Men and women are hard at work striving to create more and better learning in order to secure the future of our children. Recognising the challenges besieging the system, Parliament continues to allocate more financial resources to education.
There is no doubt about the political will needed to push the education reforms agenda. However, there is very little positive change to show and speak of in spite of all the energies and financialss invested in the system.
The picture still remains bleak and less promising. The affliction of academic underachievement remains stubbornly entrenched and (this academic virus) appears to have gained sufficient immunity against the strategies and initiatives in place.
Nonetheless, this is not to suggest that ours is a hopeless situation beyond redemption. As things stand, it needs no rocket science to discern that the system requires a shift of focus.
The major weakness of the system is that it is a compliance driven system. A compliance system is a rigid and predictable system characterised by doing more of the same. It is a system that rewards loyalty and allegiance at the expense of innovation. Such a system stigmatises nonconformists who are doing things differently and trying new things.
Non conformists are labelled rebels and uncooperative. Power is everything in a compliance driven environment. This is how it works. The powerful, sitting in high places formulate strategies and initiatives and cascade them down to those on the ground for purposes of execution. Where powers matters more, the less powerful and lowly placed in the hierarchy often find it hard to subject to serious scrutiny initiatives hatched and nurtured from above. Yet the system can flourish when every actor is taken on board.
The voices of the lowly placed in the system need to be heard. It is important for those at the top to create a balance between hearing their own voices and listening to the voices of those on the ground. Rachel E. Curtis and Elizabeth A. City have observed that the “success of a strategy depends on making smart bets, learning from the work, and then shaping and refining it accordingly.” This means there is a lot that the system should learn from experience in schools. And that the system that uses data cannot pursue discredited and tired initiatives with the hope of achieving different outcomes. Feedback derived from curriculum implementers is a valuable resource, which deserves a little more attention. In the words of Curtis and City, “a strategy written on a page must evolve as it grows into life, responding to the environment and changing conditions, and the learning that occurs on the way”. Curtis and City questions the wisdom of pushing a rigid and inflexible strategy, which cannot adapt to changing circumstances in the field.
There is an urgent need to revisit the question of power. Power must lie where it matters most. And the school is the right place where power should reside. Concentration of power at the centre is not adding value to the system as it stifles creativity and responsiveness. Too many problems besieging the education system calls for a shift of power from the centre to the periphery. Every school requires a strong and fully empowered school principal. It is important for the system to recognise the need for adoption of a learner centred approach. All initiatives should revolve around the cause of placing the student at the centre. There should be no debate as to where power should be. The centre is holding too much power which compromises success in the schools.
The school principal is the cornerstone of any learning institution and the future of children in schools rests on the shoulders of a strong, decisive and audacious leader. Other jurisdictions have long realised the need to strengthen and consolidate the powers of school principals and ours should not be left behind. School principals can be effective when operating from a position of strength. Presently school principals are caged and do not have the necessary strength and space to navigate the challenges that frustrate delivery of quality education. The system has created a dependency syndrome where a school principal cannot independently exercise his/her mind on critical decisions on many fronts without ‘seeking direction from the principals in the Region or in the capital’. The system cannot graduate from the comfort of predictability when there is too much encroachment into his space. School principals should operate in an environment permitting them to carve out new initiatives based on lessons from experience on the ground.
Schools were designed to serve students and at all times. And at all times the goal to serve students must never be compromised. Often we say schools do not perform because of weak external oversight. That is to say the performance of schools is supposed to be determined by outside forces and that if they shirk their duties, then the school will fail students. Placing the fate of school on the shoulders of people who are not close to the students is a recipe for disaster. This means that a school cannot stand on its own feet. This is a deliberate dependency syndrome. Schools can serve students better if they have the power and resources to exist as self-supporting entities. Visits by school inspectors are rare and far between. And therefore there is no wisdom in expecting a school to thrive on external aid. If empowered and resourced, schools can effectively govern their affairs and accomplish the task of teaching and learning with relative ease. Private schools do not have regional managers or some central authority in the capital but they continue to thrive and outsmart public schools. Their secret of success lies in the power the principal wields. This is the power to make decisions swiftly in the interests of students. Change is possible if those in the centre can let power go. The nagging issue of shortage of critical inputs is compounded by the fact that not all powers associated with mobilisation of teaching and learning materials rest with school principals. There are many structures involved. This is to ensure transparency and limit possibilities of corruption. But involvement of too many hands (from the Region and central office) in the procurement process of school supplies makes the process long and protracted. Each school should be given room to secure all critical inputs without external involvement. Existing instructional gaps can be closed swiftly if there is a financial provision for teacher professional development in schools. Schools can invest on school based instructional coaches and experts. More powers are needed on the management of the human resource.
Presently deployment matters rest with the Region and the central office. This enables the ministry to look at human resource on a national scale but the system has its own challenges. Teachers may not reach their areas of assignment on time. Hitherto, all issues of progression and promotion rest outside the school. Principals can only recommend and the final decisions are made elsewhere. This arrangement might be stealing the thunder from school principals. By and large it is important to explore ways of strengthening the capacity of schools to manage their own affairs with minimal external influence. Thomas Jefferson once said, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” We cannot remain static and religiously follow a culture which is not addressing issues of student underachievement.
