In this section the researcher discusses the findings presented above. The discussion will also present a form of comparative analysis of the different variables and how they influence the colleges’ responsiveness to the learning needs of A1 farmers. Both colleges share a similar agro-ecological classification characterised by poor and unreliable rainfall patterns, high temperatures and poor soils. This classification makes sustainable rain-fed crop production difficult around these colleges. Gukurume (2013) notes that climate change presents insurmountable challenges to the agriculture sector affecting agricultural sustainability. The growing of fast maturing traditional crops such as millet and sorghum is mostly recommended in literature as well as the keeping of small livestock. Learning from IKS is also suggested as a way of dealing with climate change and variability (Mapfumo et al., 2016).
The colleges have different historical backgrounds and were formed in different circumstances. This difference is a source of uniqueness for the two colleges in terms of how they operate as well as their ability to respond to the learning needs of A1farmers. On one hand, College A, (the government owned college) was formed soon after independence soon after the country embarked on the skills audit of 1981 that revealed the skills deficit that the newly independent Zimbabwe faced (Government of Zimbabwe, 1981; Kanyenze et al., 2011). Another important point of note was the need to empower former freedom fighters with productive skills for the development of the newly independent country. College A,
174
therefore, has a strong political relationship with the country’s ‘ruling elite’ and this would reflect in its ideology and hidden curriculum that informs its curriculum responsiveness to a perceived national agenda. The above analysis confirms Bhaskar (2010)’s position-practice system that takes recognises the influence of power that individuals possess over how they operate in particular contexts.
On the other hand, College B, (the NGO run college) was formed in 1991, coinciding with the implementation of ESAP, a programme that led to massive retrenchment of workers in urban centres leading some to move back to the rural areas. The impact of ESAP on increased unemployment and decline in social security has been well documented in literature (Kanyenze et al., 2011; Nyazema, 2010). Apart from that the local environment in its surrounding area is populated by people of low socio-economic conditions. Evidence from literature also justifies the existence of College B that seeks to improve livelihoods through training and other interventions in Mwenezi(Hlungwani, 2018; Yingi, 2016). The low economic and social status and high levels of food insecurity of Mwenezi District have been revealed by a number of studies carried out in recent years (Chazireni, 2015; Mutopo, 2011;
Nyawo, 2015; Yingi, 2016). The poverty in Mwenezi is, to a great extent, a result of its agro- ecological conditions which is almost semi-arid due to poor rains (Chikodzi et al., 2013).
Both colleges share commonalities in their mission and vision. The colleges sought to provide skills for self-reliance and contribute to poverty alleviation, food security and development. The mandate of College A is, however, narrow focusing more on skills for self- employment in many trades including agriculture. College B, however, has a broader mandate. Apart from offering skills just as College A it includes other aspects of community development in its coverage. Though both colleges have almost similar intentions, the implementation of these programmes is mediated by a number of factors. These factors have a bearing on curriculum responsiveness to the learning needs of A1 farmers.
In terms of programmes offered, College A offers mostly formalised programmes at the level of Certificate in different trades, including agriculture. In Bernstein’s terminology, the curriculum is more strongly classified and closed (Bernstein, 1975). This has a bearing on the type of students who enroll in the programmes. The entry requirements are often relaxed to
175
include school leavers with three ordinary level passes and above. Meanwhile, College B has both formalised certificate programmes such as the one offered at College A. The difference, however, is that College B has a more expansive programme apart from the formalised one.
In addition to the formal certified programme, College B has a non-formal programme that is more flexible in terms of entry requirements to include people who have never been to a formal school. The context in which the non-formal agriculture courses are offered influences the flexibility in approach in line with Bernstein’s framing concept (Bernstein, 1975). It is such programmes that have been very popular with A1 farmer populations. The latter programmes have been very responsive to the learning needs of A1 farmers.
Student recruitment for College A is based on agreed entry qualifications criteria at national level and offers more closed curriculum which is pre-determined. What is taught in the certificate programme is according to national standards. In that case, there is little room for innovativeness at the local college level. Lecturers would want to implement the curriculum in line with expectations of national examiners. This reduces the space for curriculum responsiveness. This is also the case for the formalised programme at College B. However, College B compensates for this by a number of non-formal short courses as well as community development initiatives it offers to the local community including A1 farmers.
These programmes have flexible entry requirements in that they are open to all who need the skills. There is therefore greater curriculum responsiveness to learning needs of A1 farmers in the non-formal programmes at College B.
Funding has been very limited at College A due to over-reliance on government funds. This has been worsened by the economic crisis in Zimbabwe in the past two decades. The poor funding has affected operations of the college, human resources as well as curriculum development and innovation. These factors often hinder the college’s responsiveness more generally. Attempts at developing local funding through income generating projects have been a welcome development but the funds are often not enough to meet the college’s requirements. College B, on the contrary, is often well resourced financially due to the number of donors who support its programmes. However, the financing has of late been affected by the deteriorating relations between Zimbabwe and donor countries after the FTLRP, which resulted in massive land dispossession of former white owners . Even though
176
donor funding has declined significantly over the past years, College B still operates much better as compared to College A thus providing a more responsive curriculum to the needs of learners. This can also be attributed to the strong human resource base of the college, as well as monitoring and evaluation tools it employs to its programmes combined with local community acceptance (Hlungwani, 2018). These factors have heighted the capacity of College B to be more responsive to the learning needs of A1 farmers.
In terms of human resource composition, both colleges are run by highly educated and experienced principals in skills training. However, they differ when it comes to personnel in lectureship positions in departments. Recruitment of staff at College A is limited by the control exercised by the Public Service Commission, which is often constrained by challenges in government funding in the context of the economic situation in Zimbabwe (Muwaniki & Wedekind, 2019). Hence, there are often shortages of qualified personnel at College A. The usually well resourced (financially) College B has enough personnel in lectureship positions. These lecturers are often well educated and experienced in agriculture and other aspects of community development.
From the above findings, it has been noted that both colleges work collaboratively with other players. Such collaborations in the training farmers were heightened after the FTLRP in response to the need for more agricultural extension workers, post land reform. Inter- organisational collaborations have facilitated greater curriculum responsiveness.
In Bernstein’s terminology, the curriculum for the Certificate in Agriculture at both colleges is strongly externally classified and the respective colleges accept the national curriculum (Hoardley, 2006). At both colleges, for the Certificate in Agriculture course, curriculum development is done centrally by HEXCO at the national level, which also standardises qualifications in polytechnic colleges and vocational training centres. The respective colleges and lecturers have no influence in the selection of learning content as well as assessment as these are centrally done. Curriculum responsiveness occurs only through pedagogy where each college has access to different resources in the classroom, for example lecturers with different qualifications and experiences as well as teaching and learning resources.
177
College B’s responsiveness however, is also expressed through demand driven programmes separate from the nationally controlled National Certificate programme. There is however, a unique element at College B because it offers non-formal programmes as well. The curriculum development process for the non-formal agriculture courses at College B follows an NGO programming model that starts with systematic needs analysis. The flexibility in the non-formal courses facilitates collaborative efforts in the selection of learning content as well as delivery. Assessment is mostly continuous in the non-formal programmes and is not examination oriented.