THE debate about the Zimbabwe Schools Examinations Council (ZIMSEC) or Cambridge examinations would not have stormed the ear of our Parliament if everything was fine; more so, given the fact that both of them are legal examination boards in Zimbabwe.
There are obvious causes of disillusionment with what is our own which we cannot just brush aside in whatever name or sensibility.
This article aims to examine the perceived anomalies with a view to proffering the best way forward for Zimbabweans.
And to do that, we begin with background information.
In 1983, a decision was taken by Cabinet to localise ‘O’ and ‘A’-Level examinations that were at the time delivered by the UK’s Cambridge University.
Training of the first lot of markers for the newly set board started in 1984, but the first localised ‘O’-Level examinations were only written in 1990.
Four years later, the Zimbabwe Schools Examinations Council Act was promulgated and the following year, the first board was appointed.
Zimbabweans need to take note of the fact that localisation did not mean dilution of standards.
Rather it simply meant bringing the Act home.
That is to say, setting of examinations (technically known as ‘item writing’) as well as the actual marking were brought close home.
This transition of responsibility for examinations has been the most significant factor affecting education in Zimbabwe since independence in 1980.
ZIMSEC took over full responsibility from the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) in 1995.
UCLES was one of the examination bodies used in the country while Zimbabwe was a British colony.
During this period, education, like all elements in society, used a system of racial discrimination which favoured the foreign settlers in the country.
All education was also taught along racial lines.
Localisation, therefore, aimed, among other things, to eradicate the colonial vestiges of discrimination.
Localisation also ensured that test tasks derived relevance from the Zimbabwean context.
In other words, the educational curricula which comprise the examinable content was Zimbabwean and therefore relevant to the needs of the Zimbabweans.
What this meant was that ideally, ZIMSEC would be a direct consumer of syllabi generated by the Curriculum Development Unit (CDU) whose main mandate was to contextualise all subjects without compromising skills and competencies.
For example, instead of learning about the five great lakes of Canada (the HOMES: Huron; Ontario; Michigan; Erie; and Superior) in Geography, our children would learn about Limpopo River, Zambezi River, Lake Kariba, Victoria Falls, Mount Nyanga or any other relevant geographical features, while at the same time retaining the kind of geographic content, skills and competencies necessary for a particular level.
The point that needs emphasis here is; learning about your environment first makes learning more relevant and more meaningful to your life than imbibing foreign content that has no direct relevance to your entire being save alienate and dismember you.
The reader should take note of the argument that localisation is important, which argument does not necessarily entail that ZIMSEC is better than Cambridge in its execution of examining tasks or vice versa.
I will come to that later.
For now I am simply setting the record straight to avoid a situation where in our anger and frustration we throw away both the baby and bath water.
The point that localisation ensures that detailed needs analysis is the basis of not only the curriculum content, but also of the examination item, is central to the defence of localisation.
You should pretty realise writing the same exam which derives all its content from the British experience (be it its geography, its history or its commerce) across the entire commonwealth does not serve members of that enclave except in so far as that conditions the citizens of these disparate countries to be for ever slaves of British epistemology while at the same time negating the necessities and imperatives of their own knowledge systems which give them their character and identity as a people.
Indeed one of the key achievements of any localisation is bringing about intellectual emancipation as well as fostering indigenous mind-sets.
Yes, the true mission of education for liberation is to empower; and the best way of intellectual empowerment begins with restoration of indigenous philosophy which encourages seeing the world from your centre; not from a borrowed, let alone imposed, centre.
After the philosophical validation of localisation, let me quickly move on to the technical and logistical justification of the move.
This background is very necessary before we examine the merits and demerits of ZIMSEC and Cambridge examination systems.
It is important that, especially parents are aware of the total picture before they choose either of the two boards for their esteemed children.
Let us conclude this first part by pointing out that localisation allows candidates to have an open direct link to the test developer.
That is to say, if you want to raise a query, you can contact the developer quite easily.
You can even engage the examining Board in a discussion so that your concerns are satisfactorily addressed.
This would not be as feasible if you are dealing with a foreign referee residing
10 000 kilometres away, in spite of the known good of ICTs.
In fact, in the first case, you can discuss and identify/remedy unintended consequences without too many logistical hindrances.
Localisation allows for prompt response to real world conditions and constraints and there is bigger room for effective communication using a language that is mutually shared; there is greater latitude, effective test validation and revision as well as improvement of transparency.
The background detail I have given in this part is meant to set your minds working on this important matter.
Remember, as I indicated at the beginning, what I have given here goes for the ideal situation.
Apparently, the ideal is not what is obtaining on the ground now; which explains why Zimbabweans are taking the discussion to Parliament.
They are certainly not nostalgic about Cambridge; they are simply not happy with their own; but perhaps unaware of the best way forward.
Part two will help them decide from an informed position.