|
Hizbawi Editorial Number 32
This is a direct translation from the Amharic
publication of Hizbawi. IDEA, Inc. is not
responsible for the content of
the editorial.
December 6, 2004
It
is Not in the Nature of EPRDF to See the Problem
of Educational Policy
The several parties discussion forum
coordinated by Addis Ababa University attracted
the attention of many people. The debate conducted
by the ruling party EPRDF and the opposition
parties pertaining to educational policies are
what were raised five or ten years ago. Since its
inception ten years ago, every time education
policy discussion forums are called upon numerous
questions were raised. What is tragic is, every
time the same questions were raised, and this
indicates that through all these years, the people
did not get satisfactory answer. What are being
raised now after ten years by the parties revolve
not around implementation but around fundamental
policy formation? There are also policy-related
problem not raised by the opposition parties.
In the present parties discussion, the
following questions were raised: the problem
caused by primary education, the inability of
educational policy not to solve the problem of
students and/or people, the use of language, were
among the many problems raised. The opposition
claimed that it has a superior recognition to that
of EPRDF while the representatives of the latter
could not raise any problems beyond what they call
‘success.’ They could not even make the
society to understand problems surrounding
implementation. On the contrary, they tried to
impress that they made great stride in education
and also that the EPRDF scored success in ten
years that was not attained in one hundred years.
As the Ethiopian proverb goes, ‘the fool cries
incessantly’ and EPRDF compiles figures in order
to show success in education. They could not see
success in education outside figures and that
shows its failure in correct assessment.
At the outset, the problem associated with
Ethiopian education has to do with the lack of
policy design that was neither discussed nor
agreed upon by the people. The “donors” design
the Ethiopian educational policy like any other
socioeconomic policies. The main policy initiative
is meant to implement policies as part of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) put out by the
UN and the World Bank. According to the MDG, all
countries should score that every child should
have elementary education, and this means that the
latter should be 100% coverage and it is
predetermined that any country, at any stage of
development, must realize the MDG. Ethiopia
accepts this proposal as is. Moreover, the joint
World Bank, IMF, and UN agencies forum has created
‘education and development program.’ No one
will listen to citizens if the say ‘this is not
the way to go,’ ‘the policies must change,’
or ‘goals need some reform.’ Despite the
pretense of discussions, Ethiopia does not have
the power and the will to change the document it
has accepted.
Because the Ethiopian educational policy is
designed by donors and hence is donor-driven, it
can adequately solve the Ethiopian socioeconomic
problems. The plan of education strategy of a
given country must rest on the general
socioeconomic policy. In our country, the general
socioeconomic policy is not in congruence with the
public consensus. What once EPRDF dogmatically
asserted and rendered, as a blessing was
‘agriculture-led industrial development.’ This
strategy is now over 12 years old, but it did not
bring about any change in our country’s
socioeconomic progress and development. As such,
it must be reevaluated, but the EPRDF is not ready
to undertake an investigation. In order to suit
its educational policy, it states that 8th
grade is adequate, and whoever completes 8th
grade will serve in the agricultural sector. It
did not even make necessary preparation for
Ethiopian fundamental transformation. By just
creating an 8th grade farmer, it is a
futile attempt to bring about fundamental change.
In order to transform agriculture, multiple
innovations such as new technology, modern
irrigation, and adequate capital are necessary
preconditions. Short of this, it is tantamount to
condemning the educated person into poverty and
the 8th grade dropouts could submerge
in unemployment. The problem has already surfaced
in the urban areas. Even the 10th grade
graduates could not support themselves, let alone
the 8th graders.
Due to the promises EPRDF made to donors,
it is obvious that it has increased the number of
students, but the justice to expand education to
members of society should not be divorced from
quality education. The motto should be “expand
quality education” as opposed to “expand
education.” At this point, the quality of
education in Ethiopia is extremely abysmal, and in
this regard EPRDF could not carry on any logical
argument. As usual, education is viewed based on
ethnicity and behavior rather than on knowledge
and perspective. This can dislodge the educational
objective out of track. While the failure of
quality education is apparent, the EPRDF claims,
“We will achieve educational participation even
two years before 2015.” It is better to aim for
70% quality education performance.
Ultimately, it is not in the nature of
EPRDF to initiate reform based on constructive
ideas pertaining to policies. In order to
accommodate change based on citizens’
consultation, the EPRDF first needs to be free
from donors, and if 50% of the educational budget
comes from donors and lenders, the government
could not make independent decisions. The main
problem with EPRDF is its inability to exhibit
independence in the educational sector.
|
