Literature, in the Intensive Care Unit?

THE story is straight forward. The facts are glaring. The consequences are mind-numbing.

Enrolment into Literature classes countrywide is miserably low, especially at Advanced Level. The brightest students are channelled through to Pure Sciences; Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and Commercials so- called; Economics, Business Studies, Accounts or Accounting-whatever the difference is. The remainder, most of them average or mediocre performers, are pushed, thrown is a better word, into the Arts.

The parents, teachers, school heads and heads of department, perhaps even Ministry of Education, have also strangely adopted an anti-Arts attitude. They are pushing children into learning areas they want; not what the learners want and are good at.

If you check the national pass rate every year, you will agree with me it reflects failure rate more than it does the pass rate. An average seventy five to eighty percent of candidates do not make it to ‘A’ level. If that is not bad news, I don’t know what is.

Why is pushing Literature to the back-burner counter productive?

First, we limit the learners’ space to master English language. We all know English is the lingua franca-the language of business, education and global socialization. In Zimbabwe and most of the world’s nations English is the language of examinations. As such it does not take a robotic scientist to realize the pole position of English across the curriculum. It is a service subject which serves all areas of learning.

Have you ever wondered why America and Britain insist that all the foreign students entering their countries to pursue whatever studies or careers must sit special English Language tests? Food for thought…not emotions! Don’t be angry or cheeky. Think!

Can we develop high standards of linguistic development in our students if we do not expose them to an existing avalanche of literary works by various writers gathering dust in our public and private libraries? A good English teacher will acknowledge that literature is a better teacher of English Language than the man or woman who calls himself or herself teacher but whose own mastery of the language is doubtful.

The teacher guides and encourages learning…books are real English ‘teachers’.

Second, when we push Literature to the back burner, we limit the learners’ space to develop verbal intelligence and critical thinking which our new curriculum eloquently and zealously claims to want to develop. Learners do not have to sit Literature examinations but can and must study Literature, not for joy or pleasure, but to develop personal language and the much-talkedabout critical thinking.

We can twist and shout about STEM and throw in all that is needed to make it a resounding success: money, buses, competitions, songs, adverts. There is nothing wrong with that. We badly need highly qualified scientists, 21st century ICT experts, Engineers and Mathematicians in Zimbabwe. No doubt about that.

But how do hunters become sophisticated if they do not improve their hunting tools? English is THE tool of all learning, at least almost entirely in Zimbabwe, and shouting ‘STEM!’ without taking measures to ensure that the mastery of the lingua-franca is made superior by deliberate interventions, is like a hunter running after the eland and buffalo and elephant armed with slings and catapults.

A system of education that keeps Literature in the Intensive Care Unit unwittingly pushing it to the back burner is shooting itself in the foot. Developmental thinking demands strategic mental processes both which ensure effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy in planning. There is no doubt the Wright Brothers were great optimists, dreaming that a machine could be invented that would fly in the air making transport and civilization miraculously quick, effective and efficient. And it happened. Historians know the dates. Since then flying and all that is involved has been phenomenally improving.

Yet we must never forget the role played by the pessimistic parachute-inventors. “This machine will fall… and when it happens how can we ensure safety?” they asked intelligently and realistically. The answer, they invented the parachute. Simple.

What is the import of this article? Those who are driving ideas of change in our education must listen to second opinions and viewpoints and suggestions.

They must respect critical thinkers. They must respect constructive criticism. Education must not move in one direction. The crab-style movement which is one-sided is not effective, is not efficient and is not efficacious. Efficacy refers to the ability not just to bring about results, but desired results. Is it possible that we can pursue an idea well and bring about good results, BUT MISS THE DESIRED RESULTS?

If this is possible, good planners cannot afford to cheer on a racing horse to the finishing line without minding the damage it is doing to the turf. We need to check effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy-all best practices, in pushing any robust educational agenda. It is not smart enough to say we will offer Literature but have no idea what the pur- pose is, aims and objectives, and what best practices to adopt to bring about not just good results, but desired ones.

I want to appeal to those who implement policy not to hide behind being receivers of orders to implement, monitors and evaluators of education goals, aims and objectives. Such executive comfort is synonymous with complacency and is very dangerous for national development.

It creates educational CEOs whose depth of intelligence is underutilized, but paid to be led when they could be used to assist in effective management and bringing about the much desired change. How can Ministry of Education create and employ executives to pay for chorusing their ideas instead of for being functional agents of change who are active partners and not sleeping ones? Enough of that.

What suggestion box is this article making here? And what tangible idea is in it?

Ministry of Primary and Secondary education must seriously review its blind omission of the ARTS, not necessarily from the new curriculum, but from innovating deliberate advocacy promos for Language development (through Literature) the size of STEM. Ministry of Education must lead the campaign to pull English and Literature in English from the ICU. Why? In order to embrace faithfully and genuinely the curriculum notion of development of intelligent critical thinkers and making all this English-centred education easier for the learners!

Last but not least, I want to openly call for, wish I could, a commission of enquiry into why Arts students especially at ‘A’ level do not do as well in Literature as they do in History, Divinity and say Shona? Why does Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education stand aside and look when brilliant young men and women fail to pursue career paths because Literature continues to be a hard nut to crack? There must be something wrong somewhere? Where? Is the stumbling block in the setting of examinations, the syllabus, the teaching or the marking? Is it a bit of all these?

◆ You are reminded that the educational remarks, opinions and suggestions made in this article are not necessarily those of The Manica Post. Morris Mtisi writes in his capacity as an educationist, educational commentator and independent consultant in the area of English Language and Literature. If you want to engage in a civilized debate to agree or disagree, catch me on cell number 0773 883 293 by phone or App. Via email on mtisimorris41@gmail.com. You can also make a date with me on DiamondFM Radio-The programme is Head-To-Head with MM to discuss or debate this hot potato. Be my guest!