The problems with outcomes-based education (OBE) that teachers and the department of education are faced with relate to the particular South African path that we have followed in the process of getting to where we are now.
All the problems have their origins in the way that OBE was initially conceptualised, the initial unrealistic time frames and pressures to implement, the generally poor quality of teacher training, inadequate or inappropriate planning and, most importantly, the lack of attention to the provision of good quality, relevant and ongoing support for teachers in classrooms.
If these are the problems, and if these problems are common, then it must be possible to find meaningful solutions with long-term effects. A ”band aid” approach is the one that is most often applied. It is not very helpful for decision and policy makers to deny or ignore the issues. The fact is that there are problems. This has been confirmed by several studies during the last few years.
It is therefore necessary to identify, at a fundamental level, what it is that needs to be ”fixed” and whether or not the notion of OBE itself lies at the heart of the problem.
The National Professional Teachers’ Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa) is of the opinion that it is not OBE (in and of itself) that lies at the heart of what teachers are experiencing at present.
As a concept OBE has the potential for making the most significant contribution to transforming our approach to education and training in the country – provided we get it right. The danger is that, because of all the problems that have been associated with the implementation of the South African interpretation of OBE, at some stage the decision might be to move away from OBE because of an incorrect perception that it is too ”difficult” to implement.
What went wrong?
Firstly, with considerable hype, decision-makers in the mid 1990s took OBE on board because of the obvious benefits but then failed to spend time thinking through what OBE is, what an OBE curriculum should look like and what the implications would be for the system in terms of the resources (human, financial and time). Because of the hype it was difficult to make corrections as the process went on;
This impacted on the design of the curriculum, which went terribly wrong. Teachers, in trying to implement C2005, repeatedly pointed out that something was wrong and that the curriculum was far too complex;
Teachers received fairly intensive training in the context of the ”new OBE language and acronyms”. But serious misconceptions also arose, for example, that it is not necessary to teach subject content. These myths became entrenched and persist into the present;
Without subject knowledge embedded in the curricula it is very difficult to provide a context in which the development of skills can take place. In fact, meaningful problem solving cannot take place outside a very specific context, which is provided by the content of the subject/learning area itself;
The curriculum still causes confusion. Although the design of all curricula has been streamlined, there are still elements that are difficult to make sense of. An example of this is those design elements which are labelled ”assessment standards”. Upon analysis (in most of the learning areas/subjects) these statements are descriptions of activities. In this respect they provide useful suggestion for activities in which learners could be engaged in order to provide a context for assessment. The ”assessment standards” (very often) say little, or nothing, about the assessment itself. Policy documents on assessment have, until very recently, focused (and some continue to do so) on the different forms of assessment such as assignments, essays, tests and role-plays. While these are useful for helping teachers move away from tests only, they also do not say very much about what needs to be assessed. They do not enable teachers to make judgements about the level of competence that learners have attained in the process of achieving the outcomes;
There has been a tendency to develop more policy and guideline documents to assist teachers to understand issues around assessment in particular. Instead of identifying the original causes of confusion, and correcting or simplifying the initial policy documents, the number of documents that teachers have to work through has increased.
But it is never too late to affect changes to documents while still remaining true to the concept of OBE. A review at this stage does not mean a large-scale overhaul of policy documents. It does not mean that we need to panel-beat the policies into shape when all that is needed in most cases is some polishing to refine, clarify and simplify that which we have at present in order to make the task of teachers simpler and less confusing.
What are the priorities now?
Firstly, we need to take a fresh look at the curriculum statements. Without changing the essence of what is already there we need to analyse national policy documents to find out where teachers have indentified problems regarding under-specification;
As part of this review process, the purpose of the ”assessment standards” needs to be clarified. It needs to be made clear that these design elements do not, in many instances, provide any information about what should be assessed nor, in some instances, even how to assess learners;
Thirdly, the whole issue around what and how to assess learners must receive urgent attention. Policy and guideline documents are not always helpful in this respect. It is important to realise that because OBE focuses on the outcomes (the end result) of teaching and learning, assessment (which also looks at the end results of learning) assumes a new, and critical, importance. If assessments (collectively) are not directly looking towards the achievement of the outcomes then we are not engaged with OBE;
Fourthly, teacher training has been, and still is, problematic. This refers to both pre-service (initial) professional training and in-service (continuing) professional development. Initial teacher training remains unequal across different tertiary institutions. The point is that if new teachers entering the system are not fully informed about OBE and OBE assessment, then the OBE orientation provided by the department will never come to an end. With regard to continuing training and development, departmental training has been, at best, unequal. Teachers report that the quality of training was not as good as it should have been and, more importantly, was often not relevant. Teachers have repeatedly requested subject specific training: OBE in the context of specific subjects, subject-specific assessment training and subject-content training where there have been significant curriculum changes or where teachers are teaching a subject for which they have not been trained;
Fifthly, in those countries where OBE has been or is being implemented, research has shown that the optimal class size is considerably smaller than the average class size in South Africa and is even lower than the sizes allowed for by the official pupil/teacher ratio. It is common knowledge that teachers are experiencing unprecedented increases in their workload.
There are still large numbers of teachers who are un- or underqualified, learning areas have undergone significant changes, some subjects are completely new and there are many teachers who, as a result of these changes, have been deployed into teaching subjects for which they are not qualified – all of this in addition to the uncertainties and sometimes confusion associated with the implementation of OBE.
It is crucial that teachers (and schools) receive relevant, ongoing and good-quality support. Unfortunately local departmental offices, in too many instances, are simply not providing the support that is needed.
While OBE has experienced very specific implementation problems, it has enormous potential for bringing about real transformation in the education and training system. As South Africans, we owe it to learners and their parents to get OBE right. Much time has been wasted and many learners have been disadvantaged by poorly conceptualised and executed implementation. This cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
It is time for serious introspection and to fix whatever is not right with the system.
Dave Balt is president of Naptosa