The debate on either three- or four-year duration of Senior High School (SHS) took centre stage at the ongoing national forum on Thursday with proponents of either of the views advancing reasons to support their positions.
Those in support of the four-year duration were of the view that increasing the number of years would help reverse the high number of students who were currently unable to qualify for the universities and other tertiary institutions.
On the other hand, the proponents of the three-year programme maintained that the dismal academic performance at the Senior High school level did not lie in the extension of the duration.
Rather, they argued, problems such as inadequate infrastructure and teacher motivation needed to be addressed at the basic level in order that the current weak foundation could be corrected.
Advancing arguments for the four years, Professor Ivan Addae-Mensah, Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Ghana, said the issue of cost, which was often cited for a three-year programme, was not tenable.
He said it was important for the country not to sacrifice quality of education at all levels on the altar of costs.
Prof Addae-Mensah said retaining the four-year programme would enable schools to admit all students not directly into specific subject or course areas but into the same general course level where all students studied the basic core subjects.
In this direction, he said, those from weaker Junior High School (JHS) background would also have some time to make up for any deficiencies, especially in English, mathematics and science.
Students can then select their subject areas during the second or third year when they had better grasp of the senior high school subjects.
"This will give every student a broad and strong base and long enough period to enable them to make up their minds as to what their talents really are," Prof Addae-Mensah added.
According to him, the four years were meant to give students a longer period to meet the requirements of the West African Examinations Council syllabus, while a school teaching syllabus normally aimed at ensuring a wider and deeper insight of the subject within the constraints of any particular school.
While appreciating the genuine constraint that lack of the requisite facilities for the current changeover could affect the programme, Prof Addae-Mensah said it was difficult to accept this on academic grounds as good enough reason for reverting to the old three-year programme.
However, Mr Emmanuel Acquaye, an Educationist, held the view that the problem of high failures at the Senior High School level stemmed from poor preparation at the basic level leading to a weak foundation.
He attributed the weak foundation at the basic level to inefficiencies in the basic school curriculum, the overloaded nature of the curriculum of the various subjects and slow response to the rapid growth of school enrolment and its associated large classes.
To Mr Acquaye, therefore, increasing the duration of the SHS by one more year did not solve the problem but rather ignored the causes of the problems and prolonged finding solutions to them.
He called for the establishment of oversight structures such as the National Inspection Board to enforce standards at the first and second cycle institutions.