Re-evaluating the education system

Most serious commentators agree that for a nation to develop sustainably and at a faster pace, at the very least, her people must be fully equipped with skills that match those needed in the marketplace in order to kick-start meaningful economic productivity. This claim is all more valid when the country in question relies almost exclusively on human capital as the main engine for economic growth. What this means is that the education system of such a nation must have the capacity to continuously equip the workforce with the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes that can enable them to fulfil workplace obligations as well as contribute to national development. And by skills, knowledge and attitudes, I’m referring to a set of attributes taught both within and outside a typical classroom; the entire education system must be competent and flexible enough to develop doctors, lawyers, engineers, and journalists, the same way it must be responsive to market demands of highly qualified plumbers, electricians, beauticians, and carpenters. To enumerate, in the past, well-thought-out education systems played a critical role in giving some developed countries such as the Unites States, and most of Europe a competitive advantage in pursuing economic development goals especially in the late 19th century. For instance, experts such as Professor Alison Wolf of King’s College London – a specialist in the relationship between education and the labour market -believes that what these nations did differently was to first acknowledge quality education as the main vehicle for equipping the workforce with market-oriented skills. Recently, nations that had been left behind such as India and China, have also applied similar measures with outstanding results. At any rate, assuming that there is a consensus on the importance of a competent education system, why is it that much of this understanding has not necessarily translated into sound education systems that match supply of, and demand for, skilled labour? In this piece, I intend to point out two measures that high-performing education systems are doing differently as a contribution to the ongoing debate of how best we can improve our education system. Notably, before we consider these outstanding measures undertaken by high performers, it is important to point out something that is often overlooked when discussing the current education system; two decades ago, Rwanda’s education system was all but non-existent, partly because of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi which robbed us of human capital, and partly because of previous poor governance structures in post-independent Rwanda, which relied heavily on foreign expatriates at the expense of developing local the workforce. Now, having said that, the following are two important lessons that high-performing nations such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom have applied to improve their education systems: Professionalising teaching Professionalising teaching may sound obvious, but you will be surprised by the lack of, or inadequacy of professional teachers in many developing countries, and yet, countries with high-performing education systems such as Singapore have focused exemplarily on transforming the teaching profession by continuously training and developing teacher’s teaching skills, and rewarding them competitively. In fact, after recognising the need for teachers to keep up with the rapid changes occurring in the world especially technological changes, Singapore implemented a policy that requires all teachers to undergo up to 100 hours of professional development per year. What this means is that teachers are able to grasp changes taking place, and in turn be in a position to curate teaching techniques that reflect these changes. Likewise, in the UK, policymakers understood thatif you want to attract the best of the best, just like in any other profession, you have to remunerate them competitively. By making the teaching profession attractive pay-wise, it means that even those with different backgrounds can indeed train to become teachers, which can potentially lead to a variety of talents flocking into the profession. Embracing talent diversity High-performing education systems have also developed high-level academic standards accompanied by a high-quality curriculum which takes into account the various talents of students. What this means is that from an early age, the education system has to be flexible enough to enable all students to reach their potential while recognising that students do not necessarily grow equally academically, nor excel in similar areas. There is a fundamental need to tailor education to the abilities and interests of students, and not necessarily to the wishes of parents, teachers, and others with influence. What we need to bear in mind is that national development will not only be driven by doctors, lawyers, accountants, and engineers. The economy will need such talents the same way it will need plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers, bakers, and beauticians. In summary, given the above points, there are lessons we can draw from high-performing education systems. And while different countries have achieved success in different ways, it is clear that an efficient and responsive education system is paramount in that process; first, most agree that the teaching profession must be elevated in order to attract and retain excellent teachers, and secondly, it mustn’t use a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, the education system must reflect an increasingly competitive global economy that requires more innovation, creativity and research – and less rigidity. junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk

Opinions

Re-evaluating the education system