The emergence of Covid-19 pandemic has warranted a change in the way of doing things. It is now advisable to conduct businesses electronically or virtually in order to avert spread of the pandemic. In the education sector, this implies adopting virtual or e-learning among others. With e-learning, the learners and the teacher interact online; while virtual learning allows sharing of learning materials and interaction between the learners and teachers out of their classroom by using TVs, radios and video conferencing software.
The advantage with virtual learning is that it can be attended by all the learners at the same time and the learning material can be accessed at different time through its recording. The Government of Uganda is considering adopting virtual learning for all her learners at different levels. Accordingly, Cabinet has already approved the distribution of 10 million radio sets to an estimated 10 million households in the country. This is expected to cost the tax payer UGX 380 billion.
In addition, the government is considering purchasing and distributing 137,466 solar-powered TV sets to 68,733 villages in the country. Government has not established the unit price of a TV set yet, but for the sake of this article let’s set a minimum at UGX 400,000. This would cost the tax payer approximately UGX 55 billion. Having sunk a whooping UGX 435 billion into virtual learning, are the learners prepared for the innovation? Will it deliver the desired results? Reputable research findings by Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology reveal that virtual learning is plagued with low learners’ engagement, high dropout, low completion and kids miss out on social aspects. Consequently, learners engaged in virtual learning under-perform compared to face-to-face learning. The researchers further found out that the challenges of virtual learning are particularly acute for learners from low-income families. To make it more beneficial to learners, the study recommends that virtual learning should be accompanied with extensive learner support programs through human connections, teachers and peer groups.
In Uganda’s case, one ponders whether the government has adequately planned for such support programs In case it has, how different will the programs be from the traditional face-to-face encounters that we are trying to shun away from in schools? How will children in the entire village gather around two TV sets without being congested? Given that most households in Uganda are agrarian, would the parents allow children to stay home to catch up with lessons when there is pending garden work?
Assuming we are able to maneuver past all these hurdles, are we thinking about the fate of other Ugandans who were formally employed in the Education sector? According to 2016/17 manpower survey, 87 percent of the people employed in the public sector are engaged in education activities plus an additional 54 percent in the private sector. By implication, once the government adopts virtual learning, all these will be kicked out of the money economy. Are we ready to add these people to the unemployed group?
My view is that government should instead invest the money in schools and equip them to fight the pandemic. Government could invest in sanitation facilities like provision of water and sanitisers. Good enough, government won’t be starting from scratch. Some public schools already have reliable water supplies provided through the Uganda Multi-Sectoral Food Security and Nutrition Project (UMFSNP) that is being implemented in 1500 rural primary schools across the country. Government could also leverage on UMFSNP efforts to enhance the nutrition, which is also paramount in fighting the pandemic. I do not think that shying away from schools is the best course of action. These children that government sent home thinking that they are safer at home gather at the wells/springs/boreholes to fetch water, interact and play. So what is the logic of keeping them home? If social distancing is really an issue (which I believe is not), I suggest that learners study in shifts. For instance P1-P4 can study from 8 am to 12 noon and the upper classes begin from 1pm to 5pm. Secondary schools and tertiary institutions can adjust accordingly. This arrangement would not only solve the problem of space but also reduce on the time that learners interact (play) while at school.
Photo credit: Heal The World Miracle Community Organisation
