CHANGING THE ECONOMIC VIEW OF DEVELOPING AFRICAN COUNTRIES INTO A MODERN WAY OF DOING THINGS IN TERMS OF ACCEPTING CHANGE TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF THESE COUNTRIES.RESOURCE ALLOCATION, INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT THE KEY TO SUCCESS IN ALL SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY....
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Best places to invest your money this year
Just because the financial crisis is over, that does not mean the markets have calmed down or that investing has become any easier, which is one reason most investors stayed on the sidelines for the past year, preferring to play safe via fixed income.
Meanwhile, volatility appears to be here to stay. The past year saw some investors gain and others loose depending on where they had invested.
From equities to real estate, diversification is the key to finding top returns.
In the first quarter of last year, we witnessed an unprecedented surge of stocks of every size and sector. And that performance came on the heels of the 20 share index —hitting all-time lows.
The best way to brace yourself for the ride is through diversification of your portfolio. Just because the financial crisis is over doesn’t mean the markets have calmed down or that investing has become any easier.
Obviously no one knows for sure what’s going to happen in the second, third or fourth quarter of the year because so many unpredictable variables are at play.
Real Estate
Perhaps the two most common ways or places to invest money starts with property investments. Property is a great thing to own, because it generally gains value, and you can make even more money by building a business on the property, turning it into a rental property, or perhaps even flipping it.
Buying houses with intent to sell it for profit is probably the most popular, because it seems to net a great deal of profits while allowing you to show your creative side. People buy houses and properties for cheap, and then remodel them and resell them.
With the Nairobi Metropolitan master plan development, we are set to witness unprecedented growth in real estate.
As an alternative you might decide to own property directly. Look for an up-and-coming neighbourhood. Also, look for places that are being re-vitalised because that is where you are likely to see properties appreciate.
If you are interested in owning investment property start slowly. Make a small investment to see how it works.
Stock and bond marketThe second place is to invest in the stock market. While many people fear the stock market, there are many stocks and companies to choose from that offer different levels of risk.
While higher risk levels will garner biggest returns, one can still make a great deal of money with the low risk stocks. After disastrous performance of the stock market in the first quarter of last year and record low interest rates, analysts sense that investors are open to new investments that promise opportunities for better returns this year.
Here is the deal. Global economic output is pretty picking up and that means returns are likely to be modest until things get better. Further Kenya’s economic growth and performance outlook according to World Bank is projected to hit five per cent plus this year.
I think that’s the story frustrated investors want to hear, and it’s easy to attract new money if you tell that story.
There is every indication that our stock market is on the recovery mode despite the market taking a beating early last year. Investors are advised to include in their portfolio stocks that have strong cash flows, solid balance sheets, and high dividend payouts.
Leveraged Investments
If you cannot make much money using your own money, then you can of course make more money by borrowing someone else’s money.
That’s the basic idea behind all sorts of leveraged investment strategies, from leveraged private equity funds to leverage bond funding to leverage real estate financing.
To my knowledge, there’s evidence that borrowing money and betting on the direction of various markets has a reasonable probability of working out for you. In fact, most of the time it works out pretty good for savvy investors.
Ethiopia: Coffee History, Production, Economy facts
| |||||||||
With coffee thus a commodity crop earlier than 1500, Ethiopia is the oldest coffee exporter in the world, though external invasions and internal conflicts have at times had a negative impact on the country's coffee export history. 
Coffee is the most important agricultural commodity in the world, and is worth up to $14 billion annually. More than 80 countries, including Ethiopia, cultivate coffee, which is exported as the raw, roasted or soluble product to more than 165 countries worldwide. More than 121 countries export and /or re-export coffee. More than 50 developing countries, 25 of them in Africa, depend on coffee as an export, with 17 countries earning 25 per cent of their foreign exchange from coffee. 
The potential for coffee production in Ethiopia is very high, thanks to the country's suitable altitude, ample rainfall, optimum temperatures, appropriate planting materials and fertile soil. Furthermore, the country is of particular interest to the world because it is where coffee arabica originated, and thus has the best inherent quality for production potential. The total area covered by coffee is about 400,000 hectares, with a total production of 200,000 tonnes of clean coffee per annum. 
Coffee arabica grows best in the cool, shady environment of the forests of the Ethiopian highlands. The ideal temperature for coffee arabica is considered 15-25ºc. This temperature prevails in most of the country's coffee-growing areas. 
The soils in the southern and western parts of the coffee-growing regions of Ethiopia are of volcanic origin, with a high nutrient-holding capacity for clay minerals. The Mesozoic layer, made up of sandstone and calcium carbonate, is found in the eastern part of the coffee-growing region. All the coffee-growing regions have fertile, friable, loamy soils, with a depth of at least 1.5m. The topsoil is dominantly dark-brown or brownish in color, with a PH ranging mostly from 5-6.8 (water extract). One outstanding characteristic of the soil is that its fertility is maintained by organic recycling, i.e., through litter fall, pruning and root residue from the perennial, coffee and shade trees. 
Forest Coffee 
Semi-Forest Coffee 
Garden Coffee 
Plantation Coffee 
Harvesting- The time of flowering determines the time of the maturing of the coffee fruit. In coffee plantations, flowering does not usually occur all at one time. Usually there are two, three or sometimes four independent flowerings when successive rains occur. In most coffee-growing areas, the flowering period is between December and April and the harvesting period falls between August and January, i.e. seed maturity occurs mostly six to nine months after the blooming period triggered by rainfall. This ensures continuous production throughout the year. The coffee-harvesting is done mostly by family labor, as the size of the average coffee farm is as small as .5ha. 
Drying- Natural coffee is dried much more slowly than wet-processed coffee, because it is harvested with a variable moisture content that sometimes requires water to be removed from throughout the whole fruit. Natural coffee is dried in about three to four weeks in the sun, longer in cloudy or damp weather. 
Besides, each year, before the start of wet-processing operations, training is given to all operators engaged at each washing plant. Each specialized operator knows his duties and responsibilities well, and this is supported by strict supervision.
The pulped wet parchment coffee goes to the different fermentation tanks to ferment naturally. The process is carefully supervised to avoid under- or over-fermentation. 
The fermented coffee is finally washed with clean running water and soaked in clean water to degrade and remove the remaining mucilage and acids and to improve the color of the beans. The wet parchment coffee is dried in the sun on raised drying tables and sorted at 11.5 per cent moisture. 
Export Processing world coffee
The History of Coffee
The word "coffee" comes from Kaffa, a region in Ethiopia where coffee beans may have been discovered.
Coffee faced considerable resistance in many cultures over the centuries. It was blamed for, among other things, fueling riots, spawning seditious speech and even encouraging Satan worship.
During the 16th century, the Mufti of Constantinople forbade drinking coffee. Users in Cairo and Mecca also faced prohibitions. And in Turkey, where coffee drinking was banned as well, those caught taking the forbidden drink after a second offense supposedly were sewn into leather bags and dumped into the Bosporus Strait.
The "cappucino" was created when 17th century priest Marco d'Aviano rallied Christian armies to drive the Ottoman Turks from Vienna in 1683. When the Turks left Italy, they allegedly left behind their notoriously bitter coffee. The Viennese added milk and named the resulting concoction after the religious order of their priest -- Capuchin.
Lloyd's of London, the world-renowned insurer, started out in 1688 as Edward Lloyd's Coffee House, which underscores the central role coffee played in trade and commerce.
Coffee Today
More than 500 billion cups of coffee are served worldwide each year.
Two main species of coffee cherries in cultivation yield two kinds of beans, arabica and robusta. More than two-thirds of the world's coffee comes from the arabica bean. The robusta bean is hardier and cheaper to grow, but its taste is considered inferior.
More than half of all Americans over the age of 18 -- 107 million people -- drink coffee daily. On average, U.S. coffee drinkers consume three and a half cups a day apiece.
Scandinavia boasts the highest per-capita coffee consumption in the world. In Finland, people drink more than four cups of coffee a day on average.
Medical researchers associate positive health benefits to moderate coffee consumption, including improved mood and the prevention of gallstone and kidney stone formation.
The Coffee Economy
Coffee is the world's second-most-valuable commodity exporting by developing countries, after oil. The global coffee industry earns an estimated $60 billion annually. Less than 10 percent of those earnings end up in the hands of coffee farmers.
Profits for coffee-producing countries have declined dramatically. In 1985, for example, 38 cents of every dollar spent on coffee in the United States returned to producing countries. By 1995, that share dropped to 23 cents -- a 40 percent fall.
During the same period, the price consumers paid for their coffee increased by more than 30 percent.
By January 2003, the average price of coffee on the commodities market was 54 cents per pound, the lowest price for coffee (adjusted for inflation) in 100 years. Fewer than six years before, coffee was selling for $3.15 per pound, nearly six times higher, on the New York Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange.
In Central America alone, as many as 600,000 coffee farmers and workers have lost their jobs as a result of the coffee crisis, according to World Bank estimates.
Four major conglomerates -- Nestlé, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee -- dominate world coffee markets, accounting for 60 percent of U.S. sales and 40 percent of the global coffee trade.
Coffee is grown in more than 50 countries in South America, Central America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. Nearly 25 million farmers worldwide depend on growing coffee for their economic livelihood.
Global coffee production in 2002/2003 is expected to reach record levels: 122 million 60-kilogram bags of coffee beans (16.1 billion pounds).
The world's top 10 coffee-producing nations, in order of amount produced, are Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ivory Coast and Uganda.
Brazil produces more than a third of the world's supply of coffee, almost three times as much as the No. 2 producer, Vietnam.
The top 10 coffee-importing countries, in order of amount imported, are the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom, Poland and the Netherlands.
Though Germany occupies the No. 2 position among consuming nations, the country imports only half the amount of coffee imported by the United States.
Fair Trade in Coffee
The fair trade movement was launched in the Netherlands in 1988.
TransFair USA, based in Oakland, Calif., is the only fair-trade-certifying label in America. The group, founded in 1998, has certified more than 23 million pounds of fair trade coffee.
Although coffee was the first, most commonly fair-trade-certified product, other fair trade imports include bananas, chocolate, honey, tea, sugar, orange juice and indigenous handicrafts.
Fair trade coffee meets several criteria. Growers must be organized into democratically run cooperatives. The cooperatives must agree to independent inspections. They also must use sustainable methods of agriculture. In return, the growers are guaranteed a living wage of at least $1.26 per pound for their coffee (15 cents more if it is grown without pesticides).
Although fair trade coffee constitutes only 2 percent of the world's coffee supply, consumer demand for fair trade coffee has grown in the United States -- from 1.9 million pounds imported in 1999 to 6.7 million pounds imported in 2001.
Fair trade coffee can be bought at roughly 7,000 retail outlets across theUnited States.
More than 100 brands of fair trade coffee are sold worldwide.
Revenue from fair-trade-certified coffee in the United States and Canada exceeded $64 million in 2000, which was a 50 percent increase from the previous year.
Since 1999, 13 million pounds of fair trade coffee has been imported into the United States, yielding an estimated $10 million in additional revenue for the farmers growing fair trade coffee.
In April 2000, retail coffee giant Starbucks agreed for the first time to carry fair-trade-certified whole bean coffee.
According to TransFair USA, more than 600,000 producers, in more than 32 countries, who sell coffee, tea and cocoa make their goods available through fair trade. There are more than 300 fair trade cooperatives worldwide for coffee alone.
The word "coffee" comes from Kaffa, a region in Ethiopia where coffee beans may have been discovered.
Coffee faced considerable resistance in many cultures over the centuries. It was blamed for, among other things, fueling riots, spawning seditious speech and even encouraging Satan worship.
During the 16th century, the Mufti of Constantinople forbade drinking coffee. Users in Cairo and Mecca also faced prohibitions. And in Turkey, where coffee drinking was banned as well, those caught taking the forbidden drink after a second offense supposedly were sewn into leather bags and dumped into the Bosporus Strait.
The "cappucino" was created when 17th century priest Marco d'Aviano rallied Christian armies to drive the Ottoman Turks from Vienna in 1683. When the Turks left Italy, they allegedly left behind their notoriously bitter coffee. The Viennese added milk and named the resulting concoction after the religious order of their priest -- Capuchin.
Lloyd's of London, the world-renowned insurer, started out in 1688 as Edward Lloyd's Coffee House, which underscores the central role coffee played in trade and commerce.
Coffee Today
More than 500 billion cups of coffee are served worldwide each year.
Two main species of coffee cherries in cultivation yield two kinds of beans, arabica and robusta. More than two-thirds of the world's coffee comes from the arabica bean. The robusta bean is hardier and cheaper to grow, but its taste is considered inferior.
More than half of all Americans over the age of 18 -- 107 million people -- drink coffee daily. On average, U.S. coffee drinkers consume three and a half cups a day apiece.
Scandinavia boasts the highest per-capita coffee consumption in the world. In Finland, people drink more than four cups of coffee a day on average.
Medical researchers associate positive health benefits to moderate coffee consumption, including improved mood and the prevention of gallstone and kidney stone formation.
The Coffee Economy
Coffee is the world's second-most-valuable commodity exporting by developing countries, after oil. The global coffee industry earns an estimated $60 billion annually. Less than 10 percent of those earnings end up in the hands of coffee farmers.
Profits for coffee-producing countries have declined dramatically. In 1985, for example, 38 cents of every dollar spent on coffee in the United States returned to producing countries. By 1995, that share dropped to 23 cents -- a 40 percent fall.
During the same period, the price consumers paid for their coffee increased by more than 30 percent.
By January 2003, the average price of coffee on the commodities market was 54 cents per pound, the lowest price for coffee (adjusted for inflation) in 100 years. Fewer than six years before, coffee was selling for $3.15 per pound, nearly six times higher, on the New York Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange.
In Central America alone, as many as 600,000 coffee farmers and workers have lost their jobs as a result of the coffee crisis, according to World Bank estimates.
Four major conglomerates -- Nestlé, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee -- dominate world coffee markets, accounting for 60 percent of U.S. sales and 40 percent of the global coffee trade.
Coffee is grown in more than 50 countries in South America, Central America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. Nearly 25 million farmers worldwide depend on growing coffee for their economic livelihood.
Global coffee production in 2002/2003 is expected to reach record levels: 122 million 60-kilogram bags of coffee beans (16.1 billion pounds).
The world's top 10 coffee-producing nations, in order of amount produced, are Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ivory Coast and Uganda.
Brazil produces more than a third of the world's supply of coffee, almost three times as much as the No. 2 producer, Vietnam.
The top 10 coffee-importing countries, in order of amount imported, are the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom, Poland and the Netherlands.
Though Germany occupies the No. 2 position among consuming nations, the country imports only half the amount of coffee imported by the United States.
Fair Trade in Coffee
The fair trade movement was launched in the Netherlands in 1988.
TransFair USA, based in Oakland, Calif., is the only fair-trade-certifying label in America. The group, founded in 1998, has certified more than 23 million pounds of fair trade coffee.
Although coffee was the first, most commonly fair-trade-certified product, other fair trade imports include bananas, chocolate, honey, tea, sugar, orange juice and indigenous handicrafts.
Fair trade coffee meets several criteria. Growers must be organized into democratically run cooperatives. The cooperatives must agree to independent inspections. They also must use sustainable methods of agriculture. In return, the growers are guaranteed a living wage of at least $1.26 per pound for their coffee (15 cents more if it is grown without pesticides).
Although fair trade coffee constitutes only 2 percent of the world's coffee supply, consumer demand for fair trade coffee has grown in the United States -- from 1.9 million pounds imported in 1999 to 6.7 million pounds imported in 2001.
Fair trade coffee can be bought at roughly 7,000 retail outlets across theUnited States.
More than 100 brands of fair trade coffee are sold worldwide.
Revenue from fair-trade-certified coffee in the United States and Canada exceeded $64 million in 2000, which was a 50 percent increase from the previous year.
Since 1999, 13 million pounds of fair trade coffee has been imported into the United States, yielding an estimated $10 million in additional revenue for the farmers growing fair trade coffee.
In April 2000, retail coffee giant Starbucks agreed for the first time to carry fair-trade-certified whole bean coffee.
According to TransFair USA, more than 600,000 producers, in more than 32 countries, who sell coffee, tea and cocoa make their goods available through fair trade. There are more than 300 fair trade cooperatives worldwide for coffee alone.
Why KCPE is the gateway to economic success or misery
The highlights of the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) examination results is a list of 100 top students, nationally and regionally (provinces). This replaced the schools ranking which was seen as beneficial to private schools in form of free advertisement. However, this has not stopped schools from ensuring their pupils appear among the top 100, another proxy for ranking.
Let us think outside the box. Why should the whole nation be transfixed on its best brains, those already endowed by nature with high intellect? Should we not be focusing on the last 100 pupils nationally and regionally? Are these not the pupils who need our help most?
About a third of KCPE candidates will not go to secondary school. Who worries about this third? KCPE results and their publicity give us a glimpse into our thinking on economics of social mobility and how education is used by the elite as a conveyor belt.
Social mobilityKCPE results are not about marks; they are about economics and social mobility, and some would add exclusion. Those who excel at KCPE go to top schools, the national schools whose numbers have strangely remained the same despite the population increase. Follow them later in life and they are likely to get into best universities, and eventually the best jobs, in terms of prestige and money. Some suggest they also marry the most beautiful wives (and "unugly" husbands). It is this logical flow of success that has made middle class parents invest so heavily in education at primary school. In Kenya, parental investment in primary school has another driver, pupils who perform well at KCPE go to national schools, which offer cheap but quality education, courtesy of Government subsidy. Parents are therefore willing to pay dearly at primary or is it academy level to "reduce" the cost at high school level and possibly at university level where students admitted through joint admission board pay less than those admitted through the parallel or self sponsored programmes.
Social observers note with concern that our socio-economic systems seems to reward the advantaged leaving the disadvantaged to fend for themselves. It seems, to those who have, more will be added. For example, we all know that an average student will excel in any exam, if the environment is enriched at home and school. But enriching this environment calls for money, which most parents do not have. In the long run, the focus on those already advantaged lead to widening of wealth and privileges gaps in the society, which is often, a recipe for social disharmony, and impunity.
Should we just relax when majority of Kenyans, the holloi polloi are excluded from the conveyor belt that leads them to good jobs, privileges and generally a higher quality of life? What can we do to bridge the gaps in education achievements between public and private schools? First, it is strange that we should be worrying about this issue when most of our current policy makers and leaders benefited from an egalitarian system of education paying no fees or very subsidised fees plus scholarships right from primary school to university. It seems, however, that once we taste the "good life" resulting from good education, majority of us think of how they can exclude others. Elites worldwide try to ring fence and perpetuate their privileges. This ring fencing often denies society new talents and new thinking, key ingredients in innovation and economic growth.
In the short run, the Government can give students from poor families vouchers to attend private schools. I see no reason why the money given to free primary schools cannot be given to pupils then they decide where to use it; in public or private schools. Private schools’ better performance results from better management, not more resources. There might not be much difference in resources needed at primary level between public and private schools, which are more efficiency oriented.
Curiously, teachers in private schools are paid worse than in public schools! Teachers in private schools know their job security hinges on performance.
I am yet to see a teacher sacked in public school because of poor performance. We need to increase accountability in public schools. Will devolving education to counties make a difference? I fear it may not; localisation is not good for education.
Currently most teachers in primary schools come from their locality creating management problems; it is difficult to deal with neighbours and relatives when they do not perform. Private schools source teachers from everywhere, all that matters is performance. They also have more diversity; look at merit lists of top 100 from private schools. In the long run, we need to return to the roots, make the holloi polloirealise that education is still a conveyor belt to a better economic life.
Opportunities at grassrootsThe greatest paradox today is that poverty, which used to motivate pupils to work hard through school is no longer a motivator. Get the average income of parents taking their children to national schools 20 years ago and compare that with todays. We could also increase the number of national or elite schools. We suggest a national school in every county.
This will create more opportunities at grassroots. Today the numbers that go to national schools are so few that some pupils think it is not worthy trying. Very importantly, our education must deliberately focus on the majority, not just the elite. The top 100 will go to best schools. What of the last 100? The top 100 may live as long as the last 100, but each living a different life, one of privilege, the other of misery and drudgery. Yet one of the hallmarks of progressive societies is how they take care of the most disadvantaged.
KCPE is not just an exam; it is a gate-way to economic success or misery depending on your performance. KCPE and other exams are giant sieves that stream our children to different lives. But that performance is not driven by our hard work only, nature has its way, through our intellectual endowment. That calls for correction of the market system which assumes perfect competition. A good example is quota system in admissions to national schools.
KCPE (and other exams) should not publicise elitism; they should identify our talents and nurture them to maturity .
After all, children will become adults and helping them become responsible and successful should be a national duty. Could the exclusion of results from exams be what is driving MP Jeremiah Kioni to call for scrapping of KCPE, the same way Peter Illych calls for deschooling of the society? Would sitting for KCPE at Form two or Standard 10, making two years of high school compulsory make Kenya a more competitive nation? Narrowing the gap between private and public schools which also manifests itself in public and private sectors in the economy should be one of the outcomes of Vision 2030 and the new Constitution.
Let us think outside the box. Why should the whole nation be transfixed on its best brains, those already endowed by nature with high intellect? Should we not be focusing on the last 100 pupils nationally and regionally? Are these not the pupils who need our help most?
About a third of KCPE candidates will not go to secondary school. Who worries about this third? KCPE results and their publicity give us a glimpse into our thinking on economics of social mobility and how education is used by the elite as a conveyor belt.
Social mobilityKCPE results are not about marks; they are about economics and social mobility, and some would add exclusion. Those who excel at KCPE go to top schools, the national schools whose numbers have strangely remained the same despite the population increase. Follow them later in life and they are likely to get into best universities, and eventually the best jobs, in terms of prestige and money. Some suggest they also marry the most beautiful wives (and "unugly" husbands). It is this logical flow of success that has made middle class parents invest so heavily in education at primary school. In Kenya, parental investment in primary school has another driver, pupils who perform well at KCPE go to national schools, which offer cheap but quality education, courtesy of Government subsidy. Parents are therefore willing to pay dearly at primary or is it academy level to "reduce" the cost at high school level and possibly at university level where students admitted through joint admission board pay less than those admitted through the parallel or self sponsored programmes.
Social observers note with concern that our socio-economic systems seems to reward the advantaged leaving the disadvantaged to fend for themselves. It seems, to those who have, more will be added. For example, we all know that an average student will excel in any exam, if the environment is enriched at home and school. But enriching this environment calls for money, which most parents do not have. In the long run, the focus on those already advantaged lead to widening of wealth and privileges gaps in the society, which is often, a recipe for social disharmony, and impunity.
Should we just relax when majority of Kenyans, the holloi polloi are excluded from the conveyor belt that leads them to good jobs, privileges and generally a higher quality of life? What can we do to bridge the gaps in education achievements between public and private schools? First, it is strange that we should be worrying about this issue when most of our current policy makers and leaders benefited from an egalitarian system of education paying no fees or very subsidised fees plus scholarships right from primary school to university. It seems, however, that once we taste the "good life" resulting from good education, majority of us think of how they can exclude others. Elites worldwide try to ring fence and perpetuate their privileges. This ring fencing often denies society new talents and new thinking, key ingredients in innovation and economic growth.
In the short run, the Government can give students from poor families vouchers to attend private schools. I see no reason why the money given to free primary schools cannot be given to pupils then they decide where to use it; in public or private schools. Private schools’ better performance results from better management, not more resources. There might not be much difference in resources needed at primary level between public and private schools, which are more efficiency oriented.
Curiously, teachers in private schools are paid worse than in public schools! Teachers in private schools know their job security hinges on performance.
I am yet to see a teacher sacked in public school because of poor performance. We need to increase accountability in public schools. Will devolving education to counties make a difference? I fear it may not; localisation is not good for education.
Currently most teachers in primary schools come from their locality creating management problems; it is difficult to deal with neighbours and relatives when they do not perform. Private schools source teachers from everywhere, all that matters is performance. They also have more diversity; look at merit lists of top 100 from private schools. In the long run, we need to return to the roots, make the holloi polloirealise that education is still a conveyor belt to a better economic life.
Opportunities at grassrootsThe greatest paradox today is that poverty, which used to motivate pupils to work hard through school is no longer a motivator. Get the average income of parents taking their children to national schools 20 years ago and compare that with todays. We could also increase the number of national or elite schools. We suggest a national school in every county.
This will create more opportunities at grassroots. Today the numbers that go to national schools are so few that some pupils think it is not worthy trying. Very importantly, our education must deliberately focus on the majority, not just the elite. The top 100 will go to best schools. What of the last 100? The top 100 may live as long as the last 100, but each living a different life, one of privilege, the other of misery and drudgery. Yet one of the hallmarks of progressive societies is how they take care of the most disadvantaged.
KCPE is not just an exam; it is a gate-way to economic success or misery depending on your performance. KCPE and other exams are giant sieves that stream our children to different lives. But that performance is not driven by our hard work only, nature has its way, through our intellectual endowment. That calls for correction of the market system which assumes perfect competition. A good example is quota system in admissions to national schools.
KCPE (and other exams) should not publicise elitism; they should identify our talents and nurture them to maturity .
After all, children will become adults and helping them become responsible and successful should be a national duty. Could the exclusion of results from exams be what is driving MP Jeremiah Kioni to call for scrapping of KCPE, the same way Peter Illych calls for deschooling of the society? Would sitting for KCPE at Form two or Standard 10, making two years of high school compulsory make Kenya a more competitive nation? Narrowing the gap between private and public schools which also manifests itself in public and private sectors in the economy should be one of the outcomes of Vision 2030 and the new Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)