Why Our Students Struggle: Uncovering the Root Causes of Educational Decline Let us restore to educators their voice and role in reform to truly improve educational standards

Teaching & Learning

It is the one wearing the shoe who knows where it pinches, not the shoemaker. Let us restore to educators their voice and role in reform to truly improve educational standards

By Sada Reddi

The Cambridge examination results have justifiably aroused concern in various quarters about a possible general decline in educational standards. This apprehension was further amplified by the PISA results for Mauritius when compared with Asian countries like China, Singapore, or Korea. The authorities, we are told, have responded with several measures to support schools, educators, and students; how these measures translate into practice remains to be seen. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to underline certain issues that require consideration.

Without going too far back into the primary cycle, it is necessary to highlight two critical factors among the many that impede learning acquisition at this level, both inside and outside the school system. First, when the curricular pace matches the learning ability of pupils, they are more likely to succeed in attaining curricular objectives. Educators who pay attention to their pupils’ differing abilities are more successful in their teaching. Unfortunately, this is not always the case when educators face pressure to complete the syllabus ahead of the end-of-primary examination — an examination that is increasingly becoming irrelevant. Under examination pressure, pupils are left behind, partly explaining the poor pass rate that has dogged the authorities for the last fifty years.

Regarding the lower secondary curriculum, we often forget that it was originally crafted to suit the perceived average child and, as such, was a watered-down curriculum. While such a curriculum offers benefits by enabling almost all pupils to attain basic educational objectives, its implementation revealed serious drawbacks. In several schools with brighter students, the curriculum was not demanding at all and was completed by the middle of the second term — unless educators took the initiative to provide additional learning experiences or resources to beef it up. Where educators merely relied on MIE textbooks, many pupils were never given the opportunity to develop more complex skills.

There was also an important flaw in the design. It was generally a standalone curriculum with no connection to the Cambridge syllabus — for which most, if not all, students sit at the end of the secondary cycle — making the transition to upper forms difficult for many. Additionally, targeting the average student meant the lower secondary curriculum did not build adequate language skills across subjects. The texts often consisted of simple sentences and two- or three-line paragraphs, while assessments relied on multiple-choice questions offering little opportunity to write full sentences or paragraphs. Later curriculum changes addressed some of these issues, but they were very limited.

These comments are not intended to cast aspersion on the MIE, its staff, or its textbooks; these weaknesses stem mainly from the UNESCO/UNDP report of 1974 and World Bank policies that the government accepted at the time. The authorities could hardly do otherwise. The University of Mauritius, with its three schools, has so far conducted very little research on the education system. Inevitably, curriculum design was shaped by models from Scotland, New Zealand, and the UK, as Cader Kalla reminded us in an article on the social studies curriculum. Moreover, the curriculum was not designed to prepare students for the School Certificate examination; the report considered that our system was producing too many unemployed certificate holders. It was intended to prepare students for factory work, with the Form 3 examination serving as the terminal point. The World Bank even financed junior technical schools and centralized laboratories.

Fortunately, the population rejected this educational paradigm, much to the displeasure of the elite class, which often removes the ladder after reaching the top. The Form 3 examination was never held, junior technical schools were converted into State Secondary Schools, and students pursued their education into upper forms. Had we blindly followed UNESCO and World Bank prescriptions, the country would have faced disaster.

Over time, the factors shaping the lower secondary curriculum were forgotten, and we failed to review it with a fresh perspective. No great effort was made to link lower and upper secondary education. We fell into the curriculum trap of 1974, unwilling to embrace a new perspective, redesign textbooks, restore foundation subjects, foster critical thinking across the curriculum, or reinforce language learning. It is no surprise that many students struggle to secure more than three credits at School Certificate.

A wiser choice of subjects may be a better option for higher forms. An AI analysis based on the 2025 School Certificate results indicates that a credit in English is highly correlated with credits in subjects like English Literature, History, Sociology, Economics, Islamic Studies, Business Studies, and Hinduism, as these rely heavily on textual, conceptual, and essay-writing skills. However, students should not follow AI analysis blindly; they must also study subjects they enjoy alongside the core subjects of English, French, and Mathematics. Furthermore, those who take science subjects generally score highly across other disciplines. Therefore, optional subjects after Grade 9 should be thoroughly discussed with educators and parents to best fulfill student aspirations.

One hopes the forthcoming report on education reform will give serious thought to reviewing the curriculum from pre-primary to upper secondary. Foundation skills and concepts must be developed sequentially, supported by adequate classroom resources. Equally important is ensuring that curricular pacing matches pupil ability so all students can acquire concepts at their own speed, physical activities become a core primary discipline, and moral and civic education receives a practical emphasis across all subjects.

Reviewing the curriculum requires collaborators from all fields, including parents, students, practitioners, and educators at all levels. For too long, we have assumed that a specialist in one field is equally expert in all others. A language specialist is not automatically a specialist in pedagogy, evaluation, or curriculum development. In my own field of history, there are distinct sub-disciplines; one may know a topic deeply for a short period yet remain ignorant of other areas as new research emerges. This applies universally. In a small island state like Mauritius, we cannot have super-specialists in every field, and we must humbly acknowledge this reality. In education, we are often compelled to be jacks-of-all-trades, but broad collaboration can minimize risks in decision-making. For instance, a language specialist recently brought to my attention how irrational it is for authorities to translate an examination paper from an Indo-European language into a Dravidian language — a highly agglutinative, diglossic language requiring distinct curricula and teaching methods.

Too often, educational reform has focused purely on administrative decisions made by officials cloistered in offices. It is time to address the hard questions of curriculum and pedagogy while giving educators a voice in decision-making.

As the saying goes, it is the one wearing the shoe who knows where it pinches, not the shoemaker. Let us restore to educators their voice and role in reform to truly improve educational standards. Root causes must not be ignored when preparing recommendations; thorough fieldwork, information gathering, and analysis are essential if we wish to address society’s real problems rather than merely skimming the surface.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 2 October 2026