reality
Philippa Garson:CLASS STRUGGLE
When a country’s legislative and policy framework is totally at odds with the reality on the ground, sober mutterings about anarchy and “meltdown” begin.
Compared with the mayhem in some of the disintegrating, war-ravaged countries to the north, it would appear South Africa has nothing to worry about in this regard. But the gaping mismatch between our impressive democratic framework and our rough realities on the ground is cause for concern.
In our education system, examples of this yawning chasm between theory and practice are everywhere. Take the issue of corporal punishment. Most people agree – in principle – that corporal punishment is a barbaric practice that should be outlawed.
The reality is that many teachers, already grappling with discipline problems in their classrooms, are being overrun by unruly pupils – or they are simply ignoring the law and administering “cuts” as usual. And who can blame them when no one has bothered to give them any training on alternative discipline measures?
I have seen this disregard for the law in several upmarket schools. And in many of the poorer schools where parents are perhaps less well-versed on the matter of their children’s constitutional rights and where a culture of rough justice is often the norm, it appears to be “bend-over” business as usual.
When new KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Education Eileen kaNkosi Shandu expresses the desire to bring back corporal punishment – and even gives the principal at her child’s school the go-ahead to “klap [slap]” him, in blatant contravention of the law – she’s on to something.
Much like vote-seeking politicians who make stirring speeches about bringing back the death penalty, KaNkosi Shandu is merely capitalising on the mood on the ground.
Of course teacher training takes a lot of time and money, but until teachers are given something to hold on to – a workshop or two would be a start – and given some guidelines on other discipline measures like detentions and school-cleaning exercises (more constructive measures would be too much to ask for at this point), the government has only itself to blame for the embarrassing disregard for its laws.
Another glaring example of this inability to read the mood on the ground and react with the necessary back-up is the Department of Education’s declared intention to introduce grade seven as well as grade three in the new curriculum next year. Clearly the political benefits of being able to add “grade seven” to the list of “educational achievements” by 2000 far outweigh the real damage this short- sighted decision will do to our already poorly trained teachers.
Since curriculum implementation is a provincial competence, the provinces could have used their relative autonomy in this regard and thrown up their hands and said “no”.
Instead, they were apparently so caught up in a macho tussle to outdo each other that – with the exception of the Western Cape, which has nothing to lose by swimming in the opposition direction – they all pretended to be perfectly poised to introduce grade seven.
The reality is, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Curriculum experts are horrified at the move, for good reason. One can guess the reactions of teachers who will have to relearn just about everything they teach.
Grade seven teachers will be required to teach four entirely new learning areas in the form of arts and culture, economics and management, life orientation and technology. What grade one and two teachers have been struggling with over the past two years will seem like a game of bingo in comparison.
In all likelihood, training of grade seven teachers will be nowhere near sufficient – the provinces have neither the money nor the capacity to do it properly – and teachers will simply carry on teaching the old subjects the old way. Yet another alarming gap between what happens and what is supposed to happen will emerge.
Philippa Garson is the editor of The Teacher, a sister publication to the Mail & Guardian