Reflections on the Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) program in Ethiopia: Promises, pitfalls, and propositions

Abstract

In 2003 the Ethiopian education system experienced wide-ranging reform that touches every aspect of the system. This reform is called TESO (Teacher Education System Overhaul). Designed to address educational problems in Ethiopia, TESO introduced significant structural changes and promised to bring a 'paradigm shift' in the Ethiopian educational system by engaging teacher education in changing society and promoting democratic, practical, and problem-solving education. This paper examines, through an analysis of the TESO document and an examination of the views of teacher educators, TESO's assumptions, mission and the coherence among the various components of TESO. It also reveals gaps and discrepancies between TESO's mission, its reform process, and strategies. The promise and assumptions of TESO are challenged by considering extant realities in Ethiopian schools and evidence from literature on effective teacher education programs and educational reform. The paper reflects on how, by giving priority to equity, TESO compromises on some elements of effective teacher education programs. It is indicated that TESO has been a welcome addition to the Ethiopian education system as it addresses elements that had previously been missing from the system, such as, outlining directions to teacher education, devoting longer duration for practicum, and heeding seriously to the professional preparation of teachers. At the same time, it is contended that the imbalance among program components, its permeability to ill-prepared students and the contradiction between program rhetoric and strategy and reform processes, as described by teacher educators, could be stumbling blocks which prevent TESO from fulfilling its promises.

Teacher preparation in Ethiopia: a critical analysis of reforms

“…The TESO reform documents were authored with the significant involvement of international consultants and volunteers (mainly from the UK and the Netherlands), and financed mainly by the European Union (see Pillay, 2010;Tessema, 2007b). As such, local teacher educators and scholars had little role, if any, in the preparation of the background studies and subsequent development of the curricula, except taking part in a series of pre-implementation meetings called by the MoE (Mekonnen, 2008;Tessema, 2006Tessema, , 2007a. Among the serious issues raised in pre-implementation meetings were concerns about the negative consequences of reducing the duration of the training programmes, the balance between content and pedagogy, and the inflation of credits awarded to school practicum.…”

“…As a result, until recently it was a subject of close scrutiny for teacher educators and researchers alike. Specifically, the relevance of TESO's programme components as well as the effectiveness of the strategies used in the implementation process were important issues that received considerable attention (Mekonnen, 2008;Semela, 2008;Tessema, 2006). As such, the serious shortcoming of TESO had been the lack of any clear and coherent thematic perspective in the direction of teacher education (see e.g.…”

“…As such, the serious shortcoming of TESO had been the lack of any clear and coherent thematic perspective in the direction of teacher education (see e.g. Mekonnen, 2008;Tessema, 2006Tessema, , 2007a. In effect, it was difficult for faculties of education to overcome the confusions based on pre-set principles in a systematic manner during the implementation phase (see e.g.…”

“…In fairness, though these studies (e.g. Dahlström, 2007;Kassahun, 2006;Lemma, 2006;Mekonnen, 2008;Tessema, 2006Tessema, , 2007aTessema, , 2007b are limited in their scope, they still provide useful insights into the policypractice gaps in areas like school-based practicum (Degago, 2007;Tessema, 2007a), the impact of plasma television (TV) broadcasted lessons on teacher education (Dahlström, 2007;Lemma, 2006;Tessema, 2006), and teacher professionalism (Tessema, 2007a).…”

“…Further, TESO was seriously criticized for marginalizing 'content knowledge' in its secondary teacher education programme component (via reducing the credit weight allocated for major fields of study down to 25% of the total credits required to graduate) while demanding too much from upper primary teacher candidates by requiring them to specialize in three different subject-matter areas (Mekonnen, 2008). These practices are considered to be the major contributors to the inadequacies of teachers in all components: subject-matter content, professional knowledge, and practical skills.…”