Listen to parents on Junior Secondaries
The message coming from the public hearings on how to reform the Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) is loud and clear; parents and learners want Junior Secondary to be domiciled within primary schools.
The reasons advanced so far, from availability of space to fear of bullying among young learners and cultural factors, ought to be considered when the taskforce collecting views eventually sits down to write its report for presentation to the President. Change, as a rule, is difficult to manage, and, in the education sector, this should be handled with utmost care given what is at stake is the future of the young learners who will be affected by the decisions that the government decides to implement.
As such, the Ministry of Education should consider rolling out a programme—as the presidential working group submits its findings—to educate all stakeholders on why they should embrace the reforms that the team will recommend. This will not only ensure the public buys into the idea of reforming education but also prepares other players—like learners and teachers—to embrace and manage the change. One other critical factor the government should consider is the hidden cost of the new curriculum, which places a disproportionate financial cost on the shoulders of parents.
This has been a bone of contention given that unlike the 8-4-4 system, the practical requirements demanded on parents by CBC are costly in terms of time and money. To get around the challenges, some parents have either been undertaking the “homework” on behalf of their children or pay third parties to do the same.
One of the question this trend raises is what will happen to the grading of children from poor families and those from ruling areas who lack access to services like printing, or learning materials like swimming pools. Will they be graded the same way as those who have access to these amenities?
Education, ideally, is meant to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor over time. However, the way CBC is structured, it has inherent risks of widening this gap unless it is relooked and reviewed to make it more affordable, more child-friendly and less burdensome to parents and teachers. Of course, it also calls for hiring of more teachers, given the personalised results that it engenders and the fact it is not based on the easy multi-choice exam model of the previous system.
If the thorny issues can be addressed, all stakeholders are likely to be happy with CBC and this can guarantee its success.
