Involve public in education changes

I have been in the village this past week. It is always refreshing to spend some time catching up on developments, review the ending year, engage in local issues and generally enjoy the hospitality of my home community. When the Education secretary released the results for the 2018 Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examinations, my normal activities were interrupted.

The results revealed that an extra-county school from my village, Orero Boys High School, was top of the county, and number nine nationally. The results brought celebrations not just to the school, but to all stakeholders within the area.

But as the results were being received and various candidates and schools digested their performance, the Education minister was also addressing the issue of reforms to the education system. These changes have been discussed and piloted for close to two years now.

Initially the new curriculum was to be rolled out this month. However, in January, the then minister announced that preparations were not complete and consequently only a few schools would pilot the system.

This would give time to amongst other things, preparation of a sessional paper on the envisaged reforms and its debate and adoption by the National Assembly.

The hope was that come end of 2018 all the pending arrangements would have been completed so that the new education system would be rolled out across the entire country. However, come December, 2018 signs that all was not well emerged,

First, Education secretary Amina Mohamed announced that due to feedback from an evaluation team, the anticipated roll out would not happen this year as envisaged.

Immediate reaction from some was praise for the decision, arguing that it would give time for honest assessment of the system. Others even went as far as to suggest that the country should stick to the existing 8-4-4 system, since the new system was rushed. Media analysts seemed to be support this assessment.

A few days later, however, the minister seemed to have changed her mind. She announced that contrary to the initial reports, the system would continue being piloted and this time would be extended to Grade Three.

This flip flop raises several fundamental problems. The first, is whether the ministry is clear about what the fundamental preparations are. In 2018, the promise was for a comprehensive policy that would address all the policy issues and give clear direction.

To still be giving the lack of a policy as the reason for postponing the national transition to the new curriculum is disturbing.

Secondly, the manner in which the announcement is made fails to take into account the interests of parents and students. In early 2018 the confusion resulted in students in Grade One from schools that were piloting the new system learning for a month without text books for both students and teachers.

By the time these came, a third of the term was already covered without learning materials. This may look like a short time but it has impact on the learning of these children. One hoped that this was a one-off occurrence. However, come the end of the year these children did not, for the second time, receive the list of books required for the next year.

Their teachers did not know what books would be used. This state of uncertainty is linked to the lack of clarity in the transition process.

Thirdly, to make two seemingly contradictory statements in one week does not inspire confidence amongst parents, students and education stakeholders about the state of education reforms.

When the 2018 primary and secondary examination results were released, just as in past years, concerns continued to be raised about an educational system that assesses eight of four years of learning based on a few hours examinations. Several stakeholders have urged for a more responsive assessment process. This demonstrates that there exists rationale for reforming the education system.

However, such a change must be consultative and thought through. The actions of the ministry raise concerns on both fronts. The levels of public input into the reforms have been fairly low.

The development of a policy framework could have given adequate opportunity for public participation and feedback from the ministry.