Understanding of C2005 and OBE exists in the South African educational system at differential levels and is of varying quality. Although a careful analysis of these levels of understanding may prove to be of great academic interest, the Review Committee is in the final analysis interested in how this understanding impacts on the classroom. This Chapter is thus focused on teachers´ understanding of C2005 (on the basis that C2005 and OBE are often understood as the same thing) since this is the primary determinant of what happens in the classroom.
It goes without saying that this understanding does not exist vacuously and did not emerge spontaneously. Situations and contexts always co-construct knowledge and it is self evident that what we know is determined by how we came to know. In an attempt to provide a context for teachers´ understanding of C2005, it is important to take into account the various factors that influenced this understanding. Most currently practicing teachers did not come to learn of C2005 through formal training (that is, three or four years of pre-service training). The nature and sequence of implementation of C2005 meant that they had to rely largely on policy documents, workshops, views of education officials and NGOs. Of course the views and insights of colleagues also played a role in shaping the understanding and practice of teachers of C2005.
As we approached the task of seeking to determine levels of understanding of C2005, we did not do so with an anticipation that everything was working optimally and that there would be great victories to report. On the contrary we were searching for evidence of small victories, of shifts in practice, however small, that demonstrated that something was happening that is leading us away from the legacy of our educational past. We realized that the implementation of C2005 was not a ‘zero defect´ approach and that ‘it did not envisage that all teachers would be 100% prepared and competent´ (submission by DOE). At the same time we were careful to capture the nature of the ‘defects´ and to gain a sense of the contributing factors and their impact on levels of understanding of C2005.
Schools and classrooms were visited to see how teachers were dealing with the challenges of C2005. We expected to see struggles, frustrations and problems, but also innovation, coping mechanisms and exemplars. Some of the successes and problems are described on the basis of evidence gleaned from these site visits and discussions with various players involved in the implementation of C2005, as well as a review of the relevant literature. The identification of gaps and the recognition of gains should form part of ongoing review of the curriculum development process. Issues emerging from this work demonstrate the following:
Generally, teachers have a positive attitude to the intent and purposes of Curriculum 2005 and are taking very seriously the challenges of implementation. They are working hard at improving their skills to cope with the demands of these challenges and are eager to participate in any programme which will help in this regard. The point here is that we did not detect a great deal of cynicism towards Curriculum 2005 and one can generally count on the goodwill and participation of most teachers. Teachers at some (not all) ex-Model C schools are the exception to this rule. The most positive attitudes were in evidence at a school where the principal had implemented a personal development programme for teachers.
The question could be raised as to the reason for these positive attitudes. From our site visits it would appear that teachers support C2005 because of the observable positive changes it has brought to their learners and in their own professional lives. It was most apparent that, when teachers are asked ‘what has changed since you have implemented C2005?´, the most frequent answer from teachers is: ‘I have changed!´ This is then generally followed up with an explanation that this change has been brought about by a realization that learners are much more capable or resourceful than the teacher assumed. Some of the statements by teachers included:
A trainer (von Papendorf submission) makes the point that:
teacher understanding is most effective amongst teachers who are enthusiastic and have made an effort to read, attend workshops, cluster meetings and learning area meetings. Primary teachers are much more open to OBE now than they were when it began. With each subsequent year training becomes easier as there is less fear and resistance …. .
The significance of this is that irrespective of teachers´ level of understanding, the positive attitude of teachers is an important precondition for further professional development. The advent of C2005 has provided a fresh challenge for teachers and provided a new impetus for professional development. Needless to say the period of re-deployment and retrenchment which coincided with the introduction of C2005, had an extremely negative impact on teacher morale.
The implementation of C2005 has generated intense public debate on educational issues. This debate has captured the imagination of the media and there is every indication that it will continue to be a major public issue in South Africa for the immediate future. This debate has also spilled over to staff rooms at schools. Teachers report that they are often locked in fierce debate about the merits or demerits or one or other aspect of C2005. Taken for granted concepts and assumptions about education are being re-examined and interrogated. There are also indications that teachers involved in the implementation of C2005 have begun to work with and learn from colleagues within and across schools and that teacher talk has begun to centre around whether and what the learners benefit from lessons. This new focus on teaching and learning is a welcome development.
Teachers in the Foundation Phase seem to be more positively inclined to the implementation of C2005 than teachers at Grade 7 level. Senior Phase teachers struggle with several issues such as time-tabling and assessment and feel less supported than teachers at the Foundation Phase.
Available evidence indicates that:
Most submissions express concern over the likelihood of teachers ever acquiring a deep understanding of C2005 with its associated ‘dazzling´ array of concepts. The implications for learners are clear. As pointed out by Taylor and Vinjevold (1999), C2005 has resulted in a ‘bewildering mix of concepts…. (whereby) it seems most unlikely that learners will develop a systematic understanding of any of these ideas´ (p.121).
Furthermore, the mismatch between what teachers say they understand and how they externalise that understanding, became very clear during site visits. Group interviews and classroom observations together with questionnaires were used to gain a sense of teachers´ understanding of C2005 and OBE. In the group interviews teachers described what they believed determines the essential features of C2005. Generally, the responses point to changes in classroom arrangements such as group-work and learner-centred activities where the teacher plays the role of the facilitator.
However, it is often the case that when these concepts are implemented in the classroom, teachers show evidence that they had embraced the form rather than the spirit and content of the ideas. Teachers may be aware of the need to make learners participants in the learning process. However this was understood more in procedural terms rather than as something which promotes learning. Many learners in the classes observed still do not participate fully in the learning process since teachers are still providing a great deal of direct instruction and are still pre-occupied with content coverage. In ELSEN schools particularly, teachers emphasised the need for direct teaching of concepts prior to engaging in activities.
To take an example: a Grade 7 teacher at a school in one province was doing a lesson on air pollution. She divided the class into groups and asked them to discuss what they thought air pollution was all about. However the groups were told to ‘be quiet´ in their groups and they were indeed unnaturally quiet. There were approximately 12 learners in a group and they all looked on as one learner in the group wrote down ‘the answers´. Next the teacher called for report-back from learners. At this point she turned to the observer and explained that ‘OBE is about listening to learners, not about giving them knowledge´. She made no comment whatsoever on the value of the learners´ ideas. Finally, she launched into direct instruction on the topic of air pollution and water pollution. No links were made with pollution in the ‘real world´ or even in the immediate school environment. Also learners were not encouraged to refer to books although textbooks dealing with the topic were available in the classroom.
As for the distinction between C2005 and OBE, teachers revealed more ‘confused understanding´ than a common understanding of what C2005 is and how it differs from OBE. For most teachers, officials and managers interviewed, C2005 and OBE are simply alternative ways of expressing the same set of ideas.
There are also several popular myths about C2005 held by teachers. Some of these are: ‘C2005 has nothing to do with content´; ‘In C2005 anything goes´; ‘Textbooks are not to be used in C2005´; ‘Group work is compulsory for the implementation of C2005´.
That teachers have not reached the required level of understanding of C2005 should not detract from the gains already made. The emerging culture of teacher collegiality, networking and reflection bodes well for teacher development. The identification of gaps and the recognition of gains should form part of ongoing review of curriculum development processes.
Several factors impact on teachers´ ability to develop personal mastery of concepts of C2005. Some of these factors include:
Teachers are quick to add that, although they are eager to implement Curriculum 2005 and believe it is beneficial to their learners, they would not lend their support indefinitely in the absence of the necessary support (LSM, training, facilities). Most schools visited were grossly under-resourced.
These difficulties were more pronounced in ELSEN schools. In the two ELSEN Grade 7 classes visited (one in a township and the other in a highly resourced urban setting), the learner:teacher ratio is no more than 10:1. Yet the challenges to make learning relevant to learners with special needs are such that in under-resourced ELSEN schools, teachers are demoralised by their lack of success.
Teachers are also desperate for illustrative learning and teaching support materials. Learning Programme Units (LPUs) developed by the Wonderboom school in Pretoria were widely used by all schools (including ELSEN schools) visited in the Eastern Cape. Teachers found them to be of great assistance to the extent that these materials have replaced the use of policy documents.
Although most teachers received some form of training, the training was generally regarded as insufficient and at times inappropriate. This has a negative impact on the level of confidence of the teachers. Most expressed a need for training that was less theoretical and more sustained. Dissatisfaction with short 2-3 day training workshops without follow-up support, was a general feature (see Chapter Four).
It is interesting to note that the training in the various provinces vary widely. In the Northern Province, most of the training is being done by provincial/district officials. This appears to work quite well in combination with the formation of cluster groups of schools, particularly in rural areas. It is evident that, unlike the Western Cape and KZN, where NGOs are active, there are no other service provide who are assisting with the training or implementation of Curriculum 2005 in several other provinces. Furthermore, the universities in the Western Cape play a significant role in the training of teachers for C2005. In some provinces, such as KZN, the teacher unions are also active in C2005 training.
The enthusiasm and support mentioned as a strength is subjected to strain and constant threat. As pointed out in NCCRD (2000), the implementation of C2005 is happening within an environment that is undergoing many revolutions. Curriculum reform is just one of a number of changes being introduced into the system. As demonstrated in many reviews and acknowledged in the DOE submission, one of the biggest limitations of the transformation process has been the lack of integration and coordination of the different pieces of educational policy. The innovation overload has led to increased levels of burnout and uncertainty. Whilst acknowledging the need for systemic planning, integration and coherence, which most reports call for, we should be reminded of the caution that current systemic reform initiatives may ironically increase teacher overload and confusion. Macro planning (see p. 75), assessment practices and new ways of reporting to parents all add additional administrative burdens on the teacher.
It is clear from all available evidence (evaluation reports, submissions, as well as classroom observations and interviews) that teachers generally have a rather shallow understanding of the principles of C2005/OBE. They have, in many cases, developed a false clarity that is evidenced in the mismatch between what they claim to know and the manner in which they externalize that understanding in the classroom.
It should be recognized that teachers are working under conditions that are not conducive to their own learning and development. Indications are that teachers in particular, feel overwhelmed by a ‘barrage´ of changes, some of which are perceived to be threatening their professional status, job security and deeply-held beliefs (Gauteng Education and Training Council, 1999; Marneweck and Spreen, 1999; PEI reports, 1998; submissions by SP van Tonder and various groups and individuals). They feel over-burdened by what they regard as excessive and unrealistic demands that are being made on them. There is a perception that their efforts are not being valued and that they are not being supported by education departments either by way of adequate resourcing or training. In addition to this, they feel that their professional image is constantly being ‘battered´ by negative media reports which depict them as lazy, dysfunctional and disorderly.
At the same time, educators at all levels of the system are excited about the effect which C2005 has had on learners and on themselves as educators. Learners are perceived as being much more involved in their learning and are steadily developing more confidence and creativity. Teachers are engaging more actively with learners, are accepting more responsibility for the selection and development of learning materials and activities and are reflecting more seriously about the effectiveness and appropriateness of their own teaching strategies. Teachers are generally supportive of the principles of C2005, although many have expressed the need for C2005 to be made more accessible.
This Chapter describes current prevailing conditions with regard to support for the implementation of C2005 from national through to district levels. The following issues will be addressed:
The development and implementation of C2005 has to be understood within the context of the roles and functions of different levels of government as stipulated in the South African constitution and other relevant frameworks. The national department is charged with initiating and developing national policy, norms and standards. The DOE therefore has to monitor the implementation of national policy, norms and standards at provincial level, and also to actively support provinces in such implementation (DOE, 2000d, pp. 5-6). Under the principle of co-operative governance, the DOE is supposed to develop policy, norms and standards in consultation with the nine provinces.
The provinces have two main roles and functions. First, and following from the latter principle, provinces are supposed to inform national policy development through relevant contributions to policy development processes. Second, provinces are responsible for successful implementation of national policy, norms and standards.
The meaning of this constitutional framework for C2005 is very clear. The key role and responsibility of the DOE is to develop all aspects of the policy framework for the national curriculum. The key role of the provinces, on the other hand, is to take responsibility for all aspects of the implementation of C2005. In the case of C2005, these aspects include, for example, the orientation and training of teachers, school managers and district support staff, the interpretation of C2005 policy into teacher support materials, and the provision of relevant LSMs.
From the establishment of the stakeholder-based National Curriculum Development Committee in 1995 through to the process of developing ‘expected levels of performance´ (ELPs), the DOE appears to have successfully fulfilled its role of developing a national policy framework for C2005. Some might argue, however, that the way in which the DOE fulfilled this role was erratic; it tended to react to criticisms during implementation rather than anticipate and pre-empt issues. The belated development of ELPs and an assessment policy are examples of this (see, for example, CEPD, 2000). The DOE counters such criticism by indicating that the process of curriculum development was expected to follow a ‘ready, fire, aim´ rather than a ‘ready, aim, fire´ or ‘all ducks in a row´ sequence where every aspect would be ready for implementation (DOE submission).
Constitutional provisions stipulating provincial responsibility for implementation assumed an even distribution of human, financial, and physical resources. Early on in the process of curriculum development and implementation it became clear that the task of implementing C2005 was going to be far too difficult for many of the nine provincial departments of education. As a result, the idea of the DOE merely playing the role of policy development, monitoring and support had to be shelved as a result of the insufficient capacities of provincial departments to implement C2005 on their own.
Provincial capacity to implement has been affected by the extremely high turnover of leadership and management at all levels of the system. In the first instance, the process of integrating and staffing new departments in 1994/5 occurred simultaneously with the development and implementation of new policy. In the second, the pressures on provinces to deliver have taken their toll. Only Gauteng and the Western Cape retained their Heads of Department for a full five-year period. Some provinces have had up to four Heads of Department over the last six years. In some cases, the Head of Department was in an acting position for more than a year. In some provinces, districts are a new invention and have also required staffing. This extraordinarily high turnover of leadership and management has adversely affected continuity and performance of poorer provinces.
Many schools also had no principals in the first four years of the newly established Departments of Education. Only in the last two years have school principals been appointed, bringing stability to leadership and management in schools. Many of these principals, as indicated above, have not received orientation to Curriculum 2005 in order to support its implementation in schools. Ongoing restructuring, like the redeployment process, has diverted attention from curriculum and adversely affected the morale of managers and officials. In many schools, job losses have had to be sustained or anticipated. The uncertainty that was generated did not promote positive attitudes towards Curriculum 2005.
In this turbulent context at provincial and local level, the DOE has as a result undoubtedly led the implementation of C2005 (DOE and Moodie submissions). It has conducted pilot runs, developed illustrative learning programmes (ILPs), and taken responsibility for training provincial core training teams. Having said this, it would be mistaken to underestimate the contributions made by provinces. Provinces in general, and teachers in particular, took up the task they faced in implementing C2005 with enthusiasm and commitment.
There are four general organisational issues that seem to affect the implementation of C2005. These are:
The problem of vertical organisation has two elements. The first element, which is related to the different ways in which provincial departments are vertically organised, seems to make it difficult to talk of implementation in common terms across provinces. While some provinces have provincial head offices, followed by districts, and then circuits and schools, others have an intervening level in the form of a region between provincial head office and districts (Eastern Cape, KZN and Northern Province). Districts in the provinces with ‘regions´ tend to be largely administrative entities with no curriculum support functions in evidence.
The second problem associated with vertical organisation is the authority status of some district offices. Managers who head some of these offices are in posts designated below the level of director, which is the minimum post-level with ‘authority and budgetary control´ (NCCRD, 1999a). This has tended to affect the ability of these offices to take decisions that translate into funded mandates for support of C2005.
A problem of authority was also reported in regard to the Schools Directorate of the DOE, the national unit that drives C2005. A national official saw the directorate as not having sufficient clout, and hence its C2005 support effort being seen more as marginal rather than as a core business of the DOE. This points to a need for a mechanism to locate C2005 as a core business of the DOE conceptually and organisationally.
The second organisational issue relates to horizontal organisation. The problem with current horizontal organisation (largely affecting provinces, but also the DOE to a limited extent) is that implementation and support of C2005 is located in different directorates. The Eastern Cape, for example, has staff involved in support of C2005 located in the Curriculum Development and in the ECD Directorates. This tends to lead to fragmentation in the provincial support effort, and at times even leads to friction between officials in the different line functions. In addition, Curriculum and Examinations sub-directorates in the national and provincial departments are often distinct and only very loosely coupled. At national level, this fragmentation even occurs at the more fundamental level of policy formulation, as evidenced by the development of a national Assessment Policy that did very little to clarify the summative assessment issues occupying the minds of many teachers implementing C2005.
The problems of vertical and horizontal organisation intersect to produce a third organisational problem. This problem is a lack of alignment of organisational structures in which the functions of implementing, supporting and monitoring C2005 are located at national, provincial and district levels. This lack of alignment, coupled with perceived ad hoc planning, often leads to reported clashes between national and provincial C2005 support programmes.
The third organisational problem encountered is the apparent lack of clearly defined tasks for some provincial and district officials. Provincial officials in the Eastern Cape told us, for instance, that they had to define their job functions as they went along. The lack of clearly defined job functions arguably compromises support for C2005 as it makes long-term planning by officials in some provinces difficult (see Motala submission; CEPD, 2000).
Some re-organisation of departmental structures is presently taking place at the DOE and in various provinces. In fact, in some cases, such as the Schools Directorate at the DOE, there is a second round of re-organisation taking place since 1994. This report argues that this re-organisation should be informed by the need to address the organisational problems, identified above, compromising the implementation and support of C2005.
The question of personnel is closely tied to the organisational issues discussed above. The following four key personnel issues appear to affect the implementation of C2005 at national, provincial and district levels:
The first issue is that of serious shortages of personnel in curriculum development and support units. While we could not find literature that suggests accepted international standards for numbers of curriculum development and support personnel at comparable national and provincial levels, there is general apprehension at both national and provincial levels about the shortages. The NCCRD (2000a) cites the figure of 200 as an accepted norm for national support staff in the Netherlands and New Zealand. While the two countries are hardly comparable to South Africa, it is worth noting that the School Directorate of the DOE, the unit that drives C2005 nationally, has no more than ten members. The document also suggests 16 as the minimum number for support staff at district level. This figure is, however, very much based on intelligent guesswork. There is evidence to suggest unevenness in the extent to which the problem is experienced in various provinces and districts.
The problem of a shortage of personnel seems to exist at two levels. First, the number of posts allocated to the curriculum development and support units appear to be insufficient for the task at hand. Second, even where reasonable numbers of posts have been approved, the filling of these has been rather slow, with some provinces only recently having filled in the bulk of their posts, and some provinces still having large numbers of posts unfilled.
In several provinces, the problem of personnel shortages has temporarily been solved through the deployment of some staff made redundant by the closure of colleges of education. This option, however, does not appear to have been opened to the support structures of the DOE. The deployment of college staff to support C2005 is, however, beset by problems of low morale and high turnover as the staff are often anxious to find more secure jobs (KwaZulu-Natal Curriculum Unit interview).
The second issue is the insufficient amount of time spent by existing national and provincial personnel on supporting C2005 due to performance of multiple functions. Over and above their role of supporting the implementation of C2005, officials at national, provincial and district levels have various other tasks. These tasks include the maintenance of the interim syllabus (NATED 550), development and support of school governance, promoting the Culture of Learning Teaching and Service (COLTS) campaign, and supporting the Review and Modernisation project in the FET band. The effect of this problem has been that human resources at all levels have been stretched too thinly, with serious consequences for sustained and meaningful support of C2005.
The third personnel related problem is a reported lack of administrative support for curriculum units in some provinces (Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal curriculum unit interviews). The result of this appears to have been the spending, by professional support officials, of disproportionate amounts of time on administrative tasks related or unrelated to the support of C2005. Given available evidence (NCCRD, 2000) that the number of administrative staff is greater than the number of professional staff in almost all provinces (Gauteng being the exception), this lack of administrative support to C2005 arguably suggests the treatment of C2005 as a non-core business in some provinces.
Fourthly, there appears to be a problem with regard to a lack of adequate training for provincial and district C2005 support personnel. Despite the enthusiasm and hard work of many provincial and district officials, there is a strong perception that they are themselves not adequately prepared to support teachers in implementing C2005 (see Grove Primary School, Cohen and Monyokolo, Mokoena, Lenong, Stirling High School Governing Body, PROTEC and Curriculum Development Project submissions). A similar observation was made by the DOE (1998f) in respect of quality assurance activities in the provinces.
The following two key resource issues are discussed below:
The first resource problem is related to transport. Professional support staff at provincial and regional/district levels have experienced severe problems with transport. The problem appears to be more serious in those provinces whose districts stretch over large distances (such as Northern Cape), and those with large rural constituencies (such as KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Province and the Eastern Cape). Transport problems have reportedly caused several C2005 programmes to be either postponed or delayed. Provinces were unanimous in pointing out that transport is one of the main problems making ongoing support of C2005 rather difficult if not impossible.
Several provinces, for example the Free State, Eastern Cape, and Mpumalanga, have found ways of trying to address the transport problem, albeit reportedly unsatisfactorily in the case of Mpumalanga. Over and above the provision of pool vehicles, vehicle subsidies have been offered to many support officials. Mpumalanga has been using hired vehicles as a stop-gap measure. Despite all these attempts, however, transport remains a problem. Even where some transport has been provided, there were reported instances where such transport was found to be inappropriate for use in less developed road infrastructure (see for example, KwaZulu-Natal Curriculum Unit interview).
The second resource problem is the funding of C2005. Two issues, namely, allocation of and access to funding, are discussed below. It is worth noting that some of the problems alluded to above are somehow related to a general problem with the funding of C2005 at national and provincial levels.
While some provinces have allocated funds for the support of C2005, it appears that the main source of funding for C2005 at both national and provincial levels has been the Education Policy Reserve Fund (EPRF) or Special Grants. Feedback from many of the provinces suggests that without the EPRF, C2005 would not have been implemented at provincial level. While the provision of EPRF funding has been seen in a positive light, there is concern in some of the poorer provinces like KZN that failure to secure funding from the mainstream provincial budgets has had the effect of marginalising C2005 in the province.
Some provinces also voiced frustrations with the bureaucratic processes required to access EPRF funding. They blamed their frustrations on the centralisation of the EPRF at provincial level, and the perceived lack of a sense of urgency on the part of provincial treasury staff. Provincial C2005 support staff complained about the numerous forms requiring the same information which they have to fill in when they have to access the EPRF. Given the problem of a lack of administrative back-up pointed out earlier, professional support officials felt that their time could be better spent than in filling in forms. An official of the DOE argued that the problem of accessing the EPRF was more than just a problem of bureaucratic red tape, but also had to do with a lack of the skill of accessing such funding by provincial and district officials. This was said to point to a need for training in such skills.
Funding is clearly a complex issue that is linked to competition over allocations to personnel and non-personnel spending. The challenge for all levels of the education system is to formulate a creative balance between these competing interests in a way that enhances the capacity to support C2005 or any other programme in the broad educational transformation project.
From the above discussion on support for C2005, it is clear that policy frameworks limit the role of the DOE to that of developing norms and standards for curriculum and define the sphere of implementation as belonging to the provinces. In practice, the DOE has played a leading role in curriculum implementation. Provincial and district capacity to implement Curriculum 2005 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 appropriate transport and financial resources for supporting C2005. In this context, support and monitoring of implementation is a task that has not been adequately undertaken. This indicates a need for reorganisation, reinforcement of personnel, and the provision of necessary resources at national, provincial, and district levels.
Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5
Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Appendicies