The successful implementation of Curriculum 2005 has depended on:
An understanding of how implementation has occurred in these areas and with what effects will help to cast light on the level of understanding of outcomes-based education and classroom practice. This Chapter will focus on how and by whom teachers were oriented and trained for the new outcomes-based curriculum and will consider responses to the duration and quality of training provided.
The orientation, training and support of teachers for implementation of Curriculum 2005 took place in a unique context of rapid social change. It posed a major challenge which had the effect of disarming regular institutions. As such, it was a challenge not properly seized.
The process of training and orientating teachers for implementation of Curriculum 2005 began in 1997. In late 1996 the Heads of Education Departments Committee approved a ‘broad strategy´ for implementation (DOE, 1997a). This strategy included a national pilot project and a national in-service programme for teachers. Both were to be conducted between 1st July and 31st December 1997. The in-service programme for teachers was to consist of:
The DOE initially commissioned the Media in Education Trust (MiET), a non-governmental organisation, to provide a core of 20 officials from each province with a basic understanding of C2005. These ‘master trainers´ would then cascade the knowledge and understanding that they gained to district officials. District officials would in turn cascade the information to classroom practitioners and other educators in their respective districts. This training model, commonly referred to as the ‘Cascade Model´, became the primary means of preparing the majority of educators for C2005 implementation. It is still the dominant training model, although it has been adapted quite substantially.
Although the national Department of Education has led the process of orientation and training, provincial departments were seen as key to the implementation of C2005 through provincial implementation teams. They were also seen as responsible for the provision and distribution of learning support materials. Subsequent to the MiET training, the Schools Directorate at the DOE took the responsibility for training teachers to pilot and implement C2005 for further implementation (CEPD, 2000).
Pilots were conducted in a number of schools in each province for Grade 1 and Grade 7, the first year in each phase. A pilot for Grade 8 is planned for later this year, as Grade 8 is the first year of implementation in the secondary schools (Hendricks interview). However, the time-frame of implementation has made it impossible for the lessons learnt from the Grade 1 and Grade 7 pilots to impact on full-scale implementation (CEPD 2000). The time-frame, planning and execution of the implementation have been strongly criticised by the provinces, teachers and the Curriculum Management Committee (see Gauteng Education and Training Council, 1999; HSRC, 2000).
In 1998 the CMC organised a two-day workshop to devise strategies aimed at improving the implementation of Curriculum 2005. Since this workshop, a number of national and provincial initiatives were developed to improve implementation. These initiatives have included involving provincial officials in the process of developing national training documents (Hendricks interview).
Currently, DOE training takes the form of annual training workshops facilitated by DOE officials and attended by provincial and district officials. Officials interact with draft training manuals prepared by DOE officials and NGOs to help them facilitate workshops in their respective provinces and/or districts. Officials believe that the quality of the training they receive from the DOE has improved in the last year (Warmbaths Workshop, 2000, focus group interviews).
Provincial/district workshops with teachers are conducted as short, three to five day sessions. These were first conducted during school hours. After restrictions were placed on training during school hours, training continued on weekdays after school hours and at weekends.
The challenges of implementation continue to be felt at all levels. The submission made by the Northern Province Department of Education succinctly captures both the initiative taken and the difficulties that continue to be experienced by provinces poorly endowed with resources:
The capacity of the province (to provide teacher training) was found wanting. It was supplemented by external support of national and international development agencies. The provincial budget could not fully cover operational activities directly related to C2005. Teacher training was done at three levels, that is training of education development officers, training of lead teachers from schools or clusters of schools, in-school training of peer teachers. The training was enhanced by insisting that schools form clusters to continue dialogues on C2005 and attempt to develop learning activities and support materials. Teachers feel that the minimal time set aside for training and classroom support was not sufficient.
Teacher training is a challenge considering the number of teachers, about 58 000 as against the number of available trainer facilitators. Teacher support is minimal and not regular. The lack of a paradigm shift by education managers at all levels of the system impacts negatively on teacher training.
It is evident from the above that teacher preparation and development for the implementation of C2005 was designed to take place in three phases. The phases of orientation, training and in-school support were perceived as having specific functions in the process of developing teachers. By and large, the Cascade Model has been the most common model of delivery of the first two phases of the strategy.
Available evidence suggests that the preparation of teachers for the implementation of C2005 is not part of a national strategy for teacher development. The concurrent powers between the national and provincial legislatures and the split of teacher education between three national directorates have resulted in a lack of coherence and the absence of an integrated teacher development strategy (Parker interview). This situation has impacted negatively on the implementation of C2005.
The greatest strength of the initial Cascade Model lay in the ideological domain (Taylor and Vinjevold, 1999). As an advocacy strategy it was a bold attempt to popularise outcomes-based education and demystify C2005 at a time when there was a great deal of confusion and anxiety (Potenza and Monyokolo, 1999). However, the Cascade Model has been widely criticised as an inadequate model for delivering effective training (Khulisa, 1999; CEPD, 2000; HSRC, 2000; University of Pretoria and NAPTOSA submissions). It failed to prepare either officials or school-based educators for the complexity of C2005 implementation. In the first instance the ‘cascading´ of information resulted in the ‘watering down´ and/or misinterpretation of crucial information. Secondly, trainers lacked confidence, knowledge and understanding to manage the training process.
District officials who conducted training were criticised for not understanding the terminology themselves and for using the teaching methodologies that were not in line with outcomes-based education (Bryanston Primary School, COUNT, Free State Education Department, Gauteng District Training Team, Gauteng Education and Training Council, Heine, Waja submissions). Too many of those who do the training have been out of the classroom for too long (Kahn, 2000). The training also created misconceptions that textbooks and content knowledge were no longer necessary in the new paradigm (Taylor and Vinjevold, 1999).
There are different views in reports and submissions on what needs to be done about the Cascade Model. Some submissions (for example, by NAPTOSA) argued that the Cascade Model was unavoidable, but that training at upper and lower levels needs to be improved or ‘should be revisited to see if it could be made to work´ (University of Pretoria, Faculty of Education submission). The Gauteng Education and Training Council (1999), by contrast, argued that ‘the Cascade Model is discredited and must be discontinued; alternatives must be found.´ For Waja, ‘the cascade approach is understandable´ as long as the quality of the training and trainers is addressed. ‘The weakness of this approach,´ he wrote, ‘is aptly encapsulated in the proverb “the blind leading the blind.”´ The CEPD (2000) report argues that the ‘cascade model should be strengthened with adequate follow-up support measures.´ In addition, there should be ‘fewer levels in the cascade model to limit dilution of the training´ (UCT submission).
To solve problems emerging in the course of implementation, a number of provinces have adopted different strategies to adapt the Cascade Model. In the North West province a team of core trainers move from district to district conducting workshops, while in the Western Cape regional teams perform the same function. A number of provinces, including some of those already mentioned, group schools into ‘clusters´ to facilitate training. In the latter instance, ‘expert´ teachers are often utilised as ‘master trainers´ (Information drawn from interviews, workshops and Gauteng Education and Training Council, 1999).
Training for Grades 2 and 3 seems to have been better than training for Grade 1 (CEPD, 2000 and interviews with provincial departmental officials). Different provinces have adapted the original model in a number of ways to suit local needs and conditions. In all these models there seems to be a trend towards training smaller numbers of teachers at a time, arranging schools which are in close proximity to one another into clusters, and allocating one or more subject advisors to each cluster.
Time constraints affected the process and often impacted negatively on the organisation, management and other logistical arrangements relating to training.
With regard to provincial and/or district training for Foundation Phase implementation, one study found that the majority of educators (90%-98%) have received some or other form of training (HSRC, 2000). An evaluation of implementation of OBE in Grade 1 Classrooms conducted in the Eastern Cape pointed out, however, that while ‘92% of educators had received training´ in that province, ‘only 36% found it good or excellent.´ (1999, p. 11)
More recently, there is evidence that even as training has been uneven, difficulties are compounded by redeployment policies. Interviews with teachers in Vuma Combined School in Mpumulanga revealed that redeployment had the effect of shifting teachers not trained in C2005 or OBE into classrooms where they were expected to implement C2005. This observation was reinforced by a report on a SADTU Survey on OBE (2000) which noted that ‘in some schools teachers who had received training the previous year were not given Grade 1 classes, instead teachers with no training were given these classes´.
Reviews of the implementation of C2005 indicate that the quality of orientation has been weak. Often what was called training was actually orientation. As a result, observations were made that ‘in most cases the training has played an advocacy rather than a skills development role´ (CEPD submission). A further index of the quality of training is provided in the observation that the level of engagement, understanding, and involvement with the processes of curriculum development diminished the further down the hierarchy of the education system one goes (Khulisa, 1999).
The main problems experienced by teachers revolved around the training being too abstract and insufficiently focused on what the theory meant in practice. A study by Jansen on implementation of outcomes-based education in Grade 1 argued that ‘teachers uniformly feel that their preparation for C2005 was inadequate and incomplete´ (1999, p. 208). Another by Hiralaal found that ‘whereas the majority of teachers felt that training had given them some understanding of C2005, mainly African teachers expressed uncertainty about the Foundation Phase policy document as well as the policy on assessment´ (2000, iii). Vinjevold and Roberts (1999) found that Grade 7 teachers had been unable to apply their new understanding to classroom practice. And the Khulisa study in 2000 found that ‘training was too short and there was insufficient hands-on training.´ Training had provided increased levels of understanding of OBE but there were real difficulties with what it meant in practice for ‘designing learning programmes, integration and continuous assessment.´
A further weakness of the training was the perception that was created that in C2005 ‘anything goes´ (Interviews with teachers in KZN schools). Many teachers appear to have left the training workshops not knowing what it was they ought to teach. A SADTU report on results of a survey conducted on OBE (2000) put it graphically:
With the introduction of a new curriculum to the South African education system, teachers are desperate for support, both in understanding and accepting the changes required of them and in implementing these changes in their classrooms.
One of the main problems with the training that has been conducted is that it has focused on teaching the terminology rather than engaging with the substance underlying the terminology (Almost every report and submission made this point). The complexity of the terminology has not allowed teachers to come to grips with the basic implications of outcomes-based education for classroom practice. Teachers have expressed dissatisfaction with the ‘glut of OBE literature´ which is described as intimidating, user-unfriendly and of poor quality. The Phase Documents, in particular, tend to alienate classroom practitioners because they are ‘peppered with unnecessary terminology´ and contain very little practical guidance.
Many reports and submissions had proposals on how to improve the quality of training. These contained suggestions for both content and methodology of training. Several public submissions recommended that training should concentrate on substance rather than form or terminology. A submission by SADTU made specific suggestions about the need for training in assessment, designing learning programmes, planning integrated activities and producing support materials; handling large classes; research skills; cooperative learning strategies and team building. It points out that aspects of school culture such as corporal punishment and alternatives to it need attention and in particular ‘building respect between learners and educators´. The NAPTOSA submission made the point that in training, educators ‘…need to be invited to be critical of what is being done rather than being discouraged from asking questions.´
A submission on training from the National Union of Educators states that the need to offer short courses for Grade 7 teachers became clear after the ‘disastrous´ attempts at training Grade 7 teachers in most districts. The union found that, in general, teachers did not have an overview of the big picture of the new education system and where Grade 7 fits in the new structures. Principals had been marginalised and were not in a position to support teachers. Although new learning areas were introduced there was no attempt to train teachers in the knowledge and skills aspects of the new Learning Areas. There are no teachers trained in EMS, Life Orientation, Arts and Culture and few trained to teach Technology. In all learning areas, it is unlikely that the majority of teachers are able to interpret the 66 SOs or that they are aware of current issues central to the values and attitudes aspect of the learning areas.
The call for greater substance and specificity was repeated in different ways time and again. The DELTA Foundation, which works closely with Bill Spady, emphasised that ‘teacher education should be as basic as possible and provide teachers with concrete, usable and workable examples´ and that workable report card examples and guidance and development on authentic assessment was essential. The implications for training of a study by Hiralaal (2000, p. 100) in Pietermaritzburg were that there is a need for more training in assessment, concepts, the number and use of resources and compilation of portfolios. The results of an evaluation of training in Gauteng by Khulisa Management Services (2000) reiterated the need for training on integration, designing learning programmes and assessment methods, but it also showed that training needs to ‘get rid of the jargon´. It emphasised amongst other things differences between group work and collective work,´ providing training on timetables, classroom management and facilitation skills´ and ‘hands-on experiential training´ (see also Eastern Cape Education Department Evaluation Report, 1999). The SADTU report (2000) also illustrated a need for information on how to use learning support materials and ‘information on how to purchase material, what information is available from publishing houses and how to develop their own material.´
A joint submission by the Wits Education Policy Unit, South African Human Rights Commission and Centre for Education Policy Development suggested a further broadening to training teachers in ‘understanding and working to transform unequal power dynamics within groups.´ The submission highlights the notion of training for social justice. It recommends that anti-racist and anti-sexist approaches to outcomes-based education and within Curriculm 2005 be developed in order to ‘institutionalise human rights education.´ ‘Human rights education,´ they write, ‘should be the guiding principle in the process of transformation.´
These problems are related in part to the design flaws in Curriculum 2005, in part to the use of unnecessary jargon in departmental documentation and in part to the shortness of the training. Under normal circumstances, teacher education and training in itself does not necessarily change teachers´ classroom practice. Teachers classroom practice is informed by a range of factors including how they have themselves been taught, their own ideas of what good teaching and the needs of students are and what is possible within different teaching and learning environments. New ideas are assimilated into already-existing frameworks and practices. Expecting teachers to change a lifetime of practice after a three-day workshop is not realistic (MASTEC submission). All that such a workshop can do is provide basic orientation. It cannot be a substitute for longer-term preparation and orientation (Free State Education Department submission).
The recent restriction of training to out-of-school hours has led to dissatisfaction amongst some teachers. Proper training cannot however be conducted during school hours. The solution needs to be carefully thought through. A submission from PRAESA recommended that teachers should be trained intensively for a day a week for a whole year. The University of Pretoria Faculty of Education recommended that ‘a training plan for the year might help address problems of scheduling for teachers and schools.´ And the submission by BG Shau from KwaZulu-Natal noted, ‘Training of educators is also problematic, in a sense that it is not intensive, it is done haphazardly. The area needs thorough planning, eg teachers should be trained during vacations´.
A number of submissions expressed concerns that the Higher Education (HE) sector, colleges and NGOs are not adequately involved in the training process. Where some involvement exists, it seems the messages sent are not always the same. These varied interpretations raise issues of quality assurance.
NGOs like MIET, READ, MCPT, the IEB, PROTEC and the Teacher Trust have been involved in partnerships with the DOE and various provinces. They have developed materials for advocacy and training and trained trainers in order to strengthen implementation of C2005.
Teacher support has also been provided through partnerships with SABC Educational TV, some NGOs and publishers.
The Kgatelopele Initiative in the Northern Province was an attempt to meet training needs in the province with the assistance of NGOs. An evaluation of this initiative found that INSET pilot programmes run by NGOs have the greatest chance of success if they are piloted before going to scale (OSF/Perold, 1997). It noted that there is no quick-fix in teacher development. The process of change requires time, commitment and constant engagement.
Teacher unions have also added their weight to the training and this support is seen as of considerable importance. Although one study found that teacher unions were not involved in Curriculum 2005 (Williams, 1997), the SAOU, for example, has been involved in training teachers in the North West and SADTU has formed a partnership with MIET to strengthen training in a number of provinces.
While NGOs and teacher unions and/or organisations have in some cases been visibly involved in in-service training, the same cannot be said of most tertiary institutions. With the exception of the Western Cape and the Northern Province, where education departments have formed partnerships with these institutions, tertiary institutions seem to have been marginalised by departments of education and have not, of their own accord, become involved in departmental initiatives. Some are, however, offering short, certificated courses on outcomes-based education and C2005 and these seem to be popular with teachers (see Unisa submission). With regard to pre-service training, research reports indicated that the majority of tertiary institutions have not yet adjusted their programmes to prepare prospective teachers for C2005. Informal communications with these institutions indicate that a number are currently engaged in restructuring their courses to align them with the new Norms and Standards for Educators. These require, among other things, that prospective teachers be trained in terms of the requirements of the school curriculum.
There is virtually no ongoing support and development when teachers are back on site after receiving orientation and training at workshops (see Khulisa, 1999; Khumalo, Papo, Mabitla and Jansen, 1999; NCCRD, 2000; CEPD, 2000; Marneweck and Spreen, 1999). A single subject advisor for a district in the Northern Province has to attend to 170 schools, a number which normally requires six people (Sunday Independent, April 16, 2000).
Teachers feel that, after initial training, they are left to either ‘sink or swim´ (Interviews with teachers in KZN schools). There are no support structures in place to help teachers deal with the pressures of classroom implementation. Much of this is ascribed to a shortage of suitably trained personnel at provincial and district levels, as well as shortages of transport and other infrastructural needs (see below). These are in turn linked to resource constraints. In addition, school managers and departmental officials at district levels and circuit levels are not involved in curriculum implementation processes (Gauteng Education and Training Council, 1999; HSRC, 2000). Consequently they do not understand the needs of teachers.
Orientation and training for Curriculum 2005 in the form of two to three day courses appears to have reached a large number of teachers. The duration of training was too short and the quality of trainers was inadequate. Training tended to focus on terminology rather than on how and what to teach within an outcomes-based framework. As a result, there appears to be limited transfer to classroom practice. Follow-up training and support has not been forthcoming. Although there is evidence that training has improved with time and experience, the results of this review suggest that much more attention should be paid to:
The DOE regards adequate learning support materials ‘as essential to the effective running of an education system and asserts that these materials are an integral part of curriculum development and a means of promoting both good teaching and learning´ (DOE, 1998e). C2005 accordingly demands well-resourced classrooms that ideally should include LSMs such as textbooks for each learning programme and other print-based materials (including readers, atlases, dictionaries), stationery, teaching equipment such as maps, charts, globes, skeletons, as well as equipment and consumable materials for learning areas such as Technology and Arts and Culture. In addition, policy requires that teachers are not only able to use new textbooks effectively but also prepare learning materials themselves as well as make use of old materials in new and appropriate ways.
It is however increasingly clear that the management of LSMs and approaches to training adopted in C2005 have undermined this vision. This is evident with regard to the quality, use and availability of two kinds of LSMs, namely textbooks and the curriculum support materials produced by the DOE.
This section considers the quality of textbooks as well as the curriculum support materials produced by the DOE in the implementation of C2005.
Several submissions expressed concern about the paucity of good material used in implementation of Curriculum 2005. The new textbooks are described as ‘woolly or quite superficial´ or else ‘essentially a re-issue of the old textbooks with SOs, ACs and PIs annotated in the margins´ (Grove Primary School submission). One submission referred to the artificial integration of learning areas in textbook development: ‘Instead of writers developing genuine organic links between learning areas, and having tasks which really need inputs from different learning areas, they are faced with demands to show how their book represents a bit of every learning area´ (Setlhare submission).
Where Foundation Phase teachers have had access to materials, they have demonstrated anger at the lack of coherence between policy, expectations and learning support materials (Interviews at Vuma Combined School, Mpumulanga). They also complain of a lack of ‘a pattern´ in the approach to the teaching of reading in the new C2005 materials (School visits in Free State and Mpumalanga). As a result, they claim that learners are reaching Grade 3 without learning how to read. They argue that the approach to teaching reading needs to be ‘more systematically presented´ in the textbooks. In relation to choice of content and context, publishers noted the repeated use of the same programme organisers, such as ‘Transport´ by different textbook series in almost every grade of the Foundation and Intermediate Phases (PASA Interview).
Grade 7 textbooks cover a variety of levels, in terms of content, concepts and skills. But there is little consensus amongst authors on appropriate levels of complexity for each grade (Botha submission). This appears to be a result of the lack of policy guidelines for levels of performance in each grade. Because there is so little content specification in the curriculum, a sample of ten Grade 7 HSS textbooks, for example, deals with the full gamut of South African history from pre-colonial hunter-gatherers to post-apartheid politics and economics. Presumably this same range will be covered in later grades. This runs counter to the well-established view that historical knowledge and skills need to be logically developed over consecutive grades and well-supported by appropriate materials. (South African Historical Association, RAU, Wits and JCE submissions).
The under-specification of content and concepts by grade is likely to lead to repetition of the same content and concepts in subsequent grades. It is also likely to undermine attempts to deepen the subject knowledge of teachers (Grove and Bryanston Primary School submissions).
The DOE attempted to mediate the Foundation Phase Policy Document by providing national illustrative learning programmes (ILPs) and learner support materials for each learning programme. There were a number of weaknesses with this process:
In 1999 a consortium of NGOs, under the auspices of the Teacher Trust produced the Grade 7 curriculum support materials. This consortium worked with the DOE to design the national training for Grade 7 that was cascaded to all the provinces. Draft materials were produced in two weeks (Kibi interview). Provincial workshops were held to interrogate these draft materials and produce final materials. In many cases, these workshops seemed to have had the effect of weakening rather than strengthening these training materials. There is no data yet on the availability and use of these materials by Grade 7 teachers throughout the country.
It was in this context that concepts of the macro, meso and micro planning were borne. These concepts now strongly inform implementation of C2005 in Grades 3 and 7 in most provinces, as well as the curriculum support materials that have recently been developed for the training of Grade 4 and 8 teachers. Although national documents present ‘macro planning´ as only a recommended approach, it has already assumed the status of national policy in the eyes of provincial officials.
Briefly, ‘macro planning´ is an approach advocated by the DOE for designing learning programmes in the Senior Phase at school level. The way in which it has taken hold in most provinces involves using a grid to cluster SOs according to phase organisers and programme organisers. Schools have been encouraged to select the same programme organisers (essentially themes) for all eight learning programmes to facilitate integration. Theoretically, each school selects a different set of programme organisers and therefore has unique needs in terms of learning support materials to support these programme organisers.
Implementing eight learning programmes in the Senior Phase was likely to be a daunting task. Complicating the process of implementation by introducing ‘macro planning´ has severely weakened both the training and the implementation process.
Curriculum support materials produced for the Grade 8 pilot include:
The writing of these materials was completed at a national workshop in March 2000 for use by provinces in the Grade 4 and 8 pilots and for training Grade 8 teachers this year.
These curriculum support materials show a marked improvement on what was produced for the training of Grade 7 teachers. However, poor planning on the part of the DOE has led to the work being done in a extremely rushed manner. This militates against the conceptualisation and development of quality training materials. Secondly, the level of skill among those producing the materials is variable and as a result, the quality of the products is uneven. These two problems will be explored briefly.
The rushed nature of the process can be illustrated by an example. In February this year, the DOE issued a tender calling for the development of educator training manuals and learner handbooks for all learning areas (for Grades 4 and 8). The due date for the work to be completed was three weeks after the call for tenders went out. The award of the tender itself could not be done within this time period. Nor could the actual development of the training manuals be done at such short notice. A submission by a consultant from one of the NGOs that participated in the development of training materials in February and March 2000 made the following observation:
We had been informed that we had to provide writers on the Friday before the first workshop. I was contacted on the Sunday night. This meant that the more experienced writers were already tied up and unavailable and we scraped together a team with inadequate knowledge of OBE and writing ... For such an important process, surely government should give sufficient notice... I gather that the NGOs often find themselves taking on the impossible for government, just to be able to stay afloat financially. This results in inadequate materials that will further confuse and frustrate teachers. Instead of being a healthy and exciting starting point, they may obstruct the transition to OBE.
Poor planning in this area is compromising quality. Materials of this complexity and importance cannot be produced overnight. The documents that are required will need a more professional, considered and thoughtful approach if they are to make a real impact in the classroom.
The second major problem with the materials is that a number of those who are producing the materials do not appear to have the requisite skills. For example, there is confusion about the levels of learner capacity at each grade. The Learner's Handbook for Grade 8 HSS learners includes the following activity: ‘Write a six paged essay comparing the constitutions of South Africa, Zimbabwe and the USA with regard to division of powers, human rights, language rights, basic rights and freedoms and public protectors.´
The accompanying Educator's Guide recommends that teachers find copies of the three constitutions and give these to learners. No other resources are provided. The challenge for a Grade 8 classroom teacher is enormous - especially without any source material. Expectations such as these are likely to simply underline existing inequalities.
For the majority of teachers, textbooks are crucial to effective implementation of the curriculum. Contrary to policy, the training offered by both national and provincial departments from 1997 - 1999 reinforced the controversial view that teachers and learners do not need textbooks (Gauteng Education and Training Council, 1999; SAIDE submission). Rather, teachers were encouraged to design and produce their own learning programmes and learning materials. The Norms and Standards for Educators document (2000) supports this view by stipulating that a teacher should be an ‘Interpreter and designer of learning programmes and materials´.
But what does it mean in practice for teachers to produce their own LSMs? For each learning programme, even under the revised, more streamlined version of C2005 advocated in this Report, a teacher would need to:
Despite willingness to do so (SADTU, 2000), few teachers seem in a position to undertake this task (Taylor and Vinjevold, 1999). Indeed, site visits to schools in the Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, and Mpumalanga have shown that most teachers do not have the time, the resources or often the skill to be involved in the development of high quality, educationally appropriate learning programmes and materials. At best, a proliferation of photocopied worksheets has resulted (PASA submission). Generally, these worksheets are organised around a programme organiser, with scant attention to the progression of content and concepts, skills, values and attitudes.
Given existing resource and time constraints in the majority of schools, every teacher or school should not be expected to duplicate these tasks. Professional materials developers are perhaps better able to produce materials that display a thorough understanding of the curriculum framework, a detailed level of content and skills knowledge, high quality design, layout and printing. In short, professionally produced LSMs are critical resources for teachers struggling to facilitate complex forms of learning which are outcomes-based.
On the other hand, the provision of textbooks and other materials should not inhibit teachers who are ready to develop their own learning materials. Indeed, resources should be made available to encourage teachers to produce materials like worksheets to supplement textbooks (GDE/GICD 1999). However, high quality textbooks can provide ‘an invaluable safety-net´ for teacher who are feeling unconfident about what the new curriculum requires of them (Rhodes University submission).
Studies have found that textbooks are the most cost-effective way to improve classroom practice, and that the availability of sufficient textbooks and stationery is one of the most important factors in improving learning (CEPD submission; Taylor and Vinjevold, 1999). Another study cautions that supplying adequate amounts of textbooks is not enough in itself. Such supply has to be accompanied by professional development that enables teachers to understand the pedagogical approaches underpinning the textbooks they use (Czerniewizc, 2000).
Evidence from site visits has shown that there are cases where teachers do not use textbooks even when they are available. This may be a result of teacher trainers, wittingly or unwittingly, undermining their value. More research is required to determine why this is the case. Both Foundation Phase teachers and Grade 7 teachers in the Free State and Mpumalanga cited the reason as being the mismatch between their pre-selected programme organisers and those used in the textbooks.
Many Foundation Phase teachers have chosen to order learner workbooks over readers or reading schemes. This has led to a shortage of reading materials in most Foundation Phase classrooms which has serious implications for the teaching of reading. Most young people today do acquire the rudiments of literacy, but ‘not the high level reading skills that should make literacy a vehicle for economic and political empowerment and personal and cultural enrichment´ (Fleisch, 2000). Children´s ability to acquire high level reading skills depends on access to books and exposure to effective early reading methodologies.
If money is available for books, reading must be given first priority (Cook submission). ‘Any other subject can (although not ideally) be taught without a textbook but reading must have reading books´ (Alston submission).
Although the availability of LSMs was not substantially addressed in reports and submissions as an aspect of the implementation of Curriculum 2005, it is widely acknowledged that lack of LSMs in schools compromises curriculum change. A SADTU report on a survey on OBE (2000), however, has revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the availability of LSMs. It noted that:
There are five main elements that affect the availability of quality LSMs - the budget, the provisioning process and the evaluation and selection of materials, the language of teaching and learning and historical inequalities.
A critical factor that affects availability of LSMs is budget allocation. The following problems relating to the budget require consideration:
It was extremely unfortunate that the inaugural year of C2005 (1998) coincided with a crisis in provincial budget management, with the result that the preparation of most provincial education departments was seriously compromised or even disrupted (DOE, Call to Action, 1999).
Supplying textbooks and stationery to schools is a complex process. Once curriculum policies and guidelines are available, publishers require approximately two years to produce quality textbooks. Publishers have requested that they be provided with enough lead time for the trialling and development of quality materials (PASA submission; Monteith and Weldon, 1999).
Submission of new curriculum materials, evaluation and selection, preparing catalogues, ordering books, awarding tenders to suppliers and supplying textbooks to schools cannot be done in less than one year. This process involves virtually all the directorates within provincial departments as well as the schools, circuit, district and regional offices, and a number of external bodies such as the Tender Boards, publishers and suppliers.
According to the ‘Business Reviews´ of the provisioning process in all nine provinces undertaken by Proudfoot Consultants in June/July 1999, there are 23 major steps involved in getting LSMs to schools. Many of these steps require close co-ordination between different sections and directorates. The process differs quite substantially from province to province. In provinces that do not have approved lists, steps relating to submission and evaluation of LSMs would not be included. The major steps are summarised in Appendix 1.
A major problem in most provinces, until mid 1999, is that no one owned or had overall responsibility for LSMs. Provincial officials did not appear to properly understand the steps in the process and far too little time was given to different stages of the process. Deadlines were missed and simply condoned and re-negotiated (Proudfoot, 1999). As a result textbooks have, until recently, not been delivered to schools at the beginning of the school year. In both 1998 and 1999, new materials in support of the curriculum reached the schools late in the year, despite President Mandela's directive (DOE, 1999b).
The management of the tendering process has, in many instances, been responsible for the delays experienced (Madiba Interview). In the Eastern Cape, for example, despite special provisions to hurry up the process, the tendering process for LSMs for the 2000 school year only started in November 1999 and involved awarding tenders to 292 suppliers. As a result, placements of orders only started in January 2000.
In KwaZulu-Natal, successful suppliers were awarded tenders on 8 October 1999. A waiting period is provided to allow companies that may feel aggrieved to appeal against the awards. In this case, appeals were only heard on 24 November, resulting in a delay of nearly two months in the supply chain. The tendering process is a weak link in the supply chain. It needs to be strengthened or replaced with a more effective mechanism for getting books to schools.
Once tenders have been awarded, there are still problems with the actual delivery of books to schools (Madiba Interview). In Gauteng and the Eastern Cape, furniture removal companies and butchers were awarded tenders to supply books in 1999. These companies did not have warehousing or storage facilities and this led to delays in delivery (Kibi Interview). Similar delays have been reported in other provinces. Some provinces have now instituted penalties for poor performance by suppliers.
There are still reports of non-delivery and inaccurate deliveries where schools feel they have no recourse to suppliers (Interviews at schools in Mpumalanga). There are even cases where books are delivered late, 'locked up and saved for the following year' (GICD, Khulisa Management Services, 1999). In 1999, the HSRC found that 14% of teachers surveyed reported to have received textbooks with 60% calling for more LSMs to be provided for both teachers and learners.
It is important, however, to note that the priority given to the delivery of textbooks by the Minister of Education in collaboration with the Minister of Finance and their provincial counterparts led to a marked improvement in the delivery of textbooks in a number of provinces at the beginning of 2000 (Second Report on the Provinces to the President from the Minister of Education, DOE, April 2000). In the Free State, Gauteng, Northern Cape and North West, the bulk of textbooks for the 2000 academic year had been delivered by the end of November 1999. These efforts need to be sustained and effective systems built in the remaining provinces.
The approval of materials is a critical step in the process of provisioning - it is the point which determines whether teachers and learners receive high quality materials that support the approach and spirit of the new curriculum or not. The current management of the evaluation and selection process is however questionable (PASA and Moodie submissions).
At present there are essentially two systems. The Western Cape and Gauteng operate an open list. This means that there is no approved list and teachers choose the material they want. Marketing and promotion is the responsibility of the publishers and booksellers. The remaining provinces produce a list of approved books from which teachers then choose. The approved list is generated by a group of officials and teachers. It is designed to play a gate-keeping role to ensure that inappropriate LSMs do not find their way into the classroom.
There is widespread evidence that the approval process is inconsistent (provinces frequently disagree on whether a textbook meets curriculum requirements) and that significant numbers of poor quality books are approved while many better texts are excluded. The process of choosing evaluators is unsystematic and evaluators are poorly trained - they often have not received training in OBE itself. The evaluation process is rushed, the instruments used for evaluation are inadequate, the criteria in checklists are inadequately and inappropriately applied and there is a reliance on technical criteria rather than on pedagogical principles (NCCRD, 2000; Czerniewizc et al, 2000; Setlhare submission). There is also evidence that corruption is beginning to creep into the evaluation processes that lead to approved lists.
A related problem is that once an approved list has been produced, teachers are still required to choose from among the approved titles. Because of inadequate training, teachers are generally not empowered to make informed choices (SADTU, 2000). There has been very little focus on the evaluation and selection of textbooks in the content of the C2005 training. Where there are book displays they often happen before teachers have been trained in OBE and in some cases, after the closing date for requisitions (Free State DOE Interview). In many cases, teachers simply order from a catalogue without ever seeing the materials (Interviews in Mpumalanga schools).
A concern that relates to the availability of textbooks in the Foundation Phase is the language of teaching and learning. There is strong evidence that mother-tongue instruction should be used in the first years of formal schooling and that this is a major determinant of social, emotional and cognitive development (DOE, PRAESA submissions). However, many teachers in the Foundation Phase are opting for a straight-for-English approach. Provincial officials and teachers cite the unavailability of textbooks in African languages, or the delivery of textbooks to schools in the wrong languages as the primary reasons for this (Free State DOE Interview). Publishers, however, argue that even in cases where they do produce books in all official languages, orders for these books are so small that it is uneconomic to print them (McCallum Interview).
Historically disadvantaged schools do not have the resources - reference and textbooks, stationery, paper, photocopying facilities and other technologies of teaching -to implement C2005 effectively (Sol Plaatje Primary School submission). Observations of Grade 1 teachers implementing C2005 in 1998 in KZN and Mpumalanga showed that:
Teachers within well-resourced classrooms were clearly reflecting C2005 principles … in one class, the following were all used within a five day period: individual, computer-based learning, sophisticated teacher aids, learner-prepared materials, audio-visual facilities, other specialist equipment and five different learning sites outside the classroom – including a field trip…. Within 5 km of this school, another teacher read off a lecture to Grade 1 children for long periods of time, and then disappeared for hours while these children tried to teach each other. The packed classroom, without any facilities or materials, simply experienced the same scenario day after day throughout the period of observation. (Jansen, 1999)
Budget allocation and the provisioning, evaluation and selection processes impact on the availability of appropriate textbooks. Currently the quality of textbooks being used in schools is variable as a result of design flaws in C2005 and the unreliability of the evaluation process. Poor planning and uneven levels of skill on the part of the developers undermine the quality of curriculum support materials produced by the DOE. Teachers need textbooks along with other learning support materials and they need to be trained to use them effectively. Teachers generally do not have the time, the resources and the skill to develop their own materials, although this should also be encouraged.
Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5
Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Appendicies