What abolishing school rankings says about Kenya’s public sector

What you need to know:

  • First, there appears to be the thinking that the Kenyan taxpayer or user of public services is dainty and unable to take news that shows shortcomings in their performance.
  • If the results reflect much less than what a pupil actually gained over four to eight years, then the examination should be changed and a new ranking system developed to measure whatever the loudest education policy advocates and bureaucrats deem correct.
  • The swift abolition of the school rankings tells Kenyans that bureaucrats believe that all failures in providing public service are due to inadequate funding.

The dominant issue in the local media this week has been the ongoing industrial action by a coalition of trade unions representing teachers employed in the public sector in Kenya.

Because this grave situation is keeping more than 10 million children away from school, it has diverted attention from the significant policy decision to abolish ranking of schools based on examination results.

This policy change in the public sector was communicated with characteristic arrogance and finality by the Cabinet secretary for Education, notwithstanding the fact that many school administrators, teachers and parents thought it ill-conceived.

An observer of the nature of policymaking in Kenya would justifiably conclude that this behaviour reflects the dominant ethos of the management of public affairs in the country.

First, there appears to be the thinking that the Kenyan taxpayer or user of public services is dainty and unable to take news that shows shortcomings in their performance. This is why the reasoning presented is that school rankings expose some schools, primarily the worst-performing public schools, to ridicule.

So while there are many other sound reasons for retaining the ranking system, the mere fact that the hitherto existing order confers privileges upon private schools and academies to the disadvantage of public schools is sufficient reason, it seems, to avoid ranking altogether.

Plainly put, if a ranking system reflects some of us in bad light, then the state will utilise executive fiat and ban the ranking system; citizens must appear to be equal even if they are not.

WHOLESOME TRAINING

Second, it may be true that the ranking system that had evolved over time had developed into a vicarious advertisement for private schools and academies. For this reason, the ranking system was not a reliable indicator of the “holistic” education that state policy now favours.

This second argument has been presented by interested non-state actors as implying that Kenya’s education system was being shaped into a very narrow focus based on results gained by candidates over a week or a month’s worth of examinations.

I am not convinced by the argument that measuring for academic achievement is in itself undesirable, but still think that a ban on the ranking does not cure the absence of wholesome training.

If the results reflect much less than what a pupil actually gained over four to eight years, then the examination should be changed and a new ranking system developed to measure whatever the loudest education policy advocates and bureaucrats deem correct.

MORE INNOVATIVE THINKING

To ban is to cop out when the alternative is to develop an examination system that measures what the students have learnt. But I understand that when a complex policy problem surfaces, the conventional response is to ban what is not liked.

Therefore, the abolition of school ranking shows the inability to accept that a solution is required, and that those who are invited to sit in the committees that develop policy reforms are not capable of thinking more innovatively.

Thirdly, the swift abolition of the school rankings tells Kenyans that bureaucrats believe that all failures in public service provision are due to inadequate funding.

An example is seen in the way state departments that are completely inefficient in the way they use existing resources continue to argue that availability of financial resources is the major constraint in achieving goals.

The message with regard to publicly funded primary schools is that if only they matched the level of facilities that private schools provide, then the differences in ranking would disappear.

ADVENT OF COMMERCIAL RANKINGS

Finally, abolishing school rankings assumes that all that is required for an activity declared undesirable to vanish is for the state to make a declaration banning it.

While monitoring the discourse in a variety of online forums, I saw the reaction of an individual who understood the bungling of the Ministry of Education as an opportunity to build a ranking system and deploy it for commercial use.

What this means is that the demand for ranking has been demonstrated and what the abolition has done is to ensure that it will be privatised in due course.

This proves that sometimes the state too undertakes tasks that it is unfit to perform. Surrendering such tasks will be an opportunity for firms to develop ranking systems that will prove their value in the market.

The private schools and parents who are interested in using the ranking as an accountability tool will not wait for long.

Kwame Owino is the chief executive officer of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi. Twitter: @IEAKwame