Beneficiarios Finales/Organos ejecutores: SEPES (MF), Instituto Galego de
INSTITUTO GALLEGO DE VIVIENDA Y SUELO
This study revealed that there are many challenges or barriers to community participation in curriculum implementation. The language of education and the examinations, the polarised political environment and the closed-door policy of the schools, resulting in the lack of dialogue/communication between the schools and the communities, emerged as the major barriers to community participation in curriculum implementation (see Figure 4.3).
The study results indicated the language of education and the examinations as the major reasons why the schools could not engage the community members in curriculum implementation. The language of education and examinations in Zimbabwe is English, with the exception of the ChiShona and Ndebele subject areas. The teachers indicated that they were hesitant to engage the community members in curriculum implementation because the majority of the community members were not educated enough to be able to handle the teaching and learning process, using English language as the medium of instruction. This, therefore, resulted in the teachers seeing the engagement of community members in curriculum implementation as a waste of valuable teaching time. The teachers would have to reteach the lesson using English language in order to fully prepare the learners for the examinations which are set in English. This has
164
also resulted in the issue of language remaining a major challenge to effective community participation in curriculum implementation.
The community members, on the other hand, argued that the question of language was not an issue. What was important and valued was for the children to acquire important knowledge, skills and information in whatever language used. However, the blame did not lie completely with the teachers alone, but with the government as well. The government has failed to administer the implementation of the 2006 Education Amendment Act which gives the provision of the use of mother tongue to be used as the medium of instruction at primary school level in Zimbabwe. What this means is that the language of education needs to be a user- friendly language which should take into consideration community participation in curriculum implementation. Failure to enforce the implementation of a user-friendly language policy resulted in the schools failing to bring in the community members to participate in curriculum implementation.
It also emerged from the findings that the school heads’ and the teachers’ negative attitudes, actions and behaviour hindered the community members to participate in the teaching and learning of children. The schools closed their classroom doors to the community members, thereby hindering community participation in curriculum implementation. The established closed-door policy by the teachers and the school heads, also resulted in the lack of communication, or the unavailability of the dialogical space. The teachers and the community members could not discuss openly and freely how they can work together in respect of issues related to the teaching and learning of children. Therefore, what was evident was that the schools did not seriously consider community participation in curriculum implementation as important. This resulted in the teachers and the school heads not creating a platform where the teachers and the community members can exchange ideas. Rather than seeing community contributions as an enrichment of the children’s education, the teachers and school heads viewed it as a waste of teaching time.
Another major barrier to community participation in curriculum implementation was the polarised political situation. The schools had to be very careful as to whom they invited to assist the children, lest they were labelled to be involved in opposition politics. It was, therefore, a big risk for the school and its leaders to engage the community members who belonged to the opposition party even if they had the required knowledge and skills. As a result the teachers disassociated themselves from engaging the community members in curriculum
165
implementation. What this meant was that the politicians were selfish to only think about themselves and their political survival without considering the future of the children.
The government’s policy that no child should be sent home for not paying school fees emerged as another barrier to community participation in curriculum implementation. Due to this policy most rural primary schools found it difficult to raise essential curriculum implementation resources because the parents and guardians did not pay the school fees on time. They knew that their children would not be sent back home (they were protected by the government policy). This, therefore, resulted in the schools finding it difficult to engage the community members in curriculum implementation when the same community members were not providing the critical teaching and learning resources by the payment of the school fees.
Another important finding from the study was that having resource persons in the classroom, the learners did not have a choice but always trusted their teachers’ decisions and choices. This resulted in the community members suggesting that when the teachers look for resource persons from the community, they should make sure that these are people who are knowledgeable and of respectable character so that the children would acknowledge the value of their contributions.
The findings also indicated that the issue of remuneration was another barrier to community participation in curriculum implementation. The members of the communities expected the schools to pay them if they were to offer their services during the teaching and learning process. On the other hand, the schools found it difficult to pay for community services because such services were not catered for in the existing policies which guided the daily activities of the primary schools in Zimbabwe. Thus, as policy, the schools could not offer any payment to the community members. Due to the lack of remuneration most community members, therefore, found it difficult to offer free services in curriculum implementation, after leaving some income-generating activities in the community.