Chronicle Editor
Prof P. Mavima
In a lengthy article that appeared in the Sunday Mail Extra section of April 17, 2016 my colleague, the Deputy Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development (MHTESTD) Dr Godfrey Gandawa, made an effort of unpacking the vision of the STEM initiative that his Ministry has implemented since January this year.That article is important in a number of respects. First and foremost it brings issues surrounding the STEM initiative squarely into the public domain, allowing a hopefully positive engagement to take place beyond the confines of the various fora provided by the executive branch of our Government. Indeed, it is global best practice for governments to throw certain social and economic issues into public space, in the process generating debate that yields robust policy initiatives that are ready for successful implementation. Recent exchanges on this initiative between MHTESTD and the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MOPSE) have been erroneously construed as turf war between the two ministries.
The reality of the matter is that these exchanges are a discourse on the fundamentals of policy formulation and implementation. So, the publication of Dr. Gandawa’s article is also important in that it accords us an opportunity to frankly discuss normatively and prescriptively the process and procedure for policy formulation, not only related to this particular initiative, but to public policy in general.
Every policy initiative should aspire to attain some value for society. It is that anticipated value as well as the specific socio-economic ecology prevalent at a specific time that dictates the architecture of an initiative. Policy initiatives often target a specific problem bedevilling society at a particular time. Logically designed, a policy initiative addresses the specific problem and leads to the attainment of the requisite societal value.
After going through a lot of fluff related to the need for urgent action on this initiative as well as an attempt to define the entire concept of STEM, Dr. Gandawa’s article finally gets to inform its reader that the objective of his Ministry’s current STEM initiative is to “increase the number of ‘A’ Level students who will take up science, technology, engineering and mathematics in preparation for their entry into university education.”
We are further informed that the initiative is meant to encourage “the young people at a critical decision making point to decide to take up STEM subjects.” This is supposed to logically lead to a critical mass of STEM graduates who will lead scientific research and development and will be creative and innovative enough to foster industrialisation and overall transformation of the country’s productive sectors.
The identification of the ultimate value sought notwithstanding, it is still very difficult to see how the current STEM initiative can achieve what it says it wants to achieve. Indeed, Zimbabwe should stemitise its education system for the ultimate goal of socio-economic transformation, but the STEM initiative as implemented by MHTESTD does not get us near that goal. It lacks logic and does not address the problem it seeks to resolve.
For starters, by focusing on students entering ‘A’ Level, it will have already missed the boat. At that level, students have already self-selected and this initiative will not make much of a difference in increasing the numbers of students choosing to do STEM subjects as opposed to arts or commercial subjects. It is highly doubtful that a student who has scored highly in science and mathematics subjects at ‘O’ level would be likely to pursue arts subjects.
The logic of the current STEM initiative is to incentivise ‘O’ Level graduates to take up STEM subjects at ‘A’ Level, something that such graduates cannot do unless they have done well in science and mathematics. If they have done well in science and mathematics, then they will take up STEM subjects anyway, with or without this STEM initiative.
Thus, the marginal effect of this initiative to influence the decision to take up STEM subjects is going to be very low. The logical thing to do to excite more students to take up STEM is to dispel the fear that the majority of our students have about science and mathematics subjects. Influencing that change of attitude requires interventions that start in the early years of a student’s educational career, as early as the infant level.
Thus, at the point of transition from ‘O’ to ‘A’ Level, it will be too late for the creation of the so-called critical mass. So, the current initiative is akin to a priest or pastor who is so content on maintaining their current flock of believers and does not bother to get out and convert new worshippers. If the issue is about producing a critical mass of STEM graduates, there are no short-cuts.
A holistic approach that mainstreams STEM from the infant level is the way to go and that is what Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education has set out to do with its newly unveiled curriculum framework. Such a STEM initiative should not be content with the teaching of STEM subjects in the traditional mode, but should embrace 21st Century pedagogical approaches that promote critical thinking, problem solving abilities, innovation and creativity. This is why the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education focus is in terms of STEAM, which adds to STEM the “A”, representing the creative arts.
Such an initiative should also provide optimal infrastructure including well stocked science laboratories, technology workshops and design and fabrication labs, all of which make the academic and innovative experience of the students worthwhile and impart requisite skills and competencies for performance in real life.
MHTESTD’s STEM initiative fails on another front. The teaching and learning of sciences (Biology, Physics and Chemistry) as well as technology subjects is currently skewed in favour of relatively well up schools in Zimbabwe. These are our Mission schools, the urban based Government schools, and the trust schools.
These are the schools where a modicum of science and technology infrastructure exists such as laboratories. These are the same schools that produce the majority of ‘O’ Level graduates ready to take up STEM subjects at ‘A’ Level.
The majority of the relatively poorer schools, especially the day secondary schools found in rural areas, currently do not have the infrastructure that allows them to teach pure science subjects at ‘O’ level. Most schools in this category end up making do with Integrated Science.
Even the provision of science kits to all secondary schools in the country has not helped the situation in these schools. Due to this fact, the current STEM initiative, in terms of motivating wider stemitisation of the education system, is flawed in that it targets a population of students who were most likely to afford such an education anyway.
In many respects, it is elitist. Thus, from a financial perspective, its motivational effect will be marginal. As a policy initiative, it is not redistributive as it claims, it is only distributive. It takes from ZIMDEF and puts into the pockets, of not those most in need, but those who happen to have afforded to go to the relatively well up schools in the country where the teaching and learning of science is concentrated.
It does not equalize the STEM opportunity and therefore is not an effective instrument to create the critical mass of STEM graduates that it purports to. What Dr Gandawa calls the “essence of STEM”, that is, “… the creation and making them accessible to the wider population, of advanced scientific and technological opportunities and linking the frontiers of the Internet of Things (IoT) through funded entrepreneurship for Zimbabwe’s future generations of wealth creators” is defeated by this elitist focus.
An additional folly of the current STEM initiative as explained by Dr Gandawa is that it fails to place itself within the context of what has been happening in the Primary and Secondary Education sector and, indeed, fails even to acknowledge STEM related efforts in Higher and Tertiary Education over the years. Dr Gandawa creates the impression that STEM is a completely new phenomenon in Zimbabwe.
What is really surprising is that, by his simplistic definition, which essentially says it is the teaching and learning of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Zimbabwe has made considerable strides at both levels of education, in promoting STEM. In fact, the “Education for All” policy thrust of the early 1980s was revolutionary in opening up opportunities for indigenous Zimbabweans to pursue education and careers in all disciplines including STEM.
It is common knowledge that Zimbabwe has been the main contributor of professionals in Scientific and Engineering fields into SADC and beyond. We have also contributed substantial numbers of medical professionals, Engineers and STEM academics into several global markets including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. Several state universities were established to augment the STEM capacities that existed at the only university that existed in the country in 1980, the University of Zimbabwe.
The establishment of the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Chinhoyi University of Technology (CUT), Harare Institute of Technology (HIT) and Bindura University of Science Education are all examples of Government’s efforts in augmenting the national capacity to produce STEM professionals.
The Scientific, Industrial Research and Development Centre (SIRDC) is testimony to Government commitment to promoting scientific and industrial research and development with an eye towards commercialization of the results of such research. At a lower rung, several polytechnic colleges have been established since independence to focus on developing the practical and technical skills required by industry.
The apprenticeship programme, run by the Government, some parastatals and some private entities has also been an important avenue for the development of a human capital that has direct relevancy to the needs of industry. Granted, these efforts may not have produced results to the extent expected, or may have been insufficient to meet national demand of STEM related professionals in terms of quantity and quality, but it is, however completely irresponsible to pretend that nationally, there is nothing that has so far been done to promote STEM. It ignores tremendous educational achievements since 1980, which are, indeed, the definition of the legacy that His Excellence, President R.G. Mugabe has curved for himself and the nation of Zimbabwe.
My friend, the Honourable Deputy Minister Dr. Godfrey Gandawa’s article also conveniently fails to review extant situation regarding the production of STEM ready graduates from the country’s high schools.
There are virtually no statistics presented in defining the problem that his Ministry’s STEM initiative seeks to resolve. He leaves to conjecture specifics about the quantum of STEM graduates from our high schools that will satisfy the so-called critical mass.
Without that important statistic, how will we know that we are doing enough? Alternatively, without laying out these statistics, how would we know that we are not already doing enough, at least quantitatively, to meet existing and anticipated national demand? For example, the table below presents statistics on the graduates who have come out of our high schools with STEM related passes and ready to enter tertiary education from 2013 to 2015:
These ‘A’ Level graduates end up in an academic cul-de-sac for two reasons. First, the absorptive capacity of our institutions of higher learning is limited, so only a few of these students are able to get a place at local universities.
For this reason, only those with 14 points or above are able to compete for places in high demand STEM programmes like Medicine and Engineering. However, it is common knowledge that, in other countries across the globe, students can enter these programmes with as low as 6 points in the appropriate subjects at ‘A’ Level.
Secondly, these graduates find themselves in an academic dead end, because, currently, there is virtually no public financial support accorded to Zimbabwean students entering universities and other institutions of higher learning. The irony of the matter is that the current STEM initiative spearheaded by the MHTESTD continues to push more and more students into this academic dead end. It ignores high flying students who have passed ‘A’ Level, but do not have public financial support to proceed to tertiary education.
To ease this bottleneck, I think that it would be most prudent for our sister ministry to develop a STEM initiative that centres on creating public funding opportunities for STEM ready ‘A’ Level graduates entering the country’s institutions of higher learning. Their current initiative smacks of a missile designed to hit the easiest of non-consequential targets.
It reminds me of the story of a drunkard who loses his wallet on a dark section of the road from the pub, but conveniently chooses to look for the same wallet under a street light. Public funding of Higher and Tertiary education programmes is of utmost importance if we want to create the so-called critical mass of STEM professionals who will lead the socio-economic transformation and industrialisation of Zimbabwe.
Higher education is a public good that is characterized with positive externalities. It is bound to be under-supplied if its funding is left only to students and their families. By the very fact that wider society benefits from the transformative roles of STEM professionals, the nation as a whole should share in funding the development of this human capital in our universities and even through programmes such as the Presidential Scholarship programme that is tenable outside the country. MHTESTD should put emphasis in widening these opportunities.
In conclusion, policy formulation should not be a matter of shooting from the hip or a result of hyperactivity. We get worried when we see the tail wagging the dog. Policy formulation should be a matter of strategic thinking. It ought to be deliberate and well thought out. Initiatives should be designed to optimize the attainment of the ultimate value sought whilst minimising unintended effects.
Some of the Asian Tigers that Dr Gandawa cites as informing his Ministry’s STEM initiative have created institutions that aid the development of public polices and initiatives in a strategic and deliberate manner. China has its National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) which is a think tank charged with researching and developing key public policies.
In the Democratic Republic of Korea, policies that have guided the country’s industrial development have been researched and developed with expertise from the Korea Development Institute (KDI). KDI’s hallmark function is policy research and analysis on fundamental economic and social issues using scientific methods.
Malaysia continues a tradition that was started by Dr. Mahathir Mohammad where highly qualified analysts drive scientific policy research and development. For all these countries, STEM policies provide for well integrated programmes that start at the infant school level and culminate in industrial research and development parks where ground-breaking innovations are incubated and commercialised. It would help Zimbabwe immensely to do the same.
Professor Paul Mavima is the Deputy Minister of Primary and Secondary Education. He is the National Assembly Member (MP) for Gokwe Sengwa Constituency in Gokwe South District. He has maintained a presence at the University of Zimbabwe, Midlands State University and Bindura University of Science Education in a supervisory capacity for doctoral students.
Online Reporter