Matiangi’s one-textbook policy needs interrogation before it is implemented

Last week, Education Cabinet secretary Dr Fred Matiang’i directed the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) to revert to the one book per subject policy. He said there was a cartel working with KICD to recommend up to six books for schools and parents to buy.

According to the CS, parents were being forced to buy more than one book per subject, and so his directive was aimed at alleviating the suffering of parents at the hands of this cartel.

But the articles carried by Daily Nation and the Standard on the subject, and an editorial by the Business Daily on Friday, were wrought with misrepresentation and righteous anger by both the CS and the journalists.

Let me begin by tackling these before we get into solutions.

First, the CS states that publishers have colluded with KICD to increase the number of recommended books per subject to six. This is false. This is a policy that has been in place since the change in curriculum in 2002. After evaluation, the best six books per subject are listed in the Orange Book. The only time an addition can be made to the list is if, at the time of initial evaluation, less than six titles were found to be fit for purpose. A publisher would, therefore, submit their books to fill in the empty slots. So it’s not about collusion, it’s policy. Prior to 2002, textbook publishing was under the firm duopoly of government-owned publishers: Jomo Kenyatta Foundation and Kenya Literature Bureau.

Second, the CS stated that parents were being forced to buy all these books. Again, this is false. There is no such requirement, at least not in public schools. This is because in public schools, the government buys books.

What parents often buy, mostly out of their own desire to see their children perform well in tests, are revision books, which do not fall under the six titles mentioned. Forcing parents in public schools to buy textbooks is illegal. In private schools, parents have PTAs and other forums in which to discuss such issues. The problem is that parents have more or less abdicated their children’s education to schools: whatever the teacher says goes. No wonder the new curriculum is being tailored to ensure deeper parental involvement.

Third, the CS makes reference to the Rwanda government’s textbooks model. But this comparison is essentially comparing apples and oranges. Even in the Rwandan model, the Rwanda Education Board recommends three books per subject. The government then buys them in a 50-25-25 per cent ratio for distribution to all schools.

Fourth, KICD director Dr Julius Jwan was quoted in the Standard as saying that the Orange Book was never revised during the 2002 curriculum reform. Again, this is blatantly false. All the books in the Orange Book were reviewed, and only those that were deemed to be in line with the revised 2002 curriculum were included.

Dr Jwan was quick to state that KICD would revise the policy as per the directive of the CS. Is this sound practise? Is a directive, no matter how ill-informed, compulsorily acted upon? The world over, where do ministerial directives take precedence over policy? What are the exemplar case studies where recommending only one textbook has worked?

The idea behind recommending six books is noble. Any educationist knows that there are numerous reasons why it is important to refer to several sources for information. It helps to build a key skill that has been captured in the new curriculum: learning to learn. This eliminates rote learning, where all it takes is to cram what one textbook says.

Recommending more than one title also meant academic freedom: the teacher, based on their knowledge and understanding of their learners, could choose the most appropriate book. From these six books, the subject teachers/panels, and consequently the head teachers, were to choose one as the core textbook. They were to then buy enough copies of the book they had chosen, but also buy a few copies of other books that had desirable content that the core text did not have. This, by all means, is academically sound.

Unfortunately, because the Education ministry did not strictly enforce this idea, publishers marketed their books, head teachers bought books willy-nilly, and ended up with poor pupil-to-textbook ratios.

Going the one textbook policy way has too many negative consequences. The problem is that doing so denies the learners the opportunity to develop their learning to learn skill through reading different sources. Is it any wonder that many of the people who went to school between the late 80s and 2002 can barely remember more that one book per subject (either by KLB or JKF)? Is it any wonder that the same group barely knows how to search for information from diverse sources as has been decried by industry leaders?

Secondly, a strict one-book policy will essentially kill a very vibrant book publishing industry. The problem with this is not just the loss of jobs, that’s the small part. The problem is that we might go back to a situation where there’s barely anything locally produced to read other than the few books sanctioned by KICD. The truth of the matter is that most publishing firms in Kenya survive mostly on textbook publishing, which enables them to also publish in other areas. Without the textbook business, many would fold up and we’d end up with little local content to read. The folding up of commercial publishers could also mean that only the state-owned publishers would survive, with help from the government.

The one-book policy is likely to lead to extreme corruption at KICD because of the high stakes. The government will then realise it is impossible to curtail the corruption, so it will resort to exclusive publishing by the two state-owned publishing firms. And that will be the death of education: without competition, the two companies could publish anything, no matter how flawed, and all the pupils in the country would have to read it.

While there are definitely people who are profiteering, let us not create bigger problems out of a matter that could very easily be solved through enforcement of the existing policy. No good can come out of limiting the availability of choice when it comes to education. In fact, KICD should have as many books as comply with the requirements of the curriculum listed in the Orange Book. Each school should then choose the best and make it their core textbook, then buy one or two others, in lesser quantities for supplemental purposes, as was envisioned. Education officials should then make sure that this is enforced. This is how we progress towards Vision 2030, not by stepping back into the dark ages.

James Mugendi works for a publishing firm in Nairobi. The views expressed here are personal and do not reflect the views of his employer. Email: [email protected]