Nursing admissions should be based on competence, not labels

Patrick Katsaura

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 progress through the education system. For many years, the number of examination sittings has been treated as a convenient measure 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.

Many capable learners are unable to register all their subjects at once because examination fees are beyond their reach. Others deliberately spread their subjects between the June and November examination sessions to reduce pressure or improve their performance.

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

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 serious scrutiny of 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 an entirely different educational pathway. They are associated with workshops, farms, kitchens and industrial production, while nursing is linked to laboratories, hospitals and clinics.

Yet this distinction overlooks the practical nature of nursing itself.

Nursing is not solely an academic profession. It requires 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 resources and remain calm during emergencies.

These are precisely the kinds of habits and skills that technical education is designed to cultivate.

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 management, 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 mirrors 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 linked to unsafe water, malnutrition, pesticide exposure, zoonotic diseases, poor sanitation and seasonal food shortages.

Agricultural knowledge enables nurses to better understand these challenges and communicate practical and relevant health advice 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 organisational and time-management skills. 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-held assumptions.

Nurse training authorities, curriculum specialists and professional councils should therefore undertake a comprehensive review of technical subject syllabuses. 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. Technical education develops practical intelligence, resilience, creativity, observation and competence, qualities that are essential for national development and highly relevant to healthcare.

Ultimately, the question is whether the education system is prepared to judge learners by the substance of what they have learnt rather than by outdated labels attached to particular subjects.

Nursing requires people who can think critically, work carefully, follow procedures, use equipment responsibly and understand the communities they serve. It demands professionals who combine scientific knowledge with practical ability, sound judgement and adaptability.

Recognising technical subjects will not automatically qualify every applicant for nursing, nor can technical education replace the specialised scientific and clinical training provided by nursing colleges. It can, however, provide a strong and credible foundation.

The removal of restrictions on multiple O-Level examination sittings has already demonstrated that admission policies can evolve when unnecessary barriers are identified. The same spirit of fairness and evidence-based reform should now be applied to the exclusion of technical subjects.

A modern nurse training system should not simply count certificates; it should evaluate competencies. Woodwork develops precision and safety awareness. As it were, the study of wood as a raw material largely exposes students to plant morphology. Metalwork strengthens equipment literacy and hazard recognition. Agriculture broadens understanding of biology, environmental health and community wellbeing. Food Science builds knowledge of nutrition, hygiene and patient recovery. These are not irrelevant abilities; they are fundamental building blocks of responsible healthcare practice.

The time has come for educationists, health authorities and professional bodies to examine technical subject curricula objectively. Such a review could resolve the current disconnect between education policy and healthcare training while creating broader opportunities for learners and strengthening the country’s healthcare workforce.

Technical education should not be regarded as a detour from nursing. Properly understood, it may be one of the pathways that leads directly to it.

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].