Teaching for Results at the expense of Understanding

 Botswana’s education system is increasingly caught in a paradox. On the one hand, it aims to produce critical thinkers and capable citizens. On the other, it has become a system largely driven by examination performance and envied statistical ABC % pass rates. While achieving high academic results is not inherently problematic, the overemphasis on grades has led to a culture where teaching to the test overshadows teaching for understanding. As a result, learners in formative levels of education may leave school with certificates in hand but without the competencies needed for tertiary education, the workplace, or even active citizenship.

This growing divide between educational policy ideals and classroom realities contradicts Botswana’s foundational vision for education. To major policies: the 1977 Education for Kagisano and Revised National Policy on Education of 1994 set the tone to guide educational development throughout the years. They emphasized holistic development through learner centered pedagogy, critical thinking, problem-solving and the preparation of learners for life and responsible citizenship. Accordingly, educational knowledge should develop positive moral attitudes and intellectual skills of the individual and not merely produce high test scores.

Subject syllabi and curriculum frameworks also align with this vision. For instance, the aims of subjects such as Agriculture, Religious & Moral Education and Social Studies explicitly encourage inquiry, ethical reasoning, decision-making and the application of knowledge to interpret real life situations. Teaching approaches recommended across syllabi include group work, research projects, debates, simulations and community based activities. These methods are designed to engage learners in deeper understanding rather than superficial memorization.

However, the reality in schools often diverges from these recommendations. In practice, many educators feel constrained by time, syllabi coverage demands and the high stakes nature of national examinations such as PSLE, JCE and BGCSE. My experience and observations show that a higher number of teachers primarily rely on past exam papers and textbook drills. This is indicative of a pressure to produce good results which consequently acts as a major deterrent to learner-centered teaching pedagogies. In the end, there exists a significant mismatch between the aims of education and the dominant classroom practices.

This dissonance is exacerbated by the Performance Management System (PMS) and related appraisal mechanisms, which heavily link teacher advancement to learner performance on standardized assessments. Promotions and recognition are often tied to the number of students achieving A–C grades. In many schools, this has bred a competitive atmosphere where teachers are reluctant to collaborate or share innovative methods for fear of losing their “edge.” While accountability is important, an overly results-driven model can distort teaching priorities and reduce education to a race for numbers.

The fallout of this system is most apparent when learners transition to the next level of education. It has become a transitional outcry. Some Junior secondary educators grapple with learners who can’t analyze and synthesize concepts taught. The same is relative to Senior secondary educators with the group they inherit from the Junior secondary level. At tertiary institutions, lecturers frequently observe that incoming students struggle with independent learning, analytical writing, and practical problem-solving. Despite strong academic records on paper, many lack the depth of understanding necessary to engage with complex concepts or interdisciplinary tasks.

The workplace and broader society are not immune from these shortcomings. Employers routinely lament that graduates may possess qualifications but are ill-prepared for tasks requiring initiative, teamwork and adaptability. The current education culture risks producing individuals who are “book smart” but life-illiterate and unable to apply their learning meaningfully in real-world contexts, whether as employees, entrepreneurs or citizens.

This is not to imply that there are no efforts to bridge this gap. However, unless reforms are matched by changes in teacher evaluation, public attitudes and examination systems, they are unlikely to gain meaningful traction. Therein lies the central contradiction: the curriculum speaks the language of transformation, but the assessment system speaks the language of conformity to score high marks.

If Botswana is to realize the full promise of its educational policy aspirations, it must realign its educational practice with its philosophical vision. This includes rethinking how teachers are supported and appraised, how learners are assessed and how success is defined. The Teaching Service Management (TSM), Botswana Examinations Council (BEC), and the Ministry of Basic Education and Child Welfare (MBE&CW) must create space for innovation, cooperation and depth. They must reward educators not just for outcomes, but for pedagogical excellence and learner transformation.

In conclusion, Botswana’s education system must choose whether it continues to prioritize appearances of success or whether it commits to education that truly empowers. The time has come to do the needful for education policy. Only then will Botswana graduate learners who are not only equipped for exams, but for life.