By Ernest Sumelong
Education, basically, is to meet the needs of the environment; as such; educational programmes should be modelled to meet the growing demands of the changing society.
Children's education today is threatened by information overload such that educationists and parents fear that the educational system may produce functional illiterates. The litany of youths in search of jobs is pointer to loopholes in the educational structure and to the school curriculum.
Children are not trained to be critical thinkers, to perceive the fundamental principles or values behind a given political, economic, social, or interpersonal agenda.The notion of need is central to any educational activity or programme. To be complete and useful, a policy decided at meeting children's needs should specify: the nature of the needs in question, the appropriate forms of educational provision, what is emphasised is all that matters.
Whether teaching present events or making subjects as History optional and emphasising on the sciences, learning institutions should adopt proactive stance unlike the traditional reactive. Thus subjects are streamlined to meet the needs of and develop the talents imbedded in children.
Therefore, educational programmes should meet children's needs as definition, identification, diagnosis and provision, and the curriculum will take such considerations as content, development, management and evaluation.
Fundamental changes in the economy, family life, public awareness and public support have a profound effect on early children education. Researchers have concluded that good early childhood programmes not only improve the lives of children and families involved, but also result in substantial economic benefits for society. Programmes can and should also be examined in terms of how they best meet the needs and consider the well being of children, such considerations are related to quality.
Preparing talented children for the future should be a primary effort of schools and educators. Yet, curriculum deals mainly with the past and offers students little or nothing in the way of preparation for dealing with the rapidly changing world in which we live.
Educators could develop many skill areas such as creative problem solving, planning and decision-making; skills important to their growth. This must take into cognisance the developing environment with regards to agriculture, craft, building and other manual abilities that would serve their communities.
Traditionally, resources for learning were seen as a teacher, the blackboard and the textbook, with the child being the passive recipient of a predetermined "knowledge". However, if we accept the idea of learning as an active process in which the learner engages with a variety of stimulating material, events or situations, then we must accept both a much broader and richer view of resources and the need to organise those in ways that facilitate such an engagement.
Education today, should and must harness the best children so that they are equipped enough to meet the challenges of tomorrow and not just walk in the paths of dead men and their theories.
Educators have the obligation to assist students in the acquisition of skills necessary to exist successfully in and positively impact upon their futures. Students must have sophisticated ways of thinking about the future and relating what they are learning to the life they have ahead of them.
Hence, perennial problems of youth unemployment in developing countries like Cameroon could be minimised by well-structured educational systems that consider skill development above inundating children with information for certificate acquisition.

Interesting observation. wish it made some sense to the policy makers.
Posted by: Ms Educ. | Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 07:12 PM
This is actually what is happening today in industialised nations and advancing societies.
Rogue regimes like the Biya regime will encourage a PHD in Agricultural Economics, and offer little or no educational support or assistance for the aspiring plumber.
Rogue regimes like the Biya regime create an accademic situation where the average government employee may be happy, but they don't know anything different. They avoid risks at all costs. It has become a frustrating place for high achievers.
No changes are welcome and complacency is rewarded. In Cameroon under Biya, u are encouraged to leave your potential behind.
Members of LA Republique and Biya aren't focused on anything but their own comfort Zones. No, they don't try anything new...why should they? Because of belly politics , there is no incentive to move Cameroon to the next level. Mr. Entrepreneur, the best people continue to grow frustrated and have either left or planning to leave Cameroon.
Men, it smell musty here in Cameroon, and lethal when it comes to individausl potential. What a waste of ability, and what a bland future for English speaking Cameroonians under the Biya regime.
The sad thing about this is that Biya and his band of thieves are all comfortable. But, like that clear pond in the nice warm sun, Cameroon will soon turn into a stagnant cesspool because there is no movement and fresh oxygen.
Posted by: njimaforboy | Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 07:51 PM
Njimaforboy, just a quick one: you see history is such a vast canvas that humans can learn from. Hitler, Idi Amin and others never saw any other time as possible other than theirs.
That is how Biya thinks, like Ahidjo, like many African statesmen who can read and write (or better scribble a few decrees since most cannot write even their own biographies by themselves). These are incompetent when it comes to deep philosophical, scientific, humane or logical thinking. They envision time very poorly. In five or ten years' time, we will be talking another historical discourse without him. But he doesn't see that possibility now.
I love TIME.
Each time Biya looks at gold watch, I wonder what he sees or thinks. Time can be very deceptive to those who think they can control it.
The question however is: what will Cameroonian politicians do without Biya? Will they do better? Did they have a different education, different value system? Do they have a different understanding of life? What ideologies do they have for a country to move towards modernity when they've grown in contexts that we know too well?
Can any politician in Cameroon move the country towards a Botswana or South Korea?
My thoughts are that West Cameroon can, if it toils hard and gains its independence. But not with any of these French-speaking countries in Central or West Africa. It will take them hundreds of years to evolve...
What you must realize is that countries evolve with the kinds of thoughts that circulate in the heads of their leaders or elite. That's why good scientists like Hayatou, the first pm under Biya, were completely out of place with that coterie or generation. Besides him, I know no other La Republique politician that could have meant well in that country.
We all know it smells in La Republique. Instead of getting rid of the smell, one can also sidestep it, especially if it's a smell that's hard to get rid of.
Posted by: Peppersoup | Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 12:16 AM