The first round of training for C2005 undertaken by provincial departments was fraught with many problems. The Review of C2005 (which took place in 2000) found that the training models, the time spent on training and the quality of the training left much to be desired.
The cascade model of training proved to be inadequate. This involved training national trainers who trained provincial trainers who trained district trainers who trained teachers.
National and district trainers often did not understand C2005. Consequently they did not use the principles of C2005 in their own methodology of training. The focus was on teaching the new and complex terminology and little attention was paid to the substance of outcomes-based education (OBE) and C2005.
The Review of C2005 made the following recommendations:
* A coordinated national strategy for the training of teachers is required that links pre-service education and in-service training of teachers and teacher educators with the Norms and Standards for Educators (2000) and labour agreements such as the 80-hours of in-service training.
* Higher education institutions should have a responsibility to train and develop teachers.
* In the short term, a special team of national, provincial and district trainers working with NGOs and higher education institutions should be selected and trained.
Although the curriculum policy for Grades R to 9 has been strengthened and streamlined, effective implementation still depends on the strength of the training and follow-up support that is provided to provincial officials, school managers and, most importantly, teachers.
The task facing the national Department of Education (DoE) is a mammoth one. There are 360 000 teachers in the system located in about 30 000 schools. The majority of these institutions offer at least two and mostly seven grades that fall within the General Education and Training band.
So what plans are in place for managing the provision of training to all these teachers? According to Edcent Williams, chief director for curriculum and assessment development in the DoE, ‘we are looking at a seven-year plan”.
Williams indicated that an implementation task team would be appointed within the next few weeks. ‘The exact composition of such a team is still to be decided but it is likely to include curriculum specialists, learning support materials specialists, teacher development specialists and financial planners. Such a team will be made up of bureaucrats from within the DoE as well as outside specialists.”
According to Williams, during 2003 all teachers are likely to receive generic training that will give them a broad overview of the principles of OBE and the National Curriculum Statement. (Hopefully, policy for assessment will have been ironed out by then and very clear guidelines for assessment will be provided to teachers as part of this generic training.)
Since the whole of the Foundation Phase (Grades R to 3) will be formally implemented in 2004, specific training focusing on Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills will also be provided to Foundation Phase teachers in 2003. As the whole of the Intermediate Phase (Grades 4 to 6) will be implemented in 2005, the same approach will be adopted for Intermediate Phase teachers in 2004. Here the focus would be on introducing the revised learning area statements for each of the eight learning areas and dealing with aspects that are unique to each learning area for this phase.
The big questions that remain are who will design the training materials on which the training courses will be based and who will deliver the training to 360 000 teachers?
The idea of producing a centrally designed set of training materials seems to be a favoured option. Proponents of this view argue that quality can be more effectively assured if a strong national team of materials developers designs the training materials.
A word of warning. Let us not forget the bitter experience of the centrally produced Illustrative Learning Programmes and Learning Support Materials (DoE 1998 – 2001). These materials were generally of an extremely poor quality and often undermined teachers’ understanding of C2005.
As to who should deliver the training, the task is so enormous and of such an ongoing nature that I believe partnerships will need to be formed between the DoE and all credible service providers, including teacher unions, higher education institutions and NGOs.