Spirit of collectivism, working together

Tshwarelo Hosia | Monday May 19, 2025 08:01

Yes, it would be good if miraculous and overnight solutions were to be sought and found. But that is only a wishful thinking, dream that is almost impossible to realise. The solution rests in the spirit of collectivism, working together for the common good. There is an urgent need to embark on a voyage of meaningful conversations predicated upon a desire to seek a common understanding of the contributions of the various protagonists and actors towards the disasters, which had befallen the education industry over the years and ponder honestly on what and how each one of them could do to get the noble teaching and learning service back on its feet.

No entity should be singled out to pay a heavy price for all the ills that bedevil the system because all should be held accountable for their actions and omissions. The one certainty is that all the players are equally responsible for the predicament the system finds itself in. In times of crisis there is a tendency on the part of certain quarters to run away from accountability while over burdening others with the stigma having ‘messed up’ the system and the daunting task of correcting the wrongs they possibly had committed. The most unfortunate elements in the system most likely to get most of the flak when things fall apart are the teachers and their principals. But this is wrong. Blame, if any, should be apportioned accordingly across the board. Every department should take responsibility, ranging from curriculum, assessment, quality assurance, training, school monitoring and support.

Professor Jaap Kuiper, in his study on low achievement levels in Botswana secondary schools, raised serious questions about lack of proper synergy and conversation among the different entities that are supposed to work together in harmony to deliver quality and relevant education and training. Sadly, he found this to be a missing element. “However, it appears the main players (BEC, MOESD, CDE,) have not been able to develop a mutually agreed distribution of roles and responsibilities for this new constellation of institutions. Conversations show that representatives of one body do not quite understand/know the roles of the representatives of another body. This does not help to ensure the necessary overall alignment of policy, concepts, procedures and products.” All must sit under one roof to acknowledge one another’s role in the destruction of the education system and collective responsibility in the crafting of alternative routes to free the system from weak and disjointed conventional policies and practices. From the curriculum side of things, there continues to be challenges regarding its relevance and bias towards content when the world demands acquisition of a repertoire of globally competitive skills. Even when the curriculum tries to redeem itself by way moving towards the desired direction, such efforts and good intentions are frustrated by half-hearted attempts aimed at facilitating curriculum implementing agencies. The ideal situation is a simultaneous movement among all protagonists.

Getting the right curriculum ready without sharpening teaching troops, mobilisation of financial resources and a corresponding assessment instruments is a clear example of taking half-hearted measures.

It would appear there is a challenge of having effective monitoring and support system in the schools. Regional oversight bodies are paralysed by staffing, financial and technical constraints needed to inspire a relentless focus on instruction. On account of existing limitations and so sometimes complacency oversight bodies have cultivated a reactive culture as opposed to the much desirable proactive response. The system requires more men and women on the ground and less at the central ministry. A population census should be conducted at the head office with a view to trimming staff to a bare minimum. Beefing up staff in the regions would enhance the efficacy of the monitoring and support system.

This should also be coupled with the devolution of decision-making powers so that quick and prompt decisions are taken on the ground. There is also an urgent need for the protagonists to respect one another’s territorial integrity and professional space. Trust is an essential component when strengthening synergies and harmonious relationships. The central ministry could be grounded on theory and less on the practice environment.

When dealing with matters of practice, it is advisable for those sitting in the capital to not to sound pontifical when dealing with the regions and schools. What may sound theoretically sound may not work in the practice atmosphere. In the middle of a crisis there is a temptation to embark on a voyage of over regulation of the operational space. This is a well-meaning intention. But the approach runs the risk of producing the unintended consequences of stifling innovation and improvisation. Teaching is anchored not so much on what government can do but much more on what the teachers and the community can do. It is vitally important to liberalise and free the education operational space.

Moved by their patriotic feelings and a desire to secure the future of their children, parents are always more than eager to overstretch their meagre resources to keep schools going. Even if government were to collapse, the education of our children should never wait. Education is too important to be left in the hands of the rulers alone. After all, before government, we the people provided for the education of our children. Government can only be a critical partner in this noble endeavour. Changing mindsets means the people must assume greater responsibility over their own affairs while government plays a facilitating role. Those members of the community who have the means and spirit of generosity should be free to make a contribution. It takes a community to raise and educate a child.