In spite of the continuing culture of academic under achievement, many schools are still caught up or entangled in a state of inertia.
Year in and year out, fresh commitments are made and resources are allocated to redeem the ailing education system but, alas, there is still no return on investment. Change cannot possibly come when schools are too eager to repeat flawed and ineffective approaches. They say a season of insanity begins when one does the same thing repeatedly while expecting to achieve different outcomes. The need for a sober introspection of the present strategies cannot be over emphasised.
A shift of focus seems to be what the doctor has prescribed. As Professor Jaap Kuiper saw it “first there is need to calm down and get back to the basics.’’ Justifiably so, the system got into a panic mode. There is anxiety occasioned by a desire to do better. In an attempt to improve learning outcomes, the system is pursuing a plethora of (disjointed) activities including those peripheral to instruction. This is done even when the budget cannot support an all-embracing approach. Way to go is pushing a narrow focus. Efforts should revolve on activities directly linked to student outcomes. It would do a world of good if it could trim excuses intended to justify failure.
Excuses are powerful distracters, diverting attention from the real elephant in the house.
The challenge is uninspiring and unchallenging instruction. But for convenience the system still places emphasis on shortage of critical inputs.
Yet there are newly built schools boasting state of the art infrastructure but do not perform as expected. Clearly availability of resources cannot guarantee any results. But raising the rigour of instruction can. Others blame students and the school’s geographical location for non-performance. This is also another powerful distraction. Professor Kuiper has made it categorically clear that schools fail students and not the other way round. Consider this; poor results in science or mathematics do not necessarily suggest anything about the calibre of students. This could be suggesting a need for teacher retooling. An intensive professional development programme could be the answer in this context.
Finally when the chips are down schools will always count on leaders with strong instructional leadership. There is no substitute for instructional prowess. Dr. Beverley L. Hall’s, critical question is instructive. “At every opportunity I get, one of the first questions I ask principals is, ‘how much time do they spend on instruction?’” The bottom-line is that results are orchestrated from the principal’s desk.
