Background
Ghana’s educational landscape has undergone significant transformations since its independence, with teacher training playing a pivotal role in shaping the quality of education. Initially, teacher training in Ghana was closely linked to secondary schools, with training colleges often sharing the same compound. However, as Ghana embarked on a path of rapid expansion in education in the 1960s, the demand for qualified teachers surged.
This necessitated a significant increase in the number of trained teachers, prompting the government to implement various interventions to boost enrollment in teacher training programs, birthing the teacher trainee allowance. In recent times, the allowance has become a political battleground for the two main political parties, a tug-of-war between genuine support for trainees, the necessity and relevance of the allowance, and the tempting attraction of electoral gain. While the policy’s stated aim is to support the teaching profession by financially assisting trainees, its recent implementation has often been entangled with the machinations of political strategy.
The reintroduction of the allowance in 2017 by the NPP government, after its cancellation by the previous NDC administration, further fuels this suspicion. This opinion piece sheds light on the historical reasoning behind the introduction of teacher trainees’ allowance, its influence on admissions, and the impact of spending efficiency through diversifying the funds for educational infrastructural purposes.
The allowance, introduced under Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s leadership, was a strategic move to incentivize individuals to pursue teaching as a career. At the time, many teacher trainees were pupil teachers without formal professional qualifications. These individuals were already receiving salaries as pupil teachers, which covered their boarding, books, tuition, and other expenses.
The allowance was an additional sum provided to serve as both an incentive and a means of supporting their personal needs. This financial support aimed to attract more individuals to the profession and address the growing need for qualified teachers. The six-week teacher training programs also emerged during this period, to handle the urgency of the situation and the drive to quickly increase the teaching workforce.
The teacher training allowance, however, experienced a period of disruption in the early 1970s when it was repealed, likely due to economic pressures and shifting priorities within the education sector. The repeal had unintended consequences, leading to a mass exodus of Ghanaian teachers to neighboring Nigeria, where teaching offered more lucrative prospects. Recognizing the detrimental impact of this outflow on the quality of education, the government reinstated the teacher training allowance in the 1980s and has been in continuous implementation until its cancelation in 2013.
Trainee Allowance and Admission Complexities
While the allowance has historically played a role in attracting individuals to the profession, its impact and necessity have been subject to ongoing debate.
Before the cancellation of the allowance in 2014, colleges of education admitted an average of 9,000 trainees annually, producing at least 8,500 trained teachers each year (MOE-EMIS, 2013). This period highlights the allowance’s potential contribution to boosting teacher training enrollment and output. However, subsequent years have presented a more nuanced picture. Despite the cancellation, admissions in colleges of education have seen significant increases. For instance, the 2013/2014 academic year saw an enrollment of 33,526 trainees, which rose to 41,984 in 2015/2016, a 25% increase. Enrollment continued to climb, reaching 43,570 trainees in 2017/2018. These statistics challenge the assertion that allowances are the sole driver of enrollment, suggesting other factors may be at play.
The financial implications of the allowance are substantial. Prior to 2014, assuming each student received a 400 Cedi allowance, the government’s expenditure would have been approximately 3,600,000 Ghana Cedis based on the average admission numbers. Projecting this cost onto the 2014 enrollment figures (without considering the subsequent increases), the expenditure would have ballooned to approximately 13,410,400 Ghana Cedis. This represents a significant increase, more than four times the amount spent when teacher training was arguably less attractive. This raises crucial questions about the cost-effectiveness of the allowance as a recruitment strategy, especially when considering the rising enrollment figures even after its cancellation.
While some argue that the cancellation negatively impacted admissions, the available data largely contradicts this claim. The steady increase in enrollment figures, even without the allowance, suggests that other factors, such as increased awareness of the importance of education or improved career prospects, may be driving enrollment. In addition to the traditional 46 public Colleges of Education in Ghana, private institutions also contribute to teacher training. Nearly all public and private universities offer teacher education programs, that has resulted in a surplus of trained teachers currently unemployed by both government and private schools. Consequently, the discontinuation of trainee allowances is unlikely to create a teacher shortage or diminish enrollment in teacher training programs. This evidence necessitates a re-evaluation of the allowance’s primary purpose and its continued relevance.
Teacher Trainee Allowance and its Support Relevance
It’s undeniable that many students in Colleges of Education genuinely need financial assistance to pursue their education and contribute meaningfully to society. Becoming a teacher requires dedication, and for many aspiring educators, financial constraints can be a significant barrier. However, the current structure raises serious questions about its sustainability and effectiveness. While the principle of providing support is commendable, the reality of the GH₵400 monthly disbursement is of concern because approximately GH₵200 is deducted for student feeding, leaving them with a mere GH₵200 cedis for all other expenses – academic fees, educational materials, and personal needs. The GH₵200 is often insufficient, and places strain on students already navigating the challenges of their academic programs. These foregoing issues then begs the question, “Was the allowance restoration purely a policy reversal based on educational merit, or a shrewd political maneuver to curry favor with a crucial segment of the population?
Teacher Trainee Allowance and Education Infrastructure Challenges
Ghana’s basic education subsector faces a severe infrastructure deficit, including a shortage of over one million desks and more than 5,000 schools operating under trees, in sheds, or dilapidated buildings. While this is not the subsector’s only challenge, it significantly impacts the working conditions of newly graduated teachers. Furthermore, the colleges of education themselves face pressing challenges that demand attention. Poor and inadequate infrastructure, including dilapidated classrooms, insufficient accommodation, and limited access to resources, significantly hinder the quality of teacher training. These infrastructural deficits pose a far greater threat to the long-term health of the education system than the absence of a trainee allowance. Addressing these infrastructural issues should be a priority for government investment. The 2022-2025 budget preparation guideline document indicates a total allocation of ¢401.1 million for teacher and nursing trainee allowances in 2022. A disaggregation of this figure reveals that teacher trainee allowances account for ¢169.9 million, translating into 42.4%. The average cost of constructing a simple six-unit classroom block with an office is approximately 300,000 Ghana Cedis. This means that the equivalent of the monthly cost of teacher trainee allowances could fund the construction of four such classroom blocks. Redirecting these funds towards infrastructure development could substantially alleviate the problem of inadequate facilities in basic schools and the Colleges of Education. It is conceivable that repurposing the teacher trainee allowance in this way could significantly improve if not entirely resolve, the infrastructure crisis plaguing the basic education subsector.
Conclusion
While students enrolled in Colleges of Education and pursuing degree programs awarded by universities receive allowances, their counterparts enrolled in the same degree programs at the same universities receive student loans instead. This disparity creates inequity and raises concerns about fairness, as all students pursuing the same degree within the public university system should, ideally, have access to the same financial support mechanisms. Since the Colleges of Education form part of tertiary education, it is imperative to enroll them as part of the free academic fee policy for all level 100 students where about Gh₵2500 could cater for them.
Additionally, a formal cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to compare the short and long-term impact of the trainee allowance against the potential benefits of investing the same funds in infrastructure improvements and teacher recruitment. While I recommend a cancellation of the allowance, the rationale for cancelation and reallocating the funds should be communicated to all stakeholders, including teacher trainees, educators, and the public
The entire country as well as teacher trainees should not swim against the tides by allowing themselves to be hook winged by the mere payment of trainee allowance. They must embrace the course for a secured means of employment and an improvement in education infrastructure that befits the current trend in education.