Expanding and consolidating the primary curriculum is an ongoing process to make it reflect the needs of pupils in a rapidly changing world. So few will object to the changes being implemented which include a wide range of subjects and the inclusion of sport and other subjects that are not purely academic.
However, care does need to be taken in widening the syllabus so the essential purposes of a primary education are not lost. Since independence 35 years ago and the opening of secondary education to all, the main purpose of a primary education has been to equip young children for further formal education; Grade 7 is no longer the end of the line for anyone.
Every child needs certain critical skills as they move to high school and then to appropriate further education, which could be a degree course, a vocational course, an apprenticeship or special training in earning their living as a farmer or businessperson.
Many educationalists would insist that easy familiarity with literacy and numeracy are these essentials; people must be able to read and write fluently and be able to grasp core mathematical concepts before they can benefit from any higher education or instruction.
So expanding the curriculum makes sense, so long as the basic core is not degraded.
In many ways this expansion gives all pupils much of what has been limited in the past to those fortunate to attend schools with more facilities, more staff with a wider range of skills.
Sport, for example, is an important compulsory subject at many private schools and at a wide range of urban Government schools; drama and music are similarly considered essential extras for all at some schools.
Rationalising the curriculum thus makes sense, but the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, plus the parents of each school, will need to ensure that there are adequate facilities and adequate staff, both in number and training, at every school.
Educational theoreticians like to press for continuous assessment and school-based examinations.
In the real world there can be two major objections to this. The first is the setting and enforcement of national standards. How, for example, can one ensure that two children of exactly equal ability and effort will be judged equally if they attend different schools, especially if for example one attends a school in northern Harare and the other one deep in the Binga district?
Even without bias or any other adverse pressure, different teachers have different ideas of what constitutes good work. In a national examination those who do the marking are specially trained to work to a single standard and mark under close supervision, so the system works. But such controls will be lacking, or much watered down, in any continuous assessment regime. The problem led to universities in America, where school districts are all independent and there is no national standard, to put in place their SATS examinations for entrance. We suspect that a pure continuous assessment system will lead to private examination bodies offering future employers at least a common standard.
The second problem is even more difficult to solve. There have been breaches of security with the Zimsec exams, breaches which have led to ever increasing security measures and extremely harsh disciplinary action by the ministry. But a continuous assessment opens more doors to potential corruption.
How many teachers might not be able to resist a bribe from a richer father for a better mark? It might just be 1 percent, but that would be enough to destroy a lot of credibility of continuous assessment.
So we urge the ministry to continue improving the national primary curriculum, making it more relevant without losing its core purpose, but keeping in mind available resources as it does so, to ensure that it will benefit all children. But we also urge the ministry to think long and hard about the potential pitfalls in this imperfect world when it comes to downgrading national examinations; there are benefits to such a downgrade, but the potential pitfalls are serious.




