REPORT OF C2005 REVIEW COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

31st May 2000

Pretoria

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Minister of Education announced the establishment of the Review Committee on C2005 on the 8th February 2000. 

The Committee was required to investigate:

• Steps to be taken in respect of the implementation of the new curriculum in Grades 4 and 8 in 2001
• Key success factors and strategies for a strengthened implementation of the new curriculum
• The structure of the new curriculum
• The level of understanding of outcomes-based education.

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.´

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 to the end of May 2000 to investigate these issues.

METHODOLOGY

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 required an extensive investigation of both official and unofficial evaluations, site visits, interviews and public submissions. Interviews were conducted with officials responsible for designing and implementing the curriculum, teachers, and school heads of departments, principals, school governing bodies, trainers and publishers, amongst others. These were specifically conducted to probe the gaps in the evaluations consulted. There was a very positive response to the call for public submissions. These came from individuals, organisations and institutions. They helped to shape the overall thrust and recommendations of the report. Differences there certainly were, and the Review Committee has taken a position on these in the light of the social and learning goals discussed below. What was remarkable about the range of evidence was the consensus on key issues.

POINT OF DEPARTURE

The Review Committee has taken the view that the curriculum should be steered by principles that promote personal and social development and transformation for the 21st Century.

The social goals of social justice, equity and development are pursued by confronting a dual challenge:

• The challenge of the past, that of moving beyond the legacy of apartheid;
• The challenge of the future, that of developing a curriculum that will provide the platform for knowledge, skills and values for innovation and growth for the 21st Century, and for cultural creativity and tolerance, for the African Renaissance.

The educational goals are guided by those values which have shaped new education policy in South Africa and find expression in C2005.

FINDINGS

Support for C2005, but Levels of Understanding Variable

Understandings of what C2005 is varies 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 clear from all the available evidence that although C2005 has generated a new debate on teaching and learning, teachers have a rather shallow understanding of the principles of C2005.

Structure and Design of Curriculum 2005 Skewed

Many of the conceptual confusions, lack of clarity in policy documents and difficulties with implementation of Curriculum 2005 stem from basic structure and design flaws. Three main areas are identified as requiring attention.

• The first is the complex language and confusing terminology used in C2005 documents. Submissions point to three particular problems: the use of meaningless jargon and vague and ambiguous language, the unnecessary use of unfamiliar terms to replace familiar ones and the lack of a common understanding and use of C2005 terminology.
• The second is the ‘overcrowding´ of the curriculum. The inclusion of eight learning areas in the GET band has meant insufficient time for the development of effective reading skills, foundational mathematics and core concepts in the sciences.
• The third is the weakness of the specific design features promoting sequence, pace and progression. The C2005 design structure is strong on integration and weak on conceptual coherence. Integration is supported by five design features – the 12 critical outcomes, 66 specific outcomes, learning programmes, phase organisers, and programme organisers. In contrast, conceptual coherence is relatively neglected. Range statements, performance indicators and expected levels of performance are intended to provide for progression but have failed to do so. This is largely because curriculum designers have attempted to avoid prescribing content.

Lack of Alignment between Curriculum and Assessment Policy

There is no alignment between curriculum and assessment policy as well as lack of clarity regarding assessment policy and practice. On the one hand too much time is being spent on managing and administering assessment, leaving minimal time for classroom work, and on the other, there is insufficient attention paid to assessment in training and in curriculum planning and design.

Training Inadequate

Many problems and difficulties were experienced in the process of training teachers for the new curriculum. These related to models, duration and quality of training. Because the focus was on orientation to the new terminology, there was little attention paid to the substance of OBE and C2005. The Cascade Model of training has proved inadequate, and district trainers often did not understand Curriculum 2005 and consequently did not 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 should be paid to the quality and content of training and to follow-up support.

Learning Support Materials Variable in Quality and Often Unavailable

Problems with learning support materials in support of C2005 range from their availability, quality and use to the training in their use 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 for a variety of reasons. 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 or skill to develop their own materials. All three areas - quality, use and availability - accordingly require attention. 

Follow-up Support Insufficient

Teachers felt officials do not value their work and that departments and school management provide far too little support. 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 and inadequate expertise of personnel and lack of resources for supporting C2005.

Time-frames Unmanageable and Unrealistic

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, ongoing support process being in place. Recommendations are accordingly made to address problems that have arisen in implementation.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

The Review Committee proposes that a revised and streamlined outcomes based curriculum be introduced within manageable time-frames to achieve the social and educational goals of a curriculum for the 21st Century. The recommendations below fall into 3 major categories:

• Structure and design of the revised curriculum
• Implementation of the revised curriculum
• Pace and scope of implementation

Structure and Design of the Revised Curriculum

• Develop a National Curriculum Statement for the ECD, GET, FET and ABET bands. The National Curriculum Statement should contain 4 key design features which replace the 8 design features of C2005;

• The Critical Outcomes provide the learning goals for the curriculum, and the learning programmes should be ‘designed down´ from them so that the values of human rights, civic responsibility and respect for the environment are infused throughout the curriculum. Special attention should be paid to anti-discriminatory, gender equity and special needs issues.
• The Learning Area Statements specify the learning area and its defining features.
• The Learning Outcomes specify the sequence of core concepts, content and skills to be taught and learnt in each learning programme at each grade level.
• The Assessment Standards describe the level of knowledge and skills expected and the range for each of the learning outcomes for each grade level.

These four design features replace the 66 specific outcomes, assessment criteria, phase and programme organisers, range statements, performance indicators and expected levels of performance.

• Reduce overload by:

• Reducing the  learning areas from 8 to 6 in the GET band (languages, mathematics, science and technology, social sciences, arts and culture, life orientation) and specifying three learning programmes in the Foundation Phase and six in the Intermediate and Senior Phases
• Allocating more time for mathematics and languages

• All terminology used in curriculum documents should be clear and accessible.

Implementation of the Revised Curriculum

There are three sets of implementation issues that require attention. These are:

• Teacher orientation and training
• Learning support materials, especially textbooks
• National, provincial and district-level support

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 resourcing, regular monitoring and review, and feasible time-frames. All three require a certain degree of central coordination in order for the system to work as a system, and for the system to realise some measure of equity of provision.

Teacher Orientation, Training and Support

• A coordinated national strategy for the preparation of teachers is required which links pre-service education and in-service training of teachers and teacher educators with the Norms and Standards for Educators, labour agreements such as the 80 hours INSET, and support policies like the EMD Policy Framework.
• Higher education institutions should have the statutory responsibility to train and develop teachers.
• In the short-term a special cadre of national, provincial and district trainers working collaboratively with NGOs and higher education should be selected and trained.

Learning Support Materials

• The National Curriculum Statement will provide clear guidelines to publishers and government alike for the production of textbooks, and for the evaluation of their quality.
• The production of curriculum illustrative and support materials should shift to dedicated units or institutes as described in the White Paper on Education and Training
• The use of ‘macroplanning´ as a training tool by the DoE should be phased out, and teachers should be trained in the use of textbooks and LSMs
• Special funding for readers and reading schemes for all Foundation Phase classrooms should be sought.
• a special project team to co-ordinate and manage LSMs should be created in each province.

National, provincial and district-level support

• Curriculum planning, delivery and support is the core business of the DoE.  This should be recognised by locating the unit responsible for the curriculum in the office of the Director General.
• Officials dealing with the curriculum at national and provincial levels should be housed within a single directorate.
• National, provincial and district structures for delivery should be aligned.
• The Minister should seek consensus in the CEM for the establishment of norms for educational expenditure on key aspects such as training, textbooks, LSMs and support.

Pace and Scope of Implementation

It is clear from the work of the Review Committee that curriculum implementation cannot continue at the same pace as before.  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 National Curriculum Statement, which provides the framework for teaching and learning from grades 0 to 9, should be developed by June 2001. Once this has been approved, teachers should begin to orient their teaching accordingly, paying particular attention to the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Standards for each grade.
• Grade 4 should continue until it is overtaken by a revised, streamlined curriculum. Grade 8 should continue on a modified basis. The modified form should entail a reduction of the learning areas from eight to the six proposed here and the Learning Outcomes informed by the National Curriculum Statement. The Committee thus recommends that the current C2005 trajectory be continued in the short-term with transitional arrangements being made for phasing out implementation in further phases.

The phasing in of a revised curriculum has many implications and these should be considered carefully. Time would have to be provided for resource mobilisation, development of trainers and learning support materials and the consolidation of national and provincial curriculum structures to drive its implementation. The publishers would require up to 3 years to produce quality textbooks. The entire process will require leadership, vision and a planning and management process aligned to Tirisano.