The findings of Prof Kuiper’s study on low academic achievement levels warrant urgent and sufficient attention.
He raised critical concerns and issues ranging from faulty pedagogic and management practices, teacher professional development (pre-service and in-service training), external oversight and the heavily loaded curriculum to name but a few examples.
Today’s piece, however, focuses on the status of science in our senior secondary schools. The concern is our system’s glaring obsession with science. Those who are familiar with our system are well aware of the special and prestigious position that the natural sciences occupy in the curriculum and the respect students who pursue the separate sciences (physics, chemistry and biology) at senior secondary level command.
Those students found unworthy of admission into the separate sciences and have to settle for the lowly rated double award or single science category attract very little respect and attention (if any) because they are considered less academically gifted. Making science a compulsory subject after junior secondary education was not without any foundation.
The goal was to drive the national development goal of building a much more diversified and knowledge anchored economy, which could possibly open more job opportunities. To further support this, Prof Kuiper noted that during his field study that “it was mentioned in one school that having all students do science was related to the opening of the new Botswana International University of Science and Technology (BIUST).
This institute requires science entrants and so all schools must require all students to do science.’’ However, while the goal of using science to address national economic challenges is noble, Prof Kuiper’s study questions the wisdom of pushing every learner (including the less interested and less passionate ones into the sciences.
The position of the study is that not all learners need to pursue courses in the natural sciences to the end of their Form 5 studies. As things stand the ‘obsession with science at senior secondary level has led to the unintended consequences of creating two schools in one. On the one hand the top stream, which is expected to garner more credits and on the other hand the low stream, which may not succeed.
Science effectively seals and determines the fate of all students because upon entering senior secondary schools, students are streamed or grouped into two distinct worlds based on their grades obtained at junior secondary schools.
While streaming practice is an old pedagogic practice, which comes with its own advantage of ensuring competition between learners of the same intellectual abilities, but it could impact adversely on the performance of low stream students. Streaming stigmatises underachieving students and undermines their self-esteem and confidence. Kuiper observed that “even when you are doing English, History, Geography or any other subject, you are known by the school management, teachers, and your fellow-students as a ‘Triple Science’, a ‘Double Science,’ or a ‘Single Science’ student. The labels have enormous significance: if you are a ‘Triple’ you are OK: you are seen as bright, hard-working and the belief from management, teachers, and fellow-students ¬– and indeed from yourself as well – is that you will make it.
However, if you are in ‘Double Science’ stream (and as mentioned above this label is applied also when you are sitting in the classroom for any other subject in the entire curriculum!), this means that management, teachers, fellow-students – and indeed, you yourself once more as well! – do not think you will make it.’’
The majority of students in public senior secondary schools are in the double science or single science stream. Students in the low stream can perform as much as those in the top stream if and only if they too are sufficiently challenged and motivated.
The attitude of the school determines the altitude of students. Teaching is more or less a psychological game. Students are as good or bad as they are told by their teachers. Students believe so much in their teachers and can be or do what their teachers tell them they can do or be. Instilling a positive climate makes a profound difference in determining learning outcomes.
Therefore subdividing students into two camps of top and low streams is not helping the cause of raising student outcomes. On account of being considered less capable, the single science students feel hopeless and therefore don’t sufficiently apply themselves to achieve improved outcomes. Some teachers may not necessarily apply themselves fully when handling students with low expectations. Kuiper concludes that the students are “faced with teachers that do not believe in them and thus largely ignore them.
This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: students feel they are labelled as weak, they see themselves as weak, the teachers see them as weak and give them little attention, they then are ill-prepared for the examinations and thus they fail: apparently fulfilling the prophecy that everyone knew they would do so.’’ Prof Kuiper has therefore made a strong and compelling case against using science to decide the fate of every student. I cannot agree with him more.
