OBE a failed concept right from the start

LATELY, there were so many comments about the outcomes-based education (OBE) and I would like
to explain why it has become a fiasco.
There are supposed to be three components to the reform programme – structural reform, cur­ri­cu­lum reform and implementers reform.
The first component – structural reform – implemented in 1994 saw the establishment of the elementa-ry, primary and secondary schools.
The major failure was in the part of the government to properly plan
and implement the school infrastructure development programme.
This should have been an on-going programme whereby successive governments could have in­cluded in their annual recurrent budget.
This funding could have been used to build new classrooms, libraries, science laboratories, re­source centres, sporting facilities, upgrade dilapidated infrastructure and also equip schools with laboratory instruments, library books, resource materials and internet cafes wherever possible.
The second component – the curriculum reform – implemented in 2000 was to do with discourse and pedagogy.
The major failure was in the part of the curriculum developers.
Firstly, it was the flexibility in the use of the language of instruction in upper primary and secondary schools and the introduction of Tok Pisin and vernacular in elementary and lower primary schools.
The effective years of learning emphasised in education psychology is four to 12 years old.
Teaching students in vernacular and Tok Pisin that have no relevan-ce to the universal language of commun­ication in their learning years is impoverishing the English communication skills.
Students are likely to develop serious comprehensive problems in English and will have difficulty embracing concepts during discourse or in research.
Secondly, there is a missing bridging programme between elementary and Grade 3.
As a result, the latter is seen as a new start rather than a continuation from elementary.
This will have an adverse effect on students in the upper secondary
and university stages.
Thirdly, the OBE curriculum intended to be used simultaneously in PNG contained illustrated applications of concepts that are quite alien in respective cultures due to the diversity.
Concepts illustrated by the syllabus in one culture may not be an appropriate medium or may not produce the anticipated meaning in another culture.
This would negate students to fully embrace the concepts taught and, thus, likely to maximise the fail rate in Grade 12.
Fourthly, teachers’ guides and textbooks were absent as the education department failed to prepare and produce them.
The syllabus issued lacked adequa­te information and chances of teachers accessing sources of refere­nce were very slim.
The third component – implementer’s reform – was supposed to be the most important component but was never envi­saged by who­ever formulated the programme.
This was to do with teachers’ training, upgrading of qualification, in-services and teachers’ conditi­ons.
Firstly, curriculum developers failed to liaise with the University
of Goroka and teachers’ colleges to restructure their curriculum and instruction programmes to accommodate OBE.
This resulted in alienation to the methodology and approach in the field that graduates are confronted with.
Secondly, there is no funding for teachers to undertake training in the new OBE-introduced subjects such as geology and legal studies.
There is also no funding for community school-trained teachers to teach Grades 7 and 8.
Thirdly, the government had not revealed that it would make accommodation as part of the employment package even though teachers work 24/7, unlike other public servants, let alone revealing its plan to restructure teachers’ salary scale.
Having stated the above, I urge those who write negatively about teachers to refrain from doing so and blame the government.
And to those who think OBE would work, think again.

Joshua Kono
Mt Hagen