Special Feature:
The Evaluation
Experience of Primary and Secondary Education Projects in Kenya
Paul A. Ogula*
Abstract
This article describes
the evaluation of two curriculum development projects in Kenya: the Primary
Education Project (PEP) and the Secondary Education Project (SEP). It gives
a brief history of the two projects, and describes the evaluation strategies
and methods used during the development and implementation of the curriculum.
This article is
based on studies conducted from 1981 to the early 1990s by this writer, and
his colleagues at KIE, together with external evaluators.
Introduction
This article is
based on evaluation studies conducted by this writer, the Research and Evaluation
Section of the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) and external evaluators.
The exercise of developing primary and secondary education curricula was systematically
monitored and evaluated by three agencies of the Ministry of Education, namely
Inspectorate Department, KIE, and the Kenya National Examinations Council.
Designing a comprehensive evaluation programme for PEP and SEP was a great
challenge. This writer presents concisely the evaluation activities that were
undertaken.
This article describes
the process of evaluating the projects in Kenya. It presents the following:
a) a brief history of the primary and secondary
education projects
b)
a description of the successive stages of the project evaluation
c)
highlights of the results
d)
impact of the evaluation on decision making
e)
strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation
f) lessons learnt
The data on evaluation
procedures was obtained from analysis of reports on curriculum development
workshops and orientation workshops, records of subject and course panel meetings,
as well as reports of evaluation studies undertaken by the team that conducted
the research.
Various scholars
define evaluation differently. This article adopts Marvin C Alkin's definition:
Evaluation is the
process of ascertaining the decisions to be made, selecting related information,
and collecting and analyzing information in order to report summary data useful
to decision makers in selecting among alternatives.
The definition implies that evaluation is a management
tool.
The purpose of
evaluation is to improve decision-making. Conducting evaluation and producing
reports is not an end in its own right. It is when the findings are presented
to decision makers, discussed and acted upon that it fulfils its function.
It is in the context of the curriculum development project that evaluation
fulfils its functions when policy makers within the Ministry of Education
understand the findings of the evaluation and their implications for other
projects, activities and programmes when changes are actually made in the
light of the recommendations of the evaluation. Evaluation is an ongoing management
and planning activity.
A Brief History of Primary and Secondary
Education Projects
Since independence
in 1963, various efforts have been made to improve quantitatively and qualitatively
all levels of formal schooling in Kenya. This is evidenced by the quantitative
expansion of educational facilities to make primary education more readily
available to all children of school going age, the establishment of more secondary
schools, and the revision of the curriculum. Within the first week of independence,
the Kenya Government set up an education commission under the chairmanship
of Professor Simeon Ominde to look into all aspects of education in Kenya.
With regard to
primary and secondary education, the recommendations of the commission included
the following:
• Integration
of racially separate schools
• Curriculum should be reformed to make it relevant
to the post-colonial situation
• A 7-4-2-3 system of education should be established
• Kiswahili should be compulsory in all schools
• English should be a medium of instruction
in primary schools
• To achieve national integration, each boarding
school should allocate at least 20% of its places to students from outside
its region. (Republic of Kenya, 1994)
These recommendations
led to radical changes in curricula for primary and secondary schools.
However, by 1975
it became increasingly clear that formal education did not cater sufficiently
for the majority of school children who did not proceed to the next level.
Rather, it catered more for the minority who managed to continue with further
education. It also tended to concentrate on imparting knowledge for the sake
of passing examinations. It was for these reasons that the Kenya Government
set up the National Committee on Education Objectives and Policies (NCEOP)
in 1975 to review educational objectives and policies. The committee recommended
that:
1.
The quality, content and relevance of primary education be improved
so that it caters equally for the majority of children for whom primary education
is terminal.
2.
The seven-year primary education should be made available to all school-age
children.
3.
The curriculum should develop a sense of ethical values and social
obligations by reasserting the values and obligations of traditional African
society in a national context.
4.
The demarcation between secondary academic and secondary technical
schools should be removed.
5.
Secondary education should be made increasingly scientific, pre-vocational
craft oriented.
6.
A secondary education that is predominantly terminal be offered.
7.
Primary education and secondary education be broad-based leading to
competence in a variety of development tasks. In particular, agricultural
sciences should occupy a central position.
8.
The duration of basic education should be extended from seven to nine
years so as to produce mature individuals who are better prepared for gainful
employment particularly within the rural areas. (Republic of Kenya, 1976).
As a direct consequence
of the committee's recommendations, the Government decided to undertake far-reaching
changes in Kenya's primary and secondary education. The most important of
these changes was the development of reformed curricula and curriculum materials.
To undertake the
above task, PEP was established at KIE in 1978. In 1984 SEP was established.
While the curriculum for primary schools was still under development, the
President in January 1981 appointed a Presidential Working Party on the Establishment
of a Second University in Kenya. The Working Party completed its work in September
of the same year. Its recommendations were as follows:
1. The "A" level segment of secondary
education should be scrapped altogether.
2.
The 7-4-2-3 system of education be replaced by an 8-4-4 system of education
i.e. 8 years of primary education, 4 years of secondary education and 4 years
of minimum university education. The first year of university education should
be spent on foundation courses (Republic of Kenya, 1981).
The education system
was restructured accordingly in 1985 (KIE 1984).
Development of Primary and Secondary Education
Curricula
This was undertaken
by KIE. Steering committees for primary and secondary education were established
to provide, among other things, guidelines for subject panels on the design,
development, implementation and evaluation of the curriculum. Curriculum development
teams, consisting of practicing teachers, university lecturers, inspectors
of schools, lecturers from teacher colleges, examination secretaries, and
representatives of the Kenya National Union of Teachers, were set up. However,
it was later argued by some people that the views of the teachers who participated
in the development of the curriculum and curriculum materials were not representative
of the views of other primary and secondary school teachers. The former had
been selected because they had been deemed better than the latter in their
respective subjects. Although there was extensive consultation between KIE
and teachers during the exercise, no needs assessment surveys among students
and the general public were carried out before the development of new material.
The putting on
trial of the new curriculum and curriculum materials in 49 primary schools
throughout the country started in 1981. In 1986 the new materials were implemented.
The primary school curriculum consisted of the following subjects:
1. Kiswahili
2. Two.
ethnic languages
3. English
4. Mathematics
5. Science
6. Agriculture
7. Business
Education
8. Religious
Education
9. Art
Education
10. Home Science
11. Craft Education
12. Music
13. Physical Education
14. Geography,
History and Civics (GHC)
The development
of the curriculum for secondary schools started in 1984. Complete course materials
were developed by teams of writers including secondary school teachers, inspectors
of schools, university lecturers, and curriculum developers. The writers were
brought together for between two to four weeks. There was no co-ordination
between primary and secondary levels, and between different subjects in the
secondary school curriculum. Furthermore, syllabuses and other material were
not tested before implementation nationally.
The curriculum structure is as follows:
1. English
2. Kiswahili
3. Foreign
Languages
4. Mathematics
5. Physical
Sciences/Physics, Chemistry
6. Biological
Sciences, Biology
7. History
and Government
8. Geography
9. Religious
Education
10. Social Education
and Ethics
11. Agriculture
12. Industrial
Education
13. Business Education
14. Home Science
15. Art and Design
16. Music
17. Physical Education
Evaluation Plan
A major concern
during the planning period was devising a rigorous and credible scheme of
evaluating the strategies, activities, and effects of the two projects. A
decision was made to strengthen the Research and Evaluation Section of KIE
so that it could effectively carry out formative evaluations. Plans were also
put in place to conduct summative evaluations at the end of the projects.
Implementation of Curricula in Schools
In 1986, the new
primary school curriculum was implemented in all primary schools (Standard
1 to 8) and primary school teacher colleges after appropriate revision of
all syllabuses and other material. The decision to implement it was based
on the findings of a summative evaluation study conducted by internal evaluators.
The curriculum for secondary schools was implemented
gradually as follows:
1986
-
Form 1
1987
-
Form 2
1988
-
Form 3
1989
-
Form 4
The implementation
of primary and secondary education curricula called for the training of teachers
to orient them to the new system, and also to keep them abreast of new approaches
and changes. The Ministry of Education conducted various in-service courses
for teachers in 1986 and 1987, many of whom found them useful. However, due
to inadequate funds, it was not possible to run the courses regularly. Consequently,
there was a big gap between the planned curriculum and the curriculum as translated
and taught by teachers. This is because teachers were required to implement
a curriculum most of them did not understand.
Although inspectors
of schools demonstrated commitment to curriculum reform, most of them were
ineffective in giving teachers the required guidance. This was mainly because
they themselves had not been trained adequately. In addition, some of the
key decision makers used authoritarian methods to secure support for the reformed
curriculum instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue with teachers and other
educators.
Evaluation of Primary and Secondary Education
Projects
The importance
of evaluation of any education programme has long been recognised. Evaluation
studies provide a climate for systematic programming. At various stages of
curriculum development, necessary studies are undertaken to give directions
to the project, assist in building up the conceptual framework for curriculum
material development, and to measure effectiveness.
The Research and
Evaluation Section at KIE ensured the continuous improvement of curriculum
material through the undertaking of research and evaluation activities, and
developing evaluation design and instruments.
Monitoring and Evaluating Project Activities
Evaluation was
an ongoing process from the beginning of the curriculum reform. Formative
evaluation studies were undertaken with four broad purposes in mind:
1. To provide feedback to curriculum developers
on the quality of the curriculum.
2. To provide curriculum developers with information
to assist them in the planning of the implementation of the curriculum nation-wide.
3. To document the status of the curriculum
in schools in order to facilitate ongoing revision of curriculum material.
4. To provide timely information to facilitate
decision making within the Ministry of Education.
The Research and Evaluation Section conducted formative
evaluation with the assistance of curriculum developers and inspectors of
schools. Summative evaluations were conducted by external evaluations. Curriculum
developers and inspectors did not participate directly in the evaluation;
rather, they acted as resource persons to the external evaluators.
Formative evaluation
was carried out in three phases. Phase one started immediately after the launching
of the two projects and consisted of the following activities (a) evaluation
of curriculum designs and syllabus (b) evaluation of textbooks and other curriculum
materials, (c) evaluation orientation workshops (d) evaluation of the implementation
of curriculum materials in pilot primary schools.
The sample for
evaluation of the implementation of the curriculum consisted of 49 pilot primary
schools, 49 control primary schools, and 134 secondary schools. The subjects
were head teachers, teachers, pupils, parents and community leaders. Data
was collected by means of questionnaires, interview guides, observation schedules,
and achievement test results.
Formative evaluation
phase two was carried out after the implementation of curriculum materials
in primary and secondary schools. During formative evaluation phase one, teachers
and head teachers had complained that the curriculum was too broad to be implemented
within the available time. Phase two was carried out by curriculum developers
and inspectors of schools in order to resolve scope and sequence issues.
The sample consisted
of primary schools and secondary schools. The subjects were head teachers,
teachers, parents, field educational personnel, and community leaders. Data
was collected by means of questionnaires, interview schedules, observation
schedules, and focus group discussions.
The findings of the evaluation
pointed to the need to revise curricula for primary and secondary education
to make them manageable.
Two types of summative
evaluation were carried out: internal summative evaluation and external summative
evaluation. The former was carried out by the staff of the Research and Evaluation
Section of KIE, the Ministry of Education, the Inspectorate, and Kenya National
Examinations Council. The main objective of the evaluation was to assess the
effectiveness and efficiency of the primary education project curriculum material.
The study used a post-test only control group design. The sample consisted
of 49 pilot primary schools. Data was collected by means of achievement tests
results; questionnaires for head teachers, teachers, pupils, and parents;
and interview guides for head teachers, parents and community members. Observation
instruments and document analysis guides were analysed using frequencies percentages
and mean scores. As a result of the findings of the study draft curriculum,
materials were revised.
Evaluation studies
involved relatively large samples of students, teachers, parents and community
members. In every study, a variety of questionnaires were developed and administered
to these groups. Comments were also sought from head teachers, field education
personnel and teacher educators. The other instruments used were achievement
tests results, interview guides, observation schedules and document analysis
guides.
Site visits were
undertaken by members of staff of KIE and the Inspectorate Department of the
Ministry of Education. These included inspection of physical facilities and
monitoring of lessons, and discussions with head teachers and teachers. Each
of the school visits was complemented by discussions with parents, community
leaders and educational professionals.
Summative evaluations
were conducted by external evaluators. In selecting external evaluators, two
major criteria were adopted: first, they had to be experienced professionals
with sophisticated research and evaluation skills. Second, they had to be
conversant with the school curriculum.
Highlights of Results
This section presents
the main findings of the evaluation studies on primary and secondary education
projects.
Primary Education Project (PEP)
PEP was evaluated
five times - in 1982, 1984, 1987, 1990 and 1995. The first three focused on
the implementation of curriculum materials in pilot schools. The evaluations
showed that (1) the project had achieved most of its objectives, (2) the curriculum
was relevant to the needs of the learners and society, (3) in-service orientation
courses had a positive impact on teachers, (4) teachers endorsed the curriculum
(5) pupils in pilot schools performed better in achievement tests than pupils
in control schools.
The 1990 formative
evaluation by the Research and Evaluation Division showed that the curriculum
was too broad and recommended the reduction of its content. (Ogula, et al 1990). In
1991 several changes were effected in the primary school curriculum. The 1994
evaluation was conducted by external evaluators: Although the primary school
curriculum had been revised in 1991, they still found it too broad (Achola
Nyagah, Shinundu & Maundu, 1995):
• The curriculum of
primary schools had not been effectively implemented due to lack of teaching-learning
resources
• There were too many
subjects in the primary school curriculum
• Practical skills
subjects, namely music, art and craft, agriculture, home science and business
education were not taught effectively in many schools because of lack of materials
and equipment, and qualified teachers
• Mother tongue languages
were not taught in most schools. In addition, the policy of using a local
indigenous language as the medium of instruction in lower primary classes
had been ignored in many primary schools
• Most primary schools
lacked adequate facilities such as workshops and special rooms for practical
subjects and instructional materials such as textbooks, exercise books apparatus
and tools
• The objectives of
primary education were too ambitious and unrealistic
• Teachers complained
of too much content in the primary school curriculum in all subjects. They
wised to see the number of subjects retained, but recommended that the content
in each be reduced.
Secondary Education Project (SEP)
The Secondary Education
Project was evaluated five times in 1984-85, 1986-87, 1988-89, 1990, and 1993-95.
The evaluation was divided into three phases which took place over a 15-year
period: (a) evaluation of curriculum material (1984-1985), (b) formative evaluation
of the implementation of curriculum materials in schools (1986-1990), and
(c) summative evaluation of the school curriculum (1993-94).
During the development
of curriculum material, subject panels and evaluation teams conducted evaluation.
Senior staff at all levels subscribed to the use of evaluation as a management
tool to improve project management. The obvious good will towards evaluation
was the fruit of the sensitisation efforts made by the Research and Evaluation
Section. There existed senior staff within the Ministry of Education who were
adequately conversant with the techniques of evaluation. These included Permanent
Secretaries and Directors of Education, Chief Inspectors of schools, Directors
of KIE, Secretary to the Kenya National Examination Council, Kenya National
Commission for UNESCO, and Director of Kenya Education Staff Institute.
Parents and community
leaders supported the broad-based curriculum. However, they were concerned
with the fact that it was overloaded.
• The secondary school
curriculum has been generally accepted nation-wide
• There is a lack
of adequate teachers in several subjects including mathematics, physics, chemistry,
music, business education, drawing and design, English language, and applied
subjects
• Many schools lack
adequate facilities, such as laboratories and workshops for practical subjects,
and libraries
• Most schools lack
consumable items such as chemicals, wood, clothing materials, and equipment
for science and other practical subjects
• Most teachers are
not able to teach integrated English
On the basis of the finding
of the studies reviewed, the following recommendations were made:
• That the current
number of subjects offered at the primary school level be retained but the
content in each be reduced.
• That the number
of compulsory subjects at secondary school level be reduced from 10 to 8.
• That the government
provide basic instructional material including textbooks, simple tools and
science equipment to every public school.
• That continuous
assessment marks be incorporated into students' final examination scores.
• That efforts be
made to intensify the training of teachers of practical skills subjects.
• That specialist
teachers be made to teach practical skills subjects in primary schools.
• That examinations
be de-emphasised.
Impact of Evaluation On Decision Making
In the Primary
and Secondary Education Projects in Kenya, evaluation had some impact on decision
making. Specific examples of use of evaluation in decision making are:
1. Based on the findings of formative evaluation,
a decision was made to drop or change the idea of teaching creative activities
(Arts, Physical Education, Music, and Craft) as one subject or in an integrated
manner.
2.
During the trial-testing of curriculum materials, it was realized that
pupils in lower primary classes needed pupil's books in science and social
studies. These were consequently developed.
3. Curriculum
developers used the evaluation results in revising curricula and materials.
4.
In-service courses were conducted to raise teachers' knowledge in the
subjects they taught and effective teaching methods.
5.
In 1991, problems were addressed as follows:
Primary Education
• The primary school
curriculum was reviewed and made manageable
• The government intensified
the provision of instructional materials to schools in arid and semi-arid
lands (ASAL) and other pockets of poverty in the country.
Secondary Education
• The minimum number
of subjects taken by students was reduced from 10 to 8
• Syllabuses were
reviewed and unnecessary topics removed
• Efforts were made
to establish laboratories in secondary schools.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Evaluation
Strengths
1.
The use of internal evaluators who had easy access to decision-makers
of the time.
2.
The involvement of curriculum developers and inspectors of schools,
subject teachers and teacher educators in the evaluation exercise. These were
the same people that were involved in the development of the curriculum and
materials.
3. Collaboration
between research officers, curriculum developers, inspectors of schools, and
field education personnel greatly strengthened the evaluation.
4.
Evaluation of Primary and Secondary Education Projects demonstrated
that the Research and Evaluation Division of KIE can play a major role in
conducting and coordinating education evaluation in Kenya. Rather than hiring
foreigners to evaluate curriculum development projects, KIE should be strengthened
and encouraged to do the same.
5.
The existence of a close-working relationship between policy makers
and evaluators led to effective use of findings.
Weaknesses
1.
The Research and Evaluation Division was understaffed at the time.
Consequently, it relied upon expertise from other divisions. Since the bulk
of the efforts of the curriculum developers was taken up by the development
of textbooks, they did not have adequate time to engage in evaluation.
2.
Lack of institutional machinery to ensure those in charge of education
decision making at any given time implement evaluation findings.
3.
The presence of weak decision makers in the Ministry of Education resulted
in delayed decisions or actions.
4.
Most of the evaluation depended on external funding.
5.
The terms and conditions of service of evaluation officers at KIE are
such that it is difficult to attract and retain qualified evaluators
6.
The curriculum specialists, inspectors of schools and teachers were
inadequate as evaluators.
Lessons Learnt
Firstly, evaluation
offered developers an opportunity to re-examine the school curriculum with
a view to finding ways and means of making improvements to it.
There is an important
lesson for the rest of Africa to learn from the Kenyan experience: that there
is a need to systematically evaluate the school curriculum with a view to
improving it. It helps establish a project's credibility with financiers and
implementers. Secondly, hard data is much more persuasive than anecdotal claims.
The Ministry of Education reacted positively to the evaluation. Thirdly, the
Kenyan experience has shown that there are benefits to having external evaluators,
this being increased credibility in the eyes of teachers and funding agencies.
Although evaluation
is an essential component in curriculum development projects, there is a feeling
among developers, policy makers and teachers that evaluators are merely interested
in checking on their mistakes. The effectiveness of evaluation is dependent
on political backing of institutions involved. Another lesson learned is that
without the sufficient support of policy makers for the evaluation and their
willingness to use findings, the exercise may be a little more than an academic
undertaking.
Attitudes to Change
Without exception,
the evaluations revealed a marked unwillingness by curriculum developers and
teachers to reduce subject content. This was particularly so at the secondary
level. There was obvious desire to maintain the status quo. The lesson from
this is that, unless there is pressure from policy makers for change in curricula,
developers are unlikely to make significant revisions in existing curricula
and assessment arrangements.
Piloting
The primary education project
was able to minimise problems in the curriculum due to several years piloting
curriculum materials.
Pit Falls
Overly Ambitious
Goals
Primary and secondary
education projects were too ambitious in their goals. This made it difficult
for curricula to be effectively implemented in schools.
Failure to Conduct a Needs Assessment
Survey
While it sometimes
is necessary to develop curriculum material without first conducting a needs
assessment survey, this can make it difficult for curriculum specialists to
design a relevant curriculum.
The Absence of Control Groups
Since the secondary
school curriculum was implemented in all schools at the same time, it was
difficult for evaluators to employ an experimental or quasi-experimental design.
Having no control group limited the determination of the effectiveness of
the project. In part, this lack of control groups derived from the failure
of the steering SEP team to devise a strategy for piloting curriculum materials
in selected secondary schools.
Conclusion
This article has
attempted to explore the role of evaluation in the curriculum development
process. It has suggested that evaluation of primary and secondary education
projects in Kenya during the 1981 and 1996 period can be divided into two
main phases: the formative evaluation phase (1981-1991) and the summative
evaluation phase (1994 onwards).
During the first
phase, curriculum materials were developed and implemented in schools. Formative
evaluation was concerned with making sure that the curriculum was appropriate
and relevant to the needs of the learners and society. The final phase (1994
onwards) was characterised by attempts to find out the effects on the curriculum
on students. Looking back, it is evident that the evaluation experience made
the Ministry of Education cognisant of the role of evaluation in curriculum
development and implementation processes. Its contribution is now recognised
and appreciated by curriculum specialist and policy makers.
* The author is an
Associate Professor in the Department of Education, and the Director of Research
at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa. Previously, he was Head of Research
and Evaluation Department at the Kenya Institute of Education, where he co-ordinated
several research and evaluation projects, including the ones described in
this article. His major research interests are research and evaluation, civic
education, curriculum development.
Correspondence
Prof Paul A Ogula
Head of Department
of Education
And Director of Research
Catholic University
of Eastern Africa
P O Box 62157
Nairobi, Kenya
Fax 891084, Email: research@cuea.edu
Bibliography
|
