Find us on Google+

Saturday, 23 April 2011

MMD Manifesto : Education Development

This is our first assessment of the MMD policy proposals. Naturally the MMD focuses their manifesto on justifying the policies they have undertaken and then proceed to show that there’s some sort of vision they are working to. For our purposes we are not too concerned with what MMD has achieved or hasn’t we are focused on their 2011-16 proposals to allow readers to compare with other manifestos.

What are the main specific policy proposals?

The specific MMD policy proposals for education development are focused on two areas :

Primary and Secondary - The MMD plans to expand access to high schools so that two-thirds of those completing basic school education can proceed to high schools. This is basically a continuation of their schools building programme. There also proposals  to establish a Teaching Council for “the accreditation of teachers and for ensuring their continuous professional development”.

Tertiary Sector - There’s a general commitment to expand education training opportunities at tertiary and vocational levels. This is supported by more specific commitments. First, MMD proposes to “ensure that each province has a degree-awarding institution”. Secondly, it plans to facilitate the establishment of a loan scheme for students who cannot meet the academic or living costs of university education. Thirdly, MMD aims to establish an Higher Education Authority “with the responsibility for allocation of resources to various institutions to ensure programmes in public universities respond to national needs and for the monitoring of standards”

For the avoidance of doubt the other core MMD proposal to develop a National Qualification Framework should be ignored because its already in recently passed Bill. It’s therefore not a new commitment and to sceptics it appears to be an attempt to "hoodwink" the ignorant masses. 

What is the rationale?

The MMD believes the key challenge facing education is “access and quality in education” and that “considerable progress has been made in this direction”. It does not explain what is meant by “access” or “quality”. It goes without saying that the manifesto is very weak in defining the underlying problems. Perhaps its to be expected because they would not want to suggest they are sitting on problems after being in power for 20 years. However, that is a naive approach because the public perfectly understands that every government cannot solve everything at once. One thing that is clear from the manifesto is that funding is not the problem because MMD has apparently “demonstrated its commitment [to education] through increased budget allocation to the education and skills sector in the last five year”.

What is our main assessment?

The MMD proposals in this area suffer from significant problems. Chief among them is a severe lack of problem identification. It has identified the need for “access and quality” in education but it has not moved forward to expand on this so that the electorate understands what the key issues are. Is it regional access? Is it access to poor households? When they speak of “quality” what do they mean by that? Too many unanswered questions. This poverty in diagnosis means that the solutions are difficult to judge. After all if we don’t know the problem how do we know whether we have the right solution? The reader is therefore forced to develop his own set of problems and see whether MMD “solutions” would match those. But even with that approach a new set of problems emerge.

Even when MMD makes interesting proposals, it usually turns out half-baked. For example the proposal  “to ensure that each province has a degree-awarding institution” is fascinating only for its lack of clarity. It is unclear whether this will be through establishing universities or offering a degree program at existing higher education colleges (but do these exist?). If it is the former then it is clearly very expensive. Zambians may also question whether the current problem is lack of public provision or poor standards in existing institutions coupled with corruption. People are failing to make it on merit alone. Similarly, the proposal for an Higher Education Authority is interesting, but again it is unclear how this seats alongside the new national qualification framework. Why create two structures when one can work? If MMD believes such an authority is necessary, why is not in the Education Bill 2011?

Those are the more charitable flaws. In general the proposals are extremely underwhelming for a sitting government. A key feature that hovers around the narrative is the lack of vision. It is difficult to glean from this manifesto what the MMD vision for education is. Yes it is committed to building schools but what about the nature of education itself? How do they see that relating to the national economy? How is this education system suited to employment creation and general poverty reduction? Equally, worrying is the lack of costings. The MMD are proposing greater increase in school provision, but with no clear explanation of funding sources or appropriate cost figures. For a sitting party this is extremely disappointing. They have the entire machinery of government at their disposal, but they cannot produce a single number!

Then we have the major misses. There’s a lack of discussion on early education, an area properly recognised by the opposition and the education literature as vital for long term – doesn't our proverb say “imiti ikula empanga” ? So what about those aged between 0 - 4 years old? Similarly, there’s no recognition of other important areas, including the barriers to education in rural areasgirl child education as a driver of economic growth; the lack of timely paid benefits to teachers; high debt levels by higher education institutions; and, the role of the diaspora in education to help reverse the “brain drain”. The whole brain drain issue in education appears not exist on the MMD radar. 

One is therefore forced to conclude that MMD have not given serious thought to education. Given the outspoken nature of the current Minister, I had expected some vision and carefully articulated proposals. Alas what one sees is a manifesto on education that is devoid of substance and in serious need to go back to the drawing board. There are also one or two areas where MMD appears to intentionally mislead the blind electorate by suggesting issues already underway as “new” proposals. Such approaches must be rejected for a more truthful exposition of what they actually plan to do for the Zambian people. We hope that other aspects of the manifesto would be markedly better than this.

Related Posts :

PF Manifesto : Education Development

Zambian Economist is currently reviewing manifestos of leading political parties in Zambia. All posts in this ongoing review can be found at Manifesto Analysis.

7 comments:

  1. MMD has got it on education.they have also prosed a more sustainable way of improving human resource for education. i think they should have gone far, however,to tell us how much they are committing to stff development. but they have got it

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with anonymous. One of the few areas that MMD can claim any credit to "getting" is education. Don't get me wrong -- there is PLENTY wrong with the party, its vision, and its leaders, but on education, I find that it is one of their strengths.

    The PF's education policy (as well as its manifesto) is wishy-washy, and is heavily "dream dependent" -- that is, it is heavy on the expenditure policy side, but pays no attention that there is a need to choose between resources and a need to decide how to spend limited revenues (and grant receipts). To praise the PF manifesto for "getting it right" is wrong because sure, in an ideal world, if I have all the resouces in the world available to me, of course I am going to build schools hospitals hire workers pay them more, build all the roads bridges and try to make my country paradise. But, sadly, that isn't the case.

    As usual, and I have always been consistent on this, I find that this blog is very harsh towards the MMD. Which is fine, because we have discussed this in the past, and it is accepted. But at least try to find a measure of constructive critism. I think hammering the MMD education manifesto is hardly a way to live up to the brief introduction to this blog listed in the "About" section on the top left corner.

    The MMD focuses more on secondary and tertiary education beacuse early education is more or less under control. No country in the world places substantial emphasis on educating 0-4 year olds. Not the United Kingdom, not the United States, and certainly Zambia should not either. For this blog to suggest that they should is both wrong, and misleading, particularly when there is no international basis for suggesting so. As for the other issues, gender is quite adequately covered as an issue, and as for the high debt levels, yes, it is something left out in the manifesto, but the PF isn't really an expert at this either.




    YM
    LSK

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for deleting my comment. It was in line with this blog's policies. But obviously, any criticism of this blog is not acceptable. I understand.

    You can delete it again, but just to summarize my earlier comment, I am heavily critical of this post because it unfairly measures the MMD's manifestos against dream measures that it would be impossible for any government of any country to live up to.

    Notice that there is a track record in each of the analyses: all the PF analyses have "they generally identify the problem right but need to work harder to identify the solution."

    All the MMD analyses are, "Wrong. Bad. Doesn't make any sense."




    YM
    LSK

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous / YM,

    For the benefit of everyone, your comment is there.

    You should know that sometimes comments are suspected to be spam (by google) and are held until I review them.

    I have been blogging on Zambia for a very long time. This is my fifth year of mantaining this website. I am not into censorship. No one has actually ever accused me of that until today.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have always told you, if you feel I am biased please write a piece that will help restore the balance and we will publish it. But you wont because you prefer me to waste my time responding to unsubstantiated thoughts.

    I direct you to the Right to Reply policy for more information.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chola,

    You're right. That is my fault, and I fully accept blame for not finding the time to write a longer piece that you have promised to publish. For that you have my apologies.

    I will sit down this week and try to write something down.


    YM
    LSK

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zambian Economist your analysis on the education manifesto of MMD is incorrect and basically asking too much.its filled your opinions which i fundamentally disagree with.
    you are right in saying the manifesto is deficient in terms of costing their program.
    however
    on education for 0-4 is not an issue in zambia it maybe be so in the future. MMD is right in not considering spending on it now because more work on what matters await.
    all sectors in zambia are suffering from under funding. perhaps it because the country cannot afford the needed levels of funding.so to simply say one will increase funding is not he answer.
    expansion of access to primary, seconday and tertiary education is one answer to our problem.this comes by building more schools and having well qualified teacher. the idea of setting up a body that suppervies and enforce acceptable education standands is an excellent idea. who sit on the board is not important for now. the important thing is thet thr idea is realist and doable. secondly, true MMD should have stated clearly where teachers will further their education, but this is also doable as zambia has teachers colleges in each province. here its its cost that will be a problem but again they have got it right contrary to your assertion. MMD has right propose a way to fund the potential students, giving them educational loans. this is sustainable as the burden is not put on gov but individuals who want to study.
    yes their are many ways to solve this problem but MMD seems to have realist ,attainable ideas than PF on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aaron,

    It is difficult to read from your assessment what you disagree with.

    You seem to agree.

    What in the analysis is poor in your opinion? Be clear and I will respond.

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.