Philippa Garson
CLASS STRUGGLE
The decision by Minister of Education Kader Asmal to appoint an independent panel of educationists to review Curriculum 2005 is welcome news indeed. After so much speculation, confusion and controversy about the new curriculum and its bumpy implementation, a cool, collected look by a group of people who do not have vested interests (one hopes) can only be a good thing.
Next week Asmal is to appoint a 12- member team of academics, curriculum developers and specialists in the field of South African education, including teachers, who will report at the end of the month on how implementation of outcomes-based education (OBE) should proceed next year.
It is high time those in education stopped floating on the sonorous evangelicism of OBE “guru” William Spady and started tackling the harsh and very unique realities of the South African situation, such as the lack of expertise and capacity of the teaching corps in general, and the bearing this has on phasing in Curriculum 2005: research has shown that many teachers can barely keep abreast of their own primary school pupils, let alone understand the “66 specific outcomes” or devise their own curricula. And who can blame them, when the confusion around the prolific OBE terminology, some would say jargon, spreads right up the ranks to the top officials and curriculum developers themselves.
This was apparently the mood at a recent powwow of national and provincial officials, as well as other educationists, where some important stocktaking of Curriculum 2005 was supposed to take place. Word has it everyone was pissed off that Spady took centre stage, at a time when they wanted to discuss the problems and begin to infuse the lofty philosophy of OBE with a dose of realism, instead of hearing the whole spiel and getting sold the book all over again.
This is not to say that Spady is ignorant of the nuances of the South African situation.
But perhaps it is time for our own interpretation and version of OBE to evolve more clearly. Certainly the OBE approach, which is a long-overdue departure from the inferior, rote-learning stuff of the past, is here to stay as it should. Relating education to the real world around us, empowering the learner, teacher and parent in the education process, and passing on tangible skills to learners are laudable goals.
Wonderful and inspiring stories of how schools are “flying” with OBE abound – not just the privileged schools among us, but little farm schools, too. Some are bringing the principles of permaculture to bear on OBE and are turning their impoverished schools into flourishing and productive havens, teaching children farming, entrepreunerial and other skills, and involving whole communities. There are scores of other success stories around. Some teachers go so far as to say that OBE has changed their lives and their learners’ lives. Those of us with children may testify to a new mood of creative thinking infusing the learning process these days.
Of course, no one wants to revert to the days of inferior, one-word-answer, cram- style education. And many teachers have bought into the new approach, overcoming the jitters and anxieties change inevitably brings.
But it must also be acknowledged that there are some real problems with Curriculum 2005 and the way it is being implemented. There are just as many horror stories – of teachers believing they no longer need to teach reading and writing in the foundation phase, for example. Confusion like this is inevitable when the trainers are as new to the different teaching approach as the teachers themselves.
Many teachers feel disempowered, that they no longer have anything to offer and they don’t know where to begin. Who can blame them when they see the dizzy grids into which a plethora of supposedly “specific”, yet decidedly vague, outcomes are expected to be correlated by teachers with phase and programme organisers and ultimately learning areas. Some education experts who criticise Curriculum 2005 believe these many specific outcomes should be done away with and that far simpler, clearer outcomes should be defined.
The power of OBE lies in the fact that for the first time learners and parents know what must be learnt and what skills must be acquired. Some argue that the 66 specific outcomes defeat this objective by allowing teachers to hide behind a vague and lengthy list, and thus remain forever unaccountable.
The independent panel is going to have to work like lightning to separate the good from the bad and tailor some of the unrealistic expectations of Curriculum 2005, so that plans for next year can go ahead. Key decisions will have to be made if training for grade eight – the first grade in high school for the new curriculum to be phased in – is to take place next year. This is likely to be a far more complex process than implementation at primary school level. Hopefully, reason will prevail and the panel will come up with a working model for OBE that we can all understand.