**6. Modernization under short-term review**

With awareness of this fast-growing problem of over-emphasis on academic schooling and its failure to deliver equal opportunity and social inclusion in the early 1970s, the government sought an alternative route to development which questioned the modernization school model along socialist lines. The President noted the growing economic and social gap between the urban and rural population as well as the fact that new-found wealth was concentrated in the hands of a small but powerful group where the masses were increasingly marginalized [25].

At the same time, dependency theorists argued against a linear perspective on national development and spoke of core and periphery dimensions of such development within the capitalist order [26]. At the periphery where developing nations were located, development depended principally on what happened in the developed nations at the core. These nations in turn depended on the periphery for their own development and so economic development at the margins was highly dependent, resembling what had taken place in colonial times. Dependency theorists advocated cutting links with the modernization approach and promoting selfreliance. This was already occurring in places like Tanzania and Cuba. Efforts had already been made to diversify the curriculum along these lines but they seemed to be inadequate [27].

It is therefore not so astonishing that in 1973, the President called for a major review of the education system which resulted in a widespread survey, consultation, and a subsequent proposal, *Education for Development* [28]. It spoke of equity and the need to provide a system that did not favour a minority of the population by preparing an elite for high-status and leadership positions. Though there was appreciation for what the then current system offered in terms of social mobility for the less well-off, it pointed to the growing tendency to become socially reproductive. In that way it enhanced the position of those in power enabling them to maintain their privilege. It was recognized that continuation of the then current education system would result in shrinkage of the opportunity structure for the poorest. In addition, *Education for Development* questioned the value of schools that were oriented to passing exams with little or no consideration of their wider national economic and industrial roles. It likened the system to a train that travels on a single track bound for one destination ejecting most of the passengers on the way, keeping a small minority [29]. It was nonetheless acknowledged that changing the educational system in itself was insufficient; there was need to transform the socio-economic setting [30]. This signaled anxiety and resistance for those already benefitting from the system.

Though the proposal was debated at some length, it was swiftly rejected in favour of essentially maintaining the then current system but including what might be identified as cosmetic reforms in *Educational Reform* [31]. The revised model focused on capacity building and emphasized education as an instrument for personal and national development. The system took on additional features including keeping an eye on rural development and self-reliance inspired by what appeared to be happening in places like Cuba and Tanzania. By keeping this ideal of self-reliance in the background, it was hoped that national development could be better balanced between what was happening in the urban and rural settings and as

a consequence that employment would not be so heavily focused on academic merit. It was moreover seen to be a better way to avoid creating a nation with 'haves' linked to jobs in the town and 'have-nots' in the rural areas.

As the country emerged from the so-called reforms in 1977, it was clear that control of the system was passing into the hands of what had developed as an elite who had become politically powerful. It favoured the modernization approach to development in its academically selective process even though this meant ever increasing numbers who would be marginalized by it. While, theoretically, the system was still free and open to all, because of its academic and Western-style curriculum including English as the medium of instruction, it favoured those who had become part of the growing elite, becoming reproductive of their status and less disposed to upward mobility for the many at the margins [32].

What resulted was a continuation of the system as it was but it kept in view the government's commitment to the promotion of equity in terms of a widespread access to primary schooling. Though this appeared to manifest concern for the so-called marginalized masses, it did not greatly impact the academically selective system which continued to favour those who were part of the growing elite [33]. In addition, because of government's debt, fees were introduced a few years later at different levels, which more severely impacted the poor.

With the introduction of fees at various points of the system, the Catholic Church, among others, pleaded on behalf of the marginalized sections of society and began to provide grants and bursaries. It had earlier praised the momentum of the first education reform proposal, *Education for Development,* for its emphasis on including the weaker elements of society and in general came to find itself at odds with the elitist system that had now emerged. It did not openly advocate for radical review or take major steps against what was taking place. This may indeed confirm Berman, in seeing the church subordinating its mission, but it probably makes some sense in so far as the church had to thread a tight line as the state became more authoritarian and intolerant of alternative viewpoints [34].

#### **7. Modernization amended**

Meanwhile, the education system continued to be informed by a human capital outlook leading to an elitist status for a minority while the political rhetoric spoke in terms of production units and local empowerment. By 1980, there were 493,000 employed in the formal sector of the economy which represented about 27 percent of the working-age sector. Already, 14 percent of the unemployed had some secondary schooling with most from the earlier drop-out points Grade 4 and Grade 7. Progression to Grade 8 pivoted at about 23 percent which meant that large numbers were being forced to leave school with little prospect of formal employment. This concern of relating school with access to jobs had been a crucial issue in the so-called reform movement but little had been done beyond discussion [35]. The curriculum had been designed to secure entry to school and to lead to formal employment. This was happening less and less with more and more children being marginalized. Linear expansion of the system was not sufficient [36].

Although there were piecemeal attempts to implement the so-called education reform, no comprehensive approach took place till, at the instigation of the World Bank, a major survey was undertaken and a report appeared in 1986 known as the *Educational Reform Implementation Project* (ERIP) [37]. This document focused on the need for equity in educational development and was seen to be best approached by according priority to primary schooling. It was seen in the light of employment opportunities which left many without the possibility of formal employment. The

concern became: how could the school system be revamped to assist the increasing numbers of those who were being marginalized which progressively meant the poorest in society? [38].

In response to the World Bank's directives and promise of assistance, ERIP proposed large-scale investment in what had been an initial ideal namely primary schooling for all Zambian children [39]. In so doing, there was also a proposed moratorium on investment in secondary and higher education. At the primary level, it meant expansion of provision which led to the construction of schools and invitation to the local community to help in this project. In many instances, the response of the community was predominantly to construct basic schools (schools that added facilities for Grade 7 and 8). This led to increased enrolment in what would often be rather make-shift schools throughout the country and many of these allowed children to enter the lower secondary school level (basic included Grades 8 and 9 which were lower secondary), adding to what already was a bad situation:

Reports from several parts of the country drew attention to the bad physical condition of school buildings… cracked walls… termite infested… broken or missing doors, windows without glass… leaking water … blocked toilets [40].

ERIP thus concentrated on how to achieve the long cherished ideal of seven years primary school for every Zambian child, despite a bleak economic climate where government struggled to pay the nation's external debt and was subjected to conditions set by the International Monetary Fund known as Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). *Educational Reform Implementation Project* considered that by widening the net at the primary school level economic growth would be enhanced. It claimed that returns to investment in primary schooling were greater nationally than at higher levels. Besides, investment per student at this level was hugely less costly than investment than at university level [41].

What was ambiguous was that the report appeared to envisage primary schooling (and less obvioulsy basic schooling) to be the end of the road for most children but that did not fit the long-term understanding that primary school's real value in the minds of children and their parents. They saw it as a stepping stone to Grade 8 and beyond; hence, local community's support for basic schools which not only allowed more primary-aged children to be admitted but enabled most of them to stay to Grade 9. The report paradoxically also envisaged the introduction of fees because of the poor condition of the nation's financial situation, breaking the welfare state system of free schooling that had characterized the nation since Independence and threatening the welfare and access to school for those who were poor [42].
