KCSE students didn't fail, pedagogy failed them

With the release of the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examination results, the fate of about 295,463 candidates was sealed. The system labelled them failures; because they obtained Grades D and E. But let’s be honest and have a thoughtful discussion. Are these candidates failures, really?

Let’s examine the tools that were available in the KCSE exam preparation toolkit. What instruments did they have to work with? It is indeed a sad affair; because the tools available were purely academic: reading, writing, and recalling. Were there any innovative tools in that toolbox? Any creativity tools? Nothing! The verdict: Our current system of education concentrates on the academic dimension of intelligence. It does not recognize and value other intelligences and talents such as innovation and creativity.

For the above reason, I submit that the D and E grades that were obtained by the affected candidates stand for D-istinctive and E-xceptional respectively. Granted, these learners have their own areas of strength, of intelligence, and of talent. Unfortunately, these are neither tested nor recognized in the KCSE examination. We must, therefore, admit one fact: the learners did not fail. It is the education system and the pedagogical approach that failed them.

The educational reforms are underway. Hopefully, this problem will be fixed. The anticipated competence-based curriculum, if well thought out and implemented, will give these victims a chance; and only then shall the truth be unveiled.

That given a chance, the so-called D- and E-students have employability skills. They can be expert and critical thinkers. They can be collaborators and team players. They can be problem-solvers. They can be creators of innovations and entrepreneurs. The sad reality is that we have failed to provide a learning environment where they can nurture their intelligences and talents.

These distinctive and exceptional students are fortunate because the new world of work no longer demands A and B Grades. After all, these grades are obtained through rote learning. Admittedly, the 21st Century has no place for learning by memorisation and repetition.

Indeed, it has already been reported that the Big Four professional recruiting firms, namely Ernst and Young (EY), Deloitte, Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG), and Price Waterhouse and Coopers (PwC) made changes in their recruitment process. They struck out the degree qualification from their entry criteria for graduate job applications.

Applicants are now expected to demonstrate that they have what it takes to qualify regardless of the grades that they achieved in their academic results. These professional firms introduced a critical thinking test in their recruitment processes; a key skill for the 21st Century learner.
Education experts observe that the 21st Century Global Economy is asking for creators and innovators. The game has gone beyond academic grades. The demand now is on thinking and imaginative capabilities.

In 2012, Robert Kiyosaki released a bestseller titled, Why “A” Students work for “C” Students and “B” Students Work for Government. He argues that A’s are Academicians; B’s are Bureaucrats; and C’s are Capitalists. Kiyosaki also correctly argues that when you seek credit facilities from a bank, the bank officers never ask for your academic qualifications. Credit rating is the main determinant.

In our local setting, the capitalists that come to mind are William Guda Osewe of Ronalo Foods, the late Njenga Karume, and Paul Kinuthia who sold his Interconsumer Products for billions. This reality highlights the major flaws that the educational reforms must address. The anticipated curriculum must prepare our learners for long-life learning.

We moved from the Agrarian and Industrialist revolutions to the knowledge-based economy. The current argument is that the Knowledge Age is giving way to the Innovation Age. The skills being demanded in this age include the ability to solve problems in new ways.

The most effective way of examining learners is to challenge them to innovate products, services, systems, and processes; and to improve those that are existing.

Many of us hold the misconception that creativity and innovation are skills reserved for the geniuses. Education experts submit that creativity can be learned. The basic requirement for nurturing creativity is imagination, and everyone has this God-given gift.

The other requirement is the presence of real societal problems. We have plenty of them. An added advantage is that there is no age limit to engaging in creativity. Experts agree that education is intended to be a process by which learners should be enabled to adapt to social and economic changes. Without a doubt, ours has clearly failed to do this.

A key area for us is to rethink the format of our examinations. Let us challenge our candidates to create solutions to real societal problems.

Let’s have examinations that will allow learners to work in teams in a project. In the process of thinking up and creating solutions to the given problems, students will hone many other skills such as collaboration, adaptability, social responsibility, risk taking, organization, and many others.

This type of examining process will be the most credible. The examination could be set as a take-home project to take weeks or months. The assessment could be given a platform similar to the NTV-KCBLionsDen.

Candidates could take up to half an hour to pitch their solutions and get on-the-spot scores. Those with excellent solutions could have them patented and get to earn from their licences.