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.
No comments:
Post a Comment