Technical University in Ghana: An albatross

Technical university (TU) in Ghana has become an albatross for the Ghanaian educational stakeholder. An empowering educational concept, exploited elsewhere for highly-skilled human resources, innovative research and ground-breaking advancement in human endeavours, has become a farce in Ghana due to its false start and porous implementation. Consequently, in name there are TUs, but in principle, content and genuine practices, there is no TU in Ghana, so the benefits of competency and solid skill acquisition evade the nation. Yet, instead of replicating excellent training practices elsewhere, we politicise education, pray incessantly, then scramble for arms from communities which brace austerity to target quality training systems.

TU was expected to be characterised by excellent practices in academic work and the research enterprise. Excellence, supposed to catapult Technical/Vocational Education to a 21^st Century training system. Mr. John Mahama, former president and originator of the technical university concept in Ghana, stated that the conversion was not to be “a label change only”. In his speech to the stakeholders’ consultative forum held in 2015, he stressed principles that would underpin the concept:

The TUs were expected to be peopled by highly-skilled teaching staff and qualified secondary school graduates, both of whom would become engrossed in applied research for quality outcomes across disciplines and vocations. The focus was competency-based training, so small class numbers were targeted – a teacher:student ratio of 1:15 , or at most, 1:25 – per current practice. To buttress the competency aspect, the Technical University Act also enjoins TUs to base instruction in “multiplicity of scientific theories and methodologies …, explore practice-oriented teaching approaches” to equip learners for industry.

Industrial experience was expected to be key. The reference point was Germany, where a minimum of three years’ industrial experience is a requirement for TU instructors. Technology was also expected to be a key support to teaching/learning. Additionally, to support teaching and hands-on training, classrooms, laboratories and practical stations were going to be furnished with sophisticated tools and equipment. Among others, the TU concept is learner-centred, targeting industry-driven curricula, skilled graduates, poverty alleviation among the youth– a reverse of the current situation – many trainees graduate with poor/mismatched, sometimes unemployable skills.

However, the instruction room transformation hardly occurred in the selected polytechnics for the conversion in 2016. Two years later, teacher:student ratio remains unacceptably high. One teacher can handle any number from fifty to hundred, sometimes more. If one gets thirty or forty students, one is so relieved. Only a few programmes satisfy the acceptable teacher:student ratio, and it is not by design but rather due to poor patronage by students. So genuinely, competency-based training has not materialised. Even though technology could somewhat support such big numbers through authentic learning and simulation activities, TU classrooms are not exactly technology-friendly spaces, at least, not by 21^st Century standards; neither is majority of instructors technology-savvy, so teaching/learning is still largely limited to the physical classroom. Some programmes operate dated curricula. Often, students are not exposed to quality intellectual research material

Amidst a TU but no TU reality, the Government is expected to migrate staff of the TUs to the payroll of the universities. The recent strike action by the Technical University Teachers Association of Ghana (TUTAG) was its response to Government’s failure to migrate staff. Better remuneration is desirable, but so is a learner-centred training environment. Therefore, it would it be ethical, strategic, and frugal to simultaneously tackle migration and resourcing TUs to competency levels.

A Holistic Approach

Sadly, the premise for the migration is a continuation of the push and pull trajectory: TUTAG is fixated on joining the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), which is equally preoccupied with keeping TUTAG out. Consequently, instead of targeting hands-on education, both stakeholders have skewed the parameters. While government also struggles for economic foothold, the growing generations are denied intellectual empowerment and 21^st Century industrial skills. I have been labelled a sympathiser of government – not employer – by a cross-section of TUTAG leadership for advocating quality education instead of combat. Interesting times indeed when educators sideline quality.

The recent audit organized by the National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) is harrow for evaluating instructors of a Technical/Vocational system. Government must not migrate salaries only; it should migrate the entire TU system for a genuine Technical/Vocational Education. NCTE should strategize a holistic auditing tool for practice vis-à-vis the operating document, Acts 922, 974, which prescribe the TU content and regulation. Mr. Mahama should be part of the assessment, so that he can tell the nation clearly what his government packaged for the conversion in 2016.

A holistic approach would include the TU research culture in the audit, to determine its applied relevance to community, and national development agenda. Closely tied to that would be an inquiry of current educational theories and scientific methodologies being explored in the TU classroom, impact of Information Technology. Equally crucial would be an appraisal of TU links with industry, instructors’ currency in their areas of expertise and teaching methods. After two years of operation, TU curriculum should be audited for currency regarding technology-based programmes for learner, community and national, as well as conformity to international standards. In other words, it is crucial to evaluate the entire TU system to ascertain whether it has begun to elevate Technical/Vocational Education, whether it is meeting 21^st Century educational goals, whether it is targeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, effectively addressing skill acquisition needs of the country, making trainees adaptable.

In summary, NCTE must refrain from using traditional university parameters alone to assess TUs, per the current audit. Rather, it should broaden the base to cover industrial standards: Indicators should be effective instruction approaches such as experiential learning, 70:30/60:40 hands-on training/theoretical instruction, and progression for technicians who anchor hands-on training. These would be good pointers to competency-based training, evidence of progress, aspiration for quality, to mention these.

Instead of charting its own professional course, POTAG followed in UTAG’s shadow over the past four decades; the status quo has remained. TUTAG is competing with UTAG over position and ranking, instead of charting a distinct progression path for TU staff, using international Technical/Vocational regulations. It is time for a concerted effort to turn this albatross into the empowering training concept that it is. A holistic academic audit would be key.