Have the researchers in our Ministry of Education gone intellectually bankrupt that we have to use borrowed or copied curriculum in our schools?
There was a time when the curriculum in use, especially in primary schools, was vetted by senior teachers at various levels — individually and or grouped — specially for the purpose of ensuring relevance of the curriculum.
There are numerous professional bodies such as teachers’ unions, associations of school heads, academics from our universities, retired teachers, other professionals including experts and expatriates in relevant fields.
The curriculum was tested well before transitioning into the system. Somewhere along the line, we have bypassed the systems approach of designing curriculum for our students in our schools. The current set of content — not only for English but all other subjects — is intended to suffocate teachers and children.
Looking at the Years 1 to 4 “Waddington Diagnostic Reading Test” being ploughed through the minds of the students at an early stage of formal education with teachers handling large to extra-large classes, makes me laugh at the administrators of our education system. Hopefully, this may change under the current rank and file within the Ministry of Education.
Imagine a child who has never (most probably never) spoken a word in English is subjected at such an early-stage testing to obtain data for national use. It is mandatory for teachers to upload the results of such tests on FEMIS (an official database for MOE).
What happens to the data collected, henceforth? Will teachers be subjected to bashings and thrashings for being complacent and ineffective or will parents be labelled as inefficient in assisting their children in their reading should the data indicate a negative outcome?
It would be interesting to wait and see the effect of such national data on the literacy rate in Fiji and its usage. To add to this, we in Fiji have composite classes.
Something to ponder about in this era as well. This is a continuity from colonial days. Much had been said about this by a couple of ministers in the immediate past, but this still exists. A teacher teaching two classes in an academic year, handling two sets of curriculums and two levels of students.
This adds to the existing frustrations to the teacher being subjected to such a situation. It seems crying in silence had been the only solution some time back, but I wish our teachers do get the opportunity to discuss their professional issues freely to get solutions.
This will be better for not only them, but more importantly the students as well. Another dilemma is emerging at Year 4 level within composite classes. From years 1 to 3 our students undergo moral and civic education concepts without any form of examinations.
However, at Year 4 level another set of subjects are introduced. Isn’t this a dilemma created unnecessarily? Where have the logical thinkers gone? Complications upon complications are adding salt to the wounds of those directly affected.
Urban school teachers, to some extent may be at an advantage with the experiences of students, parents and guardians at another level, but this does not mandate such illogical testing of students at an early primary school level irrespective of the location of the school with their own set of culture to handle.
This, according to my understanding is a product of the previous administration that allowed such unimaginable levels of content in our curriculum.
Learning and teaching English as a second language is completely different from those learning English as their first language. Language learning including literature must be inclusive of our culture.
This can also promote good citizenship and moral values. Our professionals from the universities in Fiji could assist immensely in this area, but it seems no one cares about their existence and the tremendous contribution they could have provided had they been consulted.
Don’t we have curriculum developers who can develop original and localized, but inclusive English curriculum specifically for years 1 to 4 to gauge their reading levels? Yes, we did have borrowed books such as Tate Oral English which I recommend to be the best for teaching the basics of English.
Nothing after that has HAVE the researchers in our Ministry of Education gone intellectually bankrupt that we have to use borrowed or copied curriculum in our schools?
There was a time when the curriculum in use, especially in primary schools, was vetted by senior teachers at various levels — individually and or grouped — specially for the purpose of ensuring relevance of the curriculum.
There are numerous professional bodies such as teachers’ unions, associations of school heads, academics from our universities, retired teachers, other professionals including experts and expatriates in relevant fields.
The curriculum was tested well before transitioning into the system. Somewhere along the line, we have bypassed the systems approach of designing curriculum for our students in our schools. The current set of content — not only for English but all other subjects — is intended to suffocate teachers and children.
Looking at the Years 1 to 4 “Waddington Diagnostic Reading Test” being ploughed through the minds of the students at an early stage of formal education with teachers handling large to extra-large classes, makes me laugh at the administrators of our education system.
Hopefully, this may change under the current rank and file within the Ministry of Education. Imagine a child who has never (most probably never) spoken a word in English is subjected at such an early-stage testing to obtain data for national use.
It is mandatory for teachers to upload the results of such tests on FEMIS (an official database for MOE). What happens to the data collected, henceforth?
Will teachers be subjected to bashings and thrashings for being complacent and ineffective or will parents be labelled as inefficient in assisting their children in their reading should the data indicate a negative outcome? It would be interesting to wait and see the effect of such national data on the literacy rate in Fiji and its usage.
To add to this, we in Fiji have composite classes. Something to ponder about in this era as well. This is a continuity from colonial days. Much had been said about this by a couple of ministers in the immediate past, but this still exists.
A teacher teaching two classes in an academic year, handling two sets of curriculums and two levels of students. This adds to the existing frustrations to the teacher being subjected to such a situation.
It seems crying in silence had been the only solution some time back, but I wish our teachers do get the opportunity to discuss their professional issues freely to get solutions. This will be better for not only them, but more importantly the students as well.
Another dilemma is emerging at Year 4 level within composite classes. From years 1 to 3 our students undergo moral and civic education concepts without any form of examinations. However, at Year 4 level another set of subjects are introduced.
Isn’t this a dilemma created unnecessarily? Where have the logical thinkers gone? Complications upon complications are adding salt to the wounds of those directly affected. Urban school teachers, to some extent may be at an advantage with the experiences of students, parents and guardians at another level, but this does not mandate such illogical testing of students at an early primary school level irrespective of the location of the school with their own set of culture to handle.
This, according to my understanding is a product of the previous administration that allowed such unimaginable levels of content in our curriculum. Learning and teaching English as a second language is completely different from those learning English as their first language.
Language learning including literature must be inclusive of our culture. This can also promote good citizenship and moral values. Our professionals from the universities in Fiji could assist immensely in this area, but it seems no one cares about their existence and the tremendous contribution they could have provided had they been consulted.
Don’t we have curriculum developers who can develop original and localized, but inclusive English curriculum specifically for years 1 to 4 to gauge their reading levels? Yes, we did have borrowed books such as Tate Oral English which
I recommend to be the best for teaching the basics of English. Nothing after that has been of any effect after this was thrown out of our classrooms. I do not want to mention the vocabulary usage in the said test (curriculum), but plead with the administrators of the curriculum to look into this to ensure that anything our children get involved in must be contextualised and suitable at their level. Teachers and children are struggling to achieve what they intend to.
A ministry full of happy teachers and administrators will no doubt lead to happy parents and students. When the curricula goes over their heads (both teachers and children), discipline issues emerge.
No wonder the standard of oral and written English is nowhere compared to the standard of the past evidenced from scripts and impromptu usage of English at various forums in our society by those who have supposedly completed Year 12 through compulsory education.
A dynamic curriculum which is within the context of Fiji and Fijians will create a better environment of a stable and happy learning.
Happy teachers will prepare well with more encouragement from their superiors. School heads will also take additional taskings to attend to issues affecting the usage of curriculum at their schools. A greater level of consultations has become mandatory.
But those selected to plan, prepare and develop curriculum must have attributes of being competent and skilful. Online search, copy and paste system will only lead to the destruction of our education system.
Remember a generation will be lost in terms of literacy and numeracy achievement if we do not take ownership to provide the best for our students now.
• DHIRENDRA PRASAD is a former education officer and a regular contributor to this newspaper. The views expressed in this article and his and are not necessarily of this newspaper.
