In recent months and weeks the Ghanaian education system has come to dominate discussions. What is contributing to this is the rapidity with which the NDC government has acted to revert the duration of the SHS from 4 years to 3 years, after a charade of a two-day national forum. This is happening at the same time that it has come to light that 54% of school children in cocoa growing areas cannot read and write and that only 50% of BECE students qualified for entry into the SHS.

The government has not advanced any reasons for the swiftness of their action in the absence of any critical evaluation of the 4-year system which was only introduced in September 2007. They have cunningly stated that they are implementing the Anamuah-Mensah Committee recommendations which favoured a 3-year duration predicated on adequate resources being made available to schools throughout the length and breadth of the country. The Education Minister has only paid lip service to this proviso of adequate resourcing by announcing that plans are far afoot to do so but no details have as yet been given. There are no indications given in either the March 2009 budget or the August 2009 supplementary budget of any astronomical (since that is what would be required) increase in the education budget.

The question to ask is: how did our education system (that was considered to be amongst the best in Africa) end up this way? Education in Ghana dates back to pre-colonial (mercantile) times. It saw reforms in the colonial times but the reforms under own bat started in 1951and 1961 under the Accelerated Education Plan of the CPP government. There were no substantial reforms after these until 1987, which also mark the beginning of the present predicament.

In the early 1980s, it was true that the education system was close to near collapse. Since the 1970s, the sector had suffered from lack of resources (including unqualified teachers, lack of textbooks, dilapidated school buildings, etc.). By the early 1980s the lack of resources had reached acute proportions and the need for reforms was not in doubt. The political climate in 1987 however did not permit widespread consultations on the type of reforms that were required.

The 1987 reforms are thought to have stemmed from the recommendations of the Dzobo Committee of 1974. Pre-tertiary education then consisted of 6 years primary and 4 years middle school (forming elementary education); and 7 years secondary education. From middle school form one onwards pupils could leave the elementary school to enter secondary school via the Common Entrance Examination, which was the only route to secondary school. Thus the duration of pre-tertiary education varied between 13 and 17 years. This system was thought to favour those who attended preparatory schools mostly in the urban areas who leave for secondary schools after 6 years primary education. A statistic from that time was that about 30% of those who enter secondary schools were from preparatory schools whilst 70% were from traditional elementary schools. This was thought to be unfair to the rural children and those who attended traditional elementary schools.

The Dzobo Committee made the following criticisms of the 10-year elementary school system - lack of places for the entire school-going age; inadequate facilities; disparities in distribution of educational facilities; inadequate numbers of trained teachers; too much emphasis on academic aspects of education to the exclusion of vocational skills; and hence the inability of school leavers to find suitable employment. Similar criticisms were made about secondary education in addition to the charge that only a small proportion of middle school leavers were entering secondary schools.

The Dzobo Committee report resulted in a New Structure and Content of Education for Ghana based on a 6-3-4 pre-tertiary system. Under this there would be a 6-year primary education followed by a 3-year JSS followed by a 4-year SSS. The JSS would replace the 4-year middle school and the first 3 years of the conventional 7-year secondary school. The JSS in addition, would not only focus on delivering academic subjects but would also equip the children with practical vocational and technical skills that would prepare them for the world of work should they terminate their education at this level. Apart from these changes, the Committee envisaged the retention of the internationally recognised ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels, where the ‘O’ level would be sat two years into senior secondary school education and the ‘A’ level at the end of the 4 years.

The Dzobo recommendations were not implemented on a nationwide basis but were piloted with the establishment of experimental JSS across the country. There were no commensurate experimental senior secondary schools though. Rather the pupils from the experimental JSS were either maintained in a parallel system to sit the ‘O’ level or were admitted to form four of the conventional secondary school system. The performance of these early JSS products in the conventional secondary schools (in terms of ‘O’ Level results) was not encouraging. It was therefore clear at this piloting stage that the standard of education that would be acquired by the JSS graduates at the end of additional two years conventional secondary school education was going to be below the ‘O’ level standard. So why on earth was it thought that an additional one year would prepare them for tertiary education?

It is widely believed that the half-baked piloting was not evaluated to inform any reforms before the PNDC military regime implemented the reforms of 1987. They did this under the “pressure” and sponsorship of donor organisations, chief amongst them the World Bank. The needed cooperation from such stakeholders as university academics, NUGS or the GNAT was not sought before implementation. Until Dr Abdallah (the then education Minister) announced the actual reforms, no one outside government, knew what they were going to be. The reforms, when they were announced, contained significant departures from the Dzobo Committee recommendations: the duration of the senior secondary school was reduced to 3 years instead of the recommended 4 years and the internationally recognised ‘O’ and ‘A’ Levels were abolished. Quite similar to what is happening now, the then Education Minister, who chaired a national debate in January 1987, did not countenance any dissenting views on the implementation of the reforms.

From thereon the inadequately-resourced junior secondary schools have been burdened to maintain the same academic standards as before. They have been tasked to impart the same amount of academic knowledge as the 4-year Middle schools and the first 4 years of the old secondary school combined. They are also required to teach pre-vocational and pre-technical subjects. In effect this level has seen the most drastic changes in terms of curriculum, teaching methods, textbooks as well as teacher training and skills. The anomaly is that most of these schools are located in the most poor and deprived communities, who are least able to provide the workshops and the teaching and learning materials that are required to deliver the expanded curriculum.

With these inadequacies it was clear at the onset that the already disadvantaged pupils in the rural areas were going to be put at even greater disadvantage. So we have the current situation where most rural children terminate formal education at age 15 without having acquired any skills (whether academic or technical or vocational). They have to start earning at an early age when they possess very limited life skills. Most of them migrate to the urban areas where they sell all sorts of wares in slow moving traffic.

An additional problem that has been caused by the 1987 reforms is that by truncating the duration of pre-tertiary education, the university application pool has swollen without the commensurate increase in resources (i.e. halls of residence, lecture theatres, lecturers, etc.). Previously the three public universities between them admitted under 10,000 students a year. Now each university is admitting close to this number annually. Even with the establishment of UDS at Tamale and the elevation of the Winneba Specialist Training College and the Tarkwa School of Mines to independent university status as well as the elevation of polytechnics to tertiary institutions, some lecturers handle classes in excess of 1000 students.

Given this picture, it is unfortunate that the government, by the two-day forum, has reduced the crisis confronting education to just a debate about the duration of the SHS: 3-year or 4-year. There are those who claim that with resources (which by the way are not being adequately provided), three-year SHS will suffice. At the same time those who favour the 4-year (with which I sympathise) claim that it will provide students with ample time to cover their syllabi before having to sit the WASSCE. Both sides may be right yet both could be wrong for we are all trying to answer the wrong question.

We need to be mindful of the current problems in order to provide solutions. The problems include the following:

• There are not enough teachers qualified to teach the pre-technical, pre-vocational and science subjects and this is more prominent in the rural areas. There are still a number of the old ‘Certificate A’ teachers in the rural areas who lack the skills required to teach the new JSS curriculum.

• Because teachers are now trained at the tertiary level, some of them consider it beneath their ‘new status’ to be posted to the rural areas after graduation;

• The workshops and laboratories to teach the extended JHS curriculum are not available especially in the rural areas and the state is financially constrained to provide them in all Junior Secondary Schools in the country; • • About 50% of JSS graduates fail to qualify for the SHS and those who do are not competent in basic literacy and numeracy and this carries on even to the tertiary level; • • Pupils who terminate their education at the JSS level are predominantly from rural schools. It is also true that rural children who go beyond the JHS stage do not pursue science and technical courses because their schools do not have the needed workshops and laboratories. • From these examples the problems besetting the current structure are the interrelated ones of resources and course content. Attempts to discuss one factor without the other will not work and will be counter-productive. So how do we move beyond the current problems? I will suggest that there are individuals who are better qualified to provide solutions. I will however make my own humble suggestions.

1. We should start from what we can realistically provide and achieve in terms of resourcing. We have to be honest about it instead of the current political gimmicks. With the best will in the world the state cannot, in the short term, adequately equip all schools in the country and supply the numbers of appropriately trained teachers to deliver the JSS curriculum.

2. Therefore, with the scarce national resources, we should rather be contemplating resource concentration. The focus of the JSS on pre-vocational and pre-technical studies should be weakened and switched back to literacy and numeracy. Not only will this move require fewer resources, but also the teachers in the system are already trained to teach these. 3. The SHS should be re-structured as the stage for specialisation and resource concentration. It is in this regard that the 4-year duration could be considered. Students should be given general education over the first two years to allow them to identify where their strengths lie. The last two years should then be used for specialisation. Adoption of this system should allow rural and urban students to have the same start thus levelling the field and removing the current in-built disadvantage the rural children are suffering.

4. Teacher training should be introduced after the BECE level to train teachers for the kindergartens, the primary schools and even for the JSS. This could provide teachers who may be prepared to serve in their own communities. It will also relieve some of the pressure on the SHS and subsequently on the tertiary institutions.

I am glad the government appear to have signalled that the reversion to 3-year SHS is not going ahead this September but rather from September 2010. I hope they are able to use the next 12 months to come up with long-term solutions rather than hang up the future of the millions of Ghanaian children on the peg of 3-year SHS. If the current system is maintained, in whatever guise, without structural changes within the reality of our resource ability, we shall continue to lament the Ghanaian education system for years to come.

It has been the practice that MPs often rubber-stamp legislation sent to the house by the executive, especially if the President’s party form the majority in parliament. In the case of education, I am appealing to the parliamentarians to think first of the children in their constituencies before they cast their votes. Most of you represent rural areas like Akyem Abodom and Akyem Pramkese where I come from and I urge you to vote conscientiously and not because your government wants to save money and certainly not because the World Bank desires so.

To parents and the various PTAs, you too have voices. Do not leave the shaping of education to the politicians only. The future of your children is at stake so make your voices heard and be prepared to lobby your various MPs for them to do the right thing. You have the leverage to vote them out of parliament in 2012 if they refuse to listen to you.

The future of Ghana should be safeguarded and nothing can do that more than quality education for all its children. Ghana needs all its citizens well-educated and well-trained. Let us all raise our voices to ensure that.

Dr Frank Ohemeng

British Nuclear Fuels Plc Manchester, UK