From the discussions I had with the teachers and the community members during this study, as well as from the questionnaire responses from the school heads, it emerged that not all the members of the community are interested or are actively involved in curriculum implementation issues. All the four school heads declared that the pupils’ parents or guardians are the most active and interested members in curriculum implementation. Maybe the parents or guardians’ wish is to see their children succeed in their education and to achieve higher grades. These parents/guardians are also the key figures in the provision of the basic requirements in the learning of the pupils. They are always seen to be most active in providing their children with anything needed at school and also in rendering any services needed by the
108
schools. The following statement represents all the four school heads’ views on the most active and interested community members in curriculum implementation:
The parents or guardians, because they provide all the necessities for pupils e.g. payment of school fees, provision of basic requirements like books, pens, uniforms, food etc. They also contribute in labour, and assist with children’s homework.
Interesting to note from the above statement is that the school heads were consistent in stating that community members’ involvement should remain outside the classroom. From what the school heads stated, it clearly indicates that the parents and guardians are not active during the actual teaching and learning process. They are only active in providing the required materials to facilitate the teaching and learning process.
On the other hand, in the focus-group discussions the teachers indicated that there is no group in the community that is more active than the other in curriculum implementation “…..given that it is us teachers who should invite them (be it individual or group) to teach concepts we think they can add value to what we already know” [FGD1]. In all the four focus-group discussions the teachers listed the parents and the traditional leaders as some of the members they work with at certain levels. For example, in respect of the children’s home work. The teachers said that their working relationships with the parents and the traditional leaders was basically concerned with those topics which the teachers felt they do not have adequate knowledge about, considering that some of these teachers are young, and are not aware of some of the historical and traditional issues. Some of the popular topics where the teachers said they needed the assistance of the community included, namely kurova guva (appeasing the spirits), some Shona rituals like mukweerera (rain-making ceremonies), nzvimbo dzinoera (sacred places). The teachers indicated that they usually give the children such topics as homework so that the children could be assisted at home or by anyone knowledgeable from the community, e.g. the traditional leaders. It is interesting to note here that the teachers made sure that the areas they were not well conversant with, they gave the children as homework so that they could be assisted at home. The teachers avoided inviting knowledgeable community members to the classroom to teach or to talk to the pupils. They believed that the classroom should be guarded jealously by the teachers, and that everyone or anyone should not be allowed into the classroom.Thus, the teachers cautiously suggested that,
109
We will always give children homework in those areas we need assistance from parents or any other community member, we cannot invite them to the classroom. The classroom is a restricted area and need to be treated carefully lest we create unnecessary chaos and panic. [FGD3]
On the other hand, the interviewed community members concurred that the chances of being invited to the classroom to be actively involved in curriculum implementation are far and few. The sentiments of these community members are summarised by what one parent said, namely
Vemunharaunda vanoenda kunobatsira maticha vashoma chose, ndokunge varipo. Asi handirangarire chero ani zvake achiti ndaenda kundobatsirana nematicha kudzidzisa vana. Asi kuda aya maorganisations anobatsira aya ndiwo atinonzwa kuti vanga vari kudzidzisa zvakati nezvakati. Isu tinobatsira chete vana kana vauya nebasa rechikoro ravanenge vanzi vanobatsirwa kumba. [P3b]
Translation: There are very few members of the community, if any, that work
with teachers in the classroom. I do not remember anyone saying that he or she has been asked to assist in teaching any concept. What we have heard are NGOs who come to schools to teach or talk about different concepts. As for us, we only assist our children when they come with homework.
Some community members were even unaware and shocked that some of them could be asked to participate in the teaching and learning process. The following sentiments were expressed by another parent:
Yuwi! Kuti vavingwe nebofuwo zvaro rakaita seni rabva zvaro kumunda haangave mashura iwawo? Panodiwa vakafundaka apa. [P1a]
Translation: An illiterate person like me to be in the classroom would be a
miracle. Only the educated can make a contribution in the classroom.
In support of the above views, one traditional leader also remarked:
Pakudzidziswa chaiko chaiko hatikokwe, isu tinongoti regai vaite ndivo vakadzidzira basa racho. [TL4]
110
Translation: We have never been invited to teach and we are not worried. Let
the teachers teach because they are the ones trained for the job.
Another parent noted with nostalgia, reminiscent of the past, when she lamented:
Makare kare maticha aiuya nekirasi yavo kuno kudzimba kwedu vaine zvavaida kuti tidzidzise vana. Taimati mavisiting class. Zvainakidza chose. Kwete ikozvino, chikoro chava kungoda mari chete kuvabereki kwete kudzidza kwevana. [P4b]
Translation: Long back teachers used to bring their classes to our homes for us
to explain and teach some concepts. We used to call them visiting classes. It was really interesting. Not these days, schools are now preoccupied with getting money from parents and not the education of children.
The business people also mentioned that they interact with the schools only when the schools seek donations from the business people and when they in turn are advertising educational materials to the schools. Otherwise, in-between, there is no relationship. Business Person No. 2’s observation was indicative of this relationship, and represented the business community when he mentioned:
That has never happened and I have never been invited. I don’t know anyone of the business community who has been invited to school to teach an aspect or topic. It should be a new development. [BP2]
Findings from the church leaders also revealed that the churches were not even seen anywhere near the classrooms in terms of assisting during the actual teaching and learning process. This view is evident in the following statements by one church leader:
Hapana vemachechi vatakambonzwa kuti vadanwa kuzodzidzisa vana mukirasi. Dzimwe nguva vakuru vemachechi vanongodanwa kuzoparidzira shoko kuvana pamaassembly chete. Asi izvi zvokutoparidza zvacho zvinotoitwazve nenguva iri kure. Zvekupinda mukirasi kunodzidzisa hazvisati zvamboitika asi kana tikapiwa mukana tingazvida zvikuru. Zvingatobatsirawo vana vedu ava kunyanya pakuumbiridza tsika neunhu. [CL3]
111
Translation: We have never heard of any church member who have been called to assist with the teaching of children in the classroom. What we have heard of is when some church leaders are called upon to preach the gospel at assemblies but again this is not always done. About getting into the classroom to teach, it’s a taboo but we really like it and we are ready to do that if given the chance because this will assist much in imparting moral values in our children.
It is thus evident from the findings that the churches have a very small role to play in curriculum implementation, despite their willingness to be engaged.
Therefore, from the above sentiments from the parents, the traditional leaders, the business people and the church leaders, it is quite evident that trying to get the most active members of the community in curriculum implementation opened a ‘can of worms’ and showed the gulf between the schools and the communities. While the teachers said that they engaged the communities in some areas which they did not have the expertise on, the community members, on the other hand, professed the non-existence of such partnership. I sensed that the teachers are paying lip service to the issue of community engagement, only expressing it in words, and never in practice. It appears, therefore, that the absence of a group from the community that can be regarded as the most active is primarily because of their non-involvement rather than a lack of interest.
However, the school heads and the teachers also acknowledged the fact that the communities play an important role. They create a conducive home environment and provide the material and financial resources that go with successful curriculum implementation. The teachers from each of the four schools voiced the following sentiments as some of the reasons why they (the teachers) are hesitant to involve other stakeholders in curriculum implementation:
When supervision authorities come (i.e school heads, inspectors etc.) they want to see how the teacher is implementing the curriculum as well as monitoring pass rates at schools. Usually they do not even know or bother about community participation in this process. [FGD1]
If you invite community members to teach a concept and if things go wrong, it is you the teacher who would be in problems with the educational authorities. [FGD4]
112
Issues of Examinations have taken a centre stage and inviting communities to teach certain concepts would be a waste of valuable teaching time more so given that you might have to correct some issues and the fact that they may confuse learners is another problem. [FGD2]
Involving them zvakanyanya (too much) might be interpreted by these community members that you are not knowledgeable. [FGD3]
My interpretation of the above sentiments is that the teachers felt that they would be held responsible for whatever happens in the classroom. Inviting the community members to teach certain aspects would mean that the teachers would have to face the blame if anything goes wrong. According to these teachers, the education system in Zimbabwe is examination- oriented, and that bringing in community members would be wasting of valuable time where learners are supposed to be prepared for examinations. Therefore, by not inviting the community members to teach the teachers were also trying to avoid situations where these outsiders could possibly confuse the learners. Moreover, the teachers did not want the community members to misinterpret the invitation to imply that the teachers themselves were not knowledgeable.