By James Tamba Lebbie
Like many other commissions of inquiry set up by the president to investigate issues that are germane to either national development or national security, Sierra Leoneans run the risk of forgetting about the recommendations made in the Gbamanja Commission of Inquiry report, most of which were approved in a “white paper” issued by the government in 2010.
To refresh our memories, the Gbamanja Commission of Inquiry was established in 2009 with the clear terms of reference that include investigating and identifying the reasons for the poor performance of pupils in the BECE and WASSC examinations in Sierra Leone; ascertaining the impact of the 6-3-3-4 system on the performance of the pupils and how that compares with the experience of the other countries that have adopted the same system; investigating the reasons for indiscipline in secondary schools; and to recommend immediate, short, medium and long-term measures to improve and sustain pupils’ performance in the BECE and WASSC Examinations.
Some three years after the commission presented its report and subsequently backed by a government White Paper in which it approved most of the recommendations made by the Commission, I have attempted to make not only a checklist of the recommendations that have been implemented so far (and by extension those that have been ignored) but to also highlight the ramifications for the implementation or otherwise of some of those recommendations.
Meanwhile, let me remind you that the recommendations, which the commission proffered, were categorized under “immediate recommendations”, “short-term recommendations” and “medium-term recommendations”. For the purpose of this piece, I will focus on the “immediate recommendations”.
So far, my inquiries have revealed that implementation of most of recommendations are under way even if they are patchy and selective at best. The recommendations include but not limited to the provision of free and compulsory primary education in both policy and practice; establishment of teaching service commission with a review of the conditions of service of teachers as a top priority action; establishment of the national institute of education, training and research by legislation as a semi-autonomous specialized agency for curriculum development, teacher development and educational research, with a study of special needs education as a priority; implementation of the recommendations of the WAEC Chief Examiner’s report on schools and submission of annual reports on the outcomes of implementation; criminalization of the practice of irregular admission of pupils in secondary schools; and the banning of “ACCESS” courses in tertiary institutions.
However, when it comes to the recommendation that calls for the “modification of the 6-3-3-4 system of education to include a compulsory early child component and extension by one year of the duration of senior secondary school” and the “phasing out of the two-shifts system in schools”, some heads of school across the country I spoke to expressed grave reservations. But while I cannot comment on the “modification” aspect of the 6-3-3-4 system of education” as well as the “compulsory early child component” (whatever that means), I can certainly state that part of this this recommendation – the extension of senior second schooling - has been implemented, but obviously not without its implications. I have made this argument in previous articles and I will restate here that as good as the intension might be in that recommendation, extending senior secondary schooling from three to four years is an attempt to address the symptoms of the problem and not the root causes. In fact, there is no guarantee that standards will improve after the extension especially when the fundamental issues responsible for the fallen standards are not addressed.
And for me, these are some of the challenges: conditions of service for teachers are appalling to say the least. Consequently, many are not committed to the job and they are most often than not, largely distracted by other assignments out of the classroom from which they could secure additional income to augment their meager salaries. Moreover, because of the same dreadful conditions of service, teacher retention in the classrooms is a huge challenge. Graduates, fresh from the colleges now consider teaching as a last resort for job or a waiting ground for better opportunities; and no sooner they are able to secure one than they are on their way out of the classroom. In addition, the recruitment process of teachers is clearly frustrating for many principals of schools. New teachers from colleges could work for up to six months before they are approved by the ministry of education. It could also take several months before they begin to receive a salary. I have been a victim of that practice when as a high school graduate, recruited as a “pupil teacher”, I worked for twenty months before receiving my salary. And the situation has hitherto not improved for many newly recruited teachers as I write this piece. In short, as long as the conditions of service for teachers remain unattractive, extending the years pupils spend in secondary schools would make very little difference. So, the remedy would be to improve on the working conditions of our teachers to make them focus their attention on their school assignments and to review the recruitment policy of teachers. I’m under no illusion that that is a huge challenge but it is doable with serious political will.
Further, while my argument above highlights a major root cause for the fallen standards in our schools, I will also restate my position made over a year ago on the socio-economic consequences of extending senior secondary schooling by one year. And this argument resonates among many other concern parents as well. In financial terms, an additional one year of schooling means a financial burden to meet an extra cost for parents, especially those struggling to make ends meet at a time of grim economic realities in the country. The social implications of such an extension also cannot be ignored, especially for the girl child whose vulnerability in countries like Sierra Leone means they are exposed to multiple risks. And for that girl child whose parents cannot meet that extra cost for a fourth year in senior secondary school, she could be confronted with unpleasant options of early marriage, dropping out of school and/or could be a victim of teenage pregnancy if she is unlucky. Added to this is the psychological agony of those pupils who had earlier thought they would accomplish their university undergraduate education within 16 years.
As for the elimination of the two-shift systems in schools, several principals have told me in confidence that it is not realistic at the moment given the prevailing conditions. In retrospect, the shift system was introduced to cope with the upsurge in enrollment of pupils in schools, especially after the country’s decade-long civil war. The rationale then was to step up enrollment to make up for the disruption in schooling throughout the war.
Unfortunately, however, the increase in enrollment far surpassed the available school infrastructure even with the refurbishment and additional construction of schools across the country after the war. Thus, in the reality of now, getting rid of the two-shift system without the provision of additional facilities to accommodate the excess pupils, risks posing serious social challenges for our communities. To successfully implement this recommendation therefore, both the central and local governments must match up the school infrastructure and the recruitment of many more trained and qualified teachers with enrollment. The government must act and must act fast. And it takes only a political will to do so.
