The Sunday Mail
In this week’s instalment, I take note of one of the milestones in our education system, that is the localisation of our national examinations.
This was a precursor to both the 1999 Presidential Commission of Enquiry into Education and Training and the Zimbabwe Education Blueprint 2015-2022.
Localisation meant the curriculum was to be relevant and contextualised to the needs of learners and the country at large.
As candidates increased, it became imperative that the curriculum should continue along an indigenisation trajectory that ensured education was not only relevant, but provided empowerment tools that facilitated participation in the national economy.
The history of localisation dates back to 1983. A Cabinet decision directed that localisation at both Ordinary and Advanced Level examinations should be commenced.
This decision led to the training of the first lot of examiners in 1984.
However, the pace of localisation quickened in the 1990s and the first localised examination at Ordinary Level was written in 1990.
In 1994, the Zimsec Act was passed.
The following year, Ordinary Level examinations were fully localised. A substantive director for the Zimbabwe School Examinations Council was appointed in 1996.
Consequentially, the former Examination Branch in the Ministry of Education and Culture was abolished and its staff transferred to the parastatal — Zimsec.
Zimsec’s mission then, which still holds up to today, was to provide quality assessment of candidate’s learning/performance and awarding of nationally and internationally recognised certificates at different levels of the school education system, while optimally utilising the human and material resources available to it.
However, the first localised examination for Advanced Level was written in 2002 and localisation was finally completed in 2003.
In particular, teaching and assessment materials would be drawn from an environment with which the student was familiar and to which he/she could relate and apply his/her learning.
With localisation, it was not necessary for our learners to be exposed to the Prairies Canada and the glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctica regions.
The central proposal was to overhaul the curriculum at all levels in order to make it relevant to the needs of the country and the individual learner.
Among the major proposals were to:
— develop good citizenship and philosophy of unhu/untu;
— promote development of indigenous languages;
— develop skills required to make the most of information communication technologies which are changing our lives and the way we do our work; and
— promote practical skills in primary school; the introduction of vocational education followed by vocational training in secondary school, leading to a range of qualifications in different occupation areas: professional, academic, practical and technical (Presidential Commission of Enquiry into Education and Training, 1999).
One of the advantages of localisation was that the Government was able to determine the levels of examination fees in accordance with the prevailing economic environment.
The localisation, among other things, stemmed the flow of foreign currency from the country (£3 million at the peak before localisation).
There were key educational considerations associated with localisation, that is, the transfer of skills (question setting, marking and grading from foreigners to locals) and increased confidence in the education field as locals became more and more confident in handling examination issues.
Over and above this, localisation ensured the end of overt foreign influence in our education system.
In the present article, focusing on localisation as it does, it is clear that there are grey areas — mathematics, science, tech-voc, national identity and heritage remained on the horizon.
Dr Lazarus Dokora is the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, and wrote this article for The Sunday Mail as part of a series on Zimbabwe’s education curriculum review
