The white paper on education released last week is revolutionary, as far as it goes — but it doesn’t go far enough, writes Ahmed Essop
THE white paper on education and training released by the Ministry of Education last week marks a watershed in its content, its context, and its development.
It commits the government to the reconstruction and development of the education and training system on a equitable basis and lays the building blocks for the establishment of a non-racial, non-sexist system.
The historical significance of the white paper cannot be over-emphasised, given the centrality of education in the struggle against apartheid. And the consultative process involved in writing it — a draft was released in September 1994 for public comment — signals a break with the past and underlines the ministry’s commitment to transparency and democratic practice.
Access to lifelong learning and training is the key principle and over-arching goal central to the reconstruction and development of the educational system. To achieve this goal, the white paper proposes the development of an integrated system based on a new national qualifications framework.
This will ensure maximum flexibility for mobility — both horizontal and vertical — between different levels of the formal and non-formal education and training system. Individuals will be able to progress to higher levels of learning from any starting point in the system, on the basis of a common qualifications and certification framework.
The approach is premised on eroding the distinction between mental and manual labour — and represents a radical break with past practice. It moves beyond the narrow focus on school education to commit the government to the provision of basic education and training for all — and in particular for previously marginalised groups, such as adults and pre-school-age children. In this respect, the white paper opens the doors of learning and training to all. It enables individuals to develop their talents and potential to the full.
It all ensures that the education and training system is well-placed to meet the challenges of the global economy as we enter the new millenium.
What the white paper fails to do, however, is to translate its compelling vision and its framework for lifelong learning into a clearly-defined plan for
It shies away from developing prescriptions for the norms, standards and policy that flow from the broad framework and general principles it contains. Instead it commits the government to establishing a range of commissions, feasibility studies and consultative processes as a precondition for the development of detailed policies and plans for implementation.
Such processes are crucial for the democratisation of the policy process. But they cannot be a substitute for
To be fair, the white paper argues that ad hoc responses will not resolve the deep-seated and systemic crisis that afflicts the education and training system. However, in the context of the transition to democracy, clear policy guidelines are required to ensure that the imperative to introduce change does not destabilise the education system.
This is not an easy task. But in the absence of policy guidelines from the ministry, provincial MECs faced with the difficult task of managing the transition have had to develop norms, standards and policy guidelines of their own, to ensure that planning for the 1995 school year occurs within a coherent framework. This potentially has adverse implications for the development of a national system.
The absence of an implementation strategy in the white paper is all the more regrettable, given that in the run-up to the April election, the ANC prepared detailed implementation plans linked to the document on which the white paper is based — the ANC’s “Policy Framework for Education and Training”. Indeed, given the high level of consensus that greeted the ANC’s policy framework as a result of the inclusive process of policy development — including public consultation — initiated by the ANC in the pre-election period, the value of developing a white paper focused on broad frameworks and general principles is open to question.
The white paper is the result of a narrow interpretation of the national/provincial relationship in terms of powers granted to the national government by the interim constitution.
But this does not absolve the national government from undertaking its responsibilities and asserting its authority. In fact this is critical to ensure redress and equity. In the absence of clear national norms and standards, especially in relation to financial issues, inter- and intra-provincial inequalities are likely to be entrenched.
The lack of an implementation strategy is the product of the compromises made necessary by the nature of the government of national unity (GNU). There are indications that the National Party has identified education and training as a key arena for contest. Their likely opposition to
a stronger role for the national ministry partly explains the narrow interpretation of the national/provincial relationship.
It also explains the white paper’s silence on key policy issues that flow from the interim constitution.
The most obvious and contentious is that related to the right to establish educational institutions based on a common culture, language or religion. The fact that the white paper does not pronounce on this issue is not going to make it disappear.
Ahmed Essop is director of Johannesurg’s Centre for Education Policy Development