admin
Ranga Mataire Deputy Editor
Educator and former Minister of Education Fay King Chung (FKC) says there is a lot Government can do to improve the state of education in the country, including halting the brain drain. In a no holds barred conversation with Deputy Editor Ranga Mataire (RM), the former minister who was recently admitted back to the governing Zanu PF party talks about an array of issues, including her participation in the liberation struggle.
RM: How have sanctions and the economic sector affected the effective delivery of graduates capable of integrating in industry and contributing to the well being of the country?
FKC: The education sector has been affected quite considerably in the past 20 years of sanctions and hyperinflation. This is evident in the examination results: in the 1980s and 1990s, some 72 percent of children managed to pass four subjects at Grade 7 — this changed to 39 percent after sanctions and hyperinflation, which included the re-imposition of primary school fees.
Fortunately, the Grade 7 results have improved recently, with about 50 percent pass rate in the last couple of years. The same thing is apparent in the O’ Level results: in the 1980s and 1990s, roughly 21 percent of children passed with 5 O’ Levels, but this has shrunk to about 13-15 percent.
Another way of judging the quality of education is through the number of drop-outs over the past decade: some 747 000 children have dropped out from primary schooling over the decade. Many of these drop-outs are illiterate.
The survival rate from Grade 1 into secondary school has shrunk from about 60 percent in the 1980s to about 40 percent today. This low transition rate appears to be due to low passes at Grade 7 level, combined with unaffordable fees.
There is obviously a dysfunctional relationship between the education system and the economy. This is because Zimbabweans cling to the Rhodesian education system.
In 1980, everyone, black or white, rich or poor, was convinced that the best education was what the whites had before Independence.
The first Minister of Education, Dzingai Mutumbuka and myself, together with the comrades who had been running schools in Mozambique and Zambia under ZANU and ZAPU, managed to adjust the Rhodesian system to modern realities in the 1980s and 1990s to some extent, but these adjustments were too few and too superficial, and were reversed over the last decade.
Adjustments that were made included the introduction of two technical/vocational subjects for all secondary students up to Junior Certificate, and if possible up to O’ Levels. This was done through tool-kits.
Another adjustment was the introduction of Education with Production by the Zimbabwe Foundation for Education and Production (ZIMFEP) which founded nine educational institutions to provide education and training to war veterans and former refugees during the liberation struggle.
In addition, 400 secondary schools joined as associate ZIMFEP schools. However, this programme was stopped (except by one college which is under Higher Education) by the takeover of the schools by the Ministry of Education in 2004, and the resultant breakdown of technical/vocational education and productive activities thereafter.
The rejection of Education with Production was partially ideological (i.e. against technical/vocational) and partially accidental as the educational gains made in the 1980s and 1990s were not protected.
Urgent changes are needed to align the education system to the economy. The most important of these is the re-introduction of technical/vocational/practical subjects at secondary level, whilst higher education should also expand these areas in line with the requirements of the economy.
RM: What are your perceptions on the Nziramasanga recommendations?
FKC: I think the Nziramasanga recommendations are excellent, and should be put into practice as soon as possible. If they had been implemented in 1999 we would not be in such a situation that we are in today.
Instead, we regressed into the Rhodesian education system which provided quality education to a very few and poor quality limited education to the majority. It is a tragedy that so many people admire the Rhodesian system unreservedly, and consider it okay for the future development of the country.
It is not okay, and will only lead to more tragic consequences for the majority. For the very few who can pay high fees for an elite education it is fine, but they are not necessarily going to develop the country. They will go overseas instead.
RM: Zimbabwe continues to lose some of its brilliant minds through brain drain to neighbouring countries and overseas. What can the country do to ensure that we don’t continue losing our best minds?
FKC: The answer is very straightforward. We need to provide a high quality and relevant education system to the majority, rather than only for the few people who are able to pay high school fees. The fact of the matter is that the rich people who can afford good quality education in today’s Zimbabwe will not find the conditions such as pay attractive here compared to conditions in neighbouring countries or overseas. They will naturally look for greener pastures outside the country. Whilst the economic situation will definitely improve over the next few years, it is likely that we will need at least 5-10 years before we reach the levels of pay of some of our neighbours.
About 10 percent of Zimbabweans qualify for higher education each year, i.e. about 31 000 who pass with 5 O’ Levels each year. That means 90 percent of the population are unable to access any form of technical/vocational/practical education if it is only offered in higher education institutions. This is a major problem, as we need larger numbers of middle and lower level personnel who have exposure to technical areas. This can be done through secondary education. Only about half the age group have access to secondary education at present. There is an urgent need to increase the numbers, as well as to improve the quality. Quality must include greater emphasis on technical/vocational/practical subjects.
Another way to ensure that we use the Diaspora knowledge, skills and experience is to create conditions which will enable them to come home for shorter or longer periods. This can be negotiated with the Diaspora individually for short returns to the country: this is done in many countries, and indeed is already done by many Zimbabweans who hold tenured posts outside the country, but who come back for shorter periods.
Experienced doctors can return to the country to serve Zimbabweans. Longer periods can be negotiated with employers and governments which can release such staff for longer periods. So far, the Diaspora has gone out of the country on their own initiative, and many have done well in other countries. If they could be covered through government to government or institution to institution agreements, we could organise for these Zimbabweans to provide services for us. Experience overseas and in neighbouring countries will be invaluable for Zimbabwe’s future economic development and needs to be organised rather than ad hoc as at the moment.
RM: You are one of the few people with a Chinese background who have not only participated in the liberation struggle, but have also “nativised” themselves to fit in the social and political spheres of the country. Why is it that the majority of Chinese even those generations that came into the country long before independence have continued being politically aloof?
FKC: I object to the word “nativised”! I don’t think it’s an accurate description of myself and my life. I would describe my actions and decisions as due to my principles and ideology of socialism. Of course, you would have to define what is meant by “socialism” — we have Swedish Socialist Democracy and we have Chinese Communism and Socialism. We need to define our terms in analysing reality.
A significant number of Asians, including many local Chinese, have played a role in the national politics of the liberation struggle, although not many actually joined in as freedom fighters. This is partly because ZANU did not try to recruit across the races, and those of us who joined had to make a determined effort to contribute our skills to the struggle.
RM: What are your views on the investment deals recently signed between Zimbabwe and China and what impact do you think these deals have on the overall development of the country?
FKC: I think the investments from China are very important, and indeed absolutely essential for the development of Africa in general, and of Zimbabwe in particular. However, it is also essential for Africa and Zimbabwe to know how to utilise such investments wisely. We have not utilised donor aid and investments in the past very wisely, and we are in danger of making the same mistakes in the future.
It is essential that we prioritise. We have not prioritised our targets, and as a result our plans look like so many wish lists rather than realistic development plans.
We need to move away from an indiscriminate approach to aid and investment: too often underdeveloped countries think “We are too poor to refuse any money”. This is very dangerous. It is not money alone that brings about development. Since Independence in 1980 Zimbabwe has received about US$250 million a year up until 2002, when sanctions were imposed. This comes to over US$5 billion. We should really interrogate whether we spent this money in the best way possible. Very often the donor or the investor imposed the conditions, selected their priorities, and made the decisions, whilst we played a passive role as recipients.
These funds came with many conditionalities, and we generally accepted these conditionalities. Up till today we do not have clear and detailed processes for dealing with donor aid and conditionalities. And on the other hand, they have plenty of regulations, conditionalities and processes.
Online Reporter