Minister has admitted that there is not enough classrooms to accommodate fresh secondary school entrants and has entreated the Ghana Armed Forces to be on standby with tents for those entrants who may have to be housed outside classrooms. He said it would be a temporary situation but I do not believe that. Once those students get settled in the tents and teaching starts, attention would shift onto other issues and the tents would become permanent structures. The rainy season is not over yet. The Minister also reported that “500 six-unit classrooms blocks are under construction in most senior secondary and technical schools. That may sound encouraging but the appalling fact is that were we a serious nation, these units would have been completed and keys handed over to the school this month. The worst fact is that we could have done that. Adding infrastructure was part of the reform; it was planned such that by the fourth year, the appropriate infrastructure would have been in place. If we had gone by that time-table, there would be no reason for the current tent situation. By even contemplating housing students in tents, you have taken education and nation back twenty years!

One keeps wishing that Ghana would learn from its mistakes. From my educationist point of view, there is simply no justification for this school crisis. Your government could have strategized such that, at least, the appropriate infrastructure would have been in place for a smooth transition for all students. How do we expect teaching and learning to be conducive in tents? Why should we turn our children into refugees in their own country? Do we even care about the children whose education we are so callously jeopardizing? How many children of politicians in Ghana would be among those who would sit in those tents? That the announcement was put at the back page of Wednesday August 4, 2010 issue of the Daily Graphic infuriates me. How many concerned citizens and parents saw that? Does the issue of our children’s education not warrant a front page? Dear Sirs, who speaks for the ordinary Ghanaian?

I expected the National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) to vehemently oppose housing students in tents since they strongly advocated the reversal to three years. NAGRAT’s position was that the fourth year was adding to the financial burden of the ordinary Ghanaian parent. Well, the Association should now consider the future cost to parents and nation if students learn in tents. Would the environment motivate diligent study and assimilation? What good could we possibly expect from students who study in tents? And we just banned remedial classes in public schools! Yet there are other the issues.

Before the reversal, the Minister promised a curriculum review, logically, to suit the reduction in years. That has not been done. So we are going to use a four-year curriculum to manage a three-year programme. Also teachers have not been given appropriate orientation for the task of juggling two different learning groups. Of course, we are counting on God’s help whilst shirking our responsibility. Do we really expect good performance from both teachers and students?

I read once that the hallmark of a good commander is to know when to retreat. I am not asking for a retreat; I am advocating an achievable strategy. Politicians OWE the ordinary Ghanaian child. Therefore STOP all National Committee activity for a month, withhold every Parliamentary and Castle allowances in same period; use those funds to provide quality classroom structures. FINISH THAT TASK BEFORE SCHOOL RE-OPENS!

Yours faithfully

Dinah Amankwah
(Educationist)