Curriculum 2005 is probably the most significant curriculum reform in South African
education of the last century. Deliberately intended to simultaneously overturn the legacy
of apartheid education and catapult South Africa into the 21st Century, it was an
innovation both bold and revolutionary in the magnitude of its conception. As the first
major curriculum statement of a democratic government, it signaled a dramatic break from
the past. No longer would curriculum shape and be shaped by narrow visions, concerns and
identities. No longer would it reproduce the limited interests of any one particular
grouping at the expense of another. It would bridge all, and encompass all. Education and
training, content and skills, values and knowledge: all would find a place in Curriculum
2005.
Despite these noble goals for social and educational change, there is a perception that schools are not assisting in either creating new social values or the skilled population that the country requires in order to compete globally. In part, it must be recognised that education (or even a curriculum) cannot change society or on its own produce national development. Vesting such hopes in education are bound to lead to disillusionment. Education, and getting it right, are however important because more and better education to a higher level for all is both a good in itself and can create the conditions for enhanced social and personal development. The success of Curriculum 2005 is ultimately necessary because of the value vested in it as an instrument of social change and educational achievement by broad layers of the society.
Since the role of schools should be both to assist the achievement of wider goals of social justice, equity and development and also to develop the intellectual abilities, critical faculties and social values of school students, it is necessary to review Curriculum 2005 in terms of both the broader social and educational goals in terms of which it was established. (DOE, 2000f; see also Asmal, 2000c)
The history of the emergence of Curriculum 2005 (C2005) is crucial to an understanding of its current difficulties. Its roots lie deeper than the transition to democracy in 1994, but its specific form began to take shape in this context. Here only a brief account can be given (see also Chapter Three).
C2005 arose out of coalition processes designed to ensure the integration of education and training through the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). As an assessment, qualifications, competency and skills-based framework, it encouraged the development of a curriculum model aligned to the NQF in theory and practice. This model drew on a variety of ideas current in the international arena and reshaped them to fit local conditions. Included amongst these was that of outcomes-based education. Local conditions and social realities themselves, in turn, shaped consequent developments. Curriculum 2005 was not implemented onto a blank slate but in a context of immensely complex social inequalities and realities and diverse educational politics. These included most importantly a long history of radical and transformative educational ideas and practices. It is this process of indigenisation through policy formulation and implementation - what has become of Curriculum 2005 and the ideas that underpin it - that is the subject of this Review.
Key moments in the emergence of Curriculum 2005 include:
(Information in this section was drawn from the submission by the DOE).
When the Minister of Education announced the introduction of the new curriculum in 1995, implementation was scheduled for all grades (1-12) by the year 2000. In 1997 the implementation time-table was revised to 2005 and, in line with this, the new curriculum became known as Curriculum 2005.
By March 1997 a comprehensive plan for implementation had been produced. The implementation plan, designed to take place between 1997 and 2005, was revised several times. To date, Grades 1, 2, 3 and 7 have been implemented. The intention is to introduce C2005 into Grades 4 and 8 in 2001 so that by 2005 implementation in all Grades will be completed.
From the start the process of implementation was attended by grave difficulties. Despite enormous political will and effort, social demands were seemingly not matched by financial, physical and human capacity in the system to implement according to schedule. Initially, national pilots were to run from Grades 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 in the second half of 1997 as preparation for full-scale implementation starting in 1998 and going to 2001. The national pilot supported by an INSET programme was aimed at reaching all 300,000 teachers in the system. As implementation began in 1997, provincial protests led to a scaling down of the scope of implementation to Grade 1. In August 1998, the implementation of Curriculum 2005 in the senior phase was postponed from 1999 to 2000. Pilots in Grades 3 and 7 were begun in 1999 as these were due for implementation in 2000. In 2000 Grades 3 and 7 were implemented and the Minister requested advice on implementation of Grades 4 and 8 in 2001.
Many of these difficulties were linked to the wider, immediate post-election context of social change and policy formation in which Curriculum 2005 emerged. This context shaped the trajectory of implementation in distinctive ways. In the first instance, the period was marked by heightened social pressure for visible change in all areas. And in the second, the context of belt-tightening constrained considerably what it was actually possible to deliver. Curriculum 2005 consequently emerged as one of a plethora of new activities and policies vying for resources and attention: the restructuring of national and provincial education departments, the finance and governance of education, rationalisation and redeployment of teachers and creation of new legislative frameworks for policy across a wide spectrum of fields. All were considered to be as important as the new curriculum for effecting educational change.
In spite of considerable effort and hard work on the part of new national and provincial departments of education, and often against insuperable odds, the combination of changes occurring at an extraordinary pace exerted severe pressure on the system. Implementation was not always carefully thought through, properly piloted or resourced and enormous stresses and strains were consequently placed on already over-burdened principals and teachers in widely-divergent educational contexts. While better resourced schools coped but complained of excessive paperwork, inadequately resourced schools were in addition hampered by poor infrastructure, large classes, and an absence of the technologies of teaching, including educational resources such as textbooks, exercise books, pens and pencils. The new curriculum philosophy, outcomes-based education, also came under attack from academics (Jansen, 1997; Jansen and Christie, 1999). In this context, discordant voices advocated either abandonment of outcomes-based education, adoption of voucher systems and a ‘back to basics´ approach or more rapid implementation. Tirisano, the Department of Education´s national mobilisation plan for education and training, is to some extent an acknowledgement of these stresses and strains, but clearly Curriculum 2005 itself also needed review.
The establishment of a Review Committee was publicly mooted in November 1999. After a meeting in Pretoria in early January 2000 to consider the terms of reference of the proposed Review Committee, the Minister of Education announced the establishment of the Committee on the 8th February 2000.
The committee was required to investigate:
In particular, the Minister sought ‘a substantive review of the new curriculum and its implementation… the rationale for and viability of the learning areas, learning programmes and phase organisers, the range of knowledge to be covered, the assessment criteria and expected levels of learner achievement and the rationale for and the viability of the sixty six specific outcomes to be achieved in relation to critical outcomes´ (Asmal, 2000a).
In addition, the Minister said that he wished to receive an evaluation of and recommendations on the implementation of the new curriculum in the Foundation Phase and in Grade 7. This should cover field testing, teacher orientation and follow up training, professional support services provided within the provincial systems, classroom practices, the quality, quantity and use of learning materials in support of the new curriculum and the level of understanding of the new curriculum.
The brief was to review Curriculum 2005 and not outcomes-based education.
The Review Committee was given a time-frame to the end of May 2000 to investigate these issues.
The brief of the Minister requested that the Review Committee examine all official evaluations conducted in the process of implementation and conduct any other research it deemed necessary.
The review process accordingly included:
Numerous evaluations and studies were conducted in the course of the piloting and implementation of Curriculum 2005. The first step was thus analysis of the methodology and findings of available official and unofficial sources on implementation of Curriculum 2005 (see Sources Used).
Official evaluations are important but will tend, by their very nature, to support existing policy directions. As such, they may sometimes be less probing than unofficial evaluations. For this reason, the Review Committee found it necessary to examine as much available evidence as possible, including both official and unofficial sources, documentary as well as non-documentary. The former included reports and evaluations produced for and commissioned by government departments, research agencies and foundations as well as short papers, theses and articles written for an academic and wider audience.
Both official and unofficial assessments used a wide range of methods. Those reviewed included qualitative and quantitative approaches. All contributed to sharpening the Committee´s understanding of the local experience of different aspects of the implementation of Curriculum 2005. Although they are uneven in quality, the strength of the existing evaluations and reports is that they uncover teachers´ and other constituencies´ perceptions and experiences of implementation.
There are however limitations inherent in the kinds of data collected and reported in the documents reviewed. The most obvious limitation lies in the fact that the findings are often simply summaries of perspectives of the success of C2005 or evidence of the affective response to implementation. The validity or reliability of these perceptions was not in all instances verified. This suggests that the research and evaluation of the impact of Curriculum 2005 has suffered from the same problems as its implementation. Undue haste and too-pressured deadlines has often led to thin research. Very few of the reports provided information about the steps that were taken to ensure reliability, validity and/or trustworthiness of the findings. Not all projects were equally stringent or transparent about the criteria used for sampling. In some projects the number of variables in the sampling procedure raised questions.
Nevertheless, many of the reports came to similar conclusions. This in itself could be regarded as proof of the relative validity and reliability of the perceptions and experiences described in the reports. And despite the limitations of time under which the research for the documents reviewed was conducted, they do testify to an admirable seriousness of purpose, vitality and commitment in the local research community.
The second step in the research process was a number of site visits combined with key informant and focus group interviews. Site visits and interviews were conducted to probe gaps and explore further questions that emerged in the course of the document review. Selected schools were visited and focus group interviews were held with principals, heads of departments and teachers. Key informant and focus group interviews were also conducted with national and provincial officials, trainers and publishers involved in curriculum implementation.
A call was made for public submissions in order to widen the range of perspectives and experiences open to investigation. Here, too, care had to be exercised for it is usually the voices of the powerful and literate that find their way into the realms of policy-making and evaluation. A call for submissions was made in both the print media and radio. Submissions were received from a wide variety of practitioners including individual teachers, past and current principals, a range of primary schools, NGOs, trainers involved in training for Curriculum 2005 and outcomes-based education, teacher associations and unions, tertiary institutions and publishers.
The range of evidence consequently considered by the Committee has been both as extensive and as deep as time and the capacity of the Committee to garner and analyse sources has permitted.
The Committee has attempted as far as possible to reflect the results of the findings in as fair a manner as possible. Evidence always comes in many different forms, however, and requires interpretation. A common understanding of the demands and complexity of implementation have guided interpretation. Part of this complexity is embodied in the history and conditions of implementation. The history as a conditioning factor will be addressed in different parts of the Report. Factors conditioning successful implementation are addressed in Chapter Two. For the rest, there was remarkable unanimity across documents, interviews and submissions on those aspects which require attention.
In the course of conducting this Review, many have argued that it is not possible to provide a definitive review of a reform such as Curriculum 2005 until the passage of time has allowed its effects to be felt. Its impact, it is maintained, can only be assessed after several years. Assessments in the short-term will, by definition, be qualitative and indicative.
Such arguments carry a grain of truth. But they are based on a questionable assumption about the nature of policy as something static, fixed and unchanging. Approaches to policy implementation since the early 1990s have emphasised that policy carries different meanings for different players from the point of conception to the point of practice and implementation (see, for example, Ball, 1994; Odden, 1991). These meanings are constructed within specific historical and material contexts. Once implemented, however, policy alters conditions, creating new circumstances which require constant, iterative re-formulation and negotiation. As a process of constant negotiation and bargaining, policy is and can be constantly open to change and improvement.
Curriculum 2005 was introduced to set aside the philosophical and pedagogical basis of apartheid-education once and for all. Both at a symbolic and actual level for many schools and teachers, things have changed, even in so far as they may not have changed at all materially. The circumstances in which Curriculum 2005 was implemented have changed; in many instances its implementation along with other social and educational reforms has introduced and created a different context, set of conditions and circumstances from those of the immediate post-election period. These now need attention. It is from this point of view that this review of Curriculum 2005 was conducted.
A number of assumptions, derived in part from a close reading of available evidence, underlie the approach taken in the report overall. The first relates to the relationship between Curriculum 2005 and outcomes-based education, the second to the relationship between outcomes-based education and ‘back to basics´ arguments and the third to a series of interrelated implementation challenges addressed in the body of this Report.
In the public domain, outcomes-based education and Curriculum 2005 are often conflated and seen as interchangeable. There is seldom a discussion of Curriculum 2005 without a discussion on outcomes-based education and there is rarely a debate on outcomes-based education without reference to Curriculum 2005. But what is outcomes-based education and what is its relationship to Curriculum 2005? Closer examination of official and unofficial understandings reveal some differences in emphasis between them.
Official documentation links the new curriculum to national goals and does not distinguish clearly between C2005 and OBE. The vision of linked national, curricular and learning outcomes are embedded in most official presentations of C2005. In 1997, the DOE (1997a), for example, defined Curriculum 2005 as:
an OBE curriculum derived from nationally agreed on critical cross-field outcomes that sketch our vision of a transformed society and the role education has to play in creating it.
C2005 and the outcomes framework are in turn also linked with the vision and goals of the National Qualifications Framework and SAQA. The Department of Education´s Teachers´ Manual for Grade Seven describes outcomes-based education ‘as the vehicle to deliver the critical outcomes defined in the National Qualifications Framework´ (n.d., p. 2; see also Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century and Chapter Three).
The objectives of the National Qualifications Framework are defined as being to create an integrated national framework for learning achievements, the facilitation of access to, and mobility and progression within education, training and career paths and the enhancement of the quality of education and training (p. 8). The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) submission defines the NQF as ‘a systemic framework for organising education and training around the notion of learning outcomes´; OBE is seen as ‘an approach to education´ while C2005 is seen as ‘the curriculum that has been developed within an outcomes-based framework and is in the process of being implemented in the schools.´
For Spady, a major influence on curriculum thinking in South Africa since 1994, outcomes-based education:
means clearly focusing and organizing everything in an educational system around what is essential for all students to be able to do successfully at the end of their learning experiences. This means starting with a clear picture of what is important for students to be able to do, then organizing curriculum, instruction, and assessment to make sure this learning ultimately happens (Spady, 1994).
The DOE´s Teacher´s Manual for Grade 7 (n.d.) adapts Spady´s ideas to describe a ‘South African´ version of outcomes-based education. It similarly sees OBE as ‘in essence… defining, organising, focusing and directing all aspects of a teaching system in relation to what we want ALL learners to demonstrate successfully when they exit the system….´ (p. 11). Outcomes-based education sees ‘WHAT (outcomes) and WHETHER learners are learning well as more important than WHEN and HOW they learn it´ (p. 10). Planning ‘back´ from outcomes is a central aspect of the methodology.´ As such, outcomes-based education entails a new method of curriculum design which organises learning from exit assessment backwards.
While policy makers differ on some aspects of C2005, there is an understanding of C2005 as a planned process and strategy of curriculum change underpinned by elements of redress, access, equity and development. To achieve these, C2005 employs methodologies used in progressive pedagogy such as learner centredness, teachers as facilitators, relevance, contextualised knowledge and cooperative learning. But, as one group of interviewees in the DOE noted, curriculum change needs to be continuous taking into account problems as they emerge:
C2005 is a political strategy that is used to drive change. There was no way that it couldn´t be political. With time it is being realised that the political is not the only side of the story. C2005 entails all factors that go with a curriculum. Initially content was de-emphasised. There were blurring boundaries on the content. Ignoring content is problematic; especially considering the fact that teachers´ content is weak. Content is one of those things that we must pick up which was left behind. (Teacher Development Directorate Interview)
Chapter Three shows how C2005 draws philosophically on progressive, learner-centred education, outcomes-based education and concepts of an integrated approach to knowledge. For those making submissions to the Review Committee, C2005 and outcomes-based education are invariably defined in terms of the principles of progressive pedagogy. With some exceptions, evidence from evaluations, interviews and submissions on the whole endorse the principles of outcomes-based education but question the implementation. The basic principles of outcomes-based education are positively defined as a ‘results-based´, ‘learner-centred, experiential and integrated approach´, using ‘new methods´ such as ‘group work and continuous assessment´ and as ‘having numerous advantages.´
For some, outcomes-based education ‘has given educators in the Foundation Phase a new energy and tapped a creativity and skill that had formerly been hidden´ (LINK Community Development submission). Whereas many tend to see outcomes-based education as progressive pedagogy alone, there are others who value it as an approach which does not prescribe method but both facilitates a different approach to knowledge creation and generation as well as engendering new teaching and learning relationships.
The version of the new curriculum which appears to have found favour is that which is promoted in the Minister of Education´s Call to Action: active learning. This ‘embraces the capacity of learners to think for themselves, to learn from the environment, and to respond to … teachers who value creativity and self-motivated learning´ (1999b, p.12).
Whether, how and by whom outcomes-based education and Curriculum 2005 was created and came into being in South Africa has been a subject over which much ink has been spilt. The influences on both have been diverse. But whereas outcomes-based education per se has its roots in the West, some of the principles underlying it are far from new in South Africa. The educational principles of people´s education find as much of an echo in it as do those of the alternative, independent schools movements that have emerged in South Africa from time to time. ‘Critical thinking,´ as Mfundi Sibiya of the South African Democratic Teachers´ Union said at a conference on outcomes-based education, ‘is not a novel idea in our society; OBE is neither complicated nor unrealizable….´ (in Goolam and Khumalo, 1997).
The progressivist, learner-centred principles of outcomes-based education in Curriculum 2005 are not new in South Africa. Scores of teachers across colour lines have for many years experimented with alternative methods and approaches. The name, form and shape taken in recent years are however new. Amongst the most powerful in shaping it is Bill Spady, an American educationist who now distances himself from what passes for outcomes-based education in South Africa. Bill Spady became highly influential in curriculum planning and development in South Africa after 1994. His appeal lay in the schemata he produced to distinguish between, amongst other things, ‘traditional OBE,´ ‘transitional OBE´ and ‘transformational OBE.´ ‘Traditional OBE´ encompassed negative elements of education, such as rote learning, subject divisions, content-based knowledge and summative assessment. ‘Transformational OBE´ emphasised the opposite: learning shaped by outcomes, integrated knowledge and formative assessment.
Spady´s ideas fell on fertile ground in circles responsible for developing Curriculum 2005 in South Africa. Many have however begun to criticise his polarised schemata, finding more appeal in concepts of the negotiated character of curriculum and the influence of the multi-dimensionality of educational practice and contexts of practice (see Jansen and Christie, 1999). Learning, they would argue, for example, is not always either content or competency-based. It can involve both content and competency acquisition. Assessment is not always only either formative or summative. Each can entail elements of the other (Ogunnyi, 1999). Likewise the impact of outcomes-based education cannot be equal in unequal conditions. There has been little recognition of this reality of South African educational life or acknowledgement of the additional requirements for successful implementation in resource-poor schools.
Now, even Spady is finding that in implementation his ideas have taken an unrecognisable form: ‘Calling it “South African OBE,” he writes in his submission, ‘is more of a professional embarrassment than those making the suggestion…will ever realize.´ In response to what he observes as gross distortion and deviation from the original ideas, Spady calls for a return to the source of the original idea. ‘Curriculum 2005,´ he writes, ‘needs to become genuinely Outcomes-Based by developing a visible, compelling OBE rationale….´.
Even as Spady´s ideas have in the process of implementation mutated into his worst fears, so the implementation of outcomes-based education in different national contexts has varied. A study by UCT educationist, Rob Sieborger (1999), shows for example that the content given to outcomes-based education varies significantly between England, Scotland and South Africa. Sieborger´s interest is in the subject of history. It is not a subject in the South African version of outcomes-based education in the General Education and Training band, but is compulsory in the English curriculum for children between the ages of 5 and 14 and is part of ‘Social Subjects,´ and also compulsory for children from 5 to 14 in Scottish schools.
This example suggests that it is possible for the curriculum that we have now to be modified to better address the need for improved teaching and learning in schools. No curriculum, if it is to be a living curriculum, can be cast in stone. Curriculum 2005 is not cast in stone and can change to address the problems that have emerged in implementation. What must be resisted is the notion that there is only one way of doing curriculum change. There are as many ways of doing outcomes-based education as there are routes to a curriculum which will enhance teaching and learning in South Africa.
In response to many of the problems encountered in the implementation of Curriculum 2005, some have argued for a return to the basics of education. ‘Back to Basics´ arguments are as seductively simple as some versions of outcomes-based education. But whereas a Spady-inspired view of the educational past is one of time-based subject and content-specific knowledge, ‘Back to Basics´ approaches tend to hark back to a golden age where all could read, write and do mathematics. Both versions are idealised misrepresentations which deny the complexity and difference of the past. South African education cannot return to a mythical past where everyone knew the three Rs; except for a few, the majority did not.
In many respects, the ‘basics´ that children need to know now have also expanded. It is no longer sufficient that children learn to read, write and do mathematics, although that is the basis of all education. Higher levels of reading, writing and numeracy are required at earlier levels. Equally important is how children are taught and learn to read, write and deal with numbers, and with what goal in mind. Or, as the Academy of Science of South Africa put it in its submission, ‘…science education is heavily dependent on educational processes and experiences which stimulate curiosity and foster habits of purposeful enquiry. In this sense, assessable outcomes focussed on what qualifying scholars can do (their applied competence) are only a fraction of the real outcomes which have to do with why and how they will do things.´
What South African education needs to do is go forward by improving the alternative modes of teaching and learning that have started to be put in place. This is especially so in a context where commitments to lifelong learning are imperative to equip youth and adults for the challenges and demands of the 21st Century. In the process, the ‘what´ of learning needs to be integrated with the ‘how´ and the ‘when´ with the ‘whether´. ‘Basics´ cannot be polarised from ‘outcomes´; this is as much a false opposition as those polarisations set up in some formulations of outcomes-based education.
On the basis of available evidence, outcomes-based education in the form described in the Minister of Education´s Call to Action is here to stay. On the basis of evidence received in the form of evaluations, interviews and submissions, a scriptural understanding of outcomes-based education cannot be sustained. How C2005 has been implemented therefore requires evaluation and modification.
A number of submissions and reports have drawn attention to the conditions affecting implementation. They underline the fact that the considerable variation in the success of implementation has depended amongst other things on:
Each of these factors has been present in different combinations in different contexts leading to considerable variability of impact and experience. On the whole policy pressure and social and political will have been strong, but resources, infrastructure, local and institutional capacity, support, information and training have been variable in quality. Time-frames have not been feasible. Improved implementation will require more attention being paid to these systemic and institutional features (see Chapter Two; also Jansen in WCED/Bak, 1999 and 1999b).
Implementation of an outcomes-based curriculum framework ultimately however rests on adequately prepared teachers motivated to teach and supported in their work (see Chapter Three). This observation has implications for teacher education, preparation and support (see Chapter Four). In terms of preparation, outcomes-based education, as one submission noted, ‘cannot in and of itself alter a teacher´s perspective, practice and understanding.´ Or, as an evaluation of implementation in Grade 1 conducted for the Department of Education in the Eastern Cape suggested, ‘The paradigm shift required of C2005 cannot be accomplished in a few weeks of training. Curriculum change is an ongoing process that may take many years to achieve´ (1999, p.2).
The same might be said of attempting to change a life-time of practice through workshops of limited duration, regardless of the effort that goes into it. Well-intentioned though much of the preparation for Curriculum 2005 was, it is no substitute for a longer-term teacher education strategy of changing classroom practice. The Cascade Model of training used in the implementation of Curriculum 2005 can be improved upon and substituted by different forms of short-term orientation (see Chapter Four). Indeed, there is evidence that training efforts have improved with time. But rather than seeing the limited results as being the fault of teachers, they must be seen as part of the limitations of short-term training. More importantly, short-term training needs to be seen as a supplement to, rather than the basis of preparation of teachers in new principles and practices of teaching and learning.
Although resourceful and creative teachers are plentiful in the system, negative images abound. The consequence, as the submission by Martha Mokgoko of the Teacher Trust observed, is that ‘the teacher´s image and morale are battered.´ This consciousness of not having any public value was evident in several of the submissions from schools and teachers.
It was also clear that teachers face inordinate pressures and demands in their everyday lives. The cumulative impact of the negative public image combined with the multitude of changes making themselves felt in schools and classrooms is likely to backfire on the successful implementation of new, innovative curricula. Without renewed public confidence and support of teachers, their motivation not only to teach but to teach with enthusiasm will be hampered.
By the same token, the key issue in classrooms is not so much whether teachers use either textbooks or create their own learning materials, although the presence of both is an advantage (see Chapter Five). The availability of good teaching materials, a resource issue, is certainly central. This underpins teachers´ capacity to create their own materials. But the use of learning support materials depends above all on teachers themselves. Well-prepared and motivated teachers can perform miracles with textbooks. Demotivated teachers with a wealth of learning materials at their disposal can likewise produce pedestrian lessons. The key issues here are both the availability of good teaching resources and whether and how teachers are prepared and motivated to teach, create and use learning resources.
Accordingly, our account of the preparation and support of teachers in schools and classrooms is written from the perspective that motivated teachers are not only well-prepared and educated teachers, but also teachers who are valued and supported in their work. Public representations of teachers and their work play a critical role. But this valuing and support is most immediately registered in terms of the role played by departmental officials, from the school principal to the district, regional and provincial offices (see Chapter Seven). The type and nature of such support in turn depends on a number of additional conditions being in place. One of these is adequate teacher education to lessen the need for support; the other is training for departmental officials to enable them better to provide support where it is needed.
A universal concern of research reports, submissions and interviewees has been the terminology in which Curriculum 2005 is framed. Chapter Three considers the unnecessarily obtuse use of language and proliferation of new terminology. The exclusionary effects of this terminology require some comment here. ‘Even to first-language speakers´, writes a training NGO, COUNT, ‘the terminology is obscure, tortuous and imprecise.´ For those who struggle to find a place and a voice within the schooling environment – children with special needs, second-language English speakers, female teachers, girls, poor and hungry scholars in rural and urban areas, illiterate parents - the impact is doubly exclusionary. They should not be expected to struggle with an obscure curriculum vocabulary as well as those hidden and invisible conditions and practices which push out and marginalise people within schools. Instead it should be the task of curriculum shapers to create curricula that are inclusive at all levels, including the linguistic.
Another aspect of the use of the new terminology is the banishment from the realm of educational discourse and practice a number of words and methods – and by extension the people who use them – that should have a place in any inclusionary educational curriculum. These include ordinary words such as ‘teacher´, ‘student´, ‘subject,´ ‘syllabus´, ‘discipline´ and ‘textbook´ (See Chapter Three). It could be argued that a new democracy needs a new language for curriculum. But when the effects are exclusionary, this argument must be questioned.
Despite the fact that levels of understanding of Curriculum 2005 are compromised by complex terminology, there is nonetheless extraordinary and widespread enthusiasm and commitment to the new Curriculum (see Chapter Six). The reason for this apparent paradox was explained over and over in many different contexts: large numbers of people in schools and educational institutions are committed to change and transformation. Curriculum 2005 (and outcomes-based education, with which it is associated) signals change and transformation. It is this signal more than any other which explains the commitment to and belief in something which is simultaneously alienating and frustrating. In addition, for those teachers who are grappling with the new curriculum framework, there is excitement about the effect on learners and on themselves as educators. This suggests that what needs to be kept intact is the transformation agenda in Curriculum 2005 and outcomes-based education. The commitment to a transformation agenda amongst South African educators is deep. But this agenda needs to be deepened and made more real by addressing those issues which inhibit and constrain full understanding and realisation of the goals of transformation. Chapter Six shows how teachers´ willingness to implement Curriculum 2005 has been undermined by inadequate resources, poor training and policy overload.
For Curriculum 2005 to become an inclusive and truly transformative curriculum, a great deal more flexibility than is currently the case is needed. Such flexibility is needed not only in terminology and time-table of implementation, for example, but also in participation. Participation by women, for example, is constrained by time-tables which do not take into account their private as well as their public responsibilities. A pre-condition for a more flexible curriculum is a more open-ended process of its construction. Curriculum 2005 and outcomes-based education do already presuppose a great deal of teacher autonomy and participation. But the tight strictures imposed by deadline and discourse need to be relaxed so that all can participate in making it a more meaningful curriculum. In so doing the institutional experience of education will become a better and broader one for all.
Transformation and participation are predicated on a broadening of the curriculum. Ironically, a certain narrowness defines Curriculum 2005. Subject boundaries were broken down because of their alleged narrowness and the artificiality of the boundaries between them. Subjects have disappeared and been integrated into learning areas. But in the process some aspects essential to transformation have been lost. Subjects like history and geography, crucial to an individual and social sense of citizenship, are gone. For those who had a broader curriculum before, it is now denied or confined to private schooling, thus enhancing the attractiveness of private over public schooling. For those who did not have access to an enabling curriculum, the curriculum continues as a narrow expression of social goals to enskill for work alone rather than also creating fully-rounded human beings. This broad goal of education (which in many societies is the guarantor of economic success) appears to have been lost. Chapter Eight discusses how the Curriculum can be broadened while retaining its transformative goals and taking into account the difficulties currently experienced with it.
Broadening and deepening the scope and vision of Curriculum 2005 in this way will require resources. To date implementation of Curriculum 2005 has been crippled by the lack of resources. This has affected most directly teacher orientation and training, availability of learning resources and departmental support. Adequately resourcing the curriculum is the most vital precondition of its success. Recent budgetary approaches have argued for cutting back on personnel expenditure in order to release resources for curriculum. This Review Committee recommends finding other ways to release resources as the process of retrenchment and redeployment is likely to have demotivating effects on those teachers remaining in the system.
Relaxing the punishing deadlines and schedules of implementation currently before us and re-ordering priorities so that a more balanced curriculum is produced in a more open-ended way with a more long-term goal in mind could assist in releasing resources. Goals and expectations determine outcomes. Narrow goals and expectations will have limited results while gobbling up vast resources. Resources can be committed in ways that realise longer-term, broader goals. Such resource-commitments may certainly challenge the currently prevailing climate of austerity but they are, in the final analysis, the only and main guarantee of a democratic, peaceful and prosperous society.
Below are the key findings and recommendations contained in the Report.
The main findings are found in Chapters of the Report. These deal with the findings in a substantive way. Here the findings and recommendations can be summarised as follows:
Although understandings vary of what C2005 and OBE are, the large majority of those who have had exposure to outcomes-based education support the underlying principles of the new curriculum. This is regardless of the observed flaws which are experienced as frustrating the good intentions and principles of C2005.
Many of the conceptual confusions, lack of clarity in policy documents and unimplementability of Curriculum 2005 stem from basic structure and design flaws. Dissatisfaction has focused on three main areas:
These problems suggest attention needs to be paid to:
There is a lack of alignment between curriculum and assessment policy as well as clarity regarding assessment policy and practice. On the one hand too much time is being spent on assessment, leaving minimal time for classroom work, and on the other there is insufficient attention to assessment in training and curriculum planning and design. This suggests:
Many problems and difficulties were experienced in the process of training. These related to models, duration and quality of training. Because the focus was on orientation to the new terminology, there was little attention to the substance of OBE or C2005. There were complaints about the Cascade Model of training and a sense that district trainers themselves often did not understand Curriculum 2005 and did not themselves use the principles of Curriculum 2005 in their own methodology of training. Although there is evidence that training has improved with time and experience, more attention needs to be paid to:
Problems with learning support materials in support of C2005 range from their availability, quality and use as well as the training which teachers were given. The availability of learning support materials in schools for Curriculum 2005 is uneven. The quality is variable as a result of design flaws in C2005 and the unreliability of the evaluation process. There is overall low use of learning materials. The absence of basic resources, such as pencils, books, exercise books and duplicating machines in many schools exacerbates the problem. Lack of classroom space is often a major constraint on effective use of learning resources. In the majority of contexts, teachers do not have the time, resources and often skill to develop their own materials. All three areas -quality, use and availability - accordingly require attention.
Teachers felt officials do not value their work. There is a widespread sense that departments and school managements provide far too little support and cannot in fact support them. Provincial and district capacity to implement C2005 and provide support to teachers in classrooms is hampered by problems in the organisation of curriculum support structures, shortages of personnel, inadequate expertise of personnel and lack of resources for supporting C2005. This points to a need for:
There are variations in the understandings of what C2005 is within and between schools, as well as amongst and between teachers, trainers and officials. Many endorse the underlying principles of learner participation, activity-based education, emphasis on relevance, flexibility, anti-bias, inclusion, holistic development, critical thinking and integration. But equally many are confused about the design and implementation of C2005. It is generally clear from all available evidence that although C2005 has generated a new focus on teaching and learning, teachers have a rather shallow understanding of the principles of C2005/OBE. Teachers are working under conditions that are not conducive to their own learning and development. Although there is substantial support for the principles of C2005, teachers are being undermined in their ability to implement C2005 by lack of resources, inadequate training and policy overload.
As a result of varying levels of understanding combined with difficulties of implementation in overcrowded classrooms, insufficient training, learning support materials and support, overload, and lack of clear guidelines for planning and assessment, there is little transfer of learning into the classroom.
There is widespread agreement that implementation has been too rushed and therefore inadequate. C2005 was implemented before it was ready for presentation and without the foundations for good, inspiring training, effective monitoring and a meaningful, on-going support process being put in place. Recommendations are accordingly made to address problems that have arisen in implementation.
The Review Committee proposes a revised and streamlined curriculum within a broad outcomes-based framework and implemented within manageable time-frames. Specific proposals include:
Here there are long and short-term proposals premised on the view that in the medium and long-term teacher preparation and development needs to be located in higher education. In the short-term a special cadre of national, provincial and district trainers working collaboratively with NGOs and higher education needs to be selected and trained. A coordinated national strategy for the preparation of teachers is required. It should build on existing proposals for the preparation of teachers in a manner which links pre-service and in-service training of teachers with the Norms and Standards for Educators framework, labour agreements for 80 hours INSET and support policies contained in the Education Management Development Framework.
Proposals to address the quality of LSMs include recommendations that the DOE should provide clear statements to publishers and that textbooks should be produced and evaluated in line with these statements. The DOE should cease to be involved in the production of curriculum support materials. Instead they are to be produced by dedicated units or institutes as proposed in the White Paper on Education and Training (1995) and publishers.
Proposals to address the use of LSMs include phasing out ‘macro planning´ (see p. 75) and training teachers in the use of learning support materials, and especially textbooks.
Proposals to address the availability of LSMs include provision of specific funding for provision of readers and reading schemes for all Foundation Phase classrooms; ring-fenced budgeting for curriculum and LSMs; separation of the stationery budget from the budget for textbooks; improvement in the low rate of retrieval; extension of the open list currently in use in to all provinces; the institution of a national recommended list compiled by an advisory panel for each learning area; a movement away from the existing tender procedures in book acquisition by schools and the creation in each province of a special project team to co-ordinate and manage LSMs.
In order to strengthen support for teachers in classrooms, it is necessary to consolidate, realign and reorganise curriculum structures, roles and functions; enhance the unit in the DOE driving C2005; train school principals, teachers and managers as curriculum developers; promote collaborative relationships between curriculum and support officials, NGOs and higher education institutions and provide the necessary resources.
These recommended changes for teacher preparation, learning materials and departmental support for teachers in classrooms are necessary for strengthened implementation of a streamlined curriculum. Cutting across the successful implementation of a revised curriculum supported by trained teachers, good learning materials and effective departmental support are three main issues: adequate resources, feasible time-frames and regular monitoring and review. The absence of these has hampered effective implementation. The problems here are in turn linked to lack of co-ordination at the national level. There is thus a need for strengthened co-ordination of curriculum at this level as well as at provincial levels.
It is clear from the work of the Review Committee that implementation of Curriculum 2005 cannot continue in its present form. It is therefore recommended that the revised, streamlined curriculum proposed in this report be phased in as soon as possible.
It is also clear that it cannot continue at the same pace and within the same rigid time-frames as before. This curriculum should be implemented with due regard to the pressures already present in the system and the time required for changes not only in the production of new curriculum documentation but also in the areas suggested above, namely teacher orientation, training and development, learner support materials and provincial support. The experience of implementing Curriculum 2005 within tight time-frames suggests that a more leisurely time-table is necessary in order for all aspects to be addressed thoroughly and thoughtfully.
What is to be done about Grades 4 and 8 is linked to the need for a revised, improved curriculum on the one hand and to capacity in the system to continue with Curriculum 2005 in its current form on the other. It is therefore necessary to phase out implementation of Curriculum 2005 and phase in implementation of the revised curriculum within manageable time-frames.
The entire process will require leadership, vision and a planning and management process aligned to Tirisano.
This report was produced within the space of three months. It must be acknowledged that this time-frame placed constraints on anything more that could be done.
Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5
Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Appendicies