“WE have initiated the establishment of Zimbabwe Foundation for Education with Production (ZIMFEP) to conduct educational experiments at pilot schools for ex-refugees, which can later be replicated nationally; and we have repeatedly and consistently enunciated our national policy of Education with Production.” (Dzingai Mutumbuka: 1985)
What this statement means is that we had a national policy of education with production in place in 1985.
Has the Government of Zimbabwe rescinded this policy?
If the Government of Zimbabwe has not rescinded this policy, why then is it not being practiced in Zimbabwe’s schools?
Or is it being practiced in the ZIMFEP schools which Government took over during the reign of former Minister Aneas Chigwedere?
Was this take-over of ZIMFEP schools by Government the beginning of the replication of education with production in all schools across the nation?
Was this the beginning of the nationalisation of education with production?
Is the existence of the Psychomotor Ministry not a clear ratification of the Government policy of Education with Production?
Is it not a clear statement that the elitist education model currently running in our schools is not the ideal that the Government needs or requires, is not the answer to our problems?
Is this not a reiteration of what Cde Mutumbuka asked 31 years ago:
“What good, for instance, is science if it does not result in simple labour-saving devices such as solar water-pumps or an economical wooden stove that could save our threatened forests?
“Why learn how to make fancy iced cakes in domestic science classes when the local community needs first and foremost a balanced diet?
“When will our building classes start designing and constructing better houses for the general workers at our schools, instead of making endless practice walls that are later torn down?”
This clarification by our first Minister of Education and Culture destroys the fallacy that adding practical subjects here-and-there in the curriculum is the equivalent of education with production.
It is instructive when he underlines, that: It is not a question of practice walls, but actually building houses; it is not a question of practising hedge-tear darns, but actually mending clothes, not a question of planting a few rows of maize, but growing food for sufficiency and marketing; not about making ‘fancy cakes’, but feeding the community, the nation, the family; not practising different types of joints, but actually making chairs, beds, the furniture that people use in their daily lives.
Thus at ZIMFEP schools, the youngsters worked on their own farms to the extent they were self-sufficient in food and still sold the surplus, they moulded bricks for their classes and dormitories, they made window frames for their classrooms.
They employed their own labour to solve their own material problems.
They were not working for anyone, but for themselves as a community and for the surrounding community.
In their textile classes they learnt how to dye with plants and they used this knowledge to make beautiful tie and dye materials which they sold to raise funds for the school.
In fashion and fabrics, they made curtains for the school, they made school uniforms.
The children not only produced goods in their regular classes, they also had the option to join or form production units to pursue the productive activities of their choice outside formal school hours.
In this context they freely practised entrepreneurial skills.
They raised pigs, chickens, started bakeries or engaged in horticultural production, thus they were able to pursue a productive activity they were intrinsically interested in.
During the holidays they were free to participate in productive activities at the school, at the school farm, they were also attached to production centres throughout the country to widen their experience of the world beyond the school and to hone their skills in the particular field of production.
In the production units, students not only produced, but also learnt how to manage business enterprises as outlined in the objectives of production units:
(e) To give students an idea of what is involved when a production enterprise is being set up (organisation, finance, management, marketing etc.)
(f) To provide business experience and skills to the students. (ZIMFEP: 1992)
And as is also outlined in the terms of Reference for the Production Units Development Fund:
4.5 To contribute towards the development of the school (through income generation).
4.7 To inculcate entrepreneurship development into the students.
4.8 To instill in the minds of pupils that wealth is created through production. (ZIMFEP:1992)
Their schooling was therefore an apprenticeship for entrepreneurship.
It was not the purpose of their schooling to make them someone’s employee.
The point of departure therefore is that education with production was not conceived so the young be equipped with skills so that they are employable by someone else other than themselves.
It was not meant to create a skilled workforce for the capitalist who owns his factory, his farm or his mine.
The purpose was to create a force that is in charge of its own destiny.
It was meant to equip youngsters with skills to start their own enterprises, businesses; it was meant to create entrepreneurs, young people who were equipped to own their own enterprises.
By its very nature, education with production is a total outlook on life, it is an ideology of ownership.
Each one should own an enterprise in this great country.
There is enough room for all of us.