SHS: four vs three years duration

The most topical issue today is perhaps, the debate on the duration of the SHS. Interestingly all arguments to the debate are valid, but only a few are optimal. Mine is a contribution to that debate and a case for the 4-years SHS.

I state without hesitation that investment in SHS education is duration (time) dependent.

In the 1950s and 1960s some researchers established that what counts for development is human capital and not physical capital. An anecdote to explain the point states: If the Finance Minister of a third world country who has high debts to settle tries to borrow from an international bank, he is to be told that all those people in his cities are the real capital.

This can no more be true than now. Investment in human capital is the solution to our future financial needs. Investment in education is one such. It is even more worth than the oil find. The solution to our future problem is actually not the oil find but the human capital we have. And as our country develops, we are looking forward to having a big chunk of our GDP growth through the knowledge-based sector. This begins with the amount of money invested in human capital.

Investment in young people in High Schools is one such investment in human capital. Any investment in 2009 would certainly yield dividend in a few years time. If we make a short time period investment, we get its equivalent reward. The longer young people stay in school the longer we are able to redistribute our population. This reduces pressure on parents and it takes potential jobless persons from our streets. Keeping young people in school is likely to reduce the tendency of teenage motherhood. So investment in young people (SHS education) appears to be duration dependent. This means duration plays a very important role in enabling us achieve the benefits of such investment.

The final examination after high school is properly called “Reifepruefung”. Reifepruefung is the German referring to 'Maturity' examination. It is the examination held at the end of the youth maturity period. If we go by the three year JHS and three-year SHS model, then the period of maturity for our young people in Ghana is six years. Compared to the previous years of one to 4-year Middle school plus a 5-year Sec Sch plus a 2-year Sixth Form (totalling 8 to 11 years), then we say that young people of 2009 mature two to five years earlier than young people of the 1970s.

The generalization of the JSS concept was based on the assumption that since products of the Experimental JSS passed the test, so the general populace would pass the test. This is an ad hominem argument. As a product of the experimental JSS, I remember that we were selected by the examination system. The success of the experimental JSS was because those who actually took part in the programme were the best from their respective schools. These experimental schools were well equipped. Their success was used as a yardstick to implement the JSS en bloc.

In any case in most JSS/JHS, education was not effective. Without proof, I state a popular belief that most students from JSS/JHS who entered SSS/SHS were not properly prepared. Most schools in the villages, (my village in Atikpui is no exception), lacked several inputs for teaching. And this was the main condition for the implementation of the JSS concept. Many teachers were not available. As such I consider the SHS the appropriate context to make up for the limited education at the JSS/JHS level.

Having taught in two secondary schools, I can state without hesitation that the pressure of work is so high that three years of SSS/SHS is insufficient. One extra year makes some difference. An additional year to form young people to become mature is a useful investment. The 4-year SHS enables the state to spend extra money on a 3-year higher education (University education). By the time a 4-year SHS student reaches University she should have been better prepared to start a 3-year university education.

University education is supposed to be different from High School education in terms of quality. Ours is a developing country with other sectors forming a higher part of the GDP than the knowledge-based sector. This means university graduates would constitute a smaller group and contribute a smaller proportion to the GDP. High school graduates, all things being equal, would form a higher workforce and contribute more to the economy based largely on Agriculture and Manufacturing industries. These graduates can then branch into Teacher Training Colleges and Polytechnics to serve other needy sectors of the economy. It is better to have well educated university graduates to manage efficiently the small knowledge-based sector. Incidentally the 3-year university education makes it possible for many more students to have university education.

I propose that we pass into law once and for all a 4-year SHS and allow educators to make long-term planning for the educational system. The frequent discussions are causing a hold-up in the school system. The frequent changes, in terms of structure, are destroying the environment for teaching and learning.

Credit: Paul A. Agbodza
(Atikpui via Ho)
(Email: [email protected])