Sunday, February 8, 2009

SHOULD SHS PROGRAMME BE ALTERED? (MIRROR FORUM)

Ms Yaa Konadu
Adiyiah, Nutritionist, Komfo Anokye
Teaching
Hospital (KATH)
Considering our present circumstances, I think the four-year duration of senior high school should be maintained. I am saying this because it gives ample time for students to adjust to their new environment and focus on their academic work to achieve fruitful results in the long run.
We are here talking about the future leaders of the nation, so any decision that is taken on their behalf should be in their best interest, but not based on scoring political points.
If there is the need to spend money to build infrastructure and logistics that should go to improve the present system, let us do so immediately since in the long run, we would be building the capacity of our students in a way that would be beneficial to the state.
Another important thing to do is to equip the various science resource centres throughout the country to enable science students to undertake effective practical work.
Many of the schools merely exist in name, while, in fact, they have no logistics and facilities to enhance effective and efficient teaching and learning and I think this is what our politicians should focus their attention on.
If the present government goes ahead and changes the duration of the course of study in secondary schools, students presently in the system would be directly affected. This is because the syllabus will have to be crammed to suit the new system, and teaching and learning programmes will also have to be changed, creating a rush in academic work.
It will mean also that teachers will have to organise extra classes for their students to enable them to catch up with the new programme and this could translate into additional cost to parents and guardians, who under the present harsh economic conditions, are already finding it hard to cope.
It will therefore be of great national advantage if the government sticks to the present educational system to spare teachers and students alike the ordeal of a change of programme to suit the politicians.

Dr Kwabena
Opoku-Adusei,
Vice-President, Ghana Medical
Association (GMA)
Reforming education implies that measures are being put in place to improve the quality of education.
Teachers and educationists in parts of the country whom I have interacted with on the subject of the duration of senior high school education, have noted that it does not really matter if the duration is three or four years. What really matters, they say, is how relevant the content of their education is, especially the syllabi of the various core subjects and then we can later come to think of the duration.
Let us ask ourselves what it was that informed the PNDC and the NDC governments to reform education and go for the three-year duration and the immediate past administration to also go to four years.
What is it now that is informing the current government to revert to the three-year period?
Is it a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend? Is every new government going to change what the previous government has done just for the sheer sake of changing?
If one looks at the advanced countries, we can see that they have a blueprint on their educational structure. If we decide to travel from Accra to Kumasi, how to get there and by what means is not a problem, but if on the way one decides to turn back after reaching Ejisu, or at the Bunsu junction one decides to branch to Koforidua, then a problem can arise because in that case we may never reach Kumasi as intended.
The politicians seem to be gambling with the lives of our children, and it is time they are stopped before the situation gets out of hand.
As a nation, it is time to sit down, take a critical look at the course content and draw a blueprint that will determine the duration of SHS education to enable us to produce quality materials for responsible leaders in the future.
Some teachers I spoke to were of the view that four years should be adequate for SHS education. However, they were also of the view that some structures needed to be put in place, syllabi properly developed, buildings constructed to accommodate students and teachers, as well as provide satisfactory logistics to enhance the smooth implementation of the four-year programme.
The politicians are likely to raise a public debate on this issue. However, as I see it, they may have made up their minds already so any public debate will not have any effect on their decision to do away with the four-year programme. Public debate will only give them a democratic face on what they have already intended to do.

Mr I.K. Gyasi,
Former
Headmaster,
T.I. Ahmadiyya Senior High School, Kumasi
I think that the period of four years is okay. The period is important because even if we have five years and the requirements to make for effective learning and teaching are not provided, then no matter how long the programme lasts, we will still have problems.
The unfortunate thing about the present system is that, as a nation, we have not even had the privilege of assessing the performance of the first batch of students who began the four-year programme. They are presently in the second year and we cannot right now determine whether the system has had a positive or negative impact on the educational system.
I think it is after the first three batches of students come out that we would be in a position to properly assess them based on their performance.
As I said earlier, while the duration is important, the availability of teaching and learning materials as well as the readiness of students to learn, the readiness of teachers to teach effectively and efficiently, and the readiness of the heads of the various schools to sustain their supervisory roles, which will make teaching and learning practicable and possible, is even more crucial.
Inadequate infrastructure in schools has always been with us right from the basic to the tertiary level. This is therefore not the first time that an issue of this nature has come into the public domain.
The nation has had shortages of logistics in the educational sector for a very long time. Indeed, shortage of teaching personnel is still ongoing. I am informed that basic schools alone need about 17,000 teachers. We have had problems of unavailability of textbooks and other learning materials, and even availability of common chalk sometime ago posed great challenges to effective academic work.
Fortunately, Mr Alexander Tettey- Enyo is not a novice in the educational system because he was a teacher, a headmaster in a secondary school, a president of CHASS, a director (secondary education), and acting director-general of the GES, and therefore knows what he is talking about.
However, I hope that the educationist in him will predominate over the politician in him now, and that he will give the best advice and also have advisors from schools still running the present programmes to enable him to appreciate what the problems are, instead of assuming the problems himself.

Nana Yaw Owusu Akwanuasa
Otumfuo
Mpaboahene
The government has not yet opened any public debate on this subject, so I regard the subject as only a hint dropped by the minister designate for education on what the NDC government intends to do in the educational sector. This may mean abolishing the four-year senior high school system and revert to the earlier three-year programme which obtained when the party was in office.
It is premature now to engage in serious public debate on the subject. This is because the government has not really come out with a policy to change the present programme.
My concern is that before the present programme was adopted, there was a series of consultations, public debate, presentation of papers and opinions of people as well as expert in the field of education.
And then, based on the information gathered, the pros and cons were considered after which decision was arrived at to implement a four-year programme.
It looks like a section of people who found themselves on the other side of the process and who did not find favour at the time, would want to change the system now that they are in power.
As a nation, if we intend to reinvent the wheel in this way anytime it suits us, there will not be an end to the resolution of crucial national issues.
Some of the reasons for rejecting the four-year system, including the lack of infrastructure and of human resource as well as logistics, are matters that can be resolved for the process to advance smoothly. In a situation like ours, the idea must first be accepted and then it becomes important to make sure that the ground rules are followed accordingly.
Education is the bedrock of any nation and building the capacity of future leaders rests solely on the provision of quality education, especially for the youth, at all levels and nothing should be done to toy with the programme through any form of political machination to suit any particular group.
I believe a lot of factors were taken into consideration before the four-year programme was accepted. Personally, I wish we retain it.

Mr Felix Owusu-Achiaw, Supervising
Manager, Bosomtwe Rural Bank
I was a bit surprised to hear that the present government wants to abolish the four-year period in senior high school and revert to the three-year duration.
My surprise stems from my interactions with some key employers in the country who have been recruiting fresh graduates into their companies and the performance of such graduates during interviews.
According to the employers, products from the traditional sixth form type of education who gain admission into the universities perform more creditably during interviews as well as on the job than products from the senior secondary schools.
My interactions with my nephew who is a product of the educational reform and who also attended one of the best second cycle schools in the country, indicate that the commitment of their teachers and the desire of the students to focus on their academic work notwithstanding, they are not able to cover most of their syllabi during normal class periods. This, according to him, is because their syllabus is loaded.
I think that the four-year programme is okay. This is because it would afford both teachers and students enough time to concentrate on their work and be able to produce the best during examinations.
Lack of infrastructure and teachers has been cited as a major problem in the implementation of the four-year programme. I wonder if the economy can address these problems immediately.
I suggest, therefore, that we go by the four-year course until such time that the economy can address the human resource and infrastructure requirements.

No comments: