Adding to the school curriculum

When making these calls it would seem that little thought is given to the impact of such changes on the existing curriculum.

What is even worse is that no call is made to remove items from the school curriculum. The net effect of this over the years is an overburdened curriculum at both the primary and secondary school. Curriculum changes cannot be made in a vacuum.

They must be made after careful consideration of the overall objectives of education as well as the intended outcomes.

The impact of the adjustment must also be evaluated against the rest of the curriculum.

Consideration must also be given to the capacity of the school to deliver the altered curriculum, such as teacher qualification and resource availability.

While some learned people may think that the proposed changes are desirable, consideration must be given to the willingness of parents to “buy-in” to the new curriculum.

Given the current nature and purpose of education, many parents are reluctant to accept changes that will de-emphasise cognitive development in favour of the inclusion of affective development programmes.

The current configuration of schooling allows very little room to manoeuvre the existing curriculum to include anything else without removing something. There is only so much that can be done in so many hours of school.

Schools are increasingly being called upon to fill in where other education institutions have abdicated their responsibilities to educate and nurture the child. The current approach to schooling assumes that the home, family, community, and even church have a direct role in preparing the child to take advantage of the schooling opportunity.

Failing students are usually the ones that come from backgrounds where such preparation for schooling is inadequate, making the assumptions upon which current approaches to schooling are made inaccurate.

In this context, where social capital is deficient, schools are consistently being called upon to teach what children ought to be learning at home and in their communities.

Teachers are being called upon to teach topics that are very subjective in nature and which sometimes conflicts with parental beliefs.

The social upbringing of the child is now being advocated as a prime responsibility of the teacher and the school, because parents and extended family networks are too busy or irresponsible. Is it fair to demand that these responsibilities are added to the school and the teacher? At the same time the performance of the teacher and the school is judged by the extent to which academic success is attained and not by the number of good decent human beings the school graduates.

These social issues are very time consuming to teach and in many instances require a certain amount of specialised training. The forces of miseducation also have a head start and schools have to painstakingly re-educate the child in many regards.

As a country we must be very clear about the role of schools in the national development process by firstly defining the nature and purpose of education.

The curriculum can then be defined working backwards and the resources thus identified and a commensurate structure defined to deliver such curriculum. Piecemeal and ad-hoc additions to the current curriculum will only serve to compound an already overburdened curriculum.

Proponents of curriculum a d j u s t me n t s would be well advised to bear these facts in mind when advocating for such changes.