The recent opinion piece by Brigadier General Dan Frimpong (Rtd), calling for the return of History, Geography and related foundational subjects to the heart of our educational system, deserves careful attention—not merely applause. His reflections stirred in me memories of a different educational era, one that was demanding, expansive, and quietly transformative.
I entered secondary school in 1971. We undertook seven full years of rigorous study. When I now reflect on the range of subjects we handled—History, Geography, Literature, Latin, French, German, Mathematics, and the Sciences—I sometimes ask myself how we managed such intellectual weight. Yet we did. And we did not merely survive it; we were shaped by it.
Brigadier General Frimpong’s argument is not nostalgic longing for a romanticized past. It is a call to reconsider the architecture of our educational foundations. There was a time when schooling was not structured solely around examination performance, but around the cultivation of informed, adaptable citizens.
Take Latin, for example. Though often described as a “dead” language, its influence permeates law, medicine, theology, and much of English vocabulary. Studying Latin sharpened reasoning and deepened linguistic awareness. It taught structure, discipline, and etymology. It strengthened the mind in ways not immediately visible but permanently beneficial.
French, which I pursued to diploma level, opened intellectual and cultural doors. German, though I studied it for only two years in school, later became invaluable when I travelled for further training. I was not intimidated by the language because I had been grounded in it earlier. Language study does more than enable communication—it builds cognitive resilience and cross-cultural confidence.
Geography, studied intensively for five to seven years, equipped us with a global lens. We understood climatic systems, trade routes, population distribution, and the delicate interplay between natural resources and human survival. Today, when discussions arise about climate change, migration, or international conflict, I often realize how much of my understanding rests on that early geographical foundation.
History, perhaps the most indispensable of all, provided perspective. It anchored identity. It taught us that nations evolve through sacrifice, error, reform and resilience. Without historical consciousness, public debate becomes shallow and reactive. With it, discourse gains maturity.
The strength of that earlier system was not perfection—it was breadth. It assumed that young minds could handle complexity. It delayed premature specialization. It prepared us not only for employment but for citizenship and leadership.
Today’s educational reforms seek efficiency and modernization, which are commendable goals. Yet in our pursuit of speed and relevance, we must guard against intellectual narrowing. A society that diminishes the humanities risks producing technically competent graduates who lack contextual understanding. A curriculum stripped of depth may produce quick results but shallow roots.
Another subtle loss concerns the culture of reading. In our time, reading was immersive and sustained. We grappled with atlases, primary texts, essays, and extended narratives. Reading cultivated patience and critical thinking. In contrast, contemporary exposure to fragmented information may hinder deep comprehension. Knowledge requires engagement, not mere access.
Brigadier General Frimpong’s intervention should therefore be viewed not as resistance to change, but as an appeal for equilibrium. The sciences and technology must flourish, yes. But so too must History, Geography, languages, and civic education. The future demands innovation, but innovation without context is unstable.
We must ask ourselves: What kind of citizens do we seek to produce? Specialists alone, or thinkers? Technicians alone, or leaders? Employees alone, or nation-builders?
Education is the long-term investment of a republic. It must equip the young not only to earn a living but to understand the world in which they live.
My generation benefited from an educational breadth that launched many of us into productive, adaptable working lives. It instilled intellectual discipline and global awareness. As we reform and modernize, let us not discard the very foundations that gave us strength.
The debate Brigadier General Frimpong has reignited is timely. The answer may not lie in a simple return to the past, but in reclaiming its depth.
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh
