When the reports started appearing in the media, the public was told that it was the teachers who were complaining about ‘errors’ in the textbooks. The only ‘teachers’ quoted in the stories were union officials, an unnamed ‘publishing expert’ and a secondary school teacher ‘who did not wish to be named’.
What is the weight of the evidence adduced in the allegations? The report published by newspapers, and in which Mr Waweru was quoted extensively, cited errors in only two out of 36 titles that qualified to be used in schools.
“It has come to light that some of the new secondary school textbooks recently issued to our children… are riddled with errors, omissions and are therefore below standard.” He offers nothing in the way of evidence but proceeds to level serious allegations against fellow publishers, the Ministry of Education and the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD).
This brings us to the next question; should allegations by a cabal of shadowy characters be the basis of discarding an undertaking worth Sh7.5 billion?
Let me now embark on putting the record straight. First, the presence of errors and typos in textbooks cannot be denied. Anyone who knows something about publishing knows that it is not humanly possible to have an error-free book. Secondly, there are reasons why books are routinely revised; correcting errors that were detected after publication is one of them. So should two errors, nit-picked from a book that is more than 150 pages long, render that book ‘substandard’? The answer is no!
Let us now come to the new textbook distribution model that appears to have sent alarm bells to cartels that for the longest time leeched on the educational sector in this country. The reforms instituted in the book distribution chain are the cause of all this hullabaloo; the ‘glaring errors’ allegation is simply a red herring.
Mr Waweru mentions a non-existent ‘one book policy’. The fact of the matter is that the ministry has not changed its policy as far as books are concerned. KICD still approves six books per subject that are to be used in schools.
Another misconception being peddled is that the vetting and approval process was done in a rush, hence the errors. Nothing can be further from the truth; the fact of the matter is that some of the books that have been delivered to schools were vetted and approved as early as 2003. These books met the necessary requirements at KICD.
Mr Waweru also argued that teachers were denied choice. This is a lazy way of looking at things. The supply of books to schools is not about teachers’ personal preferences. It is about fidelity to the syllabus. Here, it is important to clarify that capitation – the money allocated to schools to purchase supplementary reading materials – is still sent to schools and that can still be used to purchase any other books the teachers are interested in. However, the new curriculum places the learner, not books or teachers, as the centre of focus. As such, the needs of teachers are secondary to those of learners.
Shouldn’t we be happy that the government has succeeded in giving each student a book per subject, or would we rather have stuck to the old system where one book was shared among 10 students? Let us learn to give credit where it is due.
I am glad that Education CS Amina Mohamed has seen through the scheme and decided that no books will be removed from schools, and that is as it should be.