Honourable Minister,
The Challenge before Us
Uganda’s education-related economic development challenge is its persistent failure to breakthrough in science. Graduate unemployment, now a daunting problem, has also been extensively blamed (by President Museveni among other education and employment policy persons) on students’ specialisation in labour-market ‘non-marketable’ study programmes namely, humanities. Subsequently, government has explicitly discouraged specialisation in humanities-biased education.
The cause for concern
Nonetheless, while releasing the results from last year’s A-level examinations recently, UNEB announced that science subjects remain the worst done as was the case for O-level. UNEB secretary, Matthew Bukenya, cited laboratory apparatus inadequacies—a survey carried out during the examination period revealed that 48.4% of the centres either had no laboratory or only a poorly equipped room.
Policy Contradictions
This is not surprising. From day one, it was apparent that improving pedagogical support, rather than mandatory study of science subjects and virtual restriction of government sponsorship to science-based higher education programmes is the way forward. That the cost of offering science subjects is way above that of offering arts, yet most educational institutions must struggle to be ‘profitable’, is another overt policy contradiction in a country that is committed to promoting science education. Taxation of (already under funded) institutions only exacerbates this contradiction. The implementation of USE also raises concerns for science education. To start off, only the downscale schools, which characteristically suffer pronounced apparatus inadequacies, are participating and grants have been reduced to 29,420 and 47,000 per government-aided and private school student respectively. This is why the future of science education is even more uncertain.
Way Forward
Ordinarily, it is not possible to train scientists at shillings 47,000. Since we must cut our coat according to our cloth, however, allow me to draw your attention to some much ignored ways through which the teaching and learning of science subjects may be enhanced under the same, or minimally expanded, budget constraint.
Subsidisation of science apparatus: now that we have to teach science subjects under a budget so stringent, the irony of taxing science equipment and private schools must stop. Instead, the duo should be subsidised--like other sectors of the economy whose development is critical to personal and national development.
Optimal utilisation of apparatus: often, teaching resources constraints arise more out of poor management than inadequacy. Hence, a way forward for the effective teaching of science subjects lies in the elimination of underutilisation of available apparatus. This necessitates that: apparatus utilisation is scheduled to achieve space and time optimality, through matching laboratory and class sizes and extending opening hours; the upscale schools are brought onboard USE and that relevant policy barriers are redressed to promote the sharing of their resources with the less endowed schools, since part, or all, of these resources remain idle for part of the work day/week--when, for instance, ‘50-student-seater’ laboratories are accommodated by 25 and when these are closed for sometime during the work week; and under utilisation consequent upon the rest/meal breaks associated with 8-hour-day school schedules is eliminated through session schooling. Moreover, secondary students here seldom study for all the time they are in school.
Optimal utilisation of available teachers: at the current lesson load floor of 20, many teachers teach for two days a week, since most schools offer 10 lesson-periods daily. Effective teaching amidst USE necessitates that these teachers take on more lessons, so that they serve more students without addressing large classes at ago. Group and peer teaching and evaluation might make this more practicable.
Creative creation of apparatus: there are bound to be very limited funds towards the purchase of laboratory apparatus. Rather than sit back and lament the likely inadequacies, however, teachers should creatively utilise the available resources and local environment to create some of the necessary teaching aids. For instance, cessation of the buying of distilled water need not result into shortages because distillation is part of the secondary school syllabus. Similarly, the rats necessitated for anatomy may be supplied by the school wildlife club, free of charge. A wide collection of insects, birds, animals, skins, plants, rocks, bones, implements etcetera for laboratory use can also be stocked, not through purchase, but student collection. The laboratory technicians, who are often as underutilised as their laboratories, could help with the preservation, classification and dissemination of these specimens. Your leadership would be pivotal to the success of this alternative since relevant stakeholders, including teacher trainers, have to be brought onboard.
Construction of public laboratories: in the circumstances, the luxury of constructing laboratories inside the secluded premises of schools is unfeasible, because ‘private’ laboratories are, for a number of reasons, usually under facilitated and utilised. The way forward, therefore, is to construct public laboratories, where different (neighbouring) schools can book sessions. The merits associated with this are that the laboratories are likely to be well equipped, since one big investment is undertaken in lieu of various small ones; all students, including those from the less advantaged schools, would access laboratory facilities; and the laboratories would be put to more optimal use since they would register higher time and space utilisation rates than the ‘private’ school laboratories.
Conclusion
The Challenge before Us
Uganda’s education-related economic development challenge is its persistent failure to breakthrough in science. Graduate unemployment, now a daunting problem, has also been extensively blamed (by President Museveni among other education and employment policy persons) on students’ specialisation in labour-market ‘non-marketable’ study programmes namely, humanities. Subsequently, government has explicitly discouraged specialisation in humanities-biased education.
The cause for concern
Nonetheless, while releasing the results from last year’s A-level examinations recently, UNEB announced that science subjects remain the worst done as was the case for O-level. UNEB secretary, Matthew Bukenya, cited laboratory apparatus inadequacies—a survey carried out during the examination period revealed that 48.4% of the centres either had no laboratory or only a poorly equipped room.
Policy Contradictions
This is not surprising. From day one, it was apparent that improving pedagogical support, rather than mandatory study of science subjects and virtual restriction of government sponsorship to science-based higher education programmes is the way forward. That the cost of offering science subjects is way above that of offering arts, yet most educational institutions must struggle to be ‘profitable’, is another overt policy contradiction in a country that is committed to promoting science education. Taxation of (already under funded) institutions only exacerbates this contradiction. The implementation of USE also raises concerns for science education. To start off, only the downscale schools, which characteristically suffer pronounced apparatus inadequacies, are participating and grants have been reduced to 29,420 and 47,000 per government-aided and private school student respectively. This is why the future of science education is even more uncertain.
Way Forward
Ordinarily, it is not possible to train scientists at shillings 47,000. Since we must cut our coat according to our cloth, however, allow me to draw your attention to some much ignored ways through which the teaching and learning of science subjects may be enhanced under the same, or minimally expanded, budget constraint.
Subsidisation of science apparatus: now that we have to teach science subjects under a budget so stringent, the irony of taxing science equipment and private schools must stop. Instead, the duo should be subsidised--like other sectors of the economy whose development is critical to personal and national development.
Optimal utilisation of apparatus: often, teaching resources constraints arise more out of poor management than inadequacy. Hence, a way forward for the effective teaching of science subjects lies in the elimination of underutilisation of available apparatus. This necessitates that: apparatus utilisation is scheduled to achieve space and time optimality, through matching laboratory and class sizes and extending opening hours; the upscale schools are brought onboard USE and that relevant policy barriers are redressed to promote the sharing of their resources with the less endowed schools, since part, or all, of these resources remain idle for part of the work day/week--when, for instance, ‘50-student-seater’ laboratories are accommodated by 25 and when these are closed for sometime during the work week; and under utilisation consequent upon the rest/meal breaks associated with 8-hour-day school schedules is eliminated through session schooling. Moreover, secondary students here seldom study for all the time they are in school.
Optimal utilisation of available teachers: at the current lesson load floor of 20, many teachers teach for two days a week, since most schools offer 10 lesson-periods daily. Effective teaching amidst USE necessitates that these teachers take on more lessons, so that they serve more students without addressing large classes at ago. Group and peer teaching and evaluation might make this more practicable.
Creative creation of apparatus: there are bound to be very limited funds towards the purchase of laboratory apparatus. Rather than sit back and lament the likely inadequacies, however, teachers should creatively utilise the available resources and local environment to create some of the necessary teaching aids. For instance, cessation of the buying of distilled water need not result into shortages because distillation is part of the secondary school syllabus. Similarly, the rats necessitated for anatomy may be supplied by the school wildlife club, free of charge. A wide collection of insects, birds, animals, skins, plants, rocks, bones, implements etcetera for laboratory use can also be stocked, not through purchase, but student collection. The laboratory technicians, who are often as underutilised as their laboratories, could help with the preservation, classification and dissemination of these specimens. Your leadership would be pivotal to the success of this alternative since relevant stakeholders, including teacher trainers, have to be brought onboard.
Construction of public laboratories: in the circumstances, the luxury of constructing laboratories inside the secluded premises of schools is unfeasible, because ‘private’ laboratories are, for a number of reasons, usually under facilitated and utilised. The way forward, therefore, is to construct public laboratories, where different (neighbouring) schools can book sessions. The merits associated with this are that the laboratories are likely to be well equipped, since one big investment is undertaken in lieu of various small ones; all students, including those from the less advantaged schools, would access laboratory facilities; and the laboratories would be put to more optimal use since they would register higher time and space utilisation rates than the ‘private’ school laboratories.
Conclusion
As you have emphatically pointed out, to sceptics, both USE and science education are possible; nonetheless, their attainment necessitates much more than reaffirmation of government’s commitment and the conventional; it necessitates innovative approaches that are responsive to the radically changed education task environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment