While some say ‘we told you so’, few are against changing the curriculum
ALL those 66 specific outcomes you drummed into your head — well, now you can forget about them.
This is one of the recommendations of the Curriculum 2005 review committee that have been accepted by Minister of Education Kader Asmal.
The only recommendation from the review committee that was not accepted was that the Learning Areas of technology and economic and management sciences be excluded from the curriculum because of a shortage of teachers in the area. A final decision on this is expected by early August.
While many in the education world are saying ”better late than never”, critics are pointing out that the failed effort to implement Curriculum 2005 has wasted valuable time and resources, and has in fact taken teaching and learning a step backwards.
Curriculum 21 seems to represent an improvement, but crucial areas like teacher training and the provision of resources must be addressed if it is to going to have a chance of succeeding.
Oumakie Kekana, Grade 1 teacher
”There’s another confusion coming. We need to be trained again. We were just starting to understand this 66 [specific outcomes] thing. This 21 thing involves some work — it’s going to be a delay. When C2005 started it was like a monster. We didn’t know what to do with the children. After June the children couldn’t excel at what I wanted them to do. But I have a lot of confidence in outcomes-based education after receiving extra lessons. So when Kader [Asmal] said he’s changing C2005, I wasn’t worried about it.”
Sharon Johnson, Foundation Phase head of department
”Outcomes-based education isn’t that bad, it’s just that reading and maths have got worse. Definitely they must look again at formal reading. There’s also too much administrative work. We are here to teach children, not to do extra administrative work.”
Erina Groenewald, Grade 1 and 2 teacher
”We enjoy the teaching methods of Curriculum 2005. We already adapted it to our children because some of the topics are difficult for them. You’re not supposed to do drill work, but we do for reading and writing. But we work nights and nights on assessment — I hope they’ll make that easier for us. I think it’s a good move to review the curriculum. It will help a lot of teachers.”
Francis Searle, Foundation Phase head of department ”We weren’t trained properly to implement Curriculum 2005, and teachers get frustrated. All this bad news about Curriculum 2005 also doesn’t help because you get demotivated. You go into class and you don’t know how you should proceed. Also, we sit with enormous problems other than 2005. Then officials come in and just ask for admin work and a portfolio that has nothing to do with whether the child is really learning. I don’t know if this will change but most of the teachers will be grateful if it did. We’re all waiting to see what’s going to happen — you don’t actually know what’s going on and what they’re planning to do.”
Joseph Pekeche, Grade 3 teacher
”We are afraid of changes. We are still trying to settle with Curriculum 2005, and now there are more changes. They’ve lost so much direction because right now we must go back to the drawing board. The review is not actually a waste of time but we’re going to lose direction.”
Maureen Mbuli, Grade 2 teacher
”Our problem is that now we are just starting to adjust to this [Curriculum 2005] and now there’s more changes. Maybe it’s going to be easier because they’ve found where the problem lies. I’ve been teaching for 22 years and I think I was a better teacher then. Now because I’m not quite sure of what I’m doing, there lies a problem.”
Theresa Frans, Grade 3 teacher
”I feel the minister should discontinue Curriculum 2005. I have found that the standards of maths and numeracy have gone down, and in the following years we’re going to be sitting with illiterate children.”
Khosi Nkosi, Grade 2 teacher
”Dealing with Curriculum 2005 was easy for me because I had been doing this in the college, and so I was used to it. I’m not at all afraid of the new changes. I’m very much positive.”
— The Teacher/Mail & Guardian, July 20, 2000.
M&G Supplements