Recognising value of technical subjects to nurse training

**Patrick Katsaura-**Herald Correspondent

The Government’s recent decision to remove restrictions on the number of Ordinary-Level examination sittings accepted for nurse training is a welcome and progressive reform.

It reflects a more inclusive, fair and realistic understanding of how learners move through the education system. For many years, the number of examination sittings has been treated as a convenient indicator of academic ability.

In reality, however, multiple sittings do not necessarily reflect poor performance or a lack of commitment. They often tell a different story; one shaped by financial hardship, illness, family responsibilities, interrupted schooling or careful academic planning.

Capable learners may not register all their subjects at once because of financial hardship. Others intentionally spread their subjects between June and November to reduce pressure or improve their performance.

Some learners are affected by health problems, temporary relocation, employment commitments or exchange programmes. Removing the restriction on examination sittings, therefore, corrects an unnecessary barrier that has prevented many deserving candidates from pursuing nursing careers.

While this reform deserves recognition, another significant inconsistency remains within the nurse-training admission system: the continued exclusion of technical subjects.

Recruitment advertisements routinely specify that applicants must possess passes in particular academic subjects, adding the phrase, “excluding technical subjects”.

This requirement has largely been accepted without questioning what technical subjects actually teach, the competencies they develop or how those competencies relate to modern nursing practice.

Subjects such as Woodwork, Metalwork, Agriculture and Food Science are often viewed as belonging to a completely different educational pathway. They are associated with workshops, farms, kitchens and industrial production, whereas nursing is linked to laboratories, hospitals and clinics.

Yet this distinction overlooks the practical nature of nursing itself.

Nursing is not purely an academic profession. It demands both intellectual understanding and practical competence.

Nurses must understand anatomy, physiology, disease processes, medicines and patient psychology. At the same time, they must measure accurately, follow procedures, operate equipment safely, prevent contamination, manage materials and remain calm during emergencies. These are precisely the kinds of habits and skills that technical education is designed to develop.

Woodwork, for example, involves far more than making furniture. Its syllabus commonly includes plant structure, timber science, technical drawing, engineering principles, information and communication technology, occupational health, first aid and workshop safety.

Learners become familiar with accurate measurement, sequencing, materials, risk assessment and proper tool control. They learn to plan before acting, measure before cutting and inspect their work before declaring it complete.

The relevance of these habits to nursing is clear. Administering medication, recording vital signs, preparing sterile equipment and dressing wounds all require precision and strict adherence to procedure. Just as a small measurement error in a workshop can ruin a finished product, a similar mistake in a clinical setting can place a patient’s life at risk.

Woodwork also develops manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination. Learners are trained to handle tools with care, perform controlled movements and complete detailed tasks responsibly.

Although a chisel differs from a syringe and a timber joint differs from a clinical procedure, the discipline behind careful, accurate handwork provides a valuable foundation for practical nursing skills.

Metalwork offers similar benefits. Learners study machinery, heat, pressure, mechanical systems, structural strength and the safe operation of equipment. They are taught to inspect machines before use, rely on protective devices and never ignore faults or defects. These lessons have direct relevance in healthcare settings.

Hospitals and clinics depend heavily on specialised equipment. Nurses work with oxygen cylinders, infusion pumps, suction machines, wheelchairs, hospital beds, sterilisation units, monitors and patient-lifting devices.

Although nurses are not expected to repair this equipment, they must recognise unsafe conditions and use every device responsibly. A learner with a technical background may be more likely to identify a damaged electrical cable, an unstable bed rail, a loose oxygen fitting or a faulty trolley before these become hazards to patients.

Perhaps the strongest connection lies in occupational health and safety. Technical subjects introduce learners to personal protective equipment from the earliest years of secondary school.

Learners become familiar with gloves, goggles, masks, overalls, dust coats, safety boots, hearing protection and other protective clothing. They also learn first aid, emergency response procedures, hazard identification, safe storage practices and the importance of maintaining a controlled working environment.

These are not peripheral concepts in nursing. Infection prevention, sharps disposal, chemical safety, protective clothing and exposure control form part of everyday clinical practice. The safety culture taught in workshops closely resembles the culture of safety expected in hospitals.

Agriculture provides another compelling example. As a biological science, it covers plants, animals, soils, nutrition, disease, reproduction, environmental management and food production. Students study plant morphology, animal anatomy and physiology, parasites, pests, livestock diseases and the relationship between organisms and their environment. These topics introduce learners to biological systems and help them appreciate health within broader environmental and community contexts.

This knowledge becomes particularly valuable in rural healthcare. Nurses frequently encounter illnesses associated with unsafe water, malnutrition, pesticide exposure, zoonotic diseases, poor sanitation and seasonal food shortages.

Agricultural knowledge enables nurses to better understand these challenges and communicate health advice that is practical and relevant to the communities they serve. Advising families about balanced diets, for instance, becomes far more meaningful when a nurse understands local farming practices, available crops and the factors affecting household food security.

Agriculture also supports the increasingly important One Health approach, which recognises the close relationship between human health, animal health and environmental conditions.

Many public health challenges, including disease outbreaks, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic infections and food safety concerns, cannot be fully understood through human biology alone.

Food Science has perhaps the most direct relationship with nursing. Nutrition plays a central role in pregnancy, childhood development, recovery from illness, chronic disease management and elderly care. Learners who have studied Food Science often possess a sound understanding of nutrient functions, meal planning, food preservation, contamination, hygiene and safe food preparation. This knowledge provides a useful foundation for learning therapeutic diets used in managing diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease, anaemia and malnutrition.

The subject also develops organisation and time management. Safe food preparation requires careful coordination, temperature control, prevention of cross-contamination and the ability to manage several tasks simultaneously.

Nurses perform similar forms of coordination every day as they administer medication, monitor patients, prepare equipment, update records, communicate with doctors and respond to emergencies during demanding shifts.

Some may argue that recognising technical subjects could weaken academic standards. That concern deserves consideration, but it does not justify their blanket exclusion. The argument is not that Woodwork or Agriculture should replace Biology, Mathematics or English where those subjects are essential. Rather, it is that relevant technical subjects should be recognised as valuable supporting qualifications, instead of being dismissed automatically.

It is also worth asking why certain subjects are readily accepted while technical subjects are rejected without discussion. History, Geography, Commerce, Accounts, Sociology, Heritage Studies, Shona and Ndebele all make valuable contributions to education by developing communication, interpretation, cultural awareness and analytical thinking.

However, many of these subjects are not specifically designed to teach first aid, personal protective equipment, workshop safety, plant science, animal anatomy, food hygiene or hazard management. Technical subjects often address these competencies directly.

English remains indispensable as the language of instruction and professional communication, but its importance should not diminish the practical and scientific value of technical education. If Biology is recognised because it introduces learners to living systems, then education authorities should equally examine the biological content already present in Agriculture, Food Science and Wood Technology. Decisions should be based on curriculum analysis rather than long-standing assumptions.

Nurse-training authorities, curriculum specialists and professional councils should, therefore, undertake a comprehensive review of technical subject syllabi. Such a review should identify competencies that directly support healthcare education, including safety, first aid, anatomy, nutrition, hygiene, measurement, equipment handling, plant science and problem-solving.

Where knowledge gaps exist, bridging programmes could provide foundation modules in Biology, Chemistry or Mathematics before students begin full clinical training. This approach would expand access while maintaining professional standards.

Such reform would also help challenge the damaging perception that technical subjects are somehow inferior or intended only for weaker learners.

Patrick Katsaura is an educationist, publicist and consultant. He specialised in Linguistics and Wood Technology and Design. He writes in his own capacity.

Feedback: 0772 466 956 or [email protected].