Journal of Educational Issues ISSN 2377-2263 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 Craving for Quality Education in Tanzania: Dispelling the Myths John Fungulupembe Kalolo (Corresponding author) Psychology and Curriculum Studies Unit, Faculty of Education Mkwawa University College of Education, Tanzania E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 29, 2015 Accepted: January 4, 2016 Published: January 23, 2016 doi:10.5296/jei.v2i1. 8506 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jei.v2i1.8506 Abstract There has been widespread concern about the provision of quality education (QE) for all learners in all contexts, but research evidence to inform this debate is quite divergent and in most of cases the question about achieving this desire seems to be full of myths. This paper examines a selection of embedded myths about QE in Tanzanian education sector. The paper specifically aims at identifying the myths, their effects in education practice, and the appropriate ways to address them. The researcher’s own experiences and voices from secondary school teachers, parents, and students were merged to inform the study. Merging of these voices helped this paper to have a major contribution towards a better understanding of myths and their adverse influence in education practice, and spotting some alternative modes of practice towards addressing them. Keywords: Myths, Educational myths, Quality education 1. Introduction Tanzania is one of the countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region which has made clear her intentions to provide quality education in all schools. It is almost five and a half decades since Tanzanian independence, the period which marks the beginning of efforts to improve the quality of education Tanzania. Examples of such efforts include the devotion of more resources to schools, expanding choices and competition in education, increasing accountability for students and teachers, making professional development and teacher credentials more rigorous, easing entry into the teaching profession, curricular reforms, and others related to these (United Republic of Tanzania {URT}, 1995). Though these initiatives might have been in place for quite some time, myths remain to be issues of discussion in any education practice at any context because they tend to shape how 57 www.macrothink.org/jei Journal of Educational Issues ISSN 2377-2263 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 people think and behave (Clark, 2004; Jay & Marcus, 2005; Shokpeka, 2005). As important components of educational practice myths happen to shape the individual expectations and the value attached to education, the role which suggests the fact that the contemporary status of the Tanzanian education sector has a lot to do with what the stakeholders believe in (i.e. the myths attached to what they believe in education). In an attempt to trace the origin of myths, Combs (1979), Greene (2005), Harmes, Huijser and Danaher (2015) argue that myths arise from man's attempt to externalize and communicate his inner intuitions and they survive not because they are true but because they are emotionally satisfying aids to contentions which are difficult or even impossible to justify on coldly rational grounds. In this context myths are described to communicate several different, divergent, and sometimes contradictory meanings about a particular phenomenon. In addressing the mythical impacts in education it is evident that they happen to shape the educational thoughts, policies and practice (Clark, 2004). In so doing, they negatively influence understanding of the nature of problems in schools and play a great role in providing directions of practice on how to act against certain dilemmas (Marcella, Kyalo, Kadenyi, & Kegode, 2009). Despite such limiting impacts of myths in the education practices, stakeholders still hold these negative views as a result of what they believe to be true even when it is not true (Greene, 2005). The evidence from the classical scholars reveals that the question of defining myths seems indeed to be difficult and therefore avoided (Des Bouvrie, 2002; Halpé, 2010). Some scholars have considered myths as meaningless and abandoned them altogether (Jay & Marcus, 2005; Marcella, Kyalo, Kadenyi, & Kegode, 2009). Though myths may seem to be not important in education practice, they remain to have a powerful response in education if the stakeholders accept them as valid and meaningful (Morales, 2013). This means that to people who accept them, myths are usually used as means to cope with difficulties of life as they create an idealized picture of whatever aspects of life they talk about (Miller, 2014). At some points myths are identified as being based on fictions and sometimes based on lies (Miller, 2014; Zaidi, 2008). Although myths seem to be untrue lines of thoughts that are loosely based on concrete facts, they appear to communicate some very real truths to the people who accept it as a living metaphor (Hirschheim, & Newman, 1991). As such myths are neither judged by whether they cannot factually be proven true nor are they judged based on literal accuracy but rather myths seem to be judged basing on their power to move us emotionally; to challenge or reassure us intellectually; to shape, reshape, or reaffirm the way we experience the world (Cohen, 1969; Shokpeka, 2005). In contrast to other views Lincoln (1999) considers myths as both untrue and true narratives. This view identifies the concept of myths as beliefs that people adopt because they have an air of plausibility, believed to be true, occupy an enduring powerful position in practice, and they are consistently surviving even if there is no pieces of evidence (Claude, 1981; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991). In the same line of view different literatures identify myths as sorts of lens through which a certain particular community not only sees the world but also is able to tell the following: what can be accepted as factually true and what must be considered 58 www.macrothink.org/jei Journal of Educational Issues ISSN 2377-2263 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 false; what to pay attention to and what to ignore; how to interpret the daily experiences; and how can the truth can be viewed (Chernus, 2012; Cohen, 1969). While in some ways myths are considered as traditions or accustomed accounts of truth that have been passed down from generation to generation as beliefs; in a rationalist sense anything mythical is considered absolutely untrue. It can therefore be argued that the analysis of debates about myths appears to be divided into three major categories including: a) Those that seek to challenge and transform persistent myths with the aim of dispelling stereotypes (e.g. Hawes, 2014). b) Those focusing on interrogating myths which in this context “myths” are considered as popular misconceptions in education (Clark, 2004; Luft, 1999). c) Those that are based on conceptualizing the concept of myths for the sake of understanding their nature, and their impacts in education practice (Des Bouvrie, 2002; Halpe, 2010; Jay & Marcus, 2005). Generally, the debate about myths ranges from analysis to deconstruction and from challenging the myths to dispelling them by appropriate mode of thought or practice. Arguably, the discussion about myths seems to fall into areas of faith, beliefs, and unexamined opinions that happen to guide a certain practice or thought. In the context of this paper it appears that the efforts to address the myths in education might not be successful if a careful study about their nature, origins, dimensions, and impacts in education practice is not done properly. 1.1 Myths in Education Similar to other influential issues in education, myths have emerged in form of ideas and approaches of practice in education, the occurrence which seem to gain popularity in education practice, even when there is little factual support for their plausibility (Luft, 1999). Some scholars have warned that although these ideas tend to explain phenomena, they seem to: use a common language, and considered plausible in educational practices; adversely influence education practice and limit the correct understanding of what quality education should offer (Combs, 1979; Greene, 2005). Similarly, Luft (1999), and Clark (2004) have mentioned that the impact of the prevailing myths in education remains to be a challenging concerns that require immediate solution. Different attempts including international conferences, individual authors, and social gathering have been done attempting to understand the nature, dimension and impacts of myths in education (Alhaidari & Bhanegaonkar, 2012; Combs, 1979; Greene, 2005). Despite such attempts the literature has identified that no one has yet been able to come up with a simple definition of myth that includes everything the definer regards as myth and excludes everything else (Caldwell, 1989; Zaidi, 2008). As such it appears very difficult to arrive at a single definition of myth as they happen to have multiple forms in that: while on one hand myths seem to behave like stories about ancient events that define and sustain notions of 59 www.macrothink.org/jei Journal of Educational Issues ISSN 2377-2263 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 present community; on the other hand they appear as fabrications or acts of false speech, yet, ideologically persuasive. In closing the difficult to address myths in education Trice and Beyer (1984, p. 655), and Clark (2004) identify myths as unquestionable beliefs about the practical benefits of certain techniques and behaviours, which although they are not supported by demonstrated facts they able to provide ways of classifying and organizing reality. In this line of view myths are therefore are viewed as plausible lines of inquiry that provide explanations, reconcile contradictions, and help resolve dilemmas. Despite having the function to explain, express, maintain solidarity and cohesion, legitimize and communicate ideas, mediate contradictions, and provide narrative to anchor the present to the past experiences in education; they are known to distort images and misdirect attention (Trice & Beyer, 1984). These functions are carried out with various forms of myths which are discussed in the section that follow.