The Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) will be implemented in the whole of the Foundation Phase next year and in the whole of the Intermediate Phase in 2005.
From a training perspective, there are good arguments for implementing by phase rather than by grade. But these implementation time frames are likely to have a negative impact on the development of high-quality teaching and learning support materials
The Review of C2005 recommended that ‘the RNCS should be made available to publishers at least two years before textbook orders are due to be placed”. This
recommendation has not been heeded.
The final version of the RNCS was published in June 2002 and publishers were required to submit Foundation Phase manuscripts for approval to provincial departments by as early as November 2002.
Many author teams were therefore expected to write three textbooks (for grades 1, 2 and 3) between June and November in order to meet the submission deadlines. This means that they would have been allocated about a month to research and write each title.
The remaining time would have been used for editing, the production of artwork and the sourcing of photographs, layout and design. And then, of course, these materials still had to be translated into several other official languages.
Remember that we are talking about the Foundation Phase, where it is recommended that learners learn to read and write and count in their home languages before making the transfer to English as the language of teaching and learning.
Hardly had the Foundation Phase deadlines been met, when the rush was on for the Intermediate Phase (due for imple-mentation in 2005). Because publishers had their hands full with the Foundation Phase until the end of last year, attention only really shifted to the Intermediate Phase at the beginning of this year.
Without regard for the time required to research and develop textbooks, the first province has called for submissions of Intermediate Phase manuscripts in July. This means that most Intermediate Phase courses – one title for each grade, with accompanying teacher’s guides – will have been produced in six months.
Some of the negative consequences for author teams and publishers of having to produce textbooks so hastily include:
– not having sufficient time to interpret the curriculum requirements;
– not spending enough time as a team conceptualising the particular textbook or the series for the phase;
– not reading and editing the work of your co-authors in any depth;
– not establishing and implementing a common approach to assessment;
– in many cases, not writing your own teacher’s guides;
– not having enough time to consult with content specialists;
– not having enough time to comment on rough artwork, layout and design;
– not having any time at all for piloting materials;
– having to rush translations which
probably leads to many inaccuracies.
All of the above will impact negatively on the quality of textbooks – one of the key vehicles for implementing our new revised ‘high skills, high knowledge” curriculum.
I think back to the early 1990s, when arguably some of the best textbooks were produced. I would spend a whole year researching and writing a textbook.
Every chapter went through three or four rounds of editing. The content would be scrutinised by a content editor, who was generally an academic at the forefront of that particular aspect of the discipline.
A methodology editor would advise on the approaches to teaching and learning and whether they were likely to work well in the classroom. A language editor would check the language level to ensure maximum accessibility.
The material would then be piloted over a six to eight week period by a group of teachers from different types of schools. On the basis of their feedback, further changes would be made.
The production process would take the better part of a year. The final product would be polished. As an author, I would feel as if I had been involved in the production of a work of art.
Granted, this model of materials development is expensive. But we are, after all, talking about the production of textbooks which, in many cases, will be the main resource to support the teaching and learning process.
Are we not therefore shooting ourselves – and our learners – in the foot by being in such a rush?