El plazo de prórroga en las solicitudes de acceso a la información pública

Contrary to policy expectation, little evidence was found that a localised curriculum had been implemented in any of the schools under study. Some teachers reported that a few selected community members had attended a sensitisation workshop on the localised curriculum (e.g., Interview-L/H; L/D; M/T1), but few parents/guardians or other members of the community exhibited any real knowledge about or interest in curriculum development. They typically considered that such matters were the responsibility of the „education experts‟, who were in possession of the relevant knowledge; and perceived themselves to be ill qualified to participate. The following comment from a PTA executive member in Lukasi is illustrative:

The curriculum is an academic matter. If we tried to get involved that would become too much because we are not experts. It is a job for teachers (Interview-L/E3).

Thus, perceptions are likely to set the boundaries of the participation space, even if the opportunity is freely offered, which creates barriers to actor‟s agency.

An academic conception of education appeared to remain strong among parents and other community members. Some parents explicitly resisted the idea of shaping a curriculum more attuned to local life, such as the introduction of agricultural studies. For example, one father in Mutande expressed his concern about a localised curriculum thus:

We don‟t want that localised curriculum. We already see our children lagging behind. Sometimes, we complain when our children are requested to go to school with hoes because they are just working on the school farm instead of being in class. It will also affect the learning of our children because they will be deducting this time for learning! (Interview-M/P4)

Some parents perceived schooling predominantly as a means of getting good enough academic qualifications to earn a regular income from a job in town (this point will be discussed further in section 6.5). Accordingly, they might have been less willing to see the already limited school day divided up according to a double or triple shift system, with precious time devoted to a subject they did not consider would guarantee the opportunities they aspired to for their children. Besides, many of them believed that subjects related to local life could be dealt with out of school, as the following comment by one mother reveals:

These days, the school uses our children for cultivating the school farm too much. We don‟t want the school to use our children for farming activities because that is something that we parents can teach them. On top of that, I am annoyed that the children took our hoes to school so we don‟t have hoes to use at home (Interview-M/P8).

In recent DEB and PTA monitoring reports compiled by the MOE, the concerns of communities that are of the opinion that emphasis on a localised curriculum will not expose

their children to knowledge, skills and life beyond their own community are noted (EBS 2007a).

Yet, a few parents were in favour of the idea of a localised curriculum. For example, one mother in Mutande commented that she welcomed such an initiative since it meant that even if her children did not continue with their studies, they would still have learnt the practical skills necessary to make a living in the village (Interview-M/P6). However, when asked if she would be willing to teach some practical skills at school such as basket making, she immediately refused, replying, “No way! We can‟t do that minus money! How are we going to eat?” Her comments demonstrate that it is unlikely that community members will be willing to offer their time and effort without financial recompense even if they are in favour of the idea in principle.

As far as the school was concerned, some teachers had never heard of the notion of a localised curriculum (Interview-C/T3; C/T4; L/T2; L/T3) others believed that implementation was in the pipeline (Interview-M/T4; L/H; L/T6); and still others misinterpreted the initiative as merely the introduction the vernacular for the lower grades (Interview-C/T6; M/T2). Few appeared to be very excited at the prospect of this new opportunity or prepared to take the initiative in implementing it; instead, they simply continued to wait for directions from the top. This is contrasted with the central government expectation that when offered such an opportunity, teachers would be eager to exploit its possibilities. In fact, some teachers stressed that the localised curriculum was a „government programme‟ (Interview-M/T1; L/H), indicating that they felt that it was being imposed upon them from the top without adequate consultation, support or orientation.

due to the traditionally hierarchical nature of the profession might explain their lack of initiative. The highly structured and bureaucratic nature of education administration in SSA has been noted in many previous studies (e.g. Hoppers 1994; Pryor 1998; Casely-Hayford 2000; Davies 2003). In particular, Pryor (op.cit.) suggests that teachers lack incentive to become agents of change in Ghana, as they are subject to a long-standing hierarchical and authoritarian administration system. This observation appears to apply just as readily to the case of Zambia, where blind obedience to the head teacher and those further up the chain of command might be considered to be the least risky option for most teachers.

Moreover, some teachers were not keen to involve non-professionals in curriculum design: “The community has no role in the curriculum; that is the responsibility of us teachers because we were trained and know education [matters]” (Interview-C/T4).

As corroborated by evidence from Zambia‟s Eastern province in Serpell (1993), teachers may have historically been of the opinion that their professional mandate is to transform children entering the school into contemporary citizens linked to the national political agenda of modernisation.

Nevertheless, some teachers believed that a localised curriculum was a good idea in principle; yet, they felt that they neither had the technical nor the material support to implement such a curriculum. They thus felt that the cost of involving the community in curriculum development and school-based instruction outweighed the perceived benefit.

We need incentives. If you need to go on a trip to see a fisherman somewhere far away from you, you have to organise the transport and some money. If you don‟t have such things, you will just have that negative attitude. Also, it may disturb normal lessons because you have to prepare (Interview-L/T3).

Therefore, the present study found that although policy favoured the introduction of a localised curriculum, teachers were resistant to such an innovation as they felt that they were unsupported in its implementation and were consequently demotivated.