Changing Curriculum: studies on outcomes-based education in South Africa (My New World)

Changing Curriculum Studies on Outcomes-based Education in South Africa

EDITORS

JONATHAN JANSEN

PAM CHRISTIE

Juta & C o Ltd

First Published 1999 O Juta & Co, Ltd 1999 P 0 Box 14373, Kenwyn 7790

This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. In terms of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

ISBN 0 7021 5063 0

Typesetting by THEDESI(:NHOUSE Cover design by Warren Nelson Editing by Carol Balchin

Printed and bound in South Africa by Creda Communications, Cape Town

Preface T h e myth persists that scholarly work is a hermit-like activity in which bespectacled individuals lock themselves away in dimly lit rooms to emerge after long periods of time with the finished work. I doubt that this was ever true in the history of academic writing and it certainly does not reflect the origins and production of Changing Curriculum: S t d e s on Outcomes-based Education in South Africa. It is for this reason that I acknowledge with gratitude the enormous contributions of the many different people who have made this work possible.

I begin where most prefaces end. My sincere thanks to Shakila Thakurpersad, Programme Administrator in the Centre for Education Research, Evaluation and Policy (CEREP), where the original ideas for critical engagement with outcomes-based education was first hatched. Shakila is one of the most patient and critical readers of texts in production and played a very important role in editing chapters from different computer disks, communicating editorial decisions with authors, harassing authors to send the next version of their chapters, and keeping the project on course. Thank you, Shakila Within the Faculty of Education at the University of Durban-Westville (UDW), I have been privilegecl to work with several colleagues who are developing into world-class scholars. Their critical instincts, analytical strengths and social commitment lie behind the emergence of this writing project. It was here that the idea first surfaced to convene a. national conference o n outconles-based education at ULW shortly after the state announced the :Jvent of this new curriculum to be introduced into all schools in January 1998. In retrospect, that conference launched some of the most sophisticated analyses and in-depth criticism of ORE by teachers, policy ;tnalysts, researchers, education officials and our senior students. And the ideas and inventions from that conference inspired this book, Changing Cumiculum. 1would therefore like to thank Enver Motala and Renuka Vithal for bringing the idea of such a conference to the attention of colleagues. And I thank Michael Sarnuel, Betty Govinden, Sbu Rayene, Rubby Dhunpath, Mafika Cele, Bususuwe (Peggy) Msimango, Naclira Manickchund, Reshma Sookraj for the critical engagement which inspired Inany of our writings on ORE and to plan for this book.

I should also thank Garry Rosenberg, editor and publisher at Juta's, for his insightful and challenging contributions to the ideas in the early version of the manuscript and his craftful shaping of the final version of the book. It is rare in the publishing world to find a person who is not only a n outstanding tnanager, hut also a very competent intellectual who ably engages authors and editors within their own fields of inquiry. I will remain gratefill to his influence well beyond the confines of the monograph. 1 thank my co-editor, Professor Patn Christie, with whom I share Inany curriculum battles from our joint chairpersonship of the NEPI (National Education Policy

Investigation) Curriculum Committee, searching for curriculum policy specifications for the democratic movement in the early 1990s. I am delighted that we could continue the partnership through this writing project. Pam's meticulous editing of the draft manuscripts and her engagement with the developing ideas behind Changing Cumiculum significantly enhanced the focus and quality of the final product. And I thank the contributing authors. Changing Cumiculum has been very fortunate to draw on some of South Africa's most distinguished education scholars. Drawn from different university campuses, non-governmental organisations, government departments, schools and research centres, each one of these contributors has been thorough and inventive in the ways in which they have prepared their individual contributions; and they have allowed a critical engagement with their developing ideas in ways that enriched the entire project - authors and friends, the same people. Finally, I would like to thank my family, my wife Grace and children Mikhail and SaraJane, for allowing me so much time in the late evening and early morning to enable this book to be completed. For my part, I dedicate this book to my beautiful and talented daughter, Sara-Jane, who entered Grade I in the year of OBE implementation. For her sake, and for the sake of all South Africa's children, I hope that OBE succeeds. Jonathan D Jansen University of Durban-Westville

Changing Curriculum: Studies on Outcomes-based Education in South Africa SECTION A

Chapter 1: Setting the Scene: Historiographies of Curriculum Policy in South Africa Jonathan D Jansen

3

SECTION B

Chapter 2:

Competing Education & Training Policy Discourses: A 'Systemic' versus 'Unit Standards' Framework

21

Andre Kraak Chapter 3: Positively Mystical: An Interpretation of South Africa's Outcomes-based National Qualifications Framework Roger Deacon & Ben Parker Chapter 4: Outcomes-based Education Has Different Forms

Cliff Malcolm

SECTION C

Chapter 5: Critical Outcomes: Political Paradoxes Jane Skinner Chapter 6: Outcomes-based Education: Teacher Identity and the Politics of Participation Jean Baxen & Crain Soudien Chapter 7:

131

Why Outcomes-based Education Will Fail: An Elaboration Jonathan D Jansen

145

Chapter 8: The Implementation of OBET in South Africa: Pathway to Success or Recipe for Failure? Haroon Mahomed

157

Chapter 9: Critical Responses to 'Why OBE Will Fail' Mahomed Rasool

171

Chapter 10: Integrating Differences: Implications of an Outcomes+ based National Qualifications Framework for the Roles and Competencies of Teachers Ken Harley & Ben Parker

181

SECTION D INSIDECLASSROOMS Chapter 11: 'A Very Noisy OBE': The Implementation of OBE in Grade 1 Classrooms Jonathan D Jansen

203

Chapter 12: Outcomes-based Education: Issues of Competence and Equity in Curriculum and Assessment Ian Bellis

219

Chapter 13: A Destination Without a Map: Premature Implementation of Curriculum 2005? Emilia Potenza & Mareka Monyokolo Chapter 14: Outcomes-based Assessment: The Need for a Common Vision of What Counts and How to Count It Meg Pahad

SECTION E INSIGHTS, IMPLICATIONS Chapter 15: OBE and Unfolding Policy Trajectories: Lessons to be Learned Pam Christie

247

SECTION A

Introduction, Overview

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

Setting the Scene: Historiographies of Curriculum Policy in South Africa JONATHAN D JANSEN UNIVERSITY OF DURBAN-WESTVILLE

The precise date and sequence of events leading to the introduction of outcomesbased education (OBE) into South Africa's education and training system are not clear; what is clear, however, is that since the mid-1990s OBE has triggered the single most important curriculum controversy in the history of South African education. Not since the De Lange Commission Report of the 1980s (Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) 1981),has such a fierce and public debate ensued not only on the modalities of change implied by OBE, but on the very philosophical vision and political claims upon which this model of education is based. It is timely, therefore, to introduce a text on outcomes-based education which takes a step back from the immediate debates and controversies about implementation, and steps outside of the mechanical and uncritical 'how to' monographs emerging from some distance education institutions. By contrast, this book is an attempt to sketch the broader context for outcomes-based education by presenting competing perspectives on OBE; evaluating the different policy claims and assumptions and silences governing OBE; tracing the consequences of OBE for teaching and learning in different educational contexts; and examining the possibilities of OBE for contributing to educational transformation after apartheid.

The historiography of OBE in South Africa is itself a matter of controversy. I wish to present one view, based not only on personal involvement in the process of exploring what was then called curriculum 'policy options' for the extraparliamentary democratic movement, but also on a critical reading of some recent attempts to sketch the trajectory of curriculum policy in South Africa since 1990 (Christie, 1997; Kraak, 1998).

SECTION A

It is important to recognise the significance of 1990 as a critical turning point in the curriculum debates inside South Africa. Until that time, South African education was characterised by a uniform and predictable curriculum policy environment.The apartheid state managed a centralised curriculum policy system, which was variously described as racist, Eurocentred, sexist, authoritarian, prescriptive, unchanging, context blind and discriminatory. There could be some debate about these characterisations, in retrospect, as being too simplistic. However, the most important part of this curriculum policy system was that while core curricula were regularly devised for all schools based on a 'school subjects' approach, these curricula were introduced into schools with vastly different resource environments and, accordingly, produced vastly different consequences in these different race-based resource contexts. While there may have been muted attempts to introduce 'alternative curricula' (and the accounts of both alternative education and People's Education have been remarkably exaggerated in terms of their effects), the curriculum of the apartheid state was the dominant and exclusive medium for education in the schools sector. The year 1990 is significant because of the changes in the political landscape both inside South Africa and in the southern African region. In South Africa, following unprecedented political and economic pressures from the liberation movements and the international community, the apartheid state was coerced into releasing key political prisoners (including Nelson Mandela) and unbanning political organisations. In the region, the end of the Cold War had recast ideological and political alignment in, for example,Angola and Namibia, facilitating the emergence of a post-apartheid capitalist state (Chisholm, 1994). The curriculum significance of the political moment defined by 1990 was that within South Africa competing social movements and political actors vehemently began to stake their curriculum positions in anticipation of what now seemed inevitable-the emergence of South Africa's first democratic state following national, non-racial elections. The National Education Coa-dinating Committee (NECC), itself a nominal alliance of progressive education and labour stakeholders, initiated the National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) to develop education 'policy options' for the broad democratic movement, in effect the African National Congress and its allies. One of the key research groups in this NECC initiative was the Curriculum Group which produced an important foundational document upon which much (though by no means all) of existing (1998) curriculum policy is based (National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI), 1992).What NEPI did was to provide a broad values framework for thinking about democratic education policy after apartheid; this framework emphasised non-racism, non-sexism, democracy, equality and redress as the platform for post-apartheid education policy. In addition to this values framework, NEPI outlined some key operational areas for

C H A P T E R

1

JONATHAN D JANSEN

future policy attention, including early childhood education, adult education, teacher education and educational governance and finance. The most relevant observation from the NEPI work, completed in 1992/93, was that there was no reference whatsoever to OBE in these documents and only broad suggestions about a co-ordinated system of education and training. The private sector, on the other hand, initiated the Private Sector Education Council (PRISEC) which, predictably, placed within the public debate a series of proposals calling for more vocational and entrepreneurial education rather than formal academic education, given the demands of the economy. The same ideas were expressed in the influential Education Policy and Systems Change Unit (EDUPOL) of the Urban Foundation, a large venture of businesses and corporations, which placed on the public agenda a prominent role for business in education reform and also outlined a key set of operational areas for state attention in the future, two such areas being educational governance and teacher education. Again, there was no reference in these documents to outcomes-based education or its variants. The foreign-funded (led by the United States Agency for International L)eveloprnent, or USAID) nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) themselves produced a wide range of curriculum alternatives mainly within adult education, early childhood education (as it was then called), matriculation preparation programmes, academic development curricula within universities, and a few private or independent schools. Of course, these disparate but critically needed 'curricula' had little irrmpact or1 the formal education system where the overwhelming majority of schoolchildren were located. Also, the philosophies and approaches embedded in this dispersion of N O education programmes were so diverse (from radical, progressive approaches to mainstream, delivery programmes) that any coherence is difficult to describe; it can, however, he safely claimed that there was not a single OBE-specific approach in this broad range of NGO curricula. There was one possible exception, though, expressed through the adult education curricula developed by the Independent Exarrrinations Boarcl (IEB) that began to reflect the competencies expressed in the National Training Strate~yInitiative: (see later) documents and the COSATU proposals; a singular achievement of the IEB at the tirime was to begin to innovate and experiment with assessment strategies which could give meaning t o a system based on demonstrable competencies in adult learning. The apartheid state itselfjoinetl this rush for curriculum position first by publishing the Educutim Renew(~lStrate0 in two versions and then, crucially,a specific curriculum I\/Zo~kljirrSouth Afir.a. Its core proposals position dubbed CUMSA or A Nm) (,umm(;ulum were a rationalisation of the inordinately large nllmber of' school syllabuses, the development of core learning areas, and a stronger vocational education emphasis in the school curriculum. Urrpalatable as it nmay seem to some, there appears in CUMSA the beginning of some of the curriculilrn refornms initiated afier the 1994 elections, such as syllabus reduction, learning area specifications ant1 the linkage

SECTION

A

INTRODUCTION.OVERVIEW

of education to economic development through an emphasis on science and technology education. The OBE-related idea that 'less is more' in terms of curriculum content organisation may even have started to surface within CUMSA. But again, there is no specific reference to an outcomes-based education system at this time. But it is now clear, in retrospect, that the most important curriculum actor at the time was the National Training Board, and here lie the roots of what only later came to be called outcomes-based education. The early National Training Board lost legitimacy among the unions, given its failure to consult. The later National Training Board secured the full participation and leadership of COSATU and produced perhaps the most significant policy document of the time, the National Training Strategy Initiative (NTSI),which provided the foundation for curriculum and assessment thinking within South Africa. While the primary focus of this strategy was on labour and the training sector, its proposals for an integrated approach to education and training bound the education sector, including schools, into this framework of thinking. The subsequent National QualificationsFramework therefore implied the linkage of education qualifications to training qualifications in an integrated system. At about the same time as the emergence of the NTSI, there were lively discussions within COSATU about competency-based education (CBE) as the instrument through which to provide and accredit training in the labour sector. The arguments were persuasive, both on moral and practical grounds. Morally, the traditional deadend, ad hoc training of labour did not provide any progression and mobility; the non-recognition of work experience meant that any subsequent training assumed a blank slate as far as trainees were concerned and effectively dismissed any possibilities for building on what learners already know. And, pra'ctically, the emphasis on demonstrating competencies as the basis for assessment and progression made very good sense, given the kind of work environment in which trainees operate. At this point, there was a rich intercourse of ideas between leading thinkers in COSATU (such as Adrienne Bird and Gail Elliot) and their labour counterparts in Australia; frequent travel between these two countries witnessed an exceptionally high level of exchange of frameworks,proposals and experiences as South Africa gradually moved towards an integrated system based on specified competencies. In these early stages, much of the intellectual content for these ideas was provided by Pam Christie, an education lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand, who completed her doctoral studies in Australia and provided coherent curriculum accounts which translated the Australian experience into the South African. What is striking about this period, however, is that the debate on the integrated system and competencies was largely confined to and conducted within the labour movement and its expanding relationship with business. There was at the time very

C H A P T E R JONATHAN

I

D JANSEN

little integration or interrogation of educational ideas into this labour-driven debate, at least from those working within schools. The first democratic national elections of 1994 saw the establishment of two different political divisions and their departmental bureaucracies: the Ministry of Education on the one hand, and the Ministry of Labour on the other. To the dismay of some of the integrationists, these two separate authorities undermined possibilities for 'an integrated approach to education and training' especially since the debates within the Department of Labour (the bureaucratic arm of the political unit, the Ministry of Labour) had progressed quite considerably as a consequence of its developmental work within COSATU and the NTB. To make matters worse, the Ministry of Education was almost immediately under siege after the 1994 elections as a result of weak and indecisive leadership, deteriorating conditions within schools, and unrelenting demands from education stakeholders for 'transformation' from universities, colleges, technikons, schools and elsewhere (Jansen, 1998). In short, the underdevelopment of integration and competency propositions within the schools sector, the fragmentation of bureaucratic organisation with respect to integration, and the distraction of education development within the Ministry of Education because of crisis conditions in its schools and universities, did not augur well for the development of curriculum policy in schools. Indeed, the first national curriculum initiative was limited to a political intervention in the form of a highly superficial sanitation of apartheid syllabuses as a response to a serious legitimacy crisis in the aftermath of the elections (Jansen, 1998).This was followed by the introduction of a policy called continuous assessment in schools, but again without any teacher preparation and with minimal guidelines as to how this could be achieved. Nevertheless, with the passing of time the Ministry of Education produced a series of White Papels on Education, the most important being the Mi&P a p on Education and 7i.aining of 1995, itself a highly contested document in it5 earlier version, but which reflected the key ideas of integration and competency as elements of a systemwide education restructuring ambition. Much later, a series of' curriculum policy docurnents in the South African tradition of 'discussion documents' was published through the national Department of Education. These documents also elaborated the integrationist and competency discourses,but with little reference to outcomes based education. Then, without warning, in late 1996, a key document emerged spelling out the proposal for outcomes-based education. This proposal has several striking characteristics.

+ 7 k e sudden emergence of the proposal, bnngang ordinary teachers into contact with

n curriculum discourse completely foreign to their understanding and practices. It was not uncommon, in the aftermath of the 1996 documents, t o hear teachers exclaim that they were not consulted in the course of developing

SECTION

A

I N T R O D U C TOIVOEN R V. I E W

the OBE approach. This was in part a consequence of the suddenness of OBE's emergence in policy documentation. It is true, of course, that once the OBE idea was promulgated, selections of teachers were involved through special committees at national and provincial levels in working out the practical implications in terms of, for example, programme design. But it is true to say that teachers had no involvement in the conceptualisation of OBE or in decisions about its adoption, for reasons explained earlier in relation to the emergence of the competency debates in the labour arena.

+ The lack of conceptual connection between the proposal for OBE and the early integration and competency debates. This explains the fact that there is almost no reference to the implications of OBE in schools within the regulatory frameworks established under the National Qualifications Framework. The gradual development of OBE concepts in schools therefore proceeded in isolation of these broader frameworks, adding to the confusion about the meaning of these different frameworks and approaches in so far as they laid claim to an integrated approach to education and training.

+ The deuelqbment of a n OBEfor schools which appeared dGtinctfiom dGcussions of OBE in the workplace or; as became clearer later;j b n OBE in highm education contexts. The OBE discussion in schools developed a separate language from OBE in workplace training; OBE in higher education was discussed in direct relation to the unit standards debate, the latter absent from the schools framework for OBE; and OBE in the workplace was discussed more in relation to equivalencies and outcome assessments at different NQF levels than in relation to unit standards per se. This divergence of OBE meanings is related to its insular development within different education and training sectors, and reflects on the poor management (politically and bureaucratically) of education policy in this critical transition period.

+ The heavy reliance on Spadyean OBE as thejustiJicatmyJi-ameuorkf w an outcomes

a#voach in South Afica, a fiamauork very d i f f m t f i m the Australian one, as eloquently demonstrated by CliffMalcolm in this volume.' However, as the debates and development of South African OBE continued, a constant run of experts from other countries passed through Magster Building (the current headquarters of the national Department of Education in Pretoria) and provincial education department offices, a£Eirming and assisting in the development of OBE. The main foreign experts came from Scotland,Australia, New Zealand (which has had a qualifications framework debate rather than OBE),England and the United States of America. Nevertheless, the Spady version of OBE continued to dominate the localised discourses about the 1

William Spady is regarded, at least by the Americans, as the 'father'of outcomes-based education and has certainly been the most prolific of the protagonists of this approach.

meaning and claims associated with outcomes-based education. What remains striking, though, is the lack of originality and context in the espousal of South African OBE ideas, with almost word-for-word translations from William Spady's writings, including his rather meaningless distinctions between traditional OBE, transitional OBE and transfonnational OBE. In addition, it is also worth noting the non-referencing of the Australian debates on outcomes-based education within the national Departnlerlt of Education, despite the heavy influence of this context on the NQF and competencies debate.

+ The shift in lanLpagefrom 'competencies' to 'outcomes :a movv widely inleqpreted as a n attempt

to escape the mwe o&)ious hehaviourism implied i n Sompetmries ' in favour of the more educationally acceptable 'outcomes' l(~nguage.This shift in language suggested that not much thought had gone into the rnove from CBE (a union-derived language for the workplace linked firmly to the NQF) to OBE (an American invention for schools without any connections to qualifications frameworks). It does explain, however, the policy divergence described earlier as the meanings of these concepts evolved differently within different education and training subsectors. The introduction of a new, contfikx and voluminous tmin,olocgto de.~cr-ibeORE;. It is perhaps one of the most striking features of South African ORE that it has possibly generated the most extensive vocabulary to accompany a c~lrriculumreform initiative in the twentieth century. More than 100 new words were introduced onto the curriculum landscape, thereby constituting perhaps the single most inlportant threat to the success of OBE as a curriculum innovation. The reasons for the emergence ofthis language complexity are not clear; what was clear from the beginning was the fact that teachers were now Faced with an intimidating new discourse even as they started to irnplernent this important policy tvithin their classrooms.

7'hzntrodunrtion of somdhing tnl& (Ximculum 2005 which 7uas ilivntz
S E C T I O N

A

I N T R O D U C T I O N ,O V E R V I E W

which define them. And to the facetious commentator Hogarth, in a national newspaper, 2005 means the number of learners whom the Minister intended should benefit from OBE. It is this ambiguity of meaning which has contributed to teacher uncertainty about whether their practices in fact constitute 'OBE'. Despite its complexity and disputed origins, the introduction of OBE as curriculum policy was consummated in a dramatic public relations display in March 1997when the Minister of Education officially launched Curriculum 2005 (read: 'outcomes-based education') in Cape Town with the equivalent number of balloons in the colours of the recently adopted national flag: curriculum and patriotism were firmly linked. On this occasion it was announced that OBE would be introduced into Grade 1 and 7 classrooms inJanuary 1998, a proposal subsequently limited to Grade 1classrooms only. In the wake of this announcement, a series of popular documents emerged to explain OBE to teachers, accompanied by one-week information sessions (billed as 'training') for many Grade 1 teachers, as well as implementation in a selection of pilot schools in each of the nine provinces.

What happened in the wake of the March 1997 announcement was completely unprecedented in the history of South African education. More than the public outrage, especially among black educators and church schools, following the apartheid education legislation (in particular, the Bantu Education Act of 1954), and more than the academic contestation following the publication of the De Lange proposals for education reform in the 1980s (HSRC, 1981;Kallaway, 1984), OBE generated an intensive and sustained public debate in the 1990s about the nature and purposes of the school curriculum. The OBE debate in South Africa was characterised by the following unique features.

+ Firstly, the critics of OBE came from across the racial and ideological spectrum, despite the fact that the Minister of Education tried to pass off the criticism as coming from conservative groups of parents or rival political organisations. Of these many criticisms, two created a considerable stir. One of the most public criticisms of OBE came in the form of a National Conference on the topic convened in May 1997 by the Faculty of Education at the University of Durban-Westville. At this conference a short paper was read with the title, 'Why OBE Will Fail'. Unexpectedly, this paper generated a considerable controversy across the country and became the focal point for an extended debate on Curriculum 2005 and OBE at universities and technikons, in provincial education departments, among NGOs, at workshops and conferences and seminars, etc. I have commented in some detail about the reception of

C H A P T E R

1

J O N A T H A DN J A N S E N

this paper in South Africa Uansen, 1997) and the ways in which it was appropriated by both conservatives (to buttress the status quo) and progressives (to focus the underresourcing of change or unpack the ideological assumptions of this technology). Another prominent criticism came from a well-known Sunday Times columnist, Stephen Mulholland, who through a survey of Internet sources claimed that OBE had not worked in any country and that it would lead to the 'dumbing down' of South African schoolchildren. The Minister responded directly to these claims with an extended letter to the editor of the Sunday Times,thereby triggering a host of public exchanges through the same paper which must have boosted revenue to some extent.

+ Secondly, the criticisms were sometimes met with hostile and often

personalised rebuttals from the Ministry of Education and its allies, such as the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU). In both public conference forums and newspaper editorials and radio discussions, the critics were damned either as being against transformation and for the privileges embedded in the status quo (in Mullholland's case), as being disloyal or disillusioned 'comrades' or as armchair academics or 'education Trotskyites'. It is unfortunate that these debates seldom moved into substantive discussions about OBE in the way the national Department of Education responded to its critics.

+ Thirdly, OBE opened up a spontaneous public debate that was very encouraging, given the history of curriculum in South Africa in which official knowledge was handed down to be 'implemented' rather than set in dialogue and discussion. The more interesting criticisms and debates took place among ordinary South Africans in Learning Area Committees (OBE related), in teacher organisation forums (such as the popular teacher newsletter called The Teacher, in university seminars and lecture halls, at parent meetings (particularly those involving parents of Grade 1 learners), and on the streets. Whatever the outcome, the intense and sustained debates about OBE may have created an environment in which future curriculum policies and programmes would continue to involve public engagement in this emerging democracy.

+ In the fourth place, the criticism of OBE covered a much wider range

of issues than those encountered in the United States of America. In the case of the USA, the primary criticism came from fundamentalist (:hristians who objected to the kind of cu~riculumconveyed through OBE -namely one that conveyed liberal humanist education with an openended value system which denied the i~nportancrof traditional beliefs and commitments. In South Africa, by contrast, the debate coveiel-ed: (a) ideological and philosophical assumptions governing OBE, described by Andre Kraak (1998) as a conservative technology bathed in a

S E C T I O N A

I N T R O D U C T I O N ,O V E R V I E W

popular education discourse or by others as a behaviouristic approach which atomised learning Uansen, 1998); (b) the implementational contexts of OBE and the need to establish adequate resourcing strategies if OBE is to work Uansen, 1998);and (c) the equity consequences of OBE with the likelihood of it succeeding in white privileged schools and further disempowering those working in black, marginalised schools (Greenstein, 1997).

+ Finally, the debate unfolded along racial lines among the South African

public. To many whites, inspired by right-wing movements in the USA, OBE was either inherently evil in that it challenged traditional values and undermined religious education (totally unfounded claims);to other white South Africans, OBE was really 'meant for black kids' and therefore did not affect white education since 'we have been doing OBE all the time'. And to many whites mythological claims about what OBE implied spread like wildfire to the consternation ofwhite parents and teachers: that OBE meant no more learner failure (automatic progression); that OBE meant no more timetables and grades (open schooling);that OBE meant no more teaching of the three Rs; and so on. While such myths were not completelywithout foundation, given the departmental oversell of OBE, they did generate confusion and dissent which were completely without foundation given the ways in which schools were organised and governed, and the limited reach of national policy within provincial classrooms. To many black teachers, there was little discontent with OBE as an idea, but strong reservations were expressed about the means and capacity for implementing such a complex and different curriculum from that familiar to their contexts; issues of teacher training and material resources therefore featured prominently among black teachers and educators. The debate was firmly racialised. By way of parenthesis, it is important to recognise the changing roles of one of the key figures in this debate: Dr William Spady from the United States of America. As mentioned earlier, Spady was quoted heavily in official documentation which leveraged his theses to centre stage in the way South Africans started to give meaning to OBE. However, one has to distinguish Spady's own role with respect to this debate in two different periods. During his first visit in 1997,as a guest of the United States Information Service (USIS), Spady played a very prominent role in meeting with departmental officials and giving guidance to their efforts at conceptualising and implementing OBE. As a USIS visitor, he was clearly circumspect in his assessment of official positions on OBE although, like most OBE specialists visiting, he expressed considerable surprise at the incredibly complex language of South African OBE and the conceptual confusion that results from not showing the distinctive relationships between OBE, the NQF and Curriculum 2005. But by the time of his second visit during 1998, on invitation

fi-om Epworth High School in Pietermaritzburg, the indefaticgableSpady was clearer: OBE had not worked anywhere in the USA and was unlikely to work within South African schools. Why? If political resistance from the Christian right wing spelt the doom of OBE in the USA, then the sheer deprivation of resources and inherited inequalities would damn ORE success in South Africa. Nevertheless, OBE (or, rather, Curriculum 2005) was implemented in January 1998, at least by official pronunciation, in all Grade 1 classrooms in all nine provinces. The debate then shifted towards the ways in which OBE was being implemented in schools. The evaluation of OBE implementation, however, took two different routes in South Africa. The one route involved the national Department of Education establishinga number of pilot schools in each of the nine provinces and, shortly after training teachers and delivering materials, conducting surveys of how teachers, principals and parents felt about OBE. There were several dilemmas with the departmental approach to evaluating OBE through the pilot school surveys. It set out to celebrate successes and therefore published high-gloss, expensive materials through an NGO, the Media in Education Tmt, to prove the point: OBE works. In short, this was a pl~blicrelations campaign designed to seek political advantage for a Ministry widely criticised both from within and outside for bungling the implementation process. In addition, the methodolo~gywwas hopelessly inadequate by any standards; asking stakeholders 'l)id you enjoy doing OBE?' is, at least in the South Afiican context, an invitation to an affilmative response. Furthermore, how does one measure actual impact in three months of implementation? Most importantly, pilot schools are, as far as curric~~lum projects go, desigiled to succeed since they receive the special attention and resourcing which are not replicable at scale -that is, pilots work because they are supposed to work. This also raises critical questions about the role of NGOs in postapartheid South Mica; the sedl~ctioriof a number of'very lucrative tenders invariably placed the Media in Education Trust (MIET) in the position of uncritical advocate of state policy, to the point oL'einbarrassment:how else does one explain a covering logo that exclaims, 'OBE saves (:hihen!' From a critical de\~elopment;llrole against apartheid, the MIET as N(;O has positioned itself in a completely uncritical role which neither assists the state in informing policy 1101- commits to c.larifylngthe precarious position of' disadvaiitaged learnel-s whom, we are told, ai-ejust doing fine. I should state, though, that sorrle provincial evaluations have really provided highquality technical assessments of the pilot schools with honest assessmeilts o f 110th successes and limitations, and clear recomrneiidatiorls fi)r formative improvements in the implementation of OBE. The Mpumalanga province is one example of such a technical evaluation. By contrast, the West<:rn Oape province followed in the footsteps of the national llepartment of Education ant1 also produced ~ q ) was simply celebratory rather tliari formative a report ( A I./o?)ccge0 f ' L ) % ~ c o 7which in assisting implementation.

SECTION A

The other route was through a few international funding agencies that provided funding for small and large-scale evaluations of OBE implementation in Grade 1 classrooms. The most well-known of these studies have been commissioned through the Presidential Education Initiative (PEI) and managed by the Joint Education Trust (JET).The preliminary data from these studies is beginning to emerge in a series of reports on 'how teachers understand and implement OBE in their classrooms'. In chapter 11 of this book, a detailed account of these findings is presented as a midterm report on OBE implementation. My point in this discussion is to argue that the focus of the OBE debate has changed to implementation studies focused on Grade 1classrooms. These studies have been largely formative in nature, intending to provide data which can direct and enrich subsequent implementation in other grades; it is also intended to continue, if not a debate, then an 'informed dialogue' between classroom-based research and curriculum policy (Reimers & McGinn, 1997). However, the extent to which this research and evaluation will be taken seriously within the national Department of Education and its political offices is not at all clear. Taking some of the expected recommendations seriously implies a commitment of political energy and large amounts of resources which I do not believe, at this stage, will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, some dialogue has already ensued and perhaps this augurs well for the future.

WHATHAYE WE LEARNED ABOUTTHE ORIGINS AND TRAJECTORYOF OBE AS CURRICULUM POLICY? This short explanation of how OBE emerged historically in the South African context clarifies a few important puzzles about the trajectory of curriculum policy in South Africa since 1994. The historical account emphasises that OBE did not emerge as a coherent and comprehensive curriculum reform in South Africa; its origins lie in a number of disparate influences, both internal (for example, the competency debates in labour) and external (for example, the Spady version of OBE in the United States);both historical (the apartheid legacy) and contemporary (managing the contradictory claims of reconstruction, redistribution and reconciliation); both educational (performance-basedlearning) and economic (globalisation pressures to participate meaningfully in competitive economies). The fact that OBE has such different formative influences helps to explain the conceptual confusion, even contradictions, underlying the meanings and relationships among key terms such as C2005, OBE (in different institutional contexts) and the NQF. This high degree of policy incoherence will clearly have critical consequences as the shift towards implementation begins to suggest lessons learned about the management of cuniculum policy in a transition and the relationship between policy and practice.

CHAPTER

J O N A T H A ND

1

JANSEN

The historical account further suggests that politics remains a primary force in shaping the timing, focus and content of curriculum policy in democratic states. Indeed, the sudden introduction of OBE in South Africa was primarily a response to a long period of non-intervention (1994-1997) in the apartheid curriculum, apart from the superficial attempt to cleanse the apartheid syllabuses. The fact that a complex system such as C2005 was introduced into schools with a minimum of formal preparation and training, and without any significant change in the material resource base to enable this curriculum, was clearly ambitious, to say the least. Yet it reflects the critical need, with or without resources, to deliver a radically different curriculum into post-apartheid schools to signal a definitive break with the past system. Whether or not this break actually materialised at the classroom interface is less important than the broader symbolic significance of curriculum change after apartheid (Jansen, 1998). But these are propositions which will be examined carefully in the different chapters in this monograph through case studies and theoretical arguments in different contexts by different authors working within and outside of government education departments.

WHATCAN WE LWIW ABOUT OBE As CURRICULUM POLICY IN THE CONTEXTOF A TRANSTITION STATE? The details of the unfolding OBE debate in South Africa are of course an important set of events for South African scholars. But there are broader issues at stake about policy-making in transition states and, particularly, in the context of developing countries. In this context, this book on outcomes-based education addresses three broad questions.

+ What kinds of perspectives can assist in explaining the trajectory of curriculum policy in the South African experience?

+ What does the South African experience tell us about curriculum policy and its attendant concerns about classroom practice?

+ How does the relationship between curriculum policy and politics play out in the cautious transition from apartheid where reconciliation, redistribution and reconstruction appear to be competing, but necessary, social agendas? We begin with three expository chapters (Section B) which sketch the meanings of outcomes-based education within South African and international contexts. As will be seen, much of the debate on OBE is in fact a contestation of the meanings of OBE, and this has important consequences for our understanding of policy, politics and practice. Andre Kraak, from the Human Sciences Research Council, locates this contest about the meaning of OBE in relation to competing policies which emerged within the broad democratic movement in the 1990s. In his view, the limitations of OBE are best understood in relation to the stnlggles for the

SECTION A

I N T R O D U C T I O N .O V E R V I E W

integration of education and training in the early 1990s. Whereas OBE invokes the progressive rhetoric of People's Education, it emerged as a conservative technology which fails to make the kinds of integration of education and training as originally envisaged by preelection, democratic policies. Two University of Natal academics, Roger Deacon and Ben Parker, take this debate further by offering a more optimistic interpretation on the meaning of outcomes-based education in the context of the National Qualifications Framework. A distinguished Australian academic, Cliff Malcolm, takes a third position which suggests that the meaning of OBE is essentially dependent on the context within which it is used; Australian OBE and American OBE have taken on very different meanings within those two contexts. ' h d while one could argue that South Africa in fact 'borrowed' from these two countries, there are distinctive characteristics which OBE assumed in post-apartheid South Afiica. In short, these three expository chapters reveal important understandings of OBE as policy in South Africa, namely that South African OBE in fact represents a response to many different pressures - the globalisation of education policy, the legacy of apartheid education, the contestation of policy emphasis within education and training sectors in the 1990s, and so forth. The confusion of meaning about OBE in post-apartheid South Afiica is best understood within these contexts. In the Section C, a set of papers present critical analyses of OBE using multiple perspectives. The philosopher, Jane Skinner, deconstructs the meaning of "outcomes" in the context of a curriculum innovation in the teaching of introductory economics at the University of Natal. This is an important contribution given that the debates on OBE have been limited largely to concerns about politics and implementation, with very little response from philosophy and ethics. Two teacher educators from the University of Cape Town, Jean Baxen and Crain Soudien, use their experience as teachers and researchers to present a skillful argument about how OBE constructs particular images of teachers and teaching in South Africa. Jonathan Jansen's original policy paper, 'Why OBE Will Fail', is presented in this volume as a platform for debate and is followed by responses from Mahomed Haroon, a policy bureaucrat in a government Department of Education and Mahomed Rasool, a teacher from a high school in Durban. This three-part debate brings together perspectives of the policy analyst, educational planner and practicing teacher in ways which demonstrate clearly that individual curriculum standpoint is strongly influenced by the immediate work environment of the critic or respondent. Ken Harley and Ben Parker conclude this section with an important Weberian analysis of OBE which presents one of the few incisive, theoretical treatments of the subject in the international literature. In Section D we move 'inside classrooms' to examine the specific ways in which OBE is understood, engaged and given meaning within the constraints of practice.Jonathan Jansen begins with a report on a study of classrooms in KwaZulu Natal and Mpumalanga during the first year of OBE implementation. Emilia

Potenza and Mareke Monyokolo share their experiences of OBE implementation at district level in Gauteng province. These case reports not only demonstrate the considerable distance between policy and practice with respect to OBE, they also lay bare some of the factors which explain such disarticulation between what bureaucrats intend and what teachers experience. Perhaps the single most important innovation within OBE is the model of assessment required of schools and teachers; put simply, assessing outcomes as 'culminating demonstrations of performance' (in Spady's terms). In separate chapters, Ian Bellis (South African Certification Council) and Meg Pahad (Independent Examinations Board), both renowned assessment experts, explain the complexity of doing this kind of assessment and the implication for teaching, competence and equity in the classroom. Finally, in Section E, Pam Christie reviews the individual contributions with the goal of examining the broader meanings of the South African experience with OBE for understanding curriculum change. What is clear from Christie's writings, here and elsewhere, is that the South African project for changing curriculum is simply one case within a broader international movement concerned with an education based on competence, performance and outcomes. The language of delivery, accountability, vocationalisation and market-value at all levels of the education system signals transnational shifts in our understanding of curriculum. At the same time, there are important localised lessons to be learned about making and implementing policy in a democratic transition. In short, Changng Cum'rulum: StudiPs on O u t r o m ~ based Education in South Afica is an important local as well as international contribution to our unfolding understanding of one of the most complex human endeavours: changing curriculum.

SECTION

A

I N T R O O U C T IOOVNE ,R V I E W

Chisholm, L. 1994.Policy 8c critique in South African educational research. Transfmtion, 3 (3), 149-1 60. Christie, P. 1997. Globilisation and the cumculum: Proposals for the integration of education and training in South Africa. In Peter Kallaway (ed),Education Afer Aparthezd: South Ahcan Education in Transition, 111-126. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Greenstein, R 1997. New policies and the challenges of budgetary constraints. Quarterly Review of Education and Training, 4 (4), 1-1 2. Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) 1981. Repmt of the Main Committee oftheHSRC Investigation into Education (De Lunge Report).Pretoria: HSRC. Jansen,J. 1997. Can Polzcy Learn?ReJledumon 'Why OBE WildFail: Paper presented to Seminar on OBE, University of the Witwatersrand, October. Jansen, J. 1998. Curriculum Reform in South Africa: A Critical Assessment of Outcomesbased Education. CambridgeJournal ofEducation. 28(3), 321-331. Kallaway, P. (ed). 1984. Apartheid and Education: The Education of Black South Ajkans. Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Kraak, A. 1998. Competing Education and Training Policy Discourse: A 'Systemic' VZsus 'Unit Standards' Framauork. Paper presented at the 10th World Congress of Comparative Education Societies. University of Cape Town,July. National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) 1992. Cumiculum. Cape Town: Oxford University Press/NEPI. Reimers, F. & McGinn, N. 199'7. I n f m d Dialogue: Using Research to Shape Education Policy Around the Wmld.Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Spady, W. 1995. Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues. American Association of School Administrators. USA: Breakthrough Systems.

SECTION B

Meanings, Motivations, Methodologies

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2

Competing Education & Training Policy Discourses: A 'Systemic' Versus 'Unit Standards' Framework ANDRE KRAAK H U M A N SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL, PRETORIA

Great confusion and controversy characterise the education and training (ET) policy terrain today. In part this has to do with the proliferation of bureaucratic detail which unavoidably accompanies the implementation of new state policies and programmes. However, it also has to d o with the emergence of a wide set of competing policy discourses with divergent policy propositions, many of which have generated considerable opposition within the ET sector itself. The analysis presented in this chapter identifies three distinct policy discourses which have shaped the debate about alternatives to apartheid ET since the mid1980s. Unravelling their competing goals and divergent impact on the ET system constitutes the main focus of this chapter. A wide historical canvas will be examined. The analysis first focuses on the radical 'People's Education' movement which emerged in the former era of struggle against apartheid in the mid-1980s. The second period examined is that prior to South Africa's first democratic elections (the late 1980s to April 1994) which witnesses the ascendancy of a 'systemic' discourse concerned with issues of structural change in ET. The third period, from April 1994 to the present, in sharp contrast to the earlier period, witnesses the decline of the preeminence of systemic reform and the rise of an outcomes-based education and training (OBET) approach, which, ironically, has gained considerable currency and credibility through its assimilation of the p o p ular rhetoric of People's Education. Its populist ascendancy is ironic because OBET is viewed by nlany scholars as being narrowly behaviouralistic and technicist.

B M E A N I N GMSO . TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

SECTION

The confusion of the current period arises precisely out of the interplay between these dominant and subordinate policy discourses.The analysis presented in this chapter will critique the dominance of unit standards methodology which underpins current interpretations of OBET. It will conclude by making a strong case for diminishing the influence of unit standards methodology in driving educational reform in South Africa. The analysis will make a call for a return to the systemic reform logic which dominated earlier African National Congress (ANC) policy propositions after its unbanning in February 1990.

'People's Education' as a phenomenon of the mid-1980s was primarily a political movement which viewed the school classroom as a central site of struggle against apartheid. However, in the period 1985to 1990it also came to represent a fledgeling radical pedagogic alternative to that of 'Bantu Education' which had been imposed by the apartheid state since the mid-1950s. Some of the central propositions of People's Education included:

+ the democratisation of education through the participation of a crosssection of the community in decision-making on the content, quality and governance of education;

+ the negation of apartheid in education by making education relevant to the democratic struggles of the people; + the achievement of a high level of education for everyone; + the development of a critical consciousness; + the bridging of the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical life; and + the closing of the chasm between natural science and the humanities, and between mental and manual labour, with emphasis on worker education. (Eric Molobi, first General Secretary of the National Education Crisis Committee (NECC), as quoted in Levin, 1991:3) Table 2.1 compares the central principles of People's Education with those of apartheid's 'Bantu Education'. As can be seen, it became an educational pedagogy encompassing the development of critical thinking, interdisciplinary curriculum content, learner-centredness, participatory teaching methods, community involvement and a concern to link the focus of formal education with the world of work.

CHAPTER

2

A N D R EK R A A K

1

'

APARTHEID EDUCATION

PEOPLE'S EDUCATION

Key instrument in the imposition of separate development policies.

An egalitarian project of social transformation.

It resulted in racially differentiated access to education.

A central demand was the equal access of all to education.

CURRICULUM FQAMEWORK:

A conservative curriculum based on rigidly defined school subjects whose purpose was the unquestioned transmission of apartheiddetermined syllabus content through rote-learning.

A radical curriculum opposed to rote-learning and based on critical thinking, independent work and integrated studies, aimed at equipping students to question and reveal the underlying causes of social inequality.

ROLE OF LEARNER:

Learner acted upon; has little control of the learning process; learners were selected, assessed, graded and (often) exclilded from future learning processes.

The pedagogy was learner centred; student-paced learning; continuous assessment.

POLITICAL PROJECT.

ROLE OF TEACHER:

ROLE OF COMMUNITV: I

1

The teacher was subservient to the dictates of the state; tasks prescribed by an imposed syllabus.

Teacher professionalism encouraged. Teachers played a key role in curriculum development.

Content-centred learning.

Process-led learning; the emphasis was on group work, participatory pedagogy; independent thinking, and student inpirts into the learning process.

Community had little power in determination of school policy.

Community involvement in school management and curriculum was strongly emphasised in Parent-TeacherStudenl Associations (PTSAs).

1

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM S .O T I V A T I O NMSE, T H O D O L O G I E S

Many of the ideas of People's Education were only tentatively developed by the late 1980s, primarily because of the heavy state repression of NECC structures during this period but also because the very concept of People's Education was imprecise and open to multiple interpretation and manipulation. Further development of these ideas did not take place with the dawn of the negotiations era. This later period witnessed a widespread abandonment of the egalitarian language of People's Education. In its place arose an expert-led, multistakeholder policy-making process which prioritised other discourses -primarily the economic and the systemic. Ironically, as will become evident later in this text, the radical language and populist appeal of People's Education has been recently resurrected to give legitimacy to what is essentially a conservative and technicist unitstandardsbased assessment technology.

It was not coincidental that the demise of 'People's Education' discourse and its substitution by a less radical and more reformist 'systemic' project occurred simultaneouslywith the shift in the political climate from a period of revolutionary struggle in the 1980s to a period of negotiation and political compromise in the 1990s. Continuities do exist between these two discourses, especially in their common demands for a single non-racial national system of ET, and the dilution of the deep historical divisions between mental and manual labour, and between education and training. However, their differences are stark. People's Education was infused with a revolutionary and populist rhetoric, whereas the new 'systemic' reform logic of the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has been concerned with the implications of a rapidly globalising economy on the functioning of the ET system, particularly in terms of new skill and knowledge requirements. As such, a systemic discourse represents a more consensual politics of reform and reconstruction than that posed by People's Education.

A definition of a 'systemic' discourse 'Systemic' discourse is the name being attached, for purposes of analysis here, to a highly persuasive, influential and coherent view which emerged in the ET policy formulation process which began in earnest after the unbanning of the ANC in February 1990. It is associated with four central tendencies.

+ As a policy discourse, itfocuses on the structural characteristics of t h 'ystem' under study, for example its institutional forms, the extent of internal differentiation, the form and social consequences of particular certification processes adopted, and the articulation between its s u b systems. It is concerned with the distribution of power between state, market and ET institutions. Such a discourse also focuses on the interaction of the ET system with other systems in the broader social structure - for example, the articulation of the ET system with the

economy, labour market and occupational structure. Currently, the substantive changes being initiated by a globalising economy are at the centre of most systemic ET foci worldwide.

+ It is interested in the

social relations which underpin the forms of differentiation, articulation and certification which emerge within the ET system and between it and other social structures such as the economy and the labour market.

+ A systemic ET discourse has a political predilection towards the creation of a

un@d ETsystem, primarily as a response to the pressures of globalisation, the massification of the ET system, and the emergence of new forms of knowledge production (factors which will be discussed later). This predilection is reflected in the advocacy by such a discourse of the need for a shift away from the divided, elite ET systems which characterise the present towards a more open and unified ET system essential in the future.

+ It argues that each ET system is held together by a distinctivv regulatmy

fi-amuurk. As such, a systemic policy discourse is one that privileges a particular regulatory framework over all others. In most cases in the world where ET systemic discourses have emerged, it has usually been associated with the pn'vikgzng ofthe idea ofa sing&, unijiid and integrated regulatmyfi-am work-applicable to the entire ET system - that is, to all of its subparts. More specifically, this has entailed the advocacy of a single national qualifications framework to replace the highly difkrentiated and divisive qualificationsstructures which characterise the current period and which act to accentuate existing social inequality and inhibit lifelong learning. Factors in the evolution of a systemic reform logic

Two factors have played a dominant role in the rise world-wide of a 'systemic' discourse on ET. The phenomenon of globalisation has had a profound impact on ET but it has not acted alone in this re
Globalisation and the 'high+a&cipation/high-skdl' imperative Systemic discourse is primarily a response to the phenomenon of globalisation. The key changes in work organisation, technology and skill formation triggered

B M E A N I N GMSO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

SECTION

by the processes of globalisation have all resulted in the dilution of the previously rigid boundaries which constituted the education and training sectors since the rise of modem industrialism.These divisions are now obsolete in a global economic environment where narrow jobspecific skills are redundant, and where all workers now require higher levels of generic skill to cope with the rapid changes in technology and product markets ushered in by globalisation. A further feature of these changes is the rapid diffusion of learning activities outside of specialist learning organisations such as schools, colleges and universities. Learning in the informational age is now taking place in many nonspecialist learning organisations, in particular through enterprise-based learning, but also in the communities where educated citizens continuously generate, manipulate and interpret knowledge and information in the pursuit of a better quality of life. These changes have further diluted the boundaries which have separated learning activities in the once discrete formal education and industrial training sectors. The ET system has shifted, to borrow from Peter Scott (1995),from an 'elite' and divided system to a more 'open' and massified system with more soft and permeable boundaries. This shift from an elite to an open system is illustrated in Table 2.2 alongside.

Overcoming social dgferentiation and institutionul~agmentation Another equally significant influence in the emergence of a systemic approach has been a concern for the dilution of social differentiation which is aggravated by the acute inequalities of status between the formal education and vocational training sectors and by the high degree of sectoral and institutional fragmentation in South African ET. The ANC government, at the dawn of the new democratic dispensation in April 1994, inherited an ET system highly fractured along four differing axes.

+ The existence ofa raciallyfiactured set of state educa,tionand training dqbartments. In 1994, South Africa had 19 racially defined education departments. There were 128 technical colleges administered by 10 education departments. In addition to the centralised Department of Manpower, there were separate manpower departments in each of the nominally independent homelands.

+ A multiplicity of certzfication bodies i nformal education and the absence of a n overarching qualification authority i n the n o n - f m a l (vocational training) sectm There were 9 examining bodies in the formal school education system administering up to 90 exams per year with a high degree of duplication and no equivalent body for non-formal training.

+ Severe limits on the transjkability ofskills within and across dijfm'ng industrial

sectors. The lack of a qualificationsstructure in the non-formal sector limited the possibility of transferability of skills between differing employers and industries, and it constrained the articulation of differing ET routes.

CHAPTER

SYmM'CmEGULATQRY FEATURES

'

1 AN ELITE. DIVISIVE ET SYSTEM

AN OPEN, UNIFIED FT SYSTEM

EXTENT OF SOCIAL DlFFERENTlATlONIN THE ET SYSTEM AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIAL INFOUALlTv

High

Diluted State strategies are put in place to counter inequalities in the ET system, for example via a single National Qualifications Framework

OUALIFICATION FSAMWORK

Divisive, comprised of multiple incommensurable tracks

A single accreditation frame-

ROLE OF QUALIFICATIONS

Selection

Creates incentives for learning

Leads to the exclusion of 'failed' learners

Learner progression based on the accumulation of modules along multiple learning pathways

CURRICULUM FRAlrnEWORK

A set of discrete subjects/ disciplines

Characterised by the growth of new trans-disciplinary subjects/programmes

ASSESSMEI

Terminal

Cumulative

The interaction between social systems is primarily the product of free market forces, institutional autonomy, and individual free choice rather than the result of concerted state planning and co-ordination.

A result of co-ordinated and

ARTICULATION OF ET WITH OTHER SOClAL SYSTEMS 'forexample, with the economy and the laho~rrmarket'

,

work creating linkages across previously divided tracks

complementary planning between key sectors. State regulation, incentives and leverage play a critical role in this articulation across policy domains

2

SECTION B

Training which was provided in the private sector was generally not certificated and, if certificated, was usually not recognised outside of a specific enterprise or industry. Training was also most often provided in an ad hoc manner which did not lead to clear mobility paths for workers.

+ All in all, the above conditions resulted in a porn articulation between the f i a l education system and the n o n - j i i a l training system. Given this multiplicity of education and training departmentsand certification councils, it is not surprising that certification processes in South Africa were and still are chaotic and noncomparable. 'Systemic' policy proposals in the 1990s have since sought to eradicate these institutional divisions and to dilute the consequent social inequalities which have arisen through the creation of a single integrated national Department of Education and Training, through a single national qualifications framework and a National Qualifications Authority which would maximise articulation possibilities across previously divided tracks.

N m f o m of transdisciplinary Imowledge New forms of knowledge production in the last two decades have had a fundamental impact on the structure, boundaries and function of the different institutions in further and higher education. A fundamental transformation in knowledge production is taking place, leading to the emergence of a new mode of knowledge production - 'Mode 2' knowledge -which is taking shape outside of existing academic disciplines and, in part, outside of the insularity of the traditional university (see Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott & Trow (1994), Scott (1995), Muller (1995) and Kraak (1995; 1997) for more details). This new knowledge has its origins in the synergy and cross-fertilisation taking place in the interstices between established disciplines and in the interaction of academic scientistswith other knowledge practitioners located in firms, parastatals and civil society, all who are participants in the quest for industrial innovation and social renewal. This new form of transdisciplinary, problem-solving knowledge which arises in the context of application has made the traditional institutional division between the development of science (in universities and research institutes) and its application as technology (in technikons, colleges and enterprises) obsolete. The aim of the old 'technology policy' of the 1970s was to rally science to the development of technology and national economic development. It was a linear, sequential and hierarchical conception of science and technology, with scientists pursuing basic science research in isolation from the context of technological application, leaving the latter task to the technicians employed in industry research and development units and in institutions of technology. This has now changed dramatically since the early 1980s. The aim of science and technology policy today is to hitch the

scientific enterprise to industrial renewal and competitiveness. This has led to a plethora of formal and informal industry-science-technology partnerships, with university scientists acquiring increasing familiarity with the workings of industrial enterprises. These changes have led to the blurring of the distinction between science and technology and to a dilution of the previously rigid boundaries drawn between the functions of universities, colleges and technikons. Increasing partnerships between these institutions and the ease of learner progression across further and higher ET institutions in many global contexts has made the total ET system more flexible, with boundaries more permeable than ever before. In short, all of these changes in knowledge production have added to the aggregate of pressures moving the ET system away from its elite and divided past to a single system regulated in a more open and flexible way.

flexible delivery and the growth of adult and continuing education Globalisation's impact on ET has been accompanied by another external pressure: massification. The simultaneous widening of access to previously disadvantaged communities and the emergence of new skill demands arising out of the informational economy world-wide has led to an impressive growth in programme offerings at further and higher education institutions which go way beyond the provision of discipline-based, degree qualifications. Much of this expansion has occurred in the fields of recurrent, continuing and professional education and training - the key access points to further and higher education for the working class and other previously marginalised constituencies. Growth in recurrent and continuing education is an educational imperative, an attempt to improve the learning methodologies available to adult learners. For example, most part-time, recurrent and continuing education is occurring within 'open learning' systems, a combination of residential provision alongside distance education methods and, in some instances, with the assistance of information technologies. This new open learning methodology is particularly appealing to both the corporate sector which is concerned with the loss of working hours due to staff on full-time studies, and to adult learners who can only study part-time. The growth of these adult and continuing education programmes in further and higher education is therefore about making knowledge and qualifications more responsive to contemporary societal and economic needs. In so doing, it provides for the radical reworking of the intellectual culture and of the boundaries of further and higher education, awav from elite and insular institutions toward more open and responsive systems of teaching and learning.

Five policy moments in the evolution of systemic discourse in South Africa Five major policy initiatives can be identified in the period after February 1990 which have led to the evolution and refinement of a 'systemic' conceptual framework. All of these initiatives have been instrumental in defining key aspects of

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GMSO, T I V A T I OM NS E ,T H O D O L O G I E S

government policy since the elections of April 1994. They have culminated in a number of legislative and policy decisions which have created a policy discourse which strongly advocates the necessity of systemic restructuring. The next section will briefly describe each of these initiatives.

The N a i i o d Education Poliq Initiative (NEPZ) The National Education Policy Initiative (NEPI) was set up by the National Education Co-ordinating Committee (NECC) in early 1991 and it completed its work in late 1992. The publication of its thirteen volumes was undertaken by Oxford University Press in early 1993. The Framewmk +mt synthesised the approaches developed by the twelve separate sectoral reports. It adopted an explicit systemic approach by arguing that most ET policy options could be characterised by four definitive features. These were: the extent of articulation and differentiation and the forms of finance and organisation characterising the system. The NEPI report placed these four systemic features in a planning grid, as is replicated in Table 2.3 alongside, allowing for a number of policy scenarios to be sketched. The NEPI project was primarily about i d e n w n g the relationship between a range of ET policy options (differing configurations of the systemic features) and their social implications. This systemic lens allowed NEPI to set up a continuum of policy options with, on the one hand, models which emphasised longer term conditions such as economic growth and, on the other, models which privileged the immediate amelioration of conditions of inequality. The NEPI report continuously stressed the inherent tensions in trying to satisfy both political demands. Systemic change inevitably entailed some form of trade-off between equity and development.

The NTB3 National Training Strategy ZniiCiative The Natiunal TrainingStrategy Initiative (NTSI) was published in April 1994. It arose from the ashes of the previous government's unilateral and premature attempt to reform industrial training via the aborted 1991 National Training Strategy. A reconstituted National Training Board (NTB), with representatives for the first time drawn from the black progressive trade unions and from ET providers, established a task team with eight theme committees which incorporated a wide diversity of stakeholders and individuals. The significance of the NTSI was that it was the first multipartite stakeholder forum - including both the ANC/COSATU alliance and government departments of the previous regime -to formally propose the creation of an integrated ETsystem. The NTSI argued for a paradigm shift 'from thinking about education and training as separate entities to thinking about learning as a lifelong process'. The term 'integrated approach' indicated a 'superordinate strategy dealing with education and training as a whole' (National Training Board (NTB), 1994: 2). The NTSI strategy included the four systemic features listed in Table 2.3.

I

I

I

I

SYSTEMIC FEATURE

ARTlCUlATlON

I

POLICY CHOICE

DEflNlTlON Extent or learner mobility between sub-sectors of the total ET system

SOCIAL IMPACT

I

H ~ a tpi a r t ~ c ~ p a t ~ o n E q u ~ t yand pconornlc development

I

1 ,--

Low participation

Elite and divided system remains intact -

-

DIFFERENTIATION

Extent to which separate institutions and subsectors of the ET system differ on functional grounds

High differentiation Economic developof institutional ment; but inequality 1 of opportunity mission

Or Low differentiation

Equity -

-

FINANCE I

Strategic planning, incentives and state leverage through public funding

Public

I

Market-driven fees through private education

!

i

ORGANISATION AND GOVFRNANCE

Allocation of powers between state and ET institutions

Or Private

Equity Centralised funding I system

I1 Greater institutional autonomy and private consumer choice

,

Centralised

Equity

Or Decentralised

1

Institutional autonomy/ community participation. May accentuate institutional differentiation and social inequality

S E C T I O N

B

M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

+ A National QualifiationsFramework as the nucleus of the strategy, allowing for a multiplicity of qualifications drawn from a range of ET pathways. + A governance structure which would champion the objectives of the NTSI; develop partnerships between the state, business, labour and other stakeholders; link up with similar structures in the economy and labour market; ensure an acceptable delivery of education and training; ensure articulation between schooling and other levels of learning; accredit and certificate learners; and, finally, assess the performance of the system as a whole. Governance structures recommended included a single Ministry of ET, a representative multipartite forum for the formulation of national ET policy, a single National Qualifications Authority, and statutory councils in each ET band.

+ A set ofjnancial incentives to drive investments in ET. + And, finally, a National Economic Development Plan to link ET to socie economic planning and development. (NTB, 1994: 11,12, 19)

The ANC's early systemic reform proposals, February 1990 to April 1994 The ANC, along with its alliance partner, COSATU, has played a pioneering role in the evolution of a systemic discourse. The ANC/COSATU ET policy process began in the early 1990s as a response to two important developments. The first was when the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) launched a 'Vocational Training Project' in July 1990 in an attempt to develop union policy on industrial training as a counter to Nationalist Party reforms during this time. The second trigger was the events of 2 February 1990 which saw the unbanning of the ANC and other proscribed liberation movements. The period witnessed the beginnings of political negotiations towards a future democratic and non-racial South Africa. Alternative policy formulations in education and training were now urgently required by the democratic movement. Thus, the early initiative by NUMSA grew into a larger concern throughout COSATU and the ANC regarding future ET policy. This larger debate culminated in the adoption of a set of ET policy principles at COSATU'S Fourth National Congress in July 1991 and at the ANC's National Policy Conference held in May 1992. The two sets of policy principles were remarkably similar and Table 2.4 highlights some of the key principles in both. The starting premise of ANC/COSATU policy work in this early period was a principled opposition to divisive ET systems and the social divisions they buttressed in the occupational structure and economy. Bird and Elliot, authors of the ANC's influential discussion document A Framework for Lifehg LRaming (1993b), build a new approach around the idea of a nationally integrated curriculum with a single qualification structure. Learners will be required to complete a given number of modules. Some modules are compulsory and 'core', whilst others are optional and may be selected from a bank of vocational and academic modules.

C H A P T E R

2

A N D R EK R A A K

I

SOME OF THE COSATU PRINCIPLES 4

Education and training initiatives need to be linked to programmes for economic transformation and industrial restructuring. Training should ensure employment security.

+

There must be clear links and bridges between formal education, industrial training systems and other ET systems, eg for youth and the unemployed. Formal ~rlucationmust be free and compulsory to the highest level the economy can afford.

+

Training opportunities should be available for all workers - not just artisans. Employers and the state have a duty to train. Training should lay t h e basis for nat~onallyrecognised career paths. Training should be modular and compet~ncy-basedwithin a national framework which co-ordinates industry-wide programmes. (COSATU, 1991a; 1991b)

I

) !

I

SOME O f THE ANC PRINCIPLES

*

We believe that education and training is a basic human right and that all individuals should have access to lifelong education and training.

4 The ANC is committed t o the establishment of a nationally integrated system of

education and training. All sector-specific training ... will take place within the national framework to ensure that skills acquired are nationally recognised, portable and contribute to career-pathing. 4 I

Education and training policies will be integrated within the framework for econornlc transformation. The ANC believes that the state has the central responsibility for the provision of education and training ...

I I

I I

4

, 1

1

More generally, given the importance of education for social and economic development, its provision cannot be left to the market as has been the case in the past, especially in relation to industrtal training. (African National Congress (ANCI, 1992: 54-60]

The precise content of these core and optional modules will be determined by the 'multipath' context in which learning is done: whether in the school classroom, the factory training centre, night-school o r by correspondence. The NQF is thc centre-piece of'this integrated model. It is viewed as a regulatory mechanism able to link the previously disparate education and training subsystems together. Young, in an assessment of the South African NQF propo$al, describes the following benefits that accrue from such a framework.

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM SO . T I V A T I OM NE ST , HODOLOGIES

+ The NQF is an inclusive system that provides laddersfor everyone to move along. It replaces an exclusive system based on the idea that only a limited proportion of any cohort has the ability to become 'qualified'.

+ The NQF is not limited to accrediting learning in specifically educational institutions such as schools and colleges. Nor is the NQF only focused on learning in the preparatory phase of a person's life. It is designed to accredit learning wherever it occurs and at any stage of a person's life.

+ The NQF abolishes distinct academic and vocational tracks and replaces them with an integrated system in which learners are not differentiated by the track they are on but by the combination of modules at each level that they achieve.

+ The NQ$ is designed to be as appropriate for adults at any stage as it is for young people. + The NQF is designed not only as a basis for selection but as a way of

recognising, encouraging and promoting learning in its widest sense. (Young, 1996: 24) The changes envisaged by the NQF approach are radical in two ways. Firstly, they attempt to avoid the traditional divide within postcompulsory education between a vocational and academic track. By so doing, they dilute the processes of social class formation which are associated with highly divisive educational institutions, by eradicating the divisions between an 'elite' academic and 'lower-status' vocational track. Secondly, the changes envisaged are radical because they open up access to tertiary institutions far beyond that which is currently possible. The integrated system makes more equitable the distribution of publicly owned tertiary resources to the vast majority of the people. The ANC prior to the election of April 1994 published a number of additional policy documents which consolidated its commitment to the idea of an integrated ET system as outlined in the descriptions above. The most important of these were the January 1994 ANC booklet A Policy Framework for Education and Training and the 'preparing to govern' manual A n Imphentation Plan fm Education and Training timeously released just before the April 1994 elections. Both documents espoused a vision of an integrated ET system premised on the idea of lifelong learning. Since coming to power, the ANC has consolidated its commitment to an integrated ET system and it has already begun implementing key components of the new vision. Three important legislative and state policy developments in this regard have taken place since April 1994. Firstly, the WhitePaper on Education and Training published in March 1995 gave official state sanction - for the first time - to the idea of an integrated ET system: Successful modem economies and societies require the elimination of artificial

hierarchies, in social organisation, in the organisation and management of work, and in the way in which learning is organised. They require citizens with a strong

C H A P T E R

2

foundation of general education, the desire and ability to continue to learn, to adapt to and develop new knowledge, skills and technologies, to move flexibly between occupations, to take responsibility for personal performance, to set and achieve high standards, and to work cooperatively. In response to such structural changes in social and economic organisation and technological development, integrated approaches toward education and training are now a major international trend in curriculum development and the reform of qualification structures ... [The] Ministry of Education is convinced that this approach is a prerequisite for successful human resource development and it is thus capable of making a significant contribution to the reconstruction and development of our society and economy (national Department of Education, 1995a: 15, 21,26).

Secondly, the state enacted the South African QualificationsAct in October 1995 which provided for the establishment of a single national South African Q~~alifications Authority (SAQA) whose primary responsibility would be to oversee the development and implementation of the NQF and to set up the necessary governance structures. Members of SAQA were officially appointed in May 1996 and SAQA held its first meeting in August 1996. In the period which has ensued a substantial amount of progress has been made, particularly, in putting in place the building blocks of the NQF. Thirdly, the national Department of Education released its first public document on its approach to curriculum development and learning in March 1997. The document was entitled Cumz'culum 2005: Lijelong Learning for the Twenty-First Century. It endorsed the ideas of an integrated system, the emphasis on lifelong learning, and an NQF with eight levels comprising three bands: general, further and higher education and training (GET, FET and HET). In short, the ideas of an integrated system and an NQF have been seven years in the making. They are now deeply imprinted in the legal statutes of government and the next phase of South Africa's educational history will see a rapidly increased pace in both the implementation of these innovations and in the controversies they trigger. The National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) The NCHE was set up as a Presidential Commission of Inquiry in February 1995 and reported to the Minister of Education in August 1996.Its report was produced through a wide-rangingprocess of stakeholder consultations and the commissioning of expert advice. The NCHE report is perhaps the most persistent in its promotion of a systemic framework. It identifies the weaknesses of the present provisioning of higher education as those stemming from a range of systemic flaws.

+ There is a chronic mismatch between higher education's output and the needs of a modernising economy.

+ There is a strong inclination towards closed-system disciplinary approaches and programmes that has led to inadequately contextualised teaching

S E C T I O N

B

M E A N I N GM SO , T I V A T I OM NS E .T H O D O L O G I E S

and research. The content of the knowledge produced and disseminated is insufficiently responsive to the problems and needs of society.

4 There is a lack of regulatory frameworks because of the long history of organisationaland administrativefragmentation and weak accountability. 4 The fragmentation and inefficiency of the current system must be replaced by a strong emphasis on co-operation and partnerships between higher education and society with the development of mechanisms and structures capable of steering the system in accordance with national needs. (National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE), 1996: 1,2, 9)

The NCHE report is in agreement with the earlier analysis of this chapter that there is a discernible shift occurring in almost all higher education systems globally, away from 'elite' systems with rigid and impermeable boundaries to 'mass' systems with softer, penetrable boundaries. The result is that 'system' boundaries are far less clear and less stable than during the 'elite' era. The NCHE argues that the challenge of state policy in higher education is not so much to try and specify the exact institutional shape of the new system - for example, whether it is a trinary, binary or unified structure -but rather, it is to place the greatest emphasis on obtaining systemic coherence across the entire band through a single regulatory framework. The key characteristics of this regulatory framework are outlined below.

4 A systematicplanningprocess. This would entail state steering of the system through a number of key levers: the development of a three-year national higher education plan which would provide for planned growth in the systern, target participation rates and enrolments in specific programme fields, and changing the overall size and shape of the system to meet new strategic needs. Institutions would then provide three-year rolling plans which would form the basis of their future funding and which would need to address criteria such as having the necessary institutional capacity, meeting regional and national needs, identifying equity goals and sharing resources regionally. Systematic planning would also entail the establishment of a quality assurance system which would be used to evaluate institutions and programmes, and goal-oriented funding mechanisms aimed at redirecting resources towards redress and strategic needs.

4 A focus on mix of programmes rather than differentiating institutionalfunction. The shift away from disciplines/degrees to programmes is intended to make higher education more responsive to economic and social needs. It is also intended to curb the current proliferation of discrete course offerings with the aim of making programmes more planned and purposeful. Programmes will invariably be transdisciplinary in nature. This new programmatic focus has the effect of down-playingfunctional

C H A P T E R

2

A N D R EK R A A K

differentiation across various categories of institutions at tertiary level. In the new approach, both universities and technikons may offer the same programmes as long as they have the capacity and market for such courses.

+ An overarching qual@cationsframmwk is needed, based on a laddered set of qualifications, from certificates to diplomas to doctoral degrees and with early exit points from multi-year programmes.

+ Fzpandingacms and chanpg&

and shape through adding new institutional capacity to historically disadvantaged institutions (HDIs), malung greater use of open learning and distance education methodologies, and creating consortia between teacher and technical colleges and institutions of higher education.

+ Establishingpartnmhips to bring about greater responsiveness to industry and community needs and to encourage the greater sharing of regional HET resources. The Green Paper on Further Education and Training (FET)

Both the final report of the National Committee on Further Education (NCFE), published in August 1997,and the government Green Paper on FET released for public discussion in April 1998, advocate a systemic resolution of the problems of the FET sector - a programme of action not dissimilar to that proposed by the NCHE for higher education. The Green Paper on FET proposes:

+ a single co-ordinated system which encourages closer articulation

between senior secondary schools, a more autonomous technical colleges sector and enterprise-based training;

+ uniform governance and funding norms and standards which apply across the entire FET band; + greater 'responsiveness' to social and economic need; + a larger number of effective partnerships between FET institutions themselves and between FET, HET and the world of work; + the introduction of a strategic planning approach based on the development of three-yearly plans at national, provincial and institutional levels;

+ the implementation of capacity building programmes to facilitate the

above changes, especially in the fields of leadership and management development, the establishment of management, planning and information systems, and the improvement and expansion of (mainly HDI) physical infrastructure. A systemic lexicology

The cumulative effect of all of this policy work - NEPI, NTSI, ANC, NCHE and NCFE - has led to the development of a distinctive systemic lexicology which in

later policy work has been consciously employed as the key features of an integrated ET system. Key words in this wide range of conceptual descriptors include 'co-ordination', 'integration', 'articulation', 'progression', 'portability', 'relevance', 'responsiveness' and 'flexibility'.

As suggested in the introductory section, a single policy discourse has never been dominant in South Africa in the post-1990 era. Rather, a number of policy discourses have emerged, triggering a process of competition and cohabitation,convergence and divergence. In short, whereas the systemic discourse represented the preeminent ANC/COSATU view on educational reconstruction in the 1990-1994 period, it has been displaced as the driver of educational transformation by a newly ascendant outcomes-based discourse.

The rise of outcomes-based education and training (OBET) is the product of three historical antecedents: the first was the ascendancy of competency-based modular education and training in South African industry after 1985; the second was the adoption of Australian and British 'outcomes' models in the policy development work undertaken by the ANC and COSATU since the early 1990s; and the third was the resurrection of the radical rhetoric of People's Education which first emerged in the heat of struggle in the mid-1980s. These three antecedents have been forged together in the recent past to create a hybrid educational methodology - OBET - which politically has sought to go beyond the narrow cognitive confines of competency models by incorporating the progressive pedagogic principles of People's Education. This has created a learning methodology which is simultaneously radical in discursive practice but behaviouralist in assessment technology. The next section will trace this convergence of industrial training practice, competence-based assessment and radical discourse in more detail. Competency-based assessment in South African industry

The shift to competency-basededucation and training (CBET) in industry began in 1985 as an outcome of the National Training Board's investigation into artisan training. The time-based apprenticeship system was in. decline, and it was proposed that a competency-based model of assessment be instituted along with industry-run Industrial Training Boards. The adoption of CBET in industry in the mid-1980s was part of a larger apartheid state strategy of freeing-up market forces and diminishing the role of the state in regulating the economy and labour market. Competency-based education and training was inserted into an unchanging apartheid work and training environment based on narrow interpretations of skill and cost-minimising approaches to human resources development (HRD).As a consequence, CBET was from the very start stigrnatised because of its association with apartheid's industrial relations and HRD

CHAPTER

2

A N D R EK R A A K

systems of the past. It relied too heavily on the 'good intentions' of business to train through Industrial Training Boards to broaden the base of training across the entire workforce. In reality, industrial training practices have not changed significantly since the reforms of 1990, and competency-based models in industry are indicted by the general lack of improvement in HRD in South African industry (see Kraak, 1996).

The policy evolution of 'outcomes' in South African ET practice The shift from 'competency' mind-sets to a more progressive reading of outcomes is first noticeable as an emergent discourse in ANC and COSATU policy literature in the 1993 document A Framork for Lifelrmg Leamingand the January 1994 ANC policy document A Polzg Framork forEducation and Training. These initial signals of a possible future pedagogical direction (using outcomes-based ET) became significantly amplified in the 1994 National Training Strategy Initiative and the ANC government's White Paper on Education and Trainingin March 1995. However, the real turning point in the rise of an outcomes-based discourse and the subsequent marginalisation of a systemic discourse can be associated with three important developments in the period December 1995 to March 1997. The first instance was the establishment by the Ministry and national Department of Education of a number of stakeholder and expert task teams and consultative committees whose mandate was to develop the NQF and the idea of an integrated approach to school curricula using an outcomes-based methodology. The subsequent reports published by the national Department of Education, most notably A CurriculumFrameumfifor General and FurtkEducatwn and Training (national Department of Education, December 1995b), Lifelong Learning through a National QualiJications Framework (national Department of Education, February 1996), and A National QualzJicationsFramewwk (NationalCuniculum Development Committee (NCDC),1996),were all definitive in placing outcomes-based ET firmly on the South African pedagogic map. The second decisive moment in establishing OBET as the dominant ET discourse was the release of the Department's first official public document on outcomesbased education and training published in March 1997 and entitled Curriculum 2005: Lifeelong1,eamingfor the TwenpFirst Century. And finally, the third development which has contributed to the ascendancy of an outcomes-based approach was the launch and first meeting of a fully constituted South African Qualifications Authority in August 1997 and the statutory deliberations regarding the NQF which followed thereafter. The South African QualificationsAuthority has since passed a number of proclamations which begin to put in place the essential building blocks of an OBET system.

The essential building blocks of an outcomes approach Many of the other chapters in this book are dedicated to illustrating,understanding and critiquing OBET. It is therefore not necessary in this chapter to elaborate in

S E C T I O N

B

M E A N I N GMSO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

any detail on the key characteristic features of OBET. Rather, a more schematic and condensed description will be deployed by highlighting (in table 2.5) its central features and associated concepts. As is evident in table 2.5, OBET is multidimensional in definition and character. Its definition is elaborate, complex and bureaucratic. Outcomes-based education and training is not about expressing learning objectives in the form of outcomes. It entails far more than this.

D e r n o ~ a t i n gcompetence At the heart of an outcomes- or competency-based education and training system is the demonstration of competence in terms of criteria established by the relevant education or training authority. The following definition arises out of the Australian ET experience: Competency-based training is concerned with the attainment and demonstration of specified skills, knowledge and attitudes to minimum industry specified standards rather than with an individual's achievement relative to that of others in a group. (Actu, 1990: 4)

The quote highlights two central features of outcomes or competency models: performance standards and criterion-referenced assessment. Standards are central to OBET models: they specify the nature of the particular occupational tasks to be performed. Standards are thus performance objectives which must be achieved, but they also serve as criteria for assessment of competence. Criterion-Tefmd assessment systems

Outcomes-based systems are founded on criterion-referenced assessment. This assessment method is distinct from the more traditional norm-referenced system. The key feature of norm-referencing is that the message delivered about attainment is one of comparison between the abilities of an individual and those of some other population on which the test has been standardised. The aim of assessment is usually to draw comparisons between individuals and to determine whether individuals are progressing satisfactorily. The alternative frame is criterion-referenced assessment, the key feature of which is whether or not a given criterion (most often a behavioural criterion such as adequate performance) has been mastered. There is no need for recourse to the performance of others. The topic to be assessed must be clearly defined, and the nature of successful performance must be specified in advance. The object of training is to allow each individual to become competent in the mastery of certain prescribed performance objectives (standards). The learning time frame allowed will vary for each student. If students fail to attain the required level of mastery during their first test, limited repetition of tests will be permitted. All learners preselected for criterion-referenced courses will be able to pass.

2

C H A P T E R

A N D R EK R A A K

THE BASIC DEFlNlNlTlON s+n11lI! hp a h l tn ~ rj~ntnnsf'atr Clr~tconiesare Ihe r ~ s u l t sof learrirncl processes. L~:~rt>rrs tlint they understand and can apply Ihe des~redoulcnmPs wrrhln a cenaln colitrxt -

-

Unit standards:

Nationally aqreed statements of specllic outcomes and the~rassociated performance or assessment crlterla toqether w ~ t hadmlnlstratwe and othpr necessary ~ n f o m a t ~ oUnlt n standards are the smallest measure of a prescr~bedp~rformanceassessment

Credits:

They are the recognition that a learner has achieved a unit standard. Credits may b~! acc~rm~rlated until conditions have been met for the award of a oualificat~on.

--

-

-

NCIF levels:

1

They are the positions on the NOF where national unit standards are registered and qr~alificationsawarded. They are arranged to siqnal increas~ngc o m p l e ~ i win learning and to fac~l~tate rneanlnqf~rlproqresslon routes nlnnq career and learnlnq pathways

Contexts and fields:

Fields siqnify areas of learning used as an organisinq mechanism for the NOF. SAQA has registered 12 such fields: Agr~cultureand Nature Conservation; Culture and Arts; Br~s~ness. Commerce and Management Strrd~cs;Comrnunlcat~onStudres and Lang~rages: Educat~on,Tra~ningand Development: Mani~factr~r~nq. Engineering and Technoloqy. H~rmanand Soc~alStud~es:Law, Mllttary Sclence and S e c ~ ~ rHealth ~ v : Scr~nces; ~ n d Socral Services; Physical. Mathematrcal, Compclter and Lift. Sciences: Senl~ces:and Physrcal Plannlng and Constrrrct~on

:

A qrralification:

--

--

-

--

--

-

-

-

A planned cornb~natlonof learn~ngoutcomes whrch has a d ~ f ~ n epurpose d and whlch 17 Intended to provlde qoal~fylnqlearners wrth a p p l ~ ~c do m p ~ t ~ and n c ~a hasrs for fllrthpr learning

THE EXPANDED DEFlhllTlON Glnbalisation and the n ~ e r for ! expanded underplnninq knowledge:

-

I

--

As n consegtrence of globalrsation, workers requre broadened skills that go beyonil Ilie

narrow task d~n~ensions of ro~rt~nlsed work. Workers now need to he rnultiskillerl and adaptable In the face of change; they need to understand and participat~In ilje rnanaqement of work roles and production systems, takrnq responslhiliv for conringencies, quality control, innovat~onand flexihlc responses to new prorl~rctdemands - - - corrroetencres w h ~ c hare ~rnpossibleto develop In narrow compctcncy-trarnlng wstems -

-

~

The iceberg metaphor:

This symbolises the Importance of seeing performed competency Ithe tip of the Ice. berg) as being underpinned by a much larger foundation of knowledqe and u n d ~ r srandinq Ithe submerged slructlrre of the leeberg)

Critical cross-field o~ltcornes:

These are cross-curr~cula,broad outcomes that focus on the capacity to apply knowledge, skills and attrtudes In an ~ntegratedway Included are problem-solving skrlls; teamsh~p;self-responsibility; collect~ngand analysing ~nformatronsk~lls;comrnunlcatron sk~lls,technological and ~ n v ~ r o n m e n tIrteracy; al develop~nqmacro vlsron; learn~ng sk~lls,crt~zenshrp,cr~ltrrraland aesthetic understandinq; ~mplnyment-seek~ng skrlls: and entreoreneursh~n

- -

Rtlles of combination:

They set o~rthow many credits from various categories and fields - fundamental, cnrr or speclalised courses - must be accumulated In order to award a part~cularqual~ficatton

lnteqntive assessment:

A form of assessment whlch permits the learner to demonstrate applied competence and whrch uses a ranqe ol formatrvc and summarive assessment methods sucti as portfol~os,simr~lations.In situ workolace assessments, wrltten and oral examination.

I

SECTION

B

Alignment with the NQF Another key feature of OBET is that it is aligned with the goals of the NQF and posits mechanisms for structuring learning programmes in the form of unit standards (the smallest measure of a prescribed performance objective) and course credits. All of these components additively lead to the formation of qualifications which are defined at specific levels and in specific fields of study along the NQF ladder.

OBET's radical rhetoric The rapid ascendancy and popularity of outcomes-based ET in South Africa and other countries may be ascribed to its skilful packaging in the radical language of other educational discourses - liberal progressive ideals about comprehensive schooling in the Australian case, and People's Education in the South African context. The radical rhetoric of People's Education provides an essential legitimacy to what -in Sedunary's (1996)view -is otherwise a highly technicist and ultimately conservative assessment technology. Sedunary (1996: 381), writing about the Australian experience, argues that the common ground shared between these two seemingly opposed discourses has in fact to do with their shared hostility to elite schoolingsystems based on antiquated divisions between academic and vocational schooling tracks: Underlying the new vocationalism's concern to combine theory and practice or intellect and application is an impatience with the traditional distinction between mental and manual labour which the academic cuniculum marked and reproduced in the original structures of Australian post-primary schooling and which it has continued to symbolise. Whereas radical education implicitly contended that the distinction between mental and manual labour as institutionalisedin schooling means an undesirable (class-based)social allocation of people to privileged or subordinate stations in life, the new vocationalism regards the distinction as functionally obsolete, given the new directions in the nature and structure of work. It is this departure in thinking from a historical given that is at the heart of the more forwardlooking radicalism of the new vocationalism.

Notwithstanding this paradoxical convergence, Sedunary points out that these two discourses - the radical education tradition and outcomes-based 'new vocationalism' -are simultaneously contradictory because each emphasises the attainment of a high-skill, high-participation ET system for very different ends: empowering the individual-citizen with critical and 'interpretive intellect' versus linking 'instrumental intellect' to the needs of a rapidly changing economy (Sedunary, 1996: 383). Sedunary also argues that this accommodation between supposedly opposing discursive frameworks is a reflection of the state's successful incorporation of past radical discourses within its own structures -primarily through the employment

C H A P T E R

2

A N D R EK R A A K

of new progressive personnel within the state and through the writing of newly interpreted policy texts - which then give legitimacy to what is essentially a technicist and conservative assessment technology. Sedunary's observations are directly relevant to the South African context. The radical rhetoric borrowed from People's Education constructs a very sophisticated mask of deception in the public domain. This is because much of the public criticism of the ANC's Curriculum 2005 proposals has little to do with objections to unit standards methodology, but more to do with factors external to the pedagogical model under consideration -for example, concerns about the ANC government's ability to deliver a new system. Almost no informed debate has yet taken place in the public domain on the desirability of an outcomes-based ET system premised on unit standards. This is primarily because its continuities with the radical rhetoric of People's Education has made outcomes-based ET a more palatable intervention for the vast majority of lay policy analysts. The next section will briefly examine some of the discursive borrowings from People's Education which have powerfully framed the way in which OBET is currently marketed and interpreted in South Africa.

At the heart of South Africa's outcomes-based ET discourse is an emphasis on putting the learners first. This learnercentred approach has entailed a paradigm shift in the approach to learning and teaching, away from the traditional syllabusoriented, content-based transmission model of teaching and learning to one based on outcomes. Treating learners as 'empty vessels which have to be filled with knowledge', and regarding learners as passive recipients or rote learners deprives many learners of adequate opportunities to realise their full potential (national Department of Education, 1997a: 30). Table 2.6, taken from the document, Curriculum 2005, diagrammatically interprets this paradigm shift. Credit accumulation and tralzsfer schemes (CATS)

The progressiveness of competency and outcomes approaches is also derived through their association with flexible modular approaches to curriculum which allow learners the opportunity over time to accumulate credits across a range of education and training providers. Three key characteristics of credit accumulation and transfer schemes (CATS) can be identified.

4 They facilitate movement across all the divisions within ET. 4 They provide a flexible framework in which there can be maximum student choice and exploration, pacing of learning, as well as a degree of specialisation.This entails opening up the curriculum to new groups of students who would previously not have been in formal learning, especially in further and higher education and training.

SECTION

B

I THE LEARNER: --

I

OLD TRANSMISSION MODEL OF LEARNING Passive learners

--

ASSESSMENT:

I

NEW OUTCOMES-BASED MODEL OF LEARNING Actwe learners

-

Graded Exam-driven Exclusionary

--

--

Continuous assessment; learners are assessed on an on-going basis --

ROLE OF TEACHER:

Teacher-centred, textbook bound

Learner-centred; teacher as facilitator; teacher constantly using group work and team work

CURRICULUM F9AMEWORK:

Syllabus seen as rigid and non-negotiable

Learning programmes seen as guides that allow teachers to be innovative and creative in designing programmes.

Emphasis on what teacher hopes to achieve

Emphasis on outcomes what the learner becomes and understands

Content placed into rigid time frames

Flexible time frames allow learners to work at their own pace

TIME RAMES AND LEARNER PACING:

1

+ They allow for the development of new forms of knowledge which reflect new social developments (media studies, urban studies, performing arts, a n d economic awareness). These developments pose new possibilities for relating the vocational a n d the academic in the curriculum (Spours, 1988: 10). Scott (1995: '74,75) writes of the impact of CATS in higher education: Modulardegree schemes, CATS and outcomes-based assessments embody different values than those which have been dominant in many higher education systems -or, at any rate, their elite segments. In place of sustained academic commitment a stepbystep, and student friendly, approach to higher education is offered. Multiple points of entry and exit are opened without regard to the academic symmetry of the whole. In place of grand organic interpretations of knowledge, a pattern of academic progression is provided in which connections, between topics and levels,

1

C H A P T E R

2

A N D R EK R A A K

are pragmatically derived rather than cognitively prescribed. And, in place of socially exclusive accounts of disciplinary and professional cultures, a more diff~~se 'college culture' is offered.

Scott argues that CATS makes access easier because it enables a much wider range of indicative factors to be taken into account in considering the eligibility of students rather than simply their success in end-of-year exams. Secondly, CATS reduces the risk and stigma of failure by providing multiple exit points which can be certificated. And, lastly, students are able to 'grow' their own academic interests and, in so doing, are less likely to be trapped in academic fields for which they have limited aptitude. Critical thinking and demowaEic nationhood

Outcomes-based education and training in South Africa also places a strong emphasis on the development of critical thinking skills. Curriculum 2005 (national Department of Education, 1997a:lO) makes this pedagogic objective explicit: Learning programmes should promote learners' ability to think logically and analytically as well as holistically and laterally. This incliides an acknowledgement of the provisional, contested and changing nature of knowledge and of the need to balance independent, individualised thinking with social responsibility and the ability to function as part of a group, community or society.

Radical education discourses are also defined by their appeals to a common nationhood and citizenry in contrast to the social class stratification which traditional schooling typically reinforces. This emphasis is evident in Curriculum 2005 (national Department of Education, 1997a:g) which defines nation-building and non-discrimination as key principles of the new ET system: ET should promote the development of a national identity and an awareness of South Africa's role and responsibility with regard to Africa and the rest of the world.

Learning programmes should, therefore, encourage the development of

+

mutual respect tor diverse religious and value systems, cultural and language traditions; multilingualism and informed choices regarding the language/s of learning; and

+

cooperation, civic responsibility and the ability to participate in all aypects of society.

Participatory governance Curriculum design in OBET (as in radical pedagogic traditions) is to be transparent and participatory, incorporating the efforts of all stakeholders: parents, teachers, education authorities, experts and the learners themselves. The curriculum framework is provisional,with piloting, experimentation and adaptation occurring throughout. Curriculum frameworks will vary from place to place as the process becomes more flexible and responsive to diverse community needs (national Department of Education, 1997a).

SECTION B

MEANINGS, MOTIVATIONS, METHODOLOGIES

Seamless learning

The cumulative impact of all these elements is to create an environment for seamless and successful learning, with few boundaries, barriers or exclusionary constraints hindering further learning. This idealism of seamless learning is borne out in Curriculum 2005 (national Department of Education, 1997b:5) when describing the benefits of an outcomes-based NQF model: 4 Learning is recognised whether it takes place in formal or informal settings. ^ Learners are able to move between the education and working environments. + Areas of learning are connected to each other to enable learners to build on what they learn as they move from one learning situation to another. *• Credits and qualifications are easily transferable from one learning situation to another.

The notion of ease of transfer from one learning context to another implicit in seamless learning is perhaps the most appealing feature of the radical discourse of OBET, but it also represents its most problematic feature. The next section will raise some of OBET's limitations.

A CRITIQUE OF OBET In most critical accounts of OBET written in South Africa, there are usually three fundamental flaws which are highlighted. These are: OBET's genesis in the discipline of behavioural psychology; its false claims regarding knowledge transferability; and, lastly, its diminution of the contribution made by teachers and the curriculum in the learning process and, in contrast, its privileging of assessment technologies. Each of these criticisms will be dealt with briefly. A critique of traditional behaviouralist approaches to competence Perhaps the most fundamental criticism to be made of OBET is that its definition relies too heavily on behaviouralist principles. Behavioural psychology assumes a unanimity of behaviour: under the same circumstances, we all behave in the same predictable way. This predictability is assured by our conditioning process and is invariant. As such, the display of 'competency' can be mastered and measured with precision. The danger here is that there is no place in such a schema for imagination, creativity and innovation — qualities which cannot be measured in discrete quantifiable units, but which are the key priorities of a good general education. Ashworth and Saxton (1990: 11) have problems with the depiction of 'competence' as a complex entity made up of simpler items of ability. This 'atomisation' of knowledge distorts the process of learning, as the example of a cyclist below highlights: A cyclist never learns separately to incline the body, to turn the wheel, to press the pedals, and to judge the fall of the bike from the vertical; all this happens in a 46

CHAPTER

2

A N D R EK R A A K

coordinated whole. A complex skill entails elements none of which can ever be defined independently of the rest. Any behaviour is a 'meaningful Gestalt'; a whole in which the individual elements affect each other in a manner that changes their nature. The elements of skill are not recognisable or separable from the complex whole. (Ashworth & Saxton, 1990: 12)

Competence models attempt to describe competence in precise, transparent and observable terms, to predict the specific outcome of effective action. However, as the above discussion suggests, all human knowledge cannot be categorised with such precision. The confident rhetoric of outcome practitioners also overplays the extent to which 'assessment' has been made more learner centred, transparent and therefore more acceptable. All assessment is subjective, and criterionreferenced assessment does not escape this problem. Furthermore, the construction of competency 'standards' is in itself a highly subjective process entailing largely arbitrary decisions (Ashworth & Saxton, 1990: 6). All of these problems have led Ashworth and Saxton (1990: 18,24) to conclude that: The lack of concern for context, the frequent inability of the notion of competence to include the range of human activities necessary to accomplish fully skilled performance, and the atomistic and additive view which the competence model imposes on activities makes it a poor guide for the teacher . .. The professional skills of the teacher are not likely to be assisted by the adoption of a view of action which is so lacking in sensitivity to the radically individual psychologies of the learners .. . We believe that 'competence' is the embodiment of a mechanistic, technically-oriented way of thinking which is normally inappropriate to the description of human action, or to the facilitation of training of human beings. The more human the action, in the sense of being un-mechanical, creative, or sensitive to the social setting, the more inappropriate the competency model of human action is.

Collapsing boundaries: the issue of transferability A second powerful criticism of OBET, which is repeated regularly throughout this book, is that outcomes models assume that learning acquired, assessed and accredited by OBET - specifically core or generic competencies - can be transferred and applied across differing knowledge and societal contexts. The idea of 'seamless learning' described earlier is a typical OBET characterisation of the ease of the transfer of learning. This central proposition flies in the face of recent theories on cognition and learning (see Gee, Bernstein, Lave and Wenger). These writers stress that generic competencies or capabilitiesare acquired in specific contexts -often through a process of enculturation or socialisation in what Lave and Wenger call 'communities of practice' -and, as a consequence, are not applicable in other knowledge or occupational contexts. For example, the 'problem-solving skills' that a brain surgeon and plumber acquire in their communitiesof practice -an example of one key generic competency - are not one and the same and cannot be easily substituted one for the other. Outcomes-based education and training ignores

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM S .O T I V A T I O M NS E ,T H O D O L O G I E S

institutional locale -the site of learning is irrelevant. All that is important is effective performance of the outcomes specified in the unit standard. This can be done through night-school,distance education, recognition of prior learning, enterprisetraining or through the traditional forms of institutional study. This formulation has the dramatic effect of collapsing if not decimating all boundaries which historically have evolved around different forms of knowledge acquisition and knowledge organisation and which are intrinsically linked to specific institutional locales disciplinary knowledge in universities, institutionally prescribed categories of knowledge (curriculum) in schools, and experiential knowledge in private enterprises. These categories become irrelevant in the OBET scheme of things. The implications of this critique are serious. They throw up new contradictory features in the way in which government education and training policy is being currently articulated. Paradoxically, OBET stands in sharp contradiction to the approaches being developed by government towards FET and HET. In these spheres, as outlined earlier in this chapter, government policy is 'systemic' in character, seeking to create a unified and coordinated system of further and higher ET provision. This systemic focus is fundamentally a strategic response to the combined pressures of globalisation and its multiskilling imperative, the shift to new problem-solving and transdisciplinary forms of knowledge production, and the shift away from elite to more open systems of provision. All of these changes suggest a shift away from the rigid boundaries between different forms of disciplinary knowledge (and between theoretical and practical knowledge) towards a greater hybridisation of knowledge - new formations of knowledge that contain both the theoretical and applied, academic and practical. The new emphasis in a unified and coordinated system of FET and HET is towards the following knowledge forms. 4 Knowledgef m that are deoelopedpfogrammaticaUy-that is, transdisciplinary constructs that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries and which link academic knowledge more effectively to the requirements and problems of the society and economy at large. The synergy created between different disciplines interacting in the process of seeking solutions to specific social and economic problems -as suggested earlier -has led to many new fields of knowledge in universities from information technology, telecommunications technology, genetic engineering, biotechnology, advanced materials design, artificial intelligence to ecotourism and, finally, media, feminist and cultural studies.

+ Knowledge f

m that arise out of transinstitutional partnerships between university-based scholars, industry-based scientists and professional knowledge workers in civil society. Knowledge generation has now become a much more open process of production and acquisition. Crossing knowledge boundaries is becoming an everyday occurrence as new industry-education partnerships are forged and as knowledge

C H A P T E R

2

A N D R EK R A A K

workers increasingly engage real social problems equipped with a wider variety of transdisciplinary investigative tools. (See Kraak, 1995; 1997.) The emergent paradox in current ANC education and training policy formulation lies herein: OBET decimates knowledge boundaries, refusing to recognise the institutional locales of differing forms of knowledge acquisition and construction. Systemic approaches, on the contrary, seek to build unified, open and more coordinated approaches to FET and HET based, firstly, on a respect for knowledge boundaries, but, more importantly, on an understanding of the strategic importance of knowledge interchange and hybridisation. Social progress and economic prosperity in the information economy are founded on the synergies and innovation which arise from transinstitutional and transdisciplinary knowledge collaboration. Table 2.7 overleaf summarises these paradoxical differences.

The diminution of teaching and the curriculum

A hrther area of substantial critique regarding OBET is its disregard for the centrality of the curriculum and the need for a professionally trained and motivated teacher corps. Formally, OBET argues that all that is required in terms of a national curriculum framework are certain loose and flexibly specified guidelines regarding essential outcomes to be attained and assessment mechanisms to be used. Specific learner content will not be prescribed in a national curriculum framework as these curriculumdesign activities would be devolved: .. . not only to the provinces, but also to local clusters of institutions, for example, schools, teacher centres and, ideally, to individual institutions and teachers thernselves. At all levels of curriculum development ... the nature of particular areas of learning, the needs of target groups of learners and the demands of'the changing socioeconomic context should inform the formulation of outcomes (national Department of Education, 1995b: 8).

In addition to the construction of such a weak national curriculum framework, OBET also argues that the attainment of unit standards and prescribed outcomes is independent of any specific institutional type, whether school, night class, college, enterprise-training or RPL,. This privileging of 'stand-alone' unit standards over and above a clearly defined curriculum and specific institutional location has the following devastating implications for the teaching and learning process.

+ Outcomes-based education and training privileges the development of isolated unit standards at the expense of a well-thought-out national curriculum fi-amework.The benefit of the latter is that it enables the linking of curriculum content, pedagogic proce5ses and regulatory mechanisms to societal goals such as infonned and denlocratic citizenship,non-racialism and multiculturalism, and social development and economic prosperity for all. By failing to solidify these linkages, the 'curriculum' as is generally understood in educational practice is undervalued in OBET.

SECTION

B

MEANINGS, MOTIVATIONS, METHODOLOGIES

THE OUTCOMES-BASED CONCEPTlON

A SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION

-- -

MECHANISM FOR IMTFGRATING 1 DIFFERENT FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE t

C o l l a p s ~ st h h~o u n d a r l ~ s

Traverses the boundaries with-

between theoret~caland applied1 experiential knowledge, and between the academic and the vocational

out collapsing them Creates new forms of knowledge that are simultaneously theoretical and applied

Emphasis on competencies Unit standards methodology

Hybrid formations incorporating disciplinary (Mode 1) and problem-solving (Mode 2) knowledge constructs -

RELATIONS BWEEN DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES

1

EVALUATION

ROLE OF THE STATE

i I

-

Knowledge transferability

Knowledge interchange

Knowledge is portable and transferable from one location to another

Interchange between 'Mode 1' and 'Mode 2' knowledges They remain, however, distinctive knowledge formations with clear boundaries

Criterion referenced; inclusive; no grading

Norm referenced; exclusion of failures

Massive bureaucracy to define, accredit and monitor unit standards In Australia and New Zealand, over 15000 unit standards are registered in the OBET system

Creation of a single, unified system of FET and HET through regutatow and planning mechanisms which encourage programme-driven rather than disciplinarv-based ET provision

+ Assessment of performance is seen as an exact science which can be specified through explicit assessment criteria. This approach undervalues the role of teachers in exercising professionaljudgement in what in reality is a very subjective and difficult process. Overspecification of assessment criteria does not reduce the subjective elements. Rather, it merely diminishes the role that teachers play.

+ The emphasis on devolving the process of specifying curriculum content

with little state prescription has the effect of opening up learning and teaching to laissez-faire curriculum development which is sectional in nature and excludes the 'national good'. Paradoxically, this formulation

I

I

~

CHAPTER

2

ANDREKRAAK

stands in sharp contrast to the aspirations of 1980s radical discourse, 'People's Education', which sought to specify certain non-negotiables in the national curriculum framework: non-racialism, non-sexism, a respect for manual labour, linking mental and manual labour, the introduction of new subjects such as Development Studies and People's History, leamercentred education and multilingualism.

+ Devolution of the responsibility of drawing up specific cuniculum content

assumes a high degree of capacity in curriculum design which South Africa does not possess. Such a decision also plays havoc with the national educational publishing industry which under these new conditions is unable to tender for large runs of prescribed texts and, as a consequence, is unable to exploit economies of scale if devolved curriculum production leads to a high degree of variance in actual texts in use in schools and colleges across the nine provinces of the country.

Developing broader conceptions of outcomes The critique raised above has posed a fundamental challenge to the ANC government's approach to OBET. It has responded to this criticism over the past four years by attempting to define more broadly based conceptions of competency using the term 'outcomes' to signify this change. This shift mirrors international developmentswhere the debate has focused on the inseparability of 'competence' and 'knowledge' and the absurdity of viewing skills in discrete technical tenns in isolation of broader 'contexts' (Wolf, 1989: 39). Wolf argues that skill competencies are highly contextualised: they cannot be categorised in isolation of their 'knowledge and understanding' underpinnings (Wolf, 1989: 44). A broad approach to competency, therefore, seeks to integrate the development of 'skill competencies' and the 'knowledge and understanding' construct? which underpin such competency. Mansfield (1989: 28) provides a useful description of the broad skills required:

+

They are based on descriptions of 'work roles' which are external to individual attributes. Most narrow approaches define competency in terms of the individual's attaining discrete units of competence. They are broad based in that they include considerations of the interaction between the 'technical' role and the organisational environment.

+

They are dynamic in that they are able to incorporate changes in work organisation, technology and society. They are concerned both with concepts such as adaptability,versatility, change, creativity and innovation as well as with routine activities.

SECTION B M E A N I N GM SO , T I V A T I OM NS E ,T H O D O L O G I E S

Broad competencies therefore are those skills which prepare workers to face the challenges posed by the new global economic context -adaptability in the face of change, understanding and participation in the management of work roles and production systems, taking responsibility for contingencies, quality control, innovation and flexible responses to new product demands -competencieswhich are impossible to develop in narrow training systems. This is precisely the shift that has taken place in ANC policy thinking - from a scepticism and eventual rejection of competency models in the early 1990s to an embrace of an outcomes approach. A glance at the latter part of Table 2.5 will highlight the key dimensions of this new, 'added-on' broad definition. Outcomesbased education and training now includes the following.

+ The icebergvktaphmintroduced by the seminal text Ways ofseeing(Human

Sciences Research Council (HSRC), 1995) to symbolise the importance of seeing performed competency as being underpinned by a much larger foundation of knowledge and understanding. Outcomes-based education and training, in this symbolism, is not merely about measuring discrete (visible) units of competence. It is about recognising the indivisible link between competence and the conceptual,problemsolving, interactive and context-bound abilities which underpin (but which are invisible in) the performance of 'competence'.

+ Rules of combination and the final integrative assessment are key OBET

regulatory mechanisms which attempt to prescribe rules of assessment and course credit combinations to ensure that the link between visible performance and invisible understanding and knowledge is continuously established in the learning process and in the formation of new qualifications. The most recent broadening initiative arises out of the Green Paper on A Skdh Dmelqimmt Strategy (Departmentof Labour, 199'7)which, interestingly, sees a return to the term 'competency' with the developmentof the idea of 'applied competency'. The Green Paper defines this as the overarching term for three kinds of competence:

+ + +

Practical competence: Our demonstrated ability to perform a set of tasks; Foundational competence:Our demonstrated understanding of what we or others are doing and why; Refixive competence: Our demonstrated ability to integrate or connect our performances with our understanding of those performances so that we learn from our actions and are able to adapt to changes and unforeseen circumstances. (Department of Labour, 1997)

These attempts at broadening the conceptualisation of OBET are mirrored in efforts elsewhere in the world, for example the Australian TAFE colleges and the 'Scot-VET' system. Regrettably,all of these initiatives are still at the initial implementation stages

CHAPTER

2

A N O R EK R A A K

and are therefore unable to report systematicallyon their success in transcending the behaviouralist limitations of earlier competency models. It may be that this distinction between 'competency' and 'outcomes' is simply a question of semantics. The real test of the distinctiveness and broadness of the new approach can only occur once such a system has been implemented and when the full extent of the institutional pressures, which may mediate and alter the intrinsic worth of an outcomes route, can be measured. These pressures may include a costconscious state, narrow employer approaches to competency training and a legacy of rote-learning in the formal school and industrial training classroom. Each of these factors could have the effect of steering future OBET developments in the direction of narrow competency standards at the expense of broader interpretations.

Discursive convergence and divergence The main thrust of this chapter has been to argue that education and training policy formulation in South Africa over the past decade has been characterised by the paradoxical interplay between three competing ET discourses which at certain historical moments have converged, yet at other moments have diverged. More specifically, it has been argued that OBET has become dominant over a structural or systemic discourse in part because it has been couched publicly in the more palatable language of People's Education, and less so in terms of its massively technicist armour- of terminology and procedure.

Implications of the dominance of OBET The implications of OBET's current dominance and its diminution of systemic discourse are profound. In short, it means that the structural features of the current ET system which amplified the social class inequalities of the apartheid capitalist system will not be consciously and directly addressed through ET policy as was the case in the systemic discourse of the earlier (1990-1994) period. There has been an important shift in educational perspective away from macrolevel concerns about a divided ET system and unequal society to a micrelevel obsession with unit standards and the minutia of an overly prescriptive assessment model. The ET reform process has lost sight of its original purpose in seeking to create a unified and integrated system which would consciously address social inequalities which arise out of the ET system. The obvious status inequalities between the current elite academic schooling track and its stigrnatised vocational alternative will remain largely unaltered by a reform project which simply tinkers with its assessment system.

The way ahead: Turning around the current reform trajectory The ascendance of OBET and the decline of systemic reform is not an irreversible fact of the current conjuncture. Outcomes-based education and training represents

SECTION

B

a particular set of political choices and discursive convergences which do not exploit all the options available to government. The task at hand is to ensure a return to the systemic discourse of the 1990-1994 period. The progressive ideals of learnercentred education and the appealing transparencyof formulating clear 'outcomes' in education as well as the fairness of criterion-referencing are not wedded to unit standards methodology to the exclusion of any other possibility. What is required is their delinking from unit standards methodology and the merging of progressive pedagogic ideals with the systemic reform agenda of the 1990-1994 period. One innovative ET development project is showing the way in this regard. The Education, Training and Deuelqtmmt Practices Project of the National Training Board (NTJ3,1997) has evolved two approaches to the question of 'standards' in ET. 'Model One' is based on a unit-standards-ledapproach to outcomes where the emphasis is on the development of a common set of generic unit standards across all learning contexts, delinked from a predefined curriculum framework. Standards in this model are micrefocused, generated from below. This is the conventional approach against which much of the criticism listed above is directed. However, the innovativeness of this NTB project clearly lies with the second model: a qualifications-ledapproach to defining outcomes. This model is macro-oriented, focused on the knowledge/occupational field. Its starting premise is to define the purpose and need for particular types of qualifications in the larger society and economy. Only then does it begin to 'define down' to a 'unit of qualification' which takes its meaning from the full qualification and from its relationship to other units in the qualification. It is a broad and holistic approach which opposes defining standards to the smallest detail possible. Alternatively, it emphasises the development of applied competence at wholequalification level (that is, defining the practical, foundational and reflective components required to make a qualification responsive to social and economic needs). The model is also critical of criterion-referencing which excludes grading and, consequently, which marginalises the professionaljudgement of teachers. Model Two adopts an approach to defining whole qualifications which resonates closely with the emphasis on programmatic provision in the NCFE and NCHE reports for unified and co-ordinated systems of FET and HET. Central to this approach in defining standards is first to examine the disciplinary/occupational field and subfields and then to identify strategic knowledge and learning priorities in that field. Only thereafter would a ladder of interlinked qualifications at different levels on the NQF be developed with clearly defined roles. Once such qualifications have been defined as holistic entities with progression routes to other qualifications, 'units of qualifications' can then be designed down. These units will allow for the development of differing qualification foci and areas of specialisation based on differing combinations of practical, foundational and reflexive competences.

CHAPTER

2

The NTB initiative has made an important start. Support for such work must be garnered as part of a much greater movement back toward the structural concerns of the systemic discourse of 1990-94. Key changes necessary to succeed in this political endeavour would be: the creation of a single ministry of Education, Training and Employment with a real rather than rhetorical commitment to integrating education and training; the development of a laddered set of well-articulated qualifications for the postcompulsory phases. These qualifications should be designed down, programmatically defined and responsive to current social and economic needs; the abandonment of unit standards methodology; the development of a clear vision of what the content of a national curriculum at the school level should entail and achieve; and the restoration of respect for the professional role played by teachers in the learning and assessment process. Only then can we begin to make progress in terms of the dual challenge of attaining structural change and progressive pedagogy in South African education and training.

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM S ,O T I V A T I O N MSE.T H O D O L O G I E S

BIBLIOGRAPHY Actu. 1990. Development of a Competenq-based Training Systemfor Australia: Policy, Issues and Discussion Paper. Actu pamphlet. Canberra: Actu. African National Congress (ANC). 1992.ANC Polzcy Guidelinesfor a Democratic South Afica. African National Congress (ANC). 1994a A Policy Frameworlz for Education and Training. Johannesburg: ANC. African National Congress (ANC). 1994b. A n I m p k t a t i o n Plan for Education and Training.Johannesburg: ANC. Ashworth, PD & Saxton,J. 1990. On 'competence'. Journal ofFurtherand HigherEducation, 14 (2), 3-25. Bernstein, B. 1996. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Themy, Research, Critique. London: Taylor and Francis. Bird, A & Elliot, G. 1993a. An Integrated Approach to Post-compulsmy Education. Paper presented to a policy workshop of the Centre for Educational Policy Development, ANC Education Department, March. Bird, A & Elliot, G. 199313. A Framewmll for Lifelong Learning A Unijiid Multi9ath A e a c h to Education and Training. Draft ANC/COSATU discussion document prepared for the first ANC National Training Policy Workshop,June. Bird, A & Elliot, G. 1993c. A Framewmfifor Lifelong b u r n i n g A Unzjiid Multipath Approach to Education and Training. Draft ANC/COSATU discussion document prepared for the second ANC National Training Policy Workshop, August. COSATU. 1991a. Discussion Paper on Human RRFources Development. Paper submitted by the COSATU Human Resources Committee to a meeting of the Commonwealth Secretariat's Expert Group on Human Resources in South Africa, London. COSATU. 1991b. Economic Policy Conference. Pamphlet. Johannesburg: COSATU. National Department of Education. 1995a. White Paper on Education and Training. Draft White Paper Number 1,15 March. National Department of Education. 1995b. A Curriculum Framewmfifor General and Further Education and Training. Discussion document developed by the Consultative Forum on Curriculum, December. National Department of Education. 1996. Lqelong Learning through a National ~mlzj?~ations Framewmll. Report of the Ministerial Committee for Development Work on the NQF, February. National Department of Education. 1997a. Curriculum 2005: Lifelong Learningfor the Twentyfint Century -A User's Guide. Pretoria: National Department of Education. National Department of Education. 199%. Curriculum2005: Lifelong Learningfor the Twenty first Century. Pretoria: National Department of Education. National Department of Education. 1998. Pn$aringfi the Twentyj5rst Century through Education, Training and Work. Green Paper on Further Education and Training. Pretoria: Government Printers.

CHAPTER

2

A N D R EK R A A K

Department of Labour. 1997. Skills Ijmelopment Strateape'Zi~wn:Oxford University Press/NEPI. National Training Board. (NTR). 1994. A N(~tzonti17i-aining Strcltrgy Inztiatiu~.Discussion Document. Pretoria: National Training Board. NTB/I-1SR(:. 1985. Ir~v~~tzptzorr ~ n t othe 7l-(~znzngof Artzcan~zn South Afmca. Pretoria: HSRC:. NTB/ HSR( :. 1991. Inr~r\tzg(~tzorr znto (1 N(ctzontc1'li-ciznzngStmtqgjor t/wF&,tIublzc ofSouth Afnicci. Pretoria: HSR(:. NTB/GTZ. 1997. Phmr 7iuo Rpport: b;ducatzon, 7'r~znzngand Llmelqbmmt I'racticer h-(ject.Joint recearch project of the National Training Board and the (;erman Agency for Technical (:ooperation (GTZ), Pretoria. ~ of Mar\ Hz,qhPrb,'ducatzon. Buckingharn: Open University Pre55. Scott, 1'. 1995. 7 %Mr(inzng\

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM S ,O T I V A T I O N MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

Scott, P. 1997. Changes in Knowledge Production and Dissemination in the Context of Global Competition. Paper presented at the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET) Seminar, 21-23 March, Johannesburg. Sedunary, E. 1996. Neither new nor alien to progressive thinking: Interpreting the convergence of radical education and the new vocationalism in Australia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28 (4), 369-396. Spours, K. 1988. Modularisation and Progression. Working paper number 6, Post-16 Centre, Institute of Education, University of London. Republic of South Africa. 1995a. White Paper on Education and Training. Pretoria: Government Printer. Republic of South Africa. 1995b. The South African Qualifications Act. Pretoria: Government Printer. Wolf, A. 1989. Can competence and knowledge mix? In J Burke (ed), Competency Based Education and Training. London: Falmer Press. Young, M. 1996. The OutcomesApproach to Education and Training: Theoretical Grounding and an International Perspective. Keynote paper presented at the Inter-MinisterialWorking Group Conference on the NQF, 22-23 April, Technikon SA Conference Centre.

CHAPTER 3

Positively Mystical: An Interpretation of South Africa's Outcomes-based National Qualifications Framework ROGER DEACON & BEN PARKER SCHOOL O F EDUCATION. UNIVERSITY OF NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG

Education policy discourses in South Africa have undergone rapid proliferation and transformation in the 1990s,providing some indication of the direction of the state's transformative efforts. This chapter focuses on one key strand of these efforts -the emergence of an outcomes-based National Qualifications Framework (NQF). We shall argue that there are tensions between distinct subdiscourses which have emerged within the broader NQF discourse and that these have distinct structural bases. The contradictions between these discourses, premised on their different epistemological assumptions or ways of knowing the world, together with the builtin inertia of a large bureaucratic system, have resulted in a partial paralysis of the state's efforts to engineer the transformation of apartheid education by depriving it of a holistic stratecgy. South Africa's time of transition, embedded in millennium fever and a rapidly changing global context, makes the hture uncertain as the exigencies of planning and implementation reshape policy. Alien and powerful political and economic forces shape our destiny in mysterious ways. The romanticism of the socialist utopia contained in the Reconstruction and Development Progxamme (RDP) is now being supplanted by the macro-economic lens of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy. Curriculum 2005 is an attempt by the state at creating a strategic plan to change the curriculum of schooling. The central argument of this chapter is that this attempt is presently being thwarted by tensions within the policy discourses which

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM SO , T I V A T I OM NS E ,T H O D O L O G I E S

provide the foundation (or principles) and the framework for the plans, creating confusion about how implementation could and should occur. One aspect of this confusion is evident in the lack of a clear definition of the role of the teacher. There is even disagreement over this label, with other terms such as 'educator' or 'practitioner' being used to indicate the weakening of the distinction between school-based teachers and teachers in fields such as the workplace and adult education and training. It is notjust the overwhelming emphasis on learners that occludes the roles of educators, but uncertainty about the role of teaching. Should the educator be a facilitator, an authority, a liberator, an assessor, a scientist, a shaman, an mfundisz? Or, all or none of these? This chapter looks at three distinct discursive perspectives that are present in NQF discourses: instrumentalism, rationalism and pragmatism. In the period from 1990 to 1995, a conflict between instrumentalist and rationalist approaches dominated debates. From 1996 to 1998, a synthetic and inclusive pragmatism has emerged as a powerful influence. We shall argue that these three perspectives provide the bases for different approaches to planning and implementation, none of which are likely to succeed unless drastic efforts are made to rethink their epistemological assumptions. Underlying each of these perspectives is a belief in the ultimate rationality of the curriculum, the stability of teachers' identities and roles, the sovereign nature of state power and the central importance of education for modernisation or, in a more recent guise, globalisation. The conclusion gestures towards an alternative approach that emphasises the importance of researching and developing new roles and identities for teachers based on assumptions of difference and multiplicity. THE NQF AND OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION

The development of national qualification frameworks and the nature and degree of integration between education and training have varied from country to country. In most countries, fairly strong boundaries have remained between academic (mental) education and vocational (manual) training. In South Africa, two broad positions emerged in NQF discourse during the mid1990s. 'Weak integrationists' sought an integrated 'system' for education and training. Academic education and vocational training would differ, but the NQF would enable bridges to be built between the two through flexible progression paths and the portability of qualifications. 'Strong integrationists' sought to merge education and training. Whereas a weak integrationist favours 'insulating' education from training, and wants only to create some equivalences between the two, a strong integrationist wants to make education and training identical, such that they have the same properties and are constituted by the same practices. A weak integrationist adopts a dualism -a divide between two distinct practices with some connective linkages. A strong integrationist adopts a synthetic monism -the two become one (Muller & Taylor, 1995: 257).

CHAPTER

3

R O G E RD E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

Policy documents produced in 1997 display a distinct tension between weak and strong integration (Department of Labour, 1997; Ministry of Education, 1997; National Training Board (NTB), 1997; South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), 1997). Nevertheless, underlying both strong and weak integrationist approaches to the NQF is the assumption that learning can best be assessed and evaluated by the use of an outcomes-based approach to the curriculum. The NQF operates on units of learning (unit standards, whole qualifications, or a hybrid) to which are ascribed a number of SAQA credits within specific levels and fields of the NQF. Units of learning are described through performative statements or 'outcomes' which indicate what learners can d o when they exit the programme described in the unit. Outcomes are the base-metal by which equivalences between different qualifications are established - they provide the currency of learning through which exchange values can be calculated. Outcomes are usually in the form of a short statement containing a performative verb, for example: The learner is able to demonstrate a critical understanding of'how South African society has changed and developed and The learner is able to participate as a responsible citizen in the life of'local, national and global communities (a developmental outcome) (SAQA, 1997: 58).

These examples are generic, essential or critical outcome statements. They have an emptiness - like floating signifiers that become fixed only within ephemeral contexts. These contexts are given substance and specificity by the construction of specific learning outcomes which are linked to assessment criteria, range statements (including level descriptions) and rules of' evidence. An outcome, or cluster of outcomes, together with the accompanying assessment criteria provide a comprehensive description of exactly what a learner can do in a frame that prescribes levels of difficulty, range of contexts, and firms of evidence. Outcomes become a mecharlisrn for providing a picture of what a learner can do. On the basis of this picture, one can construct rules of access from one qualification to another, rules of combination in which a set or clustyr of units of learning is constructed to meet specific purposes, and, most importantly, one can recognise prior learning (RPL) . The recognition of prior learning makes possible the bypassing of formal routes to qualifications, thus enabling progression and flexibility, and vertical and horizontal mobility. The NQF is like a board full of holes with qualifications as pegs that can be placed in the holes. Outcomes are used to provide a level and field description of a particular peg -locating the qualification on the NQF marking the achievement of a certain number of credits. The South African QualificationsAuthority becomes

SECTION

B

MEANINGS, MOTIVATIONS, METHODOLOGIES

a lifelong learner's bank in which education capital is accumulated and used for investment in the occupational, academic and professional market-places. The economic/occupationa1 value of the outcome lies in its representation of the learner's ability to perform specified practices competently. A corollary of characterisingoutcomes as the base metal or currency of the NQF is that outcomes can be seen to have both an 'intrinsic' value and an 'extrinsic' or exchange value. The intrinsic value lies in the competencies acquired by learners constituting an increase in their reservoir of repertoires (Bernstein,1995).This increase in 'stock' also has an extrinsic or exchange value in market-places. Understanding outcomes as the currency of the NQF, representing the labour through which a credit value is achieved, also leads to a strong emphasis on the importance of assessment. The ability to assess learners in accurate, objective,valid and iterative ways (or lack thereof) will influence the value of our education practices and qualifications. The extrinsic and intrinsic values ascribed to the competencies or exit level outcomes of learning programmes and qualifications achieved by a learner will inflate and deflate, depending on the quality of assessment practices within the system.

It does not matter how you achieve a certain unit of learning or set of knowledge, skills and values. As long as you can perform a specified task competently (that is, you can demonstrate that you 'have' the required knowledge, skills and values), you can be judged competent. The process (input) is no longer to be specified;what matters is a performance subjected to rigorous, transparent, consistent and valid assessment. In order to understand the role that assessment plays in outcomes-basededucation, we want to use a story which provides an example of an outcome (an appropriate strategy given that outcomes are themselves exemplary). This example involves a recontextualisation of the real purpose of assegai throwing - to strike an enemy in battle. Similar recontextualisationsoccur in schools, where 'practices' from 'outside' are reshaped by the school curriculum. Imagine a warrior, poised with assegai in hand, body taut as he prepares to throw. Fifty yards away is a grass target, in the centre of which lies a painted circle. The warrior is adept - he has spent years practising his assegai throwing, learning the disciplines, training his body and educating his mind. The moment has come for him to be examined by a committee of elders. He has to demonstrate his competence. He throws the assegai, which flies through the air and hits the circle. His performance has been successful.

Is this successful performance sufficient for our warrior to be judged a competent assegai thrower? There are three distinct responses to this kind of question in NQF

CHAPTER

3

R O G E RD E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

debates in South Africa. We can label these responses instrumentalist, rationalist and pragmatist. An instrumentalist willjudge the warrior by measuring observable consequences of his performance. The focus will be on the target or object(ive) of the activity. If the assegai hits the target, the performance has been successful. This object-oriented view is often associated with behaviourist and atomistic approaches to education. Outcomes become highly specific 'bits' of skills or information which can be observed and measured one by one and their achievement ticked off on a check-list. An instrumentalist approach favours a curriculum that is segmented and horizontal, emphasising the extrinsic value of knowledge with assessment focused on what the learner lacks -what performances are missing from a learner's repertoire. In the past this approach has been strongly associated with training for industry and commerce. Specific sets of outcomes, learned over a short period of time, assessed using strict observable criteria, can be linked to grading and performance appraisal. Performances, howeves, can be illusory, or learned by rote, or a matter of luck. The rationalist, arguing that we need stronger grounds than measuring observable performance on which to base our educational judgements, introduces the language of competence, reflecting a switch in our attention from the target to the warrior: from the object to the subject of the examination. The warrior must not only perform, he must perform competently - demonstrating those beliefs and values, capacities and skills which constitute mastery of the art of assegai throwing. These unobservable capabilities that make the performance possible, enabling the subject to achieve the outcome(s),are dispositions or properties of the subject. Dispositions, unfortunately, are hidden from view, they are not revealed transparently in performance. Gilbert Ryle uses the example of glass to explain a disposition: glass is brittle. If you look at a pane of glass, you cannot see the brittleness. To see the brittleness we need an event, or action, which shatters the glass: being hit by a stone, for example (Ryle, 1949: chap. 5). So, too, you cannot look at the warrior and see his competence. It is only when he acts, in the right way at the right time, that we can attribute competence. For Ryle, to attribute a disposition to a person A is to say that A is prone to do something Y, or a variety of things (X, Y, Z) which could be said to be of type Y, in circumstances C. Thus dispositions take on the form of a counterfactual conditional: if A were to be in circumstances C, then A would do Y This counterfactuality highlights the mediating and structuring role of education: mediating between what is and what could be. How does a rationalistjudge whether our wanior is competent, that he has the right dispositions?The rationalist has to make inferences from performance to dispositions and competencies. The counterfactuality of dispositions highlights the inferential nature of rationalist assessment: if the learner were in situation C,

SECTION B

M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

then the learner would be able to do Y Rationalists are inferring to and, thereby, referring to that which is unobservable; they are judging competence both by its observable practices or performance and by its unobservable origin or source. This origin or source is hidden from view - it belongs to an 'inner' world. The ability to use observations and concepts to generate judgemenis about the dispositions or capabilities of the subject is a necessary part of the competencies of an educator; being able to teach requires being able to assess and judge the 'inner' world of the learner. Rationalism is a subject-oriented view often associated with constructivism, emphasising the 'intrinsic' value of knowledge and assessment, and is focused on what the learner already possesses (actually or potentially): those competencies which the learner has the innate capability of performing (contra instrumentalism's focus on what the learner lacks). In South Africa, a rationalist perspective is associated with universities, non-governmental organisations, and the broadly progressive movements such as People's Education in the 1980s. Behaviourism and instrumentalism reduce judgement and assessment to measurement of observable practices: the focus is on the external and the extrinsic. Rationalism and constructivism reduce the other way: evaluation depends on attributing specific 'inner' properties, with intrinsic values, to the subject. The rationalist judges our warrior by who he is - by his 'nature'. This makes judgement and evaluation an uncertain activity - we can never be certain that we have described these hidden dispositions and competencies accurately. For a rationalist, education becomes akin to a mystical activity in which judgements of competence or incompetence are based on the insight, via observation and inference, of someone already initiated into the sacred mysteries. Rationalism has affinities to mysticism in so far as it is esoteric, a revealing of that which is sacred and hidden from the everyday external world; it differs in so far as rationalism uses reason to discern the esoteric, whereas mysticism relies on intuition. For the mystic, insight is intuitive - achieved through the absence of a reasoning mind. For the rationalist, insight emerges from the use of reason to make valid and sound inferences. Recent debates (Shalem, 1997) show that in feminist and other post-modernist discourses, the boundary between the educator and the mystic has been weakened by a rejection of the universalising certainty of a phallo- and logocentric Western reason. In these discourses, the celebration of difference and the relative equality of all knowledges could lead to a view of educators as mystic and feminine (where assessment rests on intuition rather than reason) and of the curriculum as something which 'happens' as a spontaneous performance by educators and learners.

A rationalist view of knowledge and assessment is holistic, contra the atomism of the instrumentalist. Outcomes are understood to be clustered together - to be integrated into a whole by the coherence of a common purpose. Assessment

CHAPTER

3

R O G E R D E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

becomes a continuous formative process in which an overall purpose or purposes define the form and content of the integrated assessment. It is the purpose of a unit of learning which frames the classification, selection, sequencing and pacing of learning to produce an integrated competence or disposition. While mindful of the importance of' accurate observations of performance, the rationalist assessor is more concerned with making inferential judgements from these performances to make claims about the tacit dispositions and competencies of the learner. The rationalist relies on theories, models, patterns, case studies or exemplars to construct a narrative frame within which an active learner is given a teleology and purpose that 'makes sense' of observations of' performance. In debates around the NQF, instrumentalist and rationalist positions often become locked in conflict. Business and unions with a strong focus on grading systems, productivity and wage scales adopt a predominantly instrumentalist perspective. At times, they are joined by parts of the state, in the form of support from within the national Department of Education and the Department of Labour. Instnimentalist approaches stress the importance of clear task definitions that have identifiable, observable and measurable consequences - an ol?jecti\ist approach which sees knowledge as explicit. Rationalist approaches errlphasise the nature of the subject -a subjectivist view of knowledge as dispositional or tacit. It is this hidden esoteric nature of conrpetence which leads rationalists to favour peer review as the best technique fbr bringing an intersubjectivity to what is otherwise a subjective task: a collective rather than personal judgement of a colrlpeteiice that can never be directly obse~ved,only inferred. Peer review is an atterrrpt t o makc this process of inference more reliable. A subjective judgement 11y an indikidl~almaster is replaced by an intersubjective, collectivejudgement of a pcer group. Rationalism has been espoused primarily by people within universities, N(;Os, parts oi'thr state and, to a lesscr extent, parts of the unions. Statements of outcomes arc. in themselves empty. It is their linkage to assessment and their practice in specific contexts that gives thern meaning. There has heen a tendency in recent debates in South Africa to equate oritcolnes and curriculum. This clision is rriisleading because it reduces the complexity and diversity of curriclilurn practices to a set of formal staterntLnts.This car quickly lead to absurdities such as intet-preting the (;ormnrnmt (kzzeft~of 6 June 1997 (No 18051), in which the critical, de\~elopmentaland specific learning outcorncs fix-Cknel-al Education are spelled out, as being a legislated, prescrihcd crirriculurn fi-on1 which we car1 deduce appropriate ~nethodologiesfor teaching and learning. 'rhis hears strong reserrlblarlces to the past: tundcr apartheid education, teachers werc expected to follow a prescribed syllabus, which was translated into detailed schelnes of work and daily work schedules. Such an approach is con~patihlewith strong integrationisrn and instrumentalistn -with a behaviourist approach to education and training, where learners arc conditioned into behaving in the prescribed Fashion.

S E C T I O N

B

M E A N I N GM S ,O T I V A T I OM NE ST , HODOLOGIES

By contrast, from the point of view of mystic rationalism, outcomes and their accompanying assessment practices should not form the basis for either a prescribed syllabus or a structured curriculum. Instead, outcomes become the endpoint of an esoteric practice in which the learner's innate attributes are transformed into worthwhile certifiable knowledge. This binary dualism, within strong integration, between instrumentalism and rationalism, complicated by rationalism's transmutation into mysticism, bedevils the implementation of an outcomes-based national qualifications framework. By 1998, four years after the election of the first ANGled government, very little has changed for learners and teachers. If anything, there has been a slow deterioration of the education system reflected in a 10% decline in the matriculation pass rate over the four years. Clearly, the primary reasons for the lack of transformation lie in the paucity of material resources and the difficulties of changing practices in a large bureaucratic system, but the lack of a coherent and cogent policy discourse has certainly not helped.

An alternative approach to outcomes and competence is offered by Dewey who differs from both the instrumentalists and the rationalists. Dewey switches the point of view from a contradiction and/or opposition between instrumentalism and rationalism, object and subject, manual and mental, to a synthetic approach that integrates the erstwhile oppositions. The rationalist (constructivist, learnercentred) assessor who examines and makes inferences from the performances of the learner and the instrumentalist (behaviourist,teacher- or subjectcentred) assessor who focuses on the target are displaced by a holistic pragmatism (Dewey, 1938a; 1938b). For Dewey, there are three elements in our earlier story: the warrior, the mediating action of throwing (including the consequences of this action: the assegai flying through the air and hitting the target), and the target itself. To educate and train a person in assegai throwing requires attention to all three elements simultaneously. Firstly, the thrower (the subject or learner) must acquire the necessary dispositions - there must a willingness or will to power which provides the basis for the discipline of learning. The learner must have the capacities necessary to undertake the learning (the required, pre-existing knowledge, skills and values). Secondly, Dewey understands the mediating action (the process of throwing and hitting the target) as a discrete event, separate from the identity and subjectivity of the warrior and from the objectivity of the target - it takes place in its own space between the warrior and the target. The space in which the mediating act occurs is a gap to be filled, a lack to be satisfied, or a potential to be realised.

CHAPTER

3

R O G E R D E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

The third element is the target, because the assegai hitting the circle is the event which provides an 'end' to the task. And, this end also stands for the purpose or the meaning of the mediating action: the target at which it is aimed. Our warrior engages in his actions to reach a target out there, and it is this 'hitting' of the object out there which gives meaning to his performance. Dewey's pragmatism, with its roots in Aristotle, provides an alternative episteme logical base for the NQF. Given his significant influence on American education, it is not surprising that Dewey's work has been given diverse, often conflicting, interpretations. This chapter adopts an interpretation similar to that of Hickman (1992) in which Dewey's pragmatism has three sources. One source is a reinvoking of an Aristotelian distinction between thinking or theory, doing or practice, and making or production. Theory alone is contemplation (rationalism). Doing alone is habit (instrumentalism). Production is when the two are combined into an artefact (pragmatism). The second source is a Darwinian approach to the human as an organism which has developed a disposition for inquiry as part of its survival apparatus. Evolution rewards intelligent behaviour, and if education is the main road to intelligent behaviour, then humans can become either educated or extinct. The third source is a commitment to the Enlightenment values embodied in liberalism - specifically the liberal values he believed underpinned American society, requiring a balance between the autonomy of the self-reflective subject and the authority of reason and the law. Adopting a Deweyan perspective, we can describe an outcome as a complex integrated performance, and assessment as a process of observation and inference in which the assessor focuses on all three elements of the performance or outcome: the learner or subject, the activity or practice, and the achievement or product. Let us now take our specific outcome mentioned earlier: The learner is able to demonstrate a critical understanding of' how South African society has changed and developed.

Assessing the performance of an assegai thrower, in the light of this specific learning outcome, could include an interrogation of the wanior's historical and geographical understanding of the context and social forces at play in the surrounding society. In post-apartheid South Africa, for example, we would expect our erstwhile waniGr to understand the basic precepts of a democratic civil society in which violence to another is prohibited except under the most exceptional circumstances. Similarly, in terms of the critical and developmental outcomes specified by SAQA, we would expect a competent assegai thrower to solve problems that might occur during his performance. For example: adjusting to the vagaries of the wind, knowing when it might be more appropriate to incapacitate rather than kill, being able to work out alternative strategies when circumstances change, and displaying a broad repertoire of skills, values and understandings that shows how assegai throwing can

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GMSO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

contribute to both personal and social development. And, if the warrior can turn his 'performance art' into a tourist attraction, then his practice will gain a significant extrinsic value! The pragmatist approach outlined here fits closely with recent work undertaken in South Africa. In the SAQA regulations, the Education, Training and Development Practices Project phase four report and in the Department of Labour's Green Paper on Skills Development Strategy for Economic and Employment Growth in South Africa, and in the discussion document on the norms and standards for teacher education, great emphasis is placed on an approach that supports strong integration, but in a flexible and nuanced way by allowing for diverse interpretations of competence and outcomes. Using a pragmatist perspective, the assessment of a 'demonstrated ability' is not merely a measurable performance by a learner, but in addition a matter of inferential reasoning and judgement about the learner by the educator/assessor in which the subject, object and mediating action are all considered as part of an integrated learning environment within which assessment is contextualised. For Dewey, debates about the superiority of learnercentred over subject- or teachercentred curricula are fruitless: the curriculum must contain all three elements. So, too, the curriculum should be both instrumentalist and rationalist; and the theory/practice divide can be bridged by the production of competence. One way of describing this 'synthesising' manoeuvre is to set up a binary typology of the kinds of competencies required by instrumentalist and rationalist approaches to outcomes and how they can be combined to form pragmatism:

A pragmatist avoids choosing between thinking and doing and finds a way of integrating the two competencies as 'making'. It is this integrative aspect of pragmatism that makes it so seductive as the underlying epistemology of the NQF. Education as a systemic process of mediation and inference, as a continuous process of 'filling the gap' or 'hitting the target' must focus on the mediating action. In Dewey's language, educating is the 'interest' of education, and educators and learners become disciplined by focusing on this interest. This mediating pragmatic approach integrates knowledge, skills and values, or the 'head, hands and heart' of the NQF, teachers, learners and subject matter, education and training, the positivism of instrumentalism and the mysticism of rationalism.

CHAPTER

3

R O G E RD E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

There is a risk that pragmatist integration could become a magic trick or sleight of hand in which either instrumentalism or rationalism continues to dominate beneath the cover of a new rhetoric. The pragmatic habit of turning contradictions into continuums has become fashionable in South Africa since 1990. Given apartheid noneducation, and the massive inequalities that fracture South African society, integration of all kinds has a strong moral appeal. There is, too, a strong global trend towards integration as education is massified in an attempt to overcome persistent inequalities. There is a risk that an approach containing strong integration and instrumentalism will result in the commodification of education. Or that an approach containing strong integration and rationalism will result in a mystification of education. Pragmatism appears to offer a way to simultaneo~~sly recognise and avoid the dangers of both commodification and mystification.

A pragmatist approach to an outcomes-based NQF appears to offer a way out of the miasmic malaise of South African education by moving beyond the dichotomies and divisions of the past. But how is this amalgam constructed? By what transcendental acts is integration brought about? Pragmatism assumes that constructing learning environments is a collective intersubjective activity. The objectivism of instrumentalism and the subjectivism of rationalism are merged into an intersubjectivity in which educators and learners interact co-operatively and in a disciplined manner to achieve the required outcomes. Unfortunately, the conditions for this intersubjectivity are not present in most classrooms in South Africa, where one is more likely to find conflict and anarchy than co-operation and discipline. Similarly, the inte'grated assessment of outcomes assumes a nonexistent intersubjectivitywhich takes the form of agreement on benchmarks of good practice and the use of inference - patterns of inductive and deductive reasoning that lead to valid, soiuld and consistentjudgements. For the pragmatist, co-operative practices and inferentialjudgemei~tsboth depend on intersubjectivity.To make an inferentialjudgement or to constnlct a theory or pattern of reasoning, the learner/educator has to have grown up within a community of theorists or reasoners. It is our participation in rule-governed activities that enables us to use nlles. So too we learn to infer by practising inference within a community of inferers, and we learn to cooperate by practising cooperdtion with co-operative others. Or, in a more local laypage, associated with Ubuntu: 'A person is a person through other people'. The concepts of inference and intersubjectivity are bound together. Inference is what enables us to engage in what Hannah Arendt called 'representative thinking' where we are able to adopt the viewpoint of a concrete other: to put ourselves in their shoes. This kind of social inference lays the basis for mutual recognition between people. In the abstract, intersubjectivity has a neutrality that evaporates in practice.

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM SO , T I V A T I O NMSE, T H O D O L O G I E S

As Hegel reminded us so powerfully, when two consciousnesses 'recognise' each other they are far more likely to 'hate' than to 'love' each other (Hegel, 1977).A pragmatist education policy discourse would have strong affinities with communitarian discourses about social cohesion characterised by a belief in the possibility, or inevitability, of unity and perfection: a society in which people, despite their differences, are bonded together into peaceful and tolerant communities.

It is this assumption which exposes the soft underbelly of pragmatism. To practise pragmatism assumes that we are already in a pragmatic society. To practise reciprocal intimacy, to love one another, requires a communityin which reciprocal love is practised. So too with the NQF: it tends to assume as already existing what it is intended to produce. A pragmatist approach to an outcomes-based curriculum assumes that learners will be disciplined and cooperative, and that teachers will be professional, knowledgeable and skilled. This kind of pragmatic integration assumes as always already existing a utopia in which the bonds between people are harmonious, just, reciprocal, peaceful and tolerant. The gap between policy and implementation has returned to haunt us in a new form. Pragmatism can only be practised in a pragmatic society. An assumption that South Africa is a pragmatic utopia of the kind envisaged above is dubious on theoretical and empirical grounds. Jessica Benjamin (1990) suggests that most individuals' first experience of intersubjectivity is their mother's love: love is the first bond. Benjamin shows how this first experience of a loving dependence is reversed as the baby grows and the mother begins to control, direct and restrain the baby's desires. The first moments of life when desires are instantly gratified are replaced by experiences of lack and fmstration. Love is replaced by domination as the mother trains her child into obedience. The paradox is that domination, obedience - and even fear - all emerge from a bond of love. Similarly, the developing awareness of one's self as an autonomous self is tied to a relation of dependence on the (m)other, a dependence which breeds love and fear in equal measures. Constructing a community through privileging the common weal (branded onto the bodies of its citizens) over the interests of the individual may produce a loving community, but it isjust as likely to produce a dominating and fear-filled society of dependants. For Benjamin, one way of escaping from the dominating effects of dependency is through the erotic. A reciprocal love relation, culminating in a mutual orgasm in which the atunement between a self and an other enables the self to lose consciousness but not awareness, is the most effective means for overcoming our self-consciousness and dependency. This erotic epiphany is an act of transcendence: we rise above the fragmentation of the everyday into a 'sacred' union. There are strong resonances between the transcendent epiphany of the erotic advocated by Benjamin and the transcendent integration of the pragmatist. In the case of pragmatism, the source of this transcendence cannot lie in the positivism

CHAPTER

3

R O G E RD E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

of the instrumentalist, or the logical reason of the rationalist; instead, it can be found in the positive intuitive competencies of the mystic rationalist who seeks the esoteric (which takes the place of Benjamin's erotic). To integrate, or make a union, between mental and manual, rational and instrumental, educator and learner, requires transcending the divisions and inequalities of the everyday world through erotic and/or esoteric practices. The pragmatist educator has to become a seeker of the esoteric, if not the erotic. This transcendence makes the classroom and the curriculum places where (di)versities are unified. The ideal classroom is free from conflict: it is a community of people who engage in reciprocal recognition (Benhabib, 1986: 320). But in a society fractured by violence, fear and domination, this assumption of a pragmatic and virtuous community is problematic. It requires an act of transcendence, a 'leap of faith', that not only, in itself, 'makes no sense', but also bewilders those who experience it (Foucault, 198'7:9).And it is precisely the educator who has to make this confused and confusing leap if an outcomes-based NQF (as exemplified by Curriculum 2005) is to be implemented successfully. To assume that this kind of sacred or esoteric transcendence can be achieved by a large number of educators is implausible to say the least. Pragmatism is Janus faced, and the other side of the coin from the mysticism of the rationalist is the positivism of the instrumentalist. The instrumentalist strand within prapatism enables the educator to counterbalance esoteric mysticism with the technologies of positivism. Outcomes can be used to regulate the educator and the learner through the spelling out of requirements in the form of competencies that must be achieved. These competencies, described as outcomes, are based on hard empirical evidence about what works and what does not, both in the classroom and the workplace. In other words, developing competent educators who can perform in the learning site is dependent on a strong research culture in which educators are constantly engaged in assessing both their learners' and their own performances - a context in which, in short, teachers learn as much as (and perhaps even more than) they teach (Deacon & Parker, 1998: 151) . Examples of this instrumentalist strand are provided, in the case of educators, by the performance appraisal criteria developed by the Education Labour Relations Council and in the job or role descriptions developed by the national Department of Education. In the case of learners, it is the assessment criteria, range statements and rules of evidence used by an educator that give substance to learning outcomes. One could characterise this 'face' of the educator as a scientist who methodically investigates learners and learning. However, such an instrumentalist approach can easily lead from regulation to prescription and to fragmentation and commodification. To succeed, a pragmatist approach requires teachers to conduct a careful balancing act between the mystic and the positivist, the shaman and the scientist. The

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

competencies required of the learner or educator must be the result of sound empirical research - but these will not be universal and comprehensive competencies. Rather they will be partial and likely to change over time. Nor can empirical research ever provide the whole story, because there will always be a mystical element that lies outside the boundaries of description.

Pragmatism does offer an alternative approach to outcomes that sidesteps the sterility of instrumentalist and rationalist approaches and places the teacher or educator firmly at the centre of curriculum construction. But it is an alternative that will not be easy to implement in the context of a fractured, violent South Africa where many schools lack the most basic resources and many teachers are poorly educated and badly trained. We hope to have shown in this chapter that the road to successful transformation does not lie in the learning outcomes that are registered on the NQF (or contained in Curriculum 2005). These are formal statements that are no more than signposts or targets. It is in their translation into learning programmes, into the daily curricular practices of teachers and learners, that transformation will (or will not) occur. It is the approach and practices adopted by educators that will have the greatest influence on transformation. If educators adopt either instrumentalist or rationalist approaches, then it is likely that South Africa's outcomes-based NQF will fail. Instrumentalism will produce a curriculum based on segmented bits of information and skills that are rote-learned (commodification). Rationalism will produce a curriculum that provides an esoteric affirmation of the learner but has little to do with the everyday life-world (mystification).It is only when the two approaches are combined into pragmatism that there is a chance that the NQF will deliver a productive integration of education and training. Pragmatism provides an approach within which a strategic plan could be developed which binds the empirical and the mystical -avoiding the weaknesses and utilising the strengths of each approach. What is still missing, of course, is the actual plan. But pragmatism does tell us two important characteristics of a 'good' plan. Firstly, that a plan should not be prescriptive -it must adapt to local circumstances and it must evolve as conditions change. Secondly, there is no guarantee that a plan will work - one must be pragmatic about one's pragmatism. From a pragmatist perspective, transforming South Africa's education system requires that educators should be both mystical and positivist, facilitators and authorities, loved and feared. Clearly, this requires a corps of educators who are well educated, well trained and well disciplined. From a pragmatist perspective, a professional educator is like an alchemist capable of transmuting lead into gold through practices that are both scientific and irrational, positivist and mystical. Wexler notes that these practices depend on a 'resacralisation' of the secularism

CHAPTER

3

R O G E RD E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

of schooling in order to oppose commodification and put into play a 'historically transformative, creative cultural force' (Wexler, 1996: 6). Implicit in this approach is that the secular and the sacred (or the resacralised) engage in a dialectical interplay- sometimes conflicting, sometimes combining, a continuous strategic war in which the centripetal forces of integration interact with the centrifugal forces of fragmentation. The multiplicity and diversity inherent in S A W Smodel of cooperative stakeholder governance of NQF structures and bodies (National Standards Bodies, Standards Generating Bodies, Education and Training Quality Assurance Bodies), involving state departments, organised business, organised unions, providers of education and training, critical interest groups and community and learner organisations, can only be unified with a strongly integrated framework if there is an underlying consensus about the basic epistemological assumptions which inform the development, governance and funding of an NQF. This chapter has argued that the potentially most fruitful assumptions are those of a Deweyan kind of pragmatism. It has also been argued, however, that in the context of South Africa a pragmatist perspective is faced with severe challenges. The kind of peaceful, lo~ing community of reasonable people, with mutual respect for one another that would promote the technologies of pragmatism, is lacking in South Africa. The teacher with the knowledge, skills and values to be a competent outcomes-based educator is all too rare. If the ambitious path to the future that has been laid out in policy is to be achieved, there has to be a massive and radical reeducation of the hundreds of thousands of educators through whose identities, competencie5, values and practices change will be mediated.

This chapter has benefited greatly from ongoing conversations with Ken Harley, Volker Wedekind, Cass Lubisi and Themba Ndhlovu.

SECTION B

MEANINGS, MOTIVA TIOM NS, ETHODOLOGIES

BIBLIOGRAPHY Benhabib, S. 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press. Benjamin,J. 1990. The Bonds of Love. London: Virago Press Bemstein, B. 1995. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. London: Taylor and Francis. Deacon, R & Parker, B. 1995. Education as subjection and refusal: An elaboration on Foucault. Curriculum Studies, 3 (2), 109-1 22. Deacon, R & Parker, B. 1998. Escolarizacao dos cidadaos ou civilizacao da sociedade? (The Schooling of Citizens or the Civilising of Society?). In LH da Silva (ed), A Escola Cidada no Contexto da Gbbalizacao Petropolis, Brazil: Editora Vozes. Department of Labour. 1997. Green Paper on Skills Development Strategy for Economic and Employment Growth in South Ahca. Pretoria. Dewey, J. 1916. Democrq and Education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. 1938a. Logic: The Themy oflnquiry. NewYork: Henry Holt and Co. Dewey,J. 1938b. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan. Foucault, M. 1987. The UseofPleasuure:The Histmy of-,

vol. 2. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hegel, GWF. 1977. Phenomenology ofSpirit. Oxford: Clarendon. Hickrnan, L. 1992.John Daueyk Pragmatic Technology.Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hunter, I. 1994. Rethinking the School. St Leonard's: Allen and Unwin. Ministry of Education. 1997. Government Gazette, 6 June 1997, no 18051. Pretoria: Government Printer. Muller,J & Taylor, N. 1995. Schooling and everyday life: Knowledges sacred and profane'. Social Epistemology, 9 (3), 157-275. National Training Board (NTB) 1997. Education, Training and Development Practices Project Phase 2 Report. Pretoria. National Training Board 1998. Education, Training and Development Practices Pmject Phase 3 Report -Model 2. Pretoria. Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept $Mind London: Hutchinson. Ryle, G. 1979. On Thinking. Oxford: Blackwell. Senge, PM. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday. t Authority. Paper Shalem, Y 1997. Epistemological Labour: The Way to S i g n f ~ a nPedagogical presented at the Kenton-at-the-Gap Conference, Hermanus, November 1997.

South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). 1997. South African Qualifications Authority. Government Gazette, 29 August 1997,no 18221 (SAQA 14/P ETQA Regulations: 8/97 Revised). Spady, W. 1995. Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues. American Association of School Administrators. USA: Breakthrough Systems. Taylor, C. 1989. Sources ofthe Se& Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 3

R O G E R D E A C O N& B E N P A R K E R

Wexler, P. 1996. Holy Sparks: Social Theory, Education and Religzon. New York: St Martin's Press. Young, M. 1996. The Outcomes A~@ach to Education and Training: Theoretical Grounding and a n International Perspectzve Paper presented at the Inter Ministerial Conference to launch the National Qualifications Framework held at Technikon SA,Johannesburg, April 1996.

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 4

Outcomes-based Education Has Different Forms CLIFF MALCOLM RAOMASTE CENTRE, UNIVERSITY O F THE WITWATERSRAND, WITWATERSRAND

Over the last six or seven years I have given many conference and workshop presentations on OBE, both in Australia and South Africa. A question participants often ask is: 'Yes, but does it work?' The question is loaded, with its 'Yes but . ..' form and in other ways as well. For example, what is 'it'? Outcomes-based education is a way of managing curriculum and assessment that has many forms. Spady describes models in the USA (Spady, 1994, 1997, 1998; Spady & Marshall, 1991) that vary between themselves and are remarkably different, for example, froni the Australian niodel (Australian Education Council (AEC), 1994a,b). These are differences at the level of theory -long before we get to variations in details and ways the systems are interpreted arid applied in schools. They make a short answetto the conference question
A second issue in the question is the meaning of 'working'. Will the questioner be satisfied with examples that show, in Australia for example, that the local model work? well for some teachers arid students often, for-all teachers and students sometimes? Probably not. But, arguably, if OBE can work with some teachers, the rest is a matter of scale, will and management. The questioner's counter-claim is also valid: 'I talked to a teacher froni New Zealand and she says it doesn't work.' If it doesn't work for some teachers, not working for all teachers is also a matter of scale, will and management. Further, what are the criteria for 'working'? Does it require major reshaping of what is learned, school structures and power relationships as major criteria? Perhaps this is too radical. Does it require an upsurge in the economy? Are we prepared to settle for better resultc on standardised mathematics tests? Outcomes-based education models typically emphasise broad

SECTION B

MEANINGS, MOTIVATION MS E,T H O D O L O G I E S

competencies and learning in the context of applications. This often results in reduced coverage of traditional content. It can also mean that students who prospered in the traditional cuniculum are no longer at the top of the class. Do these shifts mean that the system is working or not working? Underlying the definitions of 'it' and 'working' are deeper beliefs about educational innovation and change. Often the person asking Yes, but does it work?' presumes that introducing OBE is like putting a new car into the market. The new machine will be developed through research and field-testing and made available only when it works predictably and reliably, when all the technicians' manuals and spare-parts are available and fail safe. Like the car, OBE should be able to be developed in the USA or Australia, imported to South Africa, retuned to suit the climate and conditions, then turned on. And it should 'work'. Anything less means 'doesn't work' or at least 'not ready for the market'. So deeply embedded is this belief in machines and test drives, that if I respond at the workshop with 'The answer to your question depends on what you mean by working and it7,the questioners and their friends often smile knowingly, lean back in their chairs and claim some unstated victory. The politics of education and change are played out at many levels, in many places. The politics of OBE are especially messy. Because outcomes-based education is first and foremost a management system -an approach to managing cumculum control, curriculum design, assessment and reporting, teachers and accountability, change and innovation - it can appeal to different interest groups in different ways, depending on what each group wants to see managed and achieved. It can be sold to the New Right as meeting their concern for work skills, markets, individual choice and economic rationalism; to the Extreme Right as a response to their distrust of teachers and their fervour for traditions, accountability and existing power groups; to multiculturalists, feminists, environmentalists and progressives as a way of advancing individual freedoms, social responsibilities, teacher professionalism and post-modem philosophies (Apple, 1993; Manno, 1997). Governments often choose to claim all of these groups at once, each on its own terms. In the British television series YesPrime Minister; the prime minister in one episode is preparing a television speech for a chat to the nation. He wonders aloud about strategy: should he wear his Italianjersey, relax in an armchair and talk about the same old stuff or wear his blue suit, sit at a desk in the library and talk about new policies? Either way, he feels, mixed messages are the best way forward. So it has often been with the development of OBE. Governments confound their strategic use of mixed messages by presenting their policies with apparent surefootedness, hiding any lack of knowledge or thoroughness in their planning. We can begin to clarify the question 'Does it work?' by asking: what are the problems OBE is attempting to solve, and where does OBE come from? OBE's goals are

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

not new: to have every child learn effectively and learn things that are worthwhile. Spady (1994) expresses these in four principles: clarity of focus (for teachers and students), expanded opportunity, high expectations, and design to achieve results (by working from outcomes to structures and teaching). As a management system, however, OBE is recent, derived from research in organisational development in industry. Successful organisations in the 19905, whether providing services or products, are likely to have shifted their emphasis to total quality management, and devolved much of their work to small, self-managed project teams. The large bureaucracy has given way. Networks of teams work creatively, in close touch with their clients, seeking flexibility and 'value added' production (Peters, 1992). In education, assuming that the major 'clients' are students, these shifts amount to putting most of the responsibility for curriculum design with teachers (who know their students and are close to their students) and encouraging creative solutions at the school level. On the other hand, education is not as simple as private industry. In the interests of fairness, diversity of curriculum at the local level has to be tempered with concerns for access on the national scale; in the interests of national development, local goals have to relate to national goals. As a management system, OBE must enable a mix of central and local control of curriculum, in ways that acknowledge and build the central role of teachers. In a sense, the test of OBE is whether it enables teachers to design good curricula and the test of teachers is whether students learn. The second test of OBE concerns the outcomes that students actually achieve. In a discussion of whether OBE 'works', the questions of which outcomes are most worthwhile, by whose definition, and how will we know, must be addressed alongside issues of teacher effectiveness. Variations in models of OBE arise from different choices of outcomes, and different management systems to achieve them. My main purpose in this chapter is to compare and unravel some of the existing models. I will focus on approaches in Australia, the USA and Canada, because they have been and are important in the South African development (national Department of Education (DOE), 1996). My second purpose is to explore the question of why some countries choose one approach and others another. This is an important question for South Africa, where the choices are not yet finalised. It also begins to lay bare the fact that whether any particular model will 'work' depends on a complex of historical, cultural, political and resource issues. Even as I focus on theoretical models, I am aware that they can be vastly different from what happens in schools, where teachers work at the practical level with their own theories and adaptations. So it may be that OBE in the classroom of a teacher in Minneapolis has more in common with an Australian model than a USA one, while in Sydney a teacher's version aligns with no published model anywhere. I am well aware also that mixed messages about OBE and confused theories of how

S E C T I O N

B

M E A N I N GM SO . TIVATION MSE.T H O D O L O G I E S

to use the official system leave schools and teachers to work erratically -like the airline captain who calls back to his passengers 'This is your captain speaking. I want to tell you we're malung really good time. I don't know where we're going, but we're making good time.' It is necessary within the chapter to give some attention to system and school-level management.

MODELSOF OBE: THE COMMON GROUND Education in many countries around the world is changing to curricula that emphasise broad competencies, and management that promotes devolution to schools and accountability of schools. Most of these countries have stayed with governmentdefined syllabuses and resources (inputs models).A small number have opted for outcomes models (speclfylngwhat students should know and be able to do). Among the outcomes approaches there are significantvariations, but whether they are called 'National Curriculum' (UK and New Zealand), 'Profiles' (Australia), 'OBE' (USA, Canada, South Africa), or 'National Standards' (USA), they share some common features and motivations. Inputs are different from outcomes

Inputs are the experiences from which children learn; outcomes are the results of learning. Outcomes-based education distinguishes them: what teachers teach is not necessarily what students learn. This is hardly a revelation! But in a way it is, It is contrary to the tradition of behavioural objectives, where teachers and textbook writers proclaimed 'At the end of this lesson every student will be able to draw a picture explaining phases of the moon'. The one sentence defined both the teaching objective or input (to teach the picture and explanation) and the learning objective or outcome (all students will demonstrate the picture and explanation). The objective promised the same input for all students and expected, ideally, the same outcome for all students. Breaking the nexus between input and outcome raises exciting possibilities. Teachers can acknowledge inputs to learning from sources other than themselves and their texts - students' everyday experiences, families, books, television programmes, imaginations, other young people. Teachers can celebrate children who come to class already able to demonstrate particular outcomes, and children who make effective inputs to the class. But children vary. For this reason, teachers must either use a variety of single inputs, or multidimensional inputs that enable all children to respond. Instead of being fmtrated that children learn different things from an activity, teachers can design activities especially to facilitate differences. The converse is also true:just as one input can lead to different outcomes, so different inputs can lead to the same outcome. Teachers can run a number of activities in parallel that suit different students but that all address the same general outcome.

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

Government designs outcomes, schools and teachers design inputs Instead of a situation where governments prescribe inputs (through syllabuses and recommended texts), they prescribe outcomes and leave the design and selection of inputs to teachers. As well as putting greater emphasis on what students actually know and can do, the policy shares curriculum control between government and schools. This achieves a number of things. Firstly, outcomes are designed by teams who are more broadly representative of the community than teachers and educators. What to learn is determined in part by big business, small business, government, environmentalists, parents. An American catch-cry for this strategy is that education is too important to be left to educators. In the USA, outcomes are often defined at the district level, but still with this orientation to broad community involvement. Secondly, teachers and schools design the inputs, using their knowledge of the community and its children, their technical expertise and creativity. Teachers then follow through, implementing and evaluating their designs, taking responsibility for results. These inputs are more than specific teaching activities. They include all the arrangements the school makes to effect achievement of the outcomes: staffing and the use of'specialist staff, timetables, student choice, student grouping, f~~rnishings, school management, organisational climate. In the spirit of total quality management, all inputs and processes are considered together. Thirdly, the quality of education, from the government's perspective, is indicated by outcomes, not inputs. Teachers and schools are responsible fhr students' learning, accountable for outcomes. There are many ways in whichjudging quality from outcomes is simplistic and misleading, but the counter-clairn is also important: it is difficult to defend teaching as quality if the students aren't learning things that the nation considers important. For many countries, teacher and system accountability h r outcomes has been a significant factor in the introduction of OBE. The quality of inputs is not ignored - fir from it - but is considered to be primarily the school's business. Organisational structures antl processes, ct~rriculurndesign and teaching, school inlprovemerlt and the professional support of'teachers are internal matters for the school. Notwithstanding this general position, in most ORE approaches (including those in A~istraliaand South Mica) governments also provide a framework of principles for teaching and management, and pro~itlein-senicc education and support services. Finally, the division of control between government and schools offers a way of balancing similarity and difference in curriculum across the country. It balances equity in the sense that all students have the same access to higher education, cultural understanding and employment, with equity in the sense that all students learn things that relate to their own lives. The prescribed outcomcs provide the common framework; the inputs allow local variations. The actual balance achieved depends on how the outcomes are written (the level of'detail) and the an-ange~nents

B M E A N I N GM S ,O T I V A T I O N MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

SECTION

made for assessment. Outcomes that are broadly defined give teachers and schools extensive freedom with what to teach, reducing similarity across schools. Assessment has to be school based, with the effect that results across schools cannot be readily compared. On the other hand, if the government conducts pencil and paper tests across all schools, they force similarity in what is taught and even how it is taught, regardless of the detail in the prescribed outcomes. All students can learn

As a statement about schooling, the cry that 'all students can learn' is a criticism of traditional practice. The traditional curriculum in North America, Australia and South Africa is geared to matriculation and universities and to employment. It is essentially academic and, even in primary schools, structured around disciplines and epistemologiesused in universities. The system has failed, even in its own terms. Of all the students who start together in Grade 1, only 20-30 % matriculate in minimum time. Selection for universities or employment is ultimately competitive. The system is acting to select and sort much more than to educate. The system also has to defend itself against claims from business and industry that schoolleavers - even successful ones - are not satisfying the needs of the workplace. Industry is now calling for skills it was not demanding fifty years ago. When most work was in factory and farm production or bureaucratic service industries, critical thinking, problem-solving, team work and self-management were not highly desired. In the present days of automation, the global economy, and value-added production, they are highly desired. Industry needs a different kind of worker; schoolleavers need different kinds of skills and higher levels of knowledge if they are to getjobs. Industry is calling not only for better teaching, but for students to learn more important things. The education now required in work and society impacts on the favoured place that universities have had in schooling and the politics of knowledge (Malcolm, 1995).At the same time, whether industry's demands for higher levels of competence for all studentswill solve students' concerns for employment is not clear. Rifkin (1997),for example, argues that automation, value-added production and the global economy may lead to a society where work is increasingly the province of a small elite who work long hours for big pay. Rifkin argues that schools will then need another major shift in focus, as social service and voluntary work become more important. For most people, economic competition and self-interest in mainstream work will have to give way to social service and interest in other people and the environment.Whether W n ' s -or other futurists' -predictions prove accurate, they raise for us the idea that current demands for particular higher-order competencies might in future need to change. No particular future is inevitable! The claim that 'all students can learn' can be interpreted as a comment about students. The '70-80 % who drop out before they finish school are often

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

considered by schools and the community as students who can't learn, or at least are 'no good at school'. They are discarded as failures or for having 'reached their ceilings'. This, in fact, is a further indictment of schooling that has failed to accept its responsibility to educate all students. In OBE, the idea that all students can learn is interpreted in two ways. One follows the claim of the early behavourists such asJohn Watson that anyone can be taught anything, given good teaching and sufficient time. If the student does not 'get there' by the end of a lesson, then the teacher and student try again, from a different angle, with additional time. The time allowed can be flexible: an hour, a month, a year, more. Nobody fails (DOE, 1996) because the prospect of learning is always there in the future. Spady (1994) talks in a similar vein about 'assessments written in pencil'. With additional time and energy, the pencilled 'not there yet' can become 'outcome achieved', written in ink. An alternative view of the idea that all students can learn focuses not on standards of achievement, but increments of progress. Learning in this view is a process, with successful learning measured by improvement in standard rather than the standard itself. All students, whether gifted, disabled, or in between, have the same rights to progress. This is valueadded education. It underlies the policy in Australia (AEC, 1994b).The Australian approach and Spady's both remove the time constraints on achieving particular standards -Australia's because of its emphasis on continuous pro'gress, Spady's because of the possibility of retaking the tests. Assessment requires analysis of performance

Traditional testing assumed that, for example, 'ability in science' was a single construct that could be measured by a number of test questions working together. Accordingly achievement could be reduced to a single score. A test question that didn't discriminate among students in the same direction as the total score was a bad question -it wasn't measuring the presumed constnict 'ability in science'. By this process of test design, the dimensions of achievement meamred in the test (and hence aimed for in teaching) were narrowed -usually in the direction of memorised knowledge and routine skills. Outcomes-based education argues for assessment of many dimensions of performance, often complex in themselves, and for reporting them separately. 'Designing investigations' is not presumed to correlate highly with 'understanding concepts in science' or 'ability to work in teams' -and whether it does is not critical. A particular performance -whether a test, a project report, or behaviour as a team member -has to be analysed in relation to relevant outcomes and whatever learning is demonstrated. The effect is to produce what Australians call a profile of student achievement - a description of achievement in each of the relevant outcomes separately - rather than a summary score. Tests remain a part of the assessment armoury, but are analysed in relation to specific outcomes. Record-keeping and reporting accordingly are much more complex than in traditional education. It helps

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GMOTIVA S, TIOM NS, ETHODOLOGIES

to have a manageably small and sensible number of dimensions of performance, so the focus shifts to broad concepts and competencies.

Teacher knowledge is central to learning and the success of OBE as a system Curriculum to suit students has to be designed by people on the spot. So does assessment, to relate to the curriculum the students were actually part of. The design of curriculum and assessment lies especially with teachers. Giving teachers this responsibility fits with management research on project teams that are flexible, creative and client oriented (Peters, 1992). It is one of the ironies of OBE that a system whose motivation, in many countries, included a wish to wrest education from teachers and make them accountable, depends more than ever on the professionalism and skills of teachers and school leaders. Darling-Hammond (1996) writes of the USA: As recently as ten years ago, the idea that teacher knowledge was critical for educational improvement had little currency. Continuing a tradition begun at the turn of the 2othcentury, policy makers searched for the right set of test prescrip tions, textbook adoptions and cumculum directives to be packaged and mandated to guide practice. Educational reform was 'teacher-proofed' ... [Now] policy makers increasingly realise that regulations cannot transform schools; only teachers, in collaboration with parents and administrators, can do that.

While the spirit of Darling-Hammond's observation is true in countries around the world, the details need not apply. For example, in the Australian states of Victoria and South Australia from the mid-1960s through to the introduction of outcomes-based approaches in the 1990s, there were no mandated syllabuses or state examinations at any level up to Year 10. For nearly thirty years, teachers and schools had complete responsibility for curriculum, assessment and school improvement. Education departments and professional associations supported them through allocated non-teaching time, travelling consultants, publications, conferences and after-school workshops. The Do-it-yourself Curriculum Guide (Education Department of South Australia, 1976), The Science Framaumlz P-10 (Ministryof Education, Victoria, 1987), Windows on Practice (Education Department of South Australia, 1991) and The School I m p n n , m t Plan (Ministry of Education, Victoria, 1984) are typical publications. When teachers' knowledge and skills are central, educational management has to be directed to that end. Schools and the education department have to provide time, management structures and support for teachers to develop and express their skills. School principals, heads of department and other leaders also need appropriate skills. In addition, new processes of teacher and school accountability are required, because different schools do different things and teach different things with different management structures and ways of working.

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

MODELSOF OBE: A Focus ON DIFFERENCES I want to compare especially models of OBE from the USA and the Australian model. From time to time I will draw from other countries. My intention is not to claim primacy for Spady's or the Australian models (the Australian model is derivative from the United Kingdom's National Curriculum, Spady's models from Mastery Learning in the USA) but to use them as illustrations of more general points. Neither do I wish to claim that either model is 'right'. Both have weaknesses according to their own criteria and anyway must be seen in their own historical contexts. Comparison and exploration of the two models is offered as a way of understanding OBE and thinking about South Africa's needs. The choice of outcomes For Spady (1994; 1997), the choice of outcomes and the creation of an epistemology of outcomes are central issues, if not the only ones. He has little to say about learning theory, classroom organisation, or teaching methods. They are inputs. If teachers decide group work is the way to develop a particular concept, that is their professional judgement. If, however, they promote group work as a microcosm of democracy, they are talking about an outcome and so must relate it to the agreed set of outcomes. If a learning experience can't be defended in relation to particular outcomes and/or their efficient achievement, it shouldn't be there. Spady uses outcomes rather than learning theories to drive the teaching process. A teacher-led presentation aimed to have students memorise body organs in a unit called 'organ systems in the body' gives the students no access to outcomes on creative thinking or working in groups. Students completing group projects on different organ systems and presenting their findings by dramatic role plays or illustrated flip charts does. If teachers want memorisation of labels, drill and practice might do, but if they want skills in creative thinking, group work and communication, they need more. So Spady exhorts teachers to 'design down' from culminating outcomes, to programme outcomes, to unit outcomes, to lesson outcomes, to teaching and assessment. For Spady, the outcomes not only
He defines three approaches to OBE, according to the kind of performance in the culminating outcomes. Emphasis on knowledge and skills in traditional subjects he calls 'traditional OBE'. Emphasis on broad competencies such as problemsolving and using technology is 'transitional OBE'. His third approach, 'transformational OBE', emphasises 'role performances' such as: Students should demonstrate that they are quality producers who can create products that achieve their purpose, are appropriate to their audience, reflect craftsmanship, and use technolocq and resources. (Aurora Colorado Public Schools, quoted by Spady, 1994)

SECTION B

M E A N I N GMSO , T I V A T I O NMSE, T H O D O L O G I E S

Spady's three approaches are hierarchical in the sense that 'transformational OBE' inevitably subsumes competenciesand knowledge, whereas 'traditional OBE' might not (and traditionally does not) address role performances. He assigns different value to the different forms. Transformational is the highest and traditional the lowest. He assigns value indirectly, for example, with a metaphor of a mountain in which the narrow high peak is transformational OBE, and the broad low base is traditional OBE. He assigns value also by the names he gives - traditional is old, transformational is new, and the competence version is transitional -on the way from traditional to transformational, not the other way. Spady calls his high form transformational because it requires the greatest change to existing structures and operations in schools and to the learning required for graduation. Beyond the advantages of clanfylngthe focus for teachers and students, allowing the community greater influence on what is learned, and providing for accountability (through public and transparent criteria for teaching and learning), his transformational OBE counters the charge You have passed the tests, but so what?'. His answer, via his role performances, is that successful students are ready to take their place in society as citizens, producers/workers, lifelong learners, community and family members. Achievements in science, art, mathematics or history that don't relate to such roles need to be questioned -it may be that they are simply in the curriculum for their own sake. Even so, his claim on the word transfmational is somewhat misleading for South Africans, who use it with a different meaning. In South Africa, 'transformation' is a goal for a society moving from apartheid, privilege and exploitation to political democracy, open and transparent management, economic and legal equity. Transformational OBE might not be the route to the transformation that South Africa dreams of. According to Spady's classification, OBE models in most countries in the world, including Australia, Canada and South Africa, lie somewhere between traditional and transitional. They derive their outcomesjointly from learning areas on the one hand, and overarching 'national goals of schooling' (Australia,AEC, 1994a,b) or 'critical outcomes' (Canada, Ministry of Education and Training, Ontario, 1995; South Africa, DOE, 1996). Australia's national goals of schooling have the form:

+ to provide an excellent education for all young people, being one which develops their talents and capacities to full potential, and is relevant to the social, cultural and economic needs of the nation;

+ to enable all students to achieve high standardsof learning and to develop selfconfidence, optimism, high selfesteem, respect for others, and achievement of personal excellence;

+ to provide a foundation for further education and training, in terms of

knowledge and skills, respect for learning, and positive attitudes for lifelong education ... Ontario's critical outcomes address competencies, with the following form. By the end of Grade 9, students will:

+ communicate effectively; + solve problems and make responsible decisions using critical and creative thinking; + demonstrate an understanding of the world as a set of related systems ... Compare these with one of the sets of culminating outcomes quoted by Spady (1994),from Moorsville, North Carolina: ... the Moorsville community wants each of its graduates to be a continuously developing, lifelong, selfdirected learner who:

+ assumes responsibility for decisions and activities; + identifies and applies a set of goals to actions and purposes; + articulates and uses a design for continuous improvement; + creates, maintains and enhances a healthy physical, mental, emotional, personal self with a positive image ...

Spady's culminating outcomes are much more forceful in the curriculum than Ontario's critical outcomes and/or Australia's national goals of schooling. Students must demonstrate Spady's culminating outcomes in order to graduate. Ontario teachers work mainly with learning area outcomes, indexed back to critical outcomes to ensure that critical outcomes are addressed. Australian teachers take their lead from the learning area outcomes (as in traditional schooling), keeping half an eye on national goals. Setting out what a nation thinks all students should learn is a major political exercise. It is a direct statement of what the society believes schooling is about. Is it to 'make' a certain kind of person (as the Moorsville example suggests) or is it more simply to relieve ignorance (the dominant view in Australia according to Wilson, 1994)? In the USA, it was insistence on defining outcomes in terms of what students should be that was the undoing of OBE -from debate partly about the role of schools, and partly about what the nation wanted students to be anyway. In Australia'the debate was different and not very lively: teachers and educators were wary of being blamed or celebrated for the state of the nation - for family relationships,crime rates, the economy, employment, the environment, migration and interracial tension. Better for schools to stay with knowledge and skills, and accept that responsibility wholeheartedly (Wilson, 1994). Yet when we probe the two positions, the differences are not as clear as they first seem. Do we want students to know how to solve problems, or be problem solvers?

SECTION

B

Do we want students to know how to analyse and synthesise ideas, or be critical thinkers? These are issues of definition of 'knowing' and 'being', whether students should internalise their learning to the point of believing it, or simply apply and use it. This issue is widely discussed in science education, especially in multicultural contexts (Aikenhead, 1996). For example, do we require students to 'displace' a witchcraft explanation of disease with a scientific one, to be able to offer a scientific explanation without believing it, or to build the idea into their belief system, along with provisos, to be used in certain contexts (Jegede, 1995)? Double-speak confounds an already d i c u l t issue. For example, Spady advocates outcomes in terms of what students should be, but insists that behaviour or performance are sufficient definition of learning; the Australian policy is couched in terms of what students should know, but is based in constructivist definitions of learning that push much closer to students' beliefs (see below). Spady's role performances were criticised from all quarters (Manno, 1997; Apple, 1993; Ryan, 1995; Schwarz & Cavener, 1994; Spady, 1994) and triggered major campaigns in the press, public meetings and on the Internet. Many of them, especially in the public domain, were grossly unfair in their misrepresentation and exaggeration.The loudest voices protested about defining schooling and outcomes in terms of what students should be and be like. Further, because Spady derived his role performances and outcomes from a view of the future and students' future roles, they criticised his approach as social engineering (or at least putting too many eggs in one basket) and deterministic, instead of seeing it as an attempt at studentcentred planning. In Australia, even though the outcomes (drawn from traditional learning areas) were much less adventurous than Spady's, debate about them was vigorous and emotional, especially in science and mathematics. The battle concerned the desired breadth of the learning areas and philosophies of knowledge. Professors of physics and mathematics led the case for a traditional, logical, positivist view. They also argued that any broadening (for example to consider the social, cultural and technological aspects of science and mathematics) would destroy academic standards. Feminists, environmentalistsand teacher associations, on the other hand, pressed for more post-modern definitions of science and mathematics and broader outcomes. The society and the media, in general, were much more prepared to trust the views of professors of physics and mathematics than teachers, feminists and environmentalists, adding a new dimension to the debate.

As Blades (1997) has observed, a culture (in his case Canadian) has unwritten but powerful rules about who has authority to speak on an issue and how the debate should be conducted. The outcomes of schooling are not simply a set of academic and practical skills, but social and political outcomes. Curriculum reform can confirm power relationships, knowledge and structures in the society or it can challenge them. In all countries where it has been introduced, OBE has sought to challenge the status quo.

C H A P T E R

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

Debate over content, central to the discussion of outcomes-based education in Australia, was important also in the USA. While some feared that OBE was too 'soft', likely to lower academic standards and diminish the disciplines, others saw it as too 'hard', dominated by business and business principles, distorting the purposes and functions of schools, degrading human nature (Spady, 1994). The way that the choice of outcomes is worked out in a society is cultural as well as political. Singapore's outcomes, like Spady's, are firmly rooted in the kinds of people students should become (Singapore Ministry of Education, 1998),yet they did not meet major opposition. For Singaporeans education is about 'moral, cognitive, physical, social and aesthetic development', where 'the foundation . . . is [the student's] value system,from which springs his outlook on life and his goals in life'. Outcomes for the end of post-secondary and tertiary education are that students should:

4 [be] morally upright, culturally rooted yet understanding and respecting differences, responsible to family, community and country;

4 believe in our principles of multiracialism and meritocracy, appreciating national constraints but seeing the opportunities;

+ [understand] the constituents of a gracious society; + [be] willing to strive, take pride in work, value working with others . . . As well as the values dimension in the choice and phrasing of outcomes, there is a practical dimension: the outcomes must provide a usable framework for curriculum design, assessment and accountability. Many American teachers saw Spady's culminating outcomes as insufficient. In the curriculum process of designing down from role performances to lesson outcomes, for example, who decides what knowledge and contexts are appropriate? The designdown process has to move not only from role performances all the way to lesson outcomes, but from the end of school to the bepnning. Grade 3 is a long way from Grade 10. Inevitably other frameworks than the outcomes come into play, such a\the traditional disciplines, knowledge of children and their families, idea3 that have worked in the past, resources and current practices. Spady urges community consultation on the culminating outcomes,but it is not clear who decides the school's secondary frameworks, or how public they are. It is clear in the Australian model: the secondary frameworks are provided by the learning areas, and policies on curriculum desi<;n.They are public and decided by government. When are outcomes reached? For Spady, the outcomes that count are 'culminating outcomes' -achievements at the end of school. As noted earlier, the outcomes are derived from adult roles, so the primary purpose of schooling is to prepare students for adult life. Using the designdown principle, schools develop subsidiary sets of outcomes,which serve as steps along the way. Spady regards these as exit outcomes (for example at the

B M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATIOM NS E ,T H O D O L O G I E S

SECTION

end of a unit of work), or alternatively as practice on the way to the final performance. In Australia, by contrast, the concepts and skills that comprise the outcomes, and hence the outcomes themselves, are open ended. Learning to be a 'good reader' is never complete; skills in investigation continue to develop beyond school. Australia does not have culminating outcomes or standards that all students must reach. The phrase 'At the end of Grade X students will be able to ...' is not used. Instead, progressive levels of achievement are defined that serve as milestones in development. The outcome levels are not tied to Grades, but describe achievement independently. ' [This level] is evident when students, for example ...' (AEC, 1994a). At the end of compulsory schooling (Grade 10 in Australia) different students are at different levels, some behind the average, others ahead. The Australian levels were derived not from end-points, but from ideas about progression in the outcomes that were sensible to teachers, researchers and children. In a way the levels were designed up: they indicate distance from the beginning, not the end. Higher levels show the road ahead. The emphasis on educational development and designing up implies a focus on children as they are rather than the adults they will become, on their immediate lives as well as their distant futures.

One step at a time? Outcomes-based education models in the USA developed from mastery learning and behaviourism. 'The power of our movement still derives from the original Mastery Learning ideas' (Hazelip, 1993). Even though Spady himself has largely abandoned this base (Spady, 1998),for most schools thejourney to the culminating outcomes is through a network of instructional units, each with its own prescribed achievements. No student moves to the next unit until he/she has mastered the current one. The Australian model works differently. Schools expect not only that different students operate at different levels on an outcome, but any one student operates at more than one level at once. Teachers design activities that cross levels. Students reach forward to the next level, relate back to past levels. By working in groups with students at other levels, they see their activity as part of a bigger development. They do not master one level before moving to the next. The teacher's job is not to decide whether the student has mastered a particular level, but to decide 'on balance' which level best describes the student's progress. In the USA models, 'nobody fails' means that the student can always have another go at demonstrating the required performance for the unit at hand. In Australia the idea that nobody fails is phrased instead that 'there has to be an outcome'. When students complete a task, they surely show something that they know, even if not at the hoped-for level. That 'something' must be able to be mapped onto the

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

set of outcomes and levels. The Australian approach is as much about acknowledging students' current achievements as measuring down from the teacher's hopes.

What is meant by learning? Spady sits ultimately in a behaviourist position. Outcomes must be demonstrations or performances, not thoughts, understandings,beliefs, attitudes, mental processes; not grades, numbers, averages. He distinguishes between psychological models of learning (what happens inside a student's head), and sociological models ('ability to translate mental processing into forms and kinds of action that occur in real social settings' (Spady, 1994)).Outcomes must be of the sociological kind. The behaviour is the learning and the thing assessed. What happens in the mind helps learning, but the outcome is the behaviour. Verbs such as understanding, knowing, appreciating have no place in Spady's OBE (Spady, 1994).He makes his case from the need to have assessment criteria public. He also needs to circumvent criticism that OBE is trying to mould students' thoughts, beliefs and values. Accordingly, he presents learning as objectively defined and coming from outside. (It is interesting that in the USA planned modification of behaviour is generally acceptable, but planned changes to beliefs and values are not.) The Australian view of learning is much closer to a constructivist one. Learning takes place in the mind and expresses itself in many ways, of which performance is one. What happens in the mind entails a complex of cultural, social and personal factors -world-view, perception, imagination,values, purposes, social interactions, cultural expectations. The curriculum is therefore subjective, not only in the way it is experienced, but in what is learned. Because learning takes place in the mind, assessment is achieved by inference, not measurement. Performances are not the measure of learning, but clues about what and how students think. The 'public and justifiable' requirements of assessment are met by teachers' being able to point to convincing evidence for their judgements. Their evidence might be test answers, submitted assignments, performances, drawings, students' claims and introspective reports. In this approach, performance is an indicator of learning, not the learning itself. Behaviours in the Australian model are called pointers, not outcomes (AEC, 1994a). The nature and role of continuous assessment

Spadv distinguishes carefully between performance and practice. Reflecting, coaching, inferring, analysing, experimenting are all parts of practice; preparing for performance. The final performance, not the practice, is what matters. Performances are required at the end of each unit, so continuous assessment addresses this series of exit performances more than the day-today activities that are part of teaching. On the other hand, since all schooling is headed to the culminating performances at its end, every performance and assessment along the way can properly be called formative.

B M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MS E,T H O D O L O G I E S

SECTION

The Australian approach is different. Continuous assessment includes the information that teachers assemble while watching students at work, talking with them, making and testing inferences about what they know. It is a natural part of teaching, especially when students are learning through projects and tasks. The tasks offer up clues about students' thinking and skills. This formative assessment becomes part of summativejudgements about level of achievement The distinctions between teaching and assessing, learning and performing, are blurred. Students participate in the assessment process. What students do during practice can reveal as much or more about what they think as their final performances can. Further, practice and performance yield qualitatively different information, because they occur in different contexts and performance anxiety operates differently. In the Australian model, what a student demonstrates during the learning (practice in Spady's terms) as well as in the final performance is authentic assessment. Student grouping and promotion In Spady's system and the Australian one, ideally, no student should wait around or spend time relearning something he or she already knows. In Spady's approach students should move to the next station as soon as they have mastered the current one. Three options are possible.

+ Instruction can be individualised,especially through the use of computerbased instruction and computer-managed progress. Groups can be formed where appropriate, but the emphasis is individual. Classes and grades as such are irrelevant.

+ Students can work in whole class groups (probablywith their age-mates), but with loops of enrichment and corrective action available. This is the common approach. The teacher teaches the whole class, then conducts the assessment. Students who need to do additional work move into a corrective pathway; others move into an enrichment pathway.

+ Students are reassigned to groups as required so that they are alwayswith

their peers in achievement. Spady commends this approach (Spady, 1997; Ryan, 1995).Students work in groups, but as soon as they demonstrate the required learning they move on. The composition of groups changes often, and age groupings are broken down. Further, since students might, for example, progress quickly in some units or learning areas but slowly in others, in any one week a student is part of a number of different groups. The emphasis in each of these alternatives is on individuals moving efficiently through the course without regard for belonging to any group. The common model is the second one, where quick students often miss out: the teacher is too busy trying to bring slow students up to standard to give much attention to the enrichment activities. The approach bogs down further if some students fail to

C H A P T E R

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

meet the standard the second time and have to do yet another corrective loop (Schwarz & Cavener, 1994). It becomes unmanageable if the range in ability in a group is too large. For example, Cavener was trying to introduce Spady's model in an English class where some students were sophisticated readers and others had difficulty even with the mechanics of reading. The Australian system also aims to have no student wait around working on things he or she has already achieved. The recommended strategy is to teach to encompass two to three levels, so every student in a class can work from his or her own level. Classes are usually formed by grouping age-mates, based on the argument that students of similar age (in a particular school community) are likely to share common interests and life experiences. In the spirit of learnercentred education, these common interests are considered more important in the design of curriculum than common levels of achievement in art or mathematics. Within a class, work groups can be and are formed flexibly, usually with students at different levels working together. Schools using the outcomes approach in Australia seldom formally stream students according to levels of achievement, or keep rearranging groups so that students are always with others at the same level. On the contrary, since teaching a group of age-mates requires working across two to three levels, it is little more demanding to teach across three to four levels. Primary schools often use composite grades and multiage groupings, and secondary schools sometimes use these forms of classroom organisation. Teaching is still to maximise every individual's progress, but students are also expected to belong to the community of their classroom. As with Spady's system, competition for the teacher's time is an issue. The range of levels within a class inevitably spreads out as the years go by: a typical Year 2 class (8-9-year-olds) ranges across two to three levels in, say, English, but by Year 10 (16-17-year-olds), the range is typically three to four levels (Hill, 1995).

The nature of 'learner-centredness' Learner-centred education is a matter of emphasis and philosophy rather than a choice among alternatives. Learner-centred approaches compete with subjectcentred, teachercentred, textcentred and systemcentred approaches, but none of these can be 'pure'. Outcomes-based education is invariably system-centred in the sense of working to prescribed outcomes according to the OBE model in use, and any curriculum has to be system-centred in the sense of fitting into an operating school. Learnercentred in Spady's model means especially that students move through the units and tests at their own speed. To help each student efficiently to mastery, teachers find methods and connections that work for individual students, especially during corrective loops. In the Australian system, the requirement to teach across levels pushes the curriculum towards open activities and structures,

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM S ,O T I V A T I OM NE ST , HODOLOGIES

providing much more scope for students to work in different ways, shape the activities and units, share power and control. For Spady, learnercentredness is essentially an input, a teaching method, so he has little to say about it. Students have limited influence in shaping the curriculum, except, perhaps, through formal consultation in the design of the system. Spady nevertheless expects extensive use of projects and open activities,justified not from learner-centredness, but from outcomes such as 'assumes responsibility for decisions and activities' and 'identifies and applies a set of goals to actions and purposes'.

Outcomes-basededucation as a reform strategy Spady's approach to school reform, like his approach to learning, starts with an external system. The school must accept the paradigm shift before it begins the reform (Glatthorn, 1996).It agrees on a set of 'outcomes of significance' then designs down, incorporating content, student management systems, promotions arrangements, etc. Finally it implements the new system. The reform begins with structural change and moves to teacher change. The Australian approach starts with existing knowledge in the school and builds out from there. The paradigm shift required is not in the outcomes of schooling, but to teaching for outcomes and working across levels. It begins with teachers' conceptions of learning and teaching, and moves to structural change. I will return to these ideas later in the chapter.

Ernie Dingo is an Australian celebrity, a joyous man, stand-up comedian, actor, television presenter, cricketer, footballer, teacher. In an interview in 1994 (The Australian Way, May 1994), he proposed that it is unhelpful to divide people into male/female and black/white. The difference that really counts is whether they are coastal people or inland people. Coastal people and inland people, he insisted, see the world in totally different ways. Ernie Dingo is an Aboriginal Australian. He was speaking for his people. I wondered how, if I focused on my people teachers - I would classlfy them. The key, I decided, was whether they saw the world as a clockwork or an organism. The conception of the world as clockwork, in Western philosophy, goes back at least to Plato, with his crystal spheres and ideal forms. The idea took flight in the seventeenth century with Newton and Descartes. God made the world as a giant machine and stood back. As surely as the turning of cogs and the pumping of levers, the world's future was predictable because it had been designed according to quantifiable laws. 'Tell me the position and velocity of every particle in the universe,' La Place boasted in the seventeenth century, 'and I will tell you the fate of the universe'.

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

The view of the world as an organism also goes back at least to the Greeks, to Aristotle. It moved into the background for centuries then reemerged through Darwin's theories of evolution and Freud's and Jung's theories of psychoanalysis. The seed becomes a tree. God does not make the tree complete; creation is within. The tree that results depends not only on the seed, but soil, wind and rain, birds that nest in its branches, lightning and bush fires that feed from it, people with axes, migration from distant lands. The eventual tree cannot be predicted because its surroundings shape it. The tree also shapes its surroundings - leaves and branches steer the wind, roots change the river's course, bark supports particular animals, leaves clean the air. The tree and the world are connected. In education, the clockwork finds expression in bureaucratic management, behaviourist learning theories, logical positivism, and contentcentred curriculum. The organism finds expression in organic management, constructivist learning theories, post-modernism, and learnercentred curriculum. In the bureaucracy, specialists are arranged in a hierarchy, each with his or her ownjob, each interlocked with the rest in an efficient, predictable whole. Workers don't take responsibility for their work, but for people below them. In behaviourism too learning is controlled externally through stimulus, response, reward and command, with the things to be learned organised via specialised subjects and linear sequences. Consistent with modernism, object and subject are presumed to be separate, and human inquiry, at least in principle, is presumed to converge on one right answer, the best machine. We have experienced these things in education. Arguably, the clockwork curriculum achieved its pinnacle in the USA in the 1960s. Science curricula such as PSSC Physics were developed by subject experts, tried and tested in the field, packaged and sold to the nation. The designers sought stimuli that would produce the required response for any child, and learning paths to be followed strictly. The packages, with their books and activities, kits of materials, film loops and operators' manuals were translated and exported around the world. They had been tested with American children: they should work anywhere. All that teachers required were the operator's manual and some training - these curricula were 'teacher proof. In spite of wonderful ideas and activities, the curricula didn't work very well, even in the USA (National Academy of Sciences, 1968; Blades, 1997). It's hard to imagine the ideal of the clockwork curriculum being expressed better than it was then. In organic management, every worker is presumed to be creative and purposive, with ideas about how thejob should be done, and a sense of how his or her personal aspirations relate to the job. Management's role is to draw on this knowledge, supporting the growth of the organisation and the growth of the individuals. Similarly, in constructivist learning theories the teacher helps students build their knowledge and skills, bringing together their pasts, their work in the classroom,

SECTION

B

their hopes, their links to classmates and communities. Knowledge is not objective (in the sense of being 'out there') but subjective. This position resonates with postmodernism, where there is no longer a single truth, nor clear separation of subject and object, learner and learned. The curriculum is not delivered by agents of an external source but interpreted and created through the interactions of teachers and students, thinking and feeling. Faith in bureaucracies, experts and grand machines was shaken by the Second World War - at least for some grand machines. It crumbled in the 1960s and 1970s, not because people were rethinking education particularly, but, more powerfully, because they were questioning business and government. This was the era that, in the West, saw the environment movement, the anti-science movement, black empowerment, multiculturalism, feminism, anti-war,Watergate. Meanwhile in business, the transition from the industrial age to the post-industrial age was under way. Researchers into business management, such as early ones like Argyris (1953; 1976; 1982) and later ones like Peters and Waterman (1982),Peters (1992) and Handy (1995), were increasingly showing up problems with bureaucratic management and providing alternatives.An extensive review of the literature on management theory is provided by Schwahn and Spady (1998). For my purposes, I will focus on the work of Argyris (1976) and Peters (1992). The failure of bureaucratic management is not so much its belief in control and predictability -the capacity to predict consequences is an essential part of strategy, planning and human intentionality-but its belief in unilateral, external control as the basis for behaviour and behaviour modification. Argyris found that bureaucracies and the ways people in bureaucracies interact, are guided by a particular set of values which he calls Model 1 principles. Model 1 principles:

+ strive to be in unilateral control; + minimise losing, maximise winning; + minimise expression of negative feelings and offence; + be rational.

In combination, these principles prevent the organisation from learning. The particular mix of seeming to be in control, seeming not to lose, and avoiding giving offence produces an environment in which people avoid offering ideas or criticisms, cover up their errors, and pretend not to see errors. The structure and guiding principles force the organisation into defensive manoeuvres that ultimately choke it. Argyris argued that bureaucracies only avoided selfdestruction by changing personnel, especially at the top. Twenty years later, Peters (1992) showed that this is no longer enough. Alongside its set of guiding values, the bureaucracy has set procedures that often acquire a status beyond their roles as tools (as happens with school timetables). When a particular procedure doesn't work, an employee is allowed to question

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

the action (did I follow the procedure?) but not the procedure itself, or the principles that guide it. Argyris calls questioning and learning from a worker's action single loop learning. Questioning the procedure or underlying values is double loop learning. Double loop learning is not simply corrective, but generative. Bureaucracies support single loop learning; they do not support double loop learning. This generalisation is lived out in traditional school classrooms: students do not challenge the teacher about why they are doing a certain thing, nor do they offer their ideas on how things should be done. Control is understood by teachers and students alike to be unilateral; avoiding offence is expected. For the organisation to be a learning organisation, for individuals and the organisation as a whole, it has to foster double loop as well as single loop learning. To achieve this, Argyris shows, a new set of guiding values is necessary, which he calls Model 2 principles. Model 2 principles.

4 seek valid information from all participants; 4 share control and promote free and informed choice; 4 commit to the choice but monitor its validity and implementation. By comparison with the bureaucratic set of values, this one implies trust, openness, respect, co-operation, responsibilityfor your own actions, experimentation and risktaking. It also implies a flexibility that allows the organisation to be continually reshaped. Its secret is not only in shared control, but the absence of defensive and protective strategies in individuals and in management processes and procedures. In the new South Africa, Model 2 principles are implied in the slogan 'open, democratic, transparent' management. The Model 2 value set does not imply that all opinions are equal, or that there is no hierarchy of management, no specialisation or no respect for leaders. The experienced senior manager will usually contribute better information and have a better sense of how to test it than the new junior employee. But this is not inevitable, and not built into the system as an assumption. The Model 2 value set does imply a lack of coercion; a sense of team work in which everyone knows the game, is committed to it, and works together honestly. Living out the Model 2 value set is difficult on two accounts. Firstly, it is hard to do it in an environment dominated by Model 1 structures and people. Secondly, even people who espouse Model 2 and recommend it to others, in their own actions usually follow Model 1, especially when they perceive themselves under threat. Model 1 thinking can also be camouflaged as Model 2. For example, a staff meeting can be held that is aimed at consensus on a plan of action. It looks like Model 2. But an incompetent report to the meeting goes unchallenged in order to avoid offence; untested attributions about a speaker's motives and reasons are allowed; a senior member imposes a solution by using authority.

SECTION B

M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

Nevertheless, Argyris (19'76) showed that Model 2 thinking, for individuals and organisations, can be achieved, or at least approximated. Argyris was working in large companies in the 1970s, companies that maintained hierarchical structures. Successful companies in the 1990s, especially those requiring a high 'value added' component in their work, have found another way forward (Peters, 1992): dismantle the hierarchies and grand structures, and establish self-managing, small, project teams. The teams are small, all members are workers, and the life of the project is finite, so matters of trust, control and defensive routines are less likely to become issues. Some barriers to Argyris's Model 2 are removed or disabled. The project teams handle all aspects of the project, including implementation and accountability as well as design. They are networked to other teams and the support structures in flexible arrangements, held together by commitment to a common vision. They are set up to be 'learning organisations', where demands on creativity, questioning, team work and double loop learning are heavy, where team members individually and the team as a whole learn through their work. Sergiovanni (1990) and Caldwell and Spinks (1994) provide instances from schools.

CLOCKWORK AND ORGANIC INTERPRETATIONS OBE IN AUSTRAW[A

OF

In Australia, writers constructed the outcomes frameworks in a way that would support constructivist, organic approaches in the classroom, but also allow behavourist, teachercentred approaches. The policy was not intended to deskill teachers or deeply antagonise them. The design is shown schematically in Figure 4.1. (The language of 'specific outcomes' I have used in Figure 4.1 is, for simplicity, the language of South Afiica's Curriculum 2005, not Australia's Profiles.) Australia has eight outcome levels spanning Years 1-10, but with levels 7 and 8 as extensions. The normal expectation is that students will achieve level 6 by the end of Year 10, but with individuals distributed about that norm. Six levels across ten years of schooling means about 1.5years per level. Outcome levels do not align with year levels or grades. The writers aimed for a consistent definition of each level across outcomes certainly within a learning area and even across learning areas. To achieve consistency they called on teachers' experience and knowledge of norms (eg, 'Level 4 should apply to most students at the end of grade 6'), and research into characteristics of development and progression. Clockwork teachers tend to treat the grid as a syllabus and the sequence of levels in an outcome as a learning path. They interpret the grid as an instruction from the Education Department about what to teach. They treat the descriptions of achievement in the boxes as both teaching objectives and learning objectives: 'At the end of this unit of work, all students will be at level 4 in outcome 16'. They design down from the statement in the box, to produce a set of objectives and

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

hence activities that will teach 'the box' to all students. In assessment, they either seek mastery or, more often, award grades according to how well students demonstrate the outcome and level defined in the box. Organic teachers tend to treat the grid as a tool, not a directive. They apply it to ideas they have or can imagine, using it to analyse and map (a) outcomes and levels in their curriculum units, and (b) students' achievements. In the light of their analyses, they reshape their curricula to better match the intentions of the grid and improve students' achievements. The grid, as a tool of analysis, is a technology for keeping track of the opportunities offered in the unit, and what their students can actually do. They use the grid like a street map: 'Where is this student? Map 47, B5'. Curriculum design for these teachers is not linear from outcome to activity. It is organic, arising jointly from their knowledge and imagination, students' knowledge and interests, and the framework itself. Their units encompass a number of boxes at once, spanning levels and selected outcomes: 'This unit will span levels 2,3,4in outcomes 16,18,and 20.' Teachers also use levels to set targets for the class ('By the end of this unit, 70% of students will be at level 4 or beyond in outcome 16') and individuals ('By the end of this unit, Ruth will be at level 3 or beyond'). They design assessment to determine which students are at which levels in the outcomes, as evidenced by their work in the unit. liling, becoming, making meaning -

-

--

-

-

-

-

eight learnin? areas -

many specific ontcomcs applicable for all p d e s 1-1 0 I

Level 8 -

!

-

-

--

-

-

-

Level 7 Level 6

--

-

1

-

-

-

Level 5

-

--

---

Table 4.1: A schematic of the Australian approach to OBE For simplicity, the language of 'specific outcomes' is that of South Africa's Curriculum 2005, not the Australian Profile. The grid shows eight levels from Years 1-10,where levels 7,8 are extension levels, as in the Australian Profiles. The South African grid has three 'phases': Foundation, Intermediate and Senior, spanning Years 1-9.

S E C T I O N

B

M E A N I N GM SO . TIVATION MS E,T H O D O L O G I E S

To allow the organic approach, the writers defined levels to be continuous not in the sense of 'one step at a time up the ladder', but to permit teaching that crosses levels. For example, one particular outcome in science is that students develop understanding that 'the structure of materials determines their properties'. Students at level 1can discern that different materials have different properties (for example, mud is different from dry soil which is different from straw). At level 2 students can describe different substructures of materials (for example, from studies of the substructure of soils and straw). At level 3 they form and apply theories about the connections between structure and properties, in situations where the relationships are visible (for example, by looking at the ways the strength of a mud brick changes with different mixtures of soil and straw). At level 4 they ask questions about microscopic structures and use simple models of substructure to explain properties (for example, what is the structure of straw that gives straw its properties?); and so on. With levels defined this way, a single classroom activity (or sequence of activities) can cross levels. Suppose that students make and test diierent mud bricks and put them together into walls of different design. Some students in the group work at level 4 (theorising about microscopic models of matter), others at levels 1-2 (exploring properties and structure of mud and straw). Later in the year (or next year), the class might address the same outcome and levels, but not with mud bricks. They might do a unit on cooking -making cakes, soups and pizzas. Or they might shift everything up a level with a study of solids, powders, liquids and gases that allows students to have access to level 5 and concepts of molecules and atoms. Implementation of this dual model was approached differently in different states. For example, South Australia acknowledged that 'teaching within a level' and 'teaching across levels' could both be done, but gave notice that, over time, all teachers would be expected to teach across levels. Victoria made no clear statement in the first instance, simply allowing both. Some two years later, they announced an assessment policy that required schools to report which level each student in a particular class was at. They also advocated individual learning programmes, especially for studentswell away from the norm. These policies imply teaching across levels. Teachers who teach and assess within a single level face two problems. Firstly, they do not meet the needs of students who are operating above or below that level, nor even properly identlfy those students. If assessment is only within level 4 and a child fails to demonstrate it, the teacher has no basis for describing him or her as level 3, or even level 2. The only solution, as in mastery learning models, is to put the child back through corrective pathways at level 4, as often as required. Another child, operating at level 4 even before the unit, has no access to learning in that unit -unless he or she is directed into enrichment activities. If enrichment is drawn from the next level up, the child is likely to be above level in next year's class, as he or she was this time. The second problem comes when the teacher wishes to award As and Bs for work done in the unit. Does an A on a level 4 task

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

mean operating at level 5? Does a D mean level 3? (For the teacher who works onlywithin one level, suchjudgements can't be easily defended.) Does an A mean 'Achieved Level 4 quickly', 'Demonstrated level 4 with accuracy and flair', or indeed 'Demonstrates level 4 through conscientious and well-presented work'? Grades of this kind, as well as often being a confusion of all the above, describe not the standard of the performance, but the style in which the work was done. They are contrary to the concept of OBE as standards based. The effect is to push teachers towards teaching and assessing across levels. The pressure to teach across levels, as mentioned earlier, was effected in most states by government requirements that schools report (to government and to parents) which levels describe which students. Teachers report, for example, on a threepoint scale for each outcome: achieved the level, working at the level, or little evidence of the level. A student might be described as 'achieved level 3, working at level 4' in a specific outcome. A report of this kind is written for every child (though likely with outcomes aggregated into learning areas). The school principal or the Education Department might ask a teacher to defend a claim that all students in a class are at the same level. That defence is usually difficult: by the nature of groups, some students achieve a level before others, and should have immediate access to higher levels. In Australia OBE is a tool of accountabilityand evaluation, through data on levels (standards), and data on changes in level (progress).A child who has been stuck at level 3 for years is readily identified - by the teacher, head of department, parents. An entire class performing at a level below the norm can perhaps be explained (for example from social characteristics and family backgrounds) but requires evidence. In practice, the focus of debate usually shifts from standards to progress - 'Students in this class are at a lower level than in some other schools, but are improving'. Researchers like Hill (1995) and his collea~peshave had considerable success in disentangling teacher, school and social factors in effective schools, using measures of overall level and progress through levels. Among other things, Hill's work exposes the simplistic assumption that the best teaching (in terms of 'value added' achievement) occurs in schools whose students are consistently above the norm: their results are often those expected for children with that particular family background. Hill's work also shows that teachers are the most important agents in effective schooling: some teachers consistently achieve results while others consistently do not. Variations among teachers are much greater and more important than variations among schools. If a school is to be effective,it must put a high premium on effective teachers and conditions which enable teacher effectiveness. Processes and inputs are critical to learning, and must be a part of monitoring schools. Schools must develop organisational structures, systems of professional support and appraisal, and programmes to improve the quality of inputs. School

SECTION

B

initiatives are supported through district programmes, private consultants, tertiary institutions and professional associations. The integrity of the Australian OBE system and public confidence in it depends on teachers' ability not only to design curriculum, but to judge students' levels of achievement. To help achieve common and consistent interpretation of the levels, education departments publish annotated examples of students' work, and conduct group workshops within and across schools. State tests, in some states using samples of schools, and in others using whole populations at one or another year level, provide additional information. The tests are inevitably machine markable, with questions that are only loosely connected to the students' actual classroom experiences. Because of the latitude schools have in interpreting outcomes and choosing examples, specific examples in a state test may not have been studied in many classrooms. The tests can serve to monitor, but not provide a definitive measure of student achievement. Teachers' judgements stand as the official assessment. The design and use of external tests and 'inspectors' remain problematic. If the state test suggests that a teacher is consistently judging students high or low, the principal and perhaps the Education Department become involved. Organic approaches to curriculum and school management sit well with devolution of authority to schools, but not with the facts that senior officers of the Education Department and formal reporting requirements are powerful forces in accountability. The balances between state intervention and local autonomy, machinemarked state tests and performance-based teacher assessments, use and misuse of assessments are always precarious.

WHEREDOES SOUTHAFRICAFIT? The basic distinction between inputs and outcomes, with schools responsible for designing inputs to suit nationally defined outcomes, is at the heart of Curriculum 2005. At the same time, the policy provides guiding principles for the curriculum design: Curriculum 2005 is not only outcomes based, but learner centred. Processes of schooling as well as outcomes are part of the policy. Although learning programmes ... should adhere to a coherent framework of principles ... and lead to the attainment of national standards ... the means for reaching these ends should be determined by providers in accordance with the needs of their learners. (DOE, 1996: 20)

The general framework of Curriculum 2005 is similar to the Ontario one: an overarching set of critical outcomes and specific outcomes in eight learning areas. The critical outcomes are similar to the Ontario set -communicating, problem-solving, critical thinking, team work, environmental and social responsibility and so on. In style, they are a mixture of competencies and role performances. Again as in Ontario, the critical outcomes are visible in the specific outcomes. However, the South African specific outcomes give much broader definition to the learning areas

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF MALCOLM

than in the Australian and Ontario reforms. For example, alongside more or less expected outcomes in the content and processes of the learning areas, Curriculum 2005 has specific outcomes that require students to:

+ Demonstrate an understanding of how technology might reflect different biases and create responsible and ethical strategies to prevent them. (Technology)

+ Demonstrate an understanding of the historical development of mathematics in different social and cultural contexts. (Mathematics) + Demonstrate an understanding of the changing and contested nature of knowledge in the natural sciences. (Natural Sciences) + Demonstrate managerial expertise and administrative proficiency. (Economics and M a n a g m t ) + Respect people's right to have personal beliefs and values.(LifeOnextation) In the learning area frameworks (DOE, 1997),only three levels are defined: the Foundation Phase (normallythe end of Grade 3), the Intermediate Phase (normally the end of Grade 6), and the Senior Phase (normally the end of Grade 9). Learnercentredness is policy in Curriculum 2005, and gives considerable emphasis to constructivist approaches to learning. However, where Curriculum 2005 fits on the scale of organic to mastery learning is not clear. The CurricuZum FrammolJ1 (NDE, 1996) seems to promise an organic approach, like the Australian one: Curriculum development .. . should put learners first, recognising and building on their knowledge and experience, and responding to their needs. (p17) Learners' achievements can be credited at various levels and sublevels, whatever learning pathway they may have followed, and at whatever rate they may have acquired the necessary competence. (p29)

On the other hand, the documents are equivocal on whether to interpret levels in a mastery approach or an organic one: Learners' needs will be best addressed if classes are seen as a heterogeneous group of learners moving at different speeds through a series of progressively demanding activities to develop theoretical and practical competence in relation to progressively sophisticated learning outcomes. (p29)

The three levels of Curriculum 2005 are too few to be used the way Australia uses its six/eight levels. They are too far apart to be employed as descriptions of any student's achievement. The Curriculum 2005 levels might be mastery levels -standards that all students should demonstrate to exit the Phase, from which teachers design down for students worlung through the Phase. On the other hand, they might simply be growth points that are guides to progress more than exit performances, in which case schools have near total freedom. Policies on student promotion, explaining what to do with students who reach the Foundation level

B M E A N I N GM SO , T I V A T I OM NS E,T H O D O L O G I E S

SECTION

early (or early in some learning areas) might help, but are not yet available. Requirements for reporting during or at the end of a Phase are not available either. In the absence of welldefined levels and with too few on which to base assessment, teachers must set their own standards. For example, one of the specific outcomes in the natural sciences is ability to design and conduct investigations. Children are required to demonstrate various components of investigating - planning, conducting the investigation, interpreting findings, communicating results. These are the assessment criteria. However, teachers need to say more than whether the student 'made a plan'; they have to say how good the plan is. For this they need levels of achievement, which they must create themselves. The approach often recommended at national Department of Education workshops is that teachers create a four-point scale for each assessment, with levels I will call A, B, C, D, to distinguish them from the OBE framework itself. For 'Planning an investigation', an A might indicate that the student 'recognises and controls all relevant factors; formulates a stepby+tep plan that works'. Level D might indicate that the student 'has to be told the factors and given a plan'. The actual standard implied in this scale depends on the investigation.An A has a different meaning for students investigating whether snails eat cabbage, from an investigation of recipes for mud bricks, or the ecological effects of adding chemicals to a pond. In short, there is no common meaning for the description 'recognises and controls all relevant factors; formulates a stepbystep plan that works', nor is it necessary that different teachers use this description for a task where it might apply. 'Standards' turn out to be not very standard! In practice, teachers are likely to choose tasks (whether learning tasks, assessment tasks or both at once) in terms of what is reasonable for students in the class. This is the usual approach in normative assessment -the task is right if half the students can do it, and those who do best get As. In other words, the standard is determined by the input. Perhaps for these reasons levels of achievement in the natural sciences framework (described in 'range statements') are usually written in terms of inputs -topics and activities -rather than what students must actually demonstrate. (I have discussed this and other issues elsewhere (Malcolm, 1997b)). Of course a standard of achievement inevitably depends on the parameters and context of the performance. This is so in any assessment framework. It may be conceptually useful to separate inputs and outcomes, but the two remain bound up with each other. Mastery learning approaches handle this interaction by defining mastery in terms of given tasks, and having only two categories of performance achieved/not yet achieved. The Australian system seeks to abstract levels of performance from specific tasks, and write levels in the form of outcomes, not inputs. It does this, in part, to permit judgements of achievement during learning, not only from special performances. To help teachers interpret the abstract descriptions of levels, the framework offers illustrative instances or 'pointers' which include

descriptions of appropriate tasks and, collectively, give a sense of the complexity involved at that level. The pointers are illustrative only, to illuminate the level and outcome. (Cuniculum 2005 will also include pointers, or 'performance indicators', but these have not been written yet, and their status is uncertain.) The theory of assessment underpinning Curriculum 2005, and how teachers are to go about assessment are not very clear. Neither is it clear how teachers will use the framework in curriculum design. With only three levels often loosely defined, and outcomes that are often novel and capable of multiple interpretations, curriculum designers have great freedom. Teachers are likely to look to published learning programmes for help. Currently, commercial publishers and provincial governments are producing learning programmes according to organising principles (themes and ways of grouping outcomes) developed by the national Department of Education. The status of the Department's organising principles (as against other possibilities) and provincial governments' learning programmes (as against other possibilities) is unresolved. They may be illustrative, recommended, or required. It is possible that the reform will result in teachers using government learning programmes (designed outside the school), but with complete freedom in assessment. This would be an interesting variation on 'outcomes-based education' - curriculum driven by recommended inputs (through learning programmes and range statements), but where teachers define and assess standards in the outcomes. This would make the South African approach similar to one that is common in European countries (Pepin, 1996) - competence based, learner centred, with broad 'phases' of schooling - but not OBE.

The decisions countries make about whether to develop or reject the basic ideas of'OBE, and what OBE models to consider, illustrate the depth to which education depends on politics, cultural norms, interest groups, history, the committees and individualswho provide educational leadership. So, fhr example, Singapore is able to have outcomes such as 'to be morally upright, culturally rooted.. .' and '[to understand] the constituents of'a gracious society' while the LISA is in lrpi-o;ir-over a wish to shape graduates who are critical thinkers arid quality pr-oducers. My particular interest is why a country such as Australia has opted fbr its organic model, and why this model is not a part of the ORE debate in the USA. (Though projects to develop national starldards and benchinarks are essentially outcomes based, with le\.el structures I-eminiscentof the A[~str-nliarl~nodcl.)(;olr\.elselp Spacly's models were never widely considered in Australia. The issue is especially interesting while organic nlodels of management are so rnuc.11 a part of' thinkirlg about organisational tlevclopment in industry. I suspect that part of' the solution lies in the history of teachers and the ways teachers are viewed by thcir co~~imimities.

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GMSO. T I V A T I O N MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

Education in the USA is strongly based on 'the textbook', through a tradition of state-approved textbooks. The concept of the state textbook is logically incompatible with learner centred, constructivist, organic curriculum - at least for textbooks of the traditional genre. Textbooks are almost always behaviourist and content centred. They list their objectives at the start of the chapter and provide review questions at the end. Do not proceed to chapter 4 until you have mastered chapter 3. Books with an organic structure and style can be written, for example, taking their lead from novels, magazines, film and video games (Malcolm, 1997a). But in a market dominated by conservative and cautious buyers, publishers cannot afford to be too radical. New books are likely to be reworkings of the old ones, cobbling together the newjargon and the old content, with a new layout, some additional paragraphs, and more colour. In a teaching culture that depends on textbooks, the nature of textbooks is a great impediment to change. Refinement of mastery learning approaches is more attractive than organic approaches. Australia does not have the USA tradition of textbooks. In Victoria, there have been no state syllabuses, state exams, or stateendorsed textbook. (forYears 1-10) since the mid 1960s. In secondary schools, less than half the science teachers use a 'recommended text book' and among those who do, few use it slavishly (Gregory & Martin, 1996).The usual approach, for some thirty years, has been that teachers design their own curricula, borrowing from various resources and texts, or simply creating their own materials and programmes. In primary schools (up to and including Year 6), very few teachers use a recommended text of any kind. The Australian tradition, in most states, has been one of school-based curriculum development, supported by programmes in teacher development, school management and leadership. By the mid-1980s, constructivist learning theories and organic management theories were central to those programmes. This is not to imply that all teachers and schools worked with the organic paradigm, but it was certainly abreast, and many teachers and schools were experimenting with it. In Australia, organic approaches are well within reach of teachers and schools. A second issue is the way that the community perceives its teachers. Certainly teachers in Australia, as in the USA, have taken a battering over the last decade from the 'New Right' and the coalition it formed with back-to-basics conservatives. No space in this coalition for altruism and 'soft' outcomes (Apple, 1993). Certainly schools in Australia, as in the USA, have been criticised for being unsuccessful in their own terms. However, community perceptions of teachers, in general, seem to be quite different in the two countries. In the USA, Manno (1996) sees back to basics and teacher accountability as the will of the general community and its elected representatives. He complains that this agenda was clear, but was hijacked by educators and teachers who dominated planning committees. In other words, teachers and educators were operating outside the democratic process, to suit their own needs. No acknowledgement that

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

teachers and educators might have a special expertise, or even that education involves a specialised knowledge beyond the technical one of classroom teaching. Such a community disdain for teachers and educators is felt by teachers too. Fritz (1994) observes wryly that, for teachers, the shift from traditional education to OBE can be likened to the shift from slave labour on farms to share farming. Either way it is the same miserable piece of land; either way the farm is set up to fail, but as a share farmer you can be blamed for the failure, as a slave you cannot. This is not an hospitable context for devolution and organic approaches to teaching and school management. Distrust of teachers was not a major issue in Australia. The fact that teachers and educators were major players in the development of the reform was generally seen to be sensible and desirable. Antagonisms were worked out instead in terms of factions and beliefs -constructivists versus behaviourists, post-modernistsversus positivists, 'back to basics' versus 'soft' competencies, teacher-based assessment versus national testing. For example, the loudest voices on behalf of conservative education were not industrialists or the Christian Right, but university professors of physics and mathematics - the gatekeepers of university entrance. A third issue is the way that teachers perceive their students and the 'proper' power-relationships between teachers and students. Certainly, in my experience in Australia, even among teachers who argue vehemently for organic management at the school and system levels, there are those who opt for bureaucracy in their own classrooms. This is not simply a matter of the assumed skills of the students: primary school teachers are often happier to devolve responsibility in their classes than are secondary school teachers. Notwithstanding such variations, Australian teachers are likely to profess a high degree of trust in students' preparedness to take responsibility and provide input to curriculum design (at least on a day-today level). The South African context is remarkably different from that in Australia or in the USA. South Africa is at a watershed. It expects to change and it expects that all people will participate in the changes. It expects to remake power relationships, rebuild structures, and transform the values that underpin the society. The diversity of cultures, languages, socio-economic conditions, and school environments makes school-based, learnercentred education according to national outcomes attractive, if not essential. Organic approaches are possible, because everything is possible. They also represent a major shift from past practice and one that resonates with the ideals of transparency, democracy and equity. The issue is not so much one of envisaging the change, but of defining and managing it.

WHATHAPPENS IN SCHOOLS, AETER THE LISTS? Curriculum exists at many levels and the path from government policies to classroom activities is a long one. Like light through prisms, ideas are refracted

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

at every interface, changing colour and direction. O n the other hand, creative interpretation of ideas can give them cogency they didn't have at the start. Cumculum reform is only as good as what happens in classrooms and that depends on teachers. As Bray (1998) puts it: 'The important thing is what happens after the lists of outcomes have been published.' Because teachers are central in OBE, research and evaluation usually depend on case studies of individual schools (Spady, 1994; Malcolm, 1997a). The celebrated case ofJohnson City Central Schools, NewYork, illustrates the point (Spady, 1994; Brandt, 1994). As Spady (1994) describes it: With an initial decade of successful Mastery Learning implementation as background,Johnson City began to explore more deeply the research underlying staff empowerment and effectiveness, successful organisational change, and more powerful forms of student learning. They developed a framework of five key 'learner outcomes' as a backdrop to all their academic instruction (positive self concept, higher level cognitive skills, self directed learner, social process skills and concern for others); involved large numbers of staff in William Glasser's 'Reality Therapy' approach to classroom management, and built an impressive culture of 'success for all' among students and staff ... The other hallmark is the district's approach to OBE implementation, the Outcome Driven Developmental Model ... This approach is comprehensive, takes the total organisation into account, and embodies a continuous improvement process grounded on asking and reconciling the answers to four key questions that serve as a decision screen for appropriate answers. These include: What do you believe? What do you know? What do you want? and What do you do? These four questions compel staff to constantly match their beliefs and assumptions with the best knowledge in the field, with their goals for students, and with the realities of their daily practices and actions ... In another school (Schwarz& Cavener, 1994),Cavener reports different experiences. The English Department in her high school decided, with support from the school administration, to implement OBE at one grade level (sophomore). English staff attended in-service education programmes, and worked together in their planning. Cavener and her colleagues represented the school at numerous public meetings and workshops, often as advocates. However, the teachers' hopes and expectations were cut away, piece by piece, in the first months of implementation of their new system. Cavener reports that it made enormous demands on her time -assessing, grading and regrading, planning and keeping records. Students did not respond as she had expected, often using the ideas of flexible time and corrective loops as reasons for procrastination. Many invested little effort in assigned projects, seeking to circumvent the assessment system rather than embrace it. The approach did not cater to the wide range of reading abilities, learning needs and backgrounds in her class, in spite of her efforts. Ultimately, she felt, it was too mechanistic with

CHAPTER

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

it? 'design down', 'corrective loops', 'enrichment loops' and programme plans in which students (and she) had little direct control.

Are Cavener and Johnson City both talking about the same OBE? The answer is yes and no. Both were working essentially with Spady's transformational/transitional model. At the school and classroom levels, the reform at Cavener's school was ultimately system centred and mechanistic.Johnson City, on the other hand, while also using a mastery learning base, achieved a reform that was strongly people centred and organic. Part of this difference is in the management of the reform at the school level. In Cavener's school, the reform was in one department, with one year level, and, in the planning time available, gave its priority to developing a system of units and assessment tasks to implement.Johnson City's reform involved the whole school, to build a culture of learning, experimentation and community. Here the OBE system was in the service of the people, not the other way round. Brandt's interview with Albert Mamary, Johnson City's Superintendent between 1982 and 1992, is illuminating (Brandt, 1994). Brandt wants to talk in the interview about OBE and how it succeeded; Mamary wants to talk about school management, staff and student involvement, creativity, commitment and experimentation. Schwarz and Cavener come to a similar conclusion: In short, contrary to OBE advocates' claims that OBE is a radical reform effort, a true paradigm shift, it seems that OBE is not radical enough. To view schools as complex, living systems affected by larger social and economic forces rather than as simple mechanisms easily overhauledwould be radical. To shift power relationships and approach reform democratically would be radical. To adopt a new and consistent philosophy of learning would be radical ... [Such radical reform] might require that educators put less faith in exact procedures, practices, and lists of operating principles and more faith in the unique potential of learners, teachers, and human communities.

If we go back to Spady's account ofJohnson City, we see that it is the kind of 'radical enough' reform that Schwarz and Cavener advocate. We see also that it expresses the management principles (discussed earlier) that Argyris (1976) recommends for 'learning organisations' and Peters (1992) for 'liberation management'. Spady's account is peppered with management terms: staff empowerment, organisational change, a culture of 'success for all', total quality, continuous improvement, teams, matching beliefs and assumptions with the best knowledge in the field ... Mamary (Brandt, 1994) elaborates these ideas: \hlell, I think success comes from the kind of environment you create. We started by trying to create an environment where everybody was considered in partnership with the operation. The Johnson City schools live by three principles. Here's the first one: all staff members will be involved in every major decision. The second idea is that we will

SECTION

B

M E A N I N GM SO , TIVATION MSE,T H O D O L O G I E S

always strive for 100 % agreement, even if we have to go back many times. And third, we have an agreement that everybody will live by the agreements until we change them - and agreements should be changed now and then ... We'll get to [talk about an emphasis on student performance and the steps we took to achieve specific outcomes], because that's important too. But first you have to create the environment - an environment that says people are important, that we're not going to blame one another, that there's no humiliation and coercion ... Successful examples of OBE - in my experiences with schools in Australia and South Africa, as in Bray's accounts from Canada (Bray, 1998),and Spady's from the USA -present learnercentred, multilayered, multidimensioned, project-based classroom activities and schools trying to be what Argyris calls learning organisations. If these are the essential ingredients, then curriculum management systems should aim for them. Spady's OBE does this by the kinds of outcomes it recommends, but remains an essentiallybureaucratic, design-implement model. Australia does it by insisting on multilevel teaching, in a much more organic approach. It is not enough, though, to say that creative teachers, in a creatively managed school, will do creative things in spite of the system. Government policies, theoretical models, management and support systems must help all teachers to do creative things. This is harder. A clear vision of the curriculum in action and good documents are a first step (whether at the school level or the national level). Investments in teacher participation, teacher development, school development and management education are just as important. South Africa appears to be embarking on this voyage with faith -faith

that teachers can create learnercentred education, faith that teachers can shape as well as respond to the emerging concept of OBE, faith that school management can work to a different vision of schools. It is a high-risk choice in a country where teachers have a low knowledge base (in relation to what is required), the tradition is bureaucratic and text centred, and the system is woefully under-resourced. But the human spirit is capable of unimagined flight, once liberated and supported. That is the task. The transformation that South Africa seeks is not Spady's transformational OBE, for that is not radical enough. South Africa seeks a transformation of guiding principles such as Argyris talks about, from Model 1 to Model 2 and a transformation of organisational structures such as Peters talks about, from big bureaucracies to networks of project teams working to an agreed vision. To echo Schwarz and Cavener, it is a transformation that celebrates and supports the imagination and intentionality of learners, teachers, and human communities, where schools are learning organisations notjust for students, but for the whole school.

CHAPTER 4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1993. Benchmarksfor Science Literaq. New York: AAAS/Oxford University Press. Australian Education Council (AEC). 1994a.Science - a Curriculumh $ l e fmAustraljan Schools. Carlton, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. (Profiles are also available in other learning areas.) Australian Education Council (AEC). 199413. Science Statement. Carlton, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. (Profiles are also available in other learning areas.) Aikenhead, GS. 1996. Science Education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27 (1996), 1-52. Apple, MW. 1993. The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record, 95 (2), 5-17. Argyris, C. 1953. Human problems with budgets. Hamad Business Reuieu,Jan/Feb, Harvard College, USA. Argyris, C. 1976. Znc~easz'ngLeadership Efftiueness. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, Learning 6'Action. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. Blades, DW. 1997. Procedures ofPower and Curriculum Change. New York: Peter Lang. Brandt, R. 1994. On creating an environment where all students learn: A conversation with A1 Mamary. Educational Leadership, March 1994, 24-28. Bray,J. 1998. Outcoms Based Education. Proceedings, SAARMSE Conference, Sixth Annual Meeting, January 1998, Pretoria. (In press.) Darling-Hammond, L. 1996. The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educatimal Leadership, March 1996, 4-10. Ministry of Education and Training, Ontario. 1995. The Common Curriculum: Policies and Outcoms, Grades 1-9. Toronto, Canada. Education Department of South Australia. 1976. The Do-it-yourself Curriculum Guide, Adelaide, Australia. Education Department of South Australia. 1991. Windows on Practice. Adelaide, Australia. Evans, KM & King, JA. 1994. Research on OBE: What we know and don't know. Educational Leadership, October 1994, 12-15. Fritz, M. 1994. Why OBE and the traditionalists are both wrong. Educational Leadership, March, 1994,51(6),79-82. Glatthorn, AA. 1993. Outcomes-based education: Reform and the curriculum process. Journal of Cum'culum and Supervision, 8(4), 354-363. Handy, Charles. 1995. The Empty Raincoat. London: Arrow Books. Hill, PW. 1995. .School Effectiveness and Improvement: Present Realities and Future Possibilities. Inaugural lecture as Professor of Education, Melbourne University. (Unpublished.) Hill, PW & Rowe, KJ. 1996. Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research. School Eflectiveness and School Improvement, 7 (1) , 1-34.

SECTION

B

Hazelip, K. 1993. Interview. Outcomes, 12(3),23-30. Quoted in Doris Ryan, I m p h t a t i o n of Mastery Learning and Outcorm.-based Education: A Reuieu and Analysis of Lessons Learned. Canada: Human Resources Development, Research Report R-964E. Jegede, 0. 1995. Collateral learning and the ecc-cultural paradigm in science and mathematics education in Africa. Studies in Science Education, 25,97-137. Malcolm, C. 1995. Postcompulsory science: The state of the art. In PJ Fensham (ed), Science and Technological Education in Australia, ACER Monograph. Hawthorn: ACER. Malcolm, C. 1997a. Curriculum as a story. In M Sanders (ed), Proceedings, SAARMSE Conference, Fifth Annual Meeting,January 1997,Johannesburg, 51C524. Malcolm, C. 199%. OBE: 7heNatural Sciences Frawork. Comments submitted to the national Department of Education, RADMASTE Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. (Unpublished.) Manno, B. 1997. Outcomes Based Education: How the Governors' R e f m was Hgacked. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson Institute. Marzano, RJ. 1994. Lessons from the field about Outcomes-based performance assessments. Educational Leadership, March 1994, 44-50. Ministry of Education, Victoria. 1984. The School I m . v e m t Plan: Ministerial Paper 1. Melbourne, Australia. Ministry of Education, Victoria. 1987. The Science Framewmk P-10. Melbourne, Australia. National Academy of Sciences. 1968. Physics in Perspective, vol2, Washington, USA. National Academy of Sciences. 1995.National Science Education Standards.Washington,USA. National Department of Education (DOE). 1996. C u d u mF r a d for C;eneralandFurther Education and Training. Draft, Pretoria: DOE. National Department of Education (DOE). 1997. Curriculum 2005: SpeczJic Outcomes, Assessment Criteria and Range Statements Grades 1-9. Discussion Document. Pretoria: DOE. Pepin, L. 1996. A Decade Of R e f m at Compulscny Education Level in the E u q e a n Union, 1984-94. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit.(www.eurydice.org/Documents/ref/en/ titlreen.htrn) Peters, T & Waterman, R. 1982. In Search ofExcelhce. New York: Harper and Row. Peters, T. 1992. Liberation Management. London: Pan Books. R a n , J. 1997. Preparing students for the end of work. Educational Leadmship, February 1997,30-33. Ryan, D. 1995. Implementation @Mastery Learning and Outcomes-based Education: A Review and Analysis of Lessons Learned. Canada: Human Resources Development, Research Report R-964E. Schwarz, G & Cavener, L. 1994. Outcome-based education and curriculum change: Advocacy, practice and critique.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(4), 326-338. Schwahn, CJ & Spady, WG. 1998. Total Leaders. USA: American Association of School Administrators.

C H A P T E R

4

CLIFF M A L C O L M

Sergiovanni, T. 1990. Valm-added Ldeadership:How to Get Extraordinary Performance in Schools. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Javanovich. Singapore Ministry of Education. 1998. The Llesired Outcomes of Education. Singapore. (http://wwwl.moe.edu.sg/) Spady, WG & Marshall, KJ. 1991. Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, October 1991, 71. Spady, WG. 1994. Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. USA: American Association of School Administrators. Spady, WG. 1997. Outcomes Based Education. Colloquium presented in Cape Town, November. Spady, WG. 1998. Private communication. Gregory, E & Martin, P. 1996.Victorian secondary science education in 1996. Iabtalk, 41 (I), 27-34. Wilson, B. 1994. Students at risk. EQAustralia, Summer 1994. Curriculum Corporation, Australia.

Thispage intentionally left blank

SECTION C

Concepts, Contexts, Criticisms

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 5

Critical Outcomes: Political Paradoxes JANE SKINNER ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT EXTENDED CURRICULUM (EMEC) PROGRAMME. UNIVERSITY OF NATAL. DURBAN

THE CONTEXT

The present historical juncture provides, I believe, a particularly interesting new twist to the perennial question of whether education can be made to promote the democratic transformation of society, or whether it can only be functional for existing systems. The situation is perhaps especially interesting in South Africa where the establishment of democracy is still a significant agenda and where 'existing systems' are still under scrutiny to a greater extent than in countries of the North. In order to explain why I believe that this presentjuncture is particularly interesting -and why it involves new threats as well as new opportunities - it may be necessary to consider first the more familiar version of the controversy.

Modernist knowledge production Since the first Education Act in Britain in 1870,national systems of education have always been promoted by their protagonists as functional for democracy' and yet it is clear that they have equally always been designed to provide appropriate economic support, in the form of human capital: for the power structures of the day - whether these demanded basic numeracy and literacy skills for industrial societies, greater scientific emphasis in the American school curriculum postsputnik, or technical expertise from a wider section of the population in South Africa in the 1980s. Beyond questions of access, the arguments about education's political agenda revolve crucially around the nature of the curriculum. Who decides on the content of the -

--

- ..-

--

--

I

It was argued in the House of Commons thatthis Act, which came shortly after the widening of the franchise in the Second Reform Act of 1867, was necessary since 'we must educate our masters'.

2

The acceptance of the term 'human capital' is, in itself, indicative of the colonisation of our thinking by the economic (Fine, 1998).

ep.t.xcir 1.m

117

SECTION

C

curriculum?What are the political implications of the kind of knowledge presented? How will students be expected to acquire it and to what kinds of use can and will that knowledge be put? It can be argued that none of the earlier knowledge requirements created by the demands of modernist economic projects required that methods of teaching and learning be intrinsically democratic nor that they develop in students the skills of independent thought necessary for democracy - rather the reverse. The period of high modernity required, in the main, specific mechanical and scientific skills compatible with what has recently been dubbed 'Mode 1' knowledge production or the acquisition of 'discipline-based knowledge [produced in] homogeneous production sites' (Kraak, 1997:60). The epistemology of this kind of knowledge is generally positivistic and the teaching methods associated with it are behaviouristic:a known stimulus will provide a desired learning objective within clearly understood parameters of knowledge.

As a response, Paulo Freire's 'critical pedagogy' from the 1970s provided an awareness of issues of power. This epistemology (allied to Habermas' 'critical knowledge constitutive interest') specifically focused on education as an agent of democracy and transformation. Its pedagogical techniques involved the validation of prior learning, a democratic relationship between teacher and taught, and the problematising of knowledge. It was potentially transformative in both the sense of promoting the empowerment of individuals formerly excluded from society, and of transcending society's current assumptions. Educationalists coming from this school of thought were in a strong position to argue that education, as they found it, was always in effect functional for existing systems, whatever advances in democracy it purported to provide or support. However, being ideologically oppositional, 'critical pedagogy' was generally unable to influence the structures of society directly. Currently changing approaches to official knowledge production With politically opposing ideologies discredited or in disarray, it might be expected that the situation would now be exacerbated -that nothing could stand in the way of the ideology of the marketplace and the educational policies and approaches which are being put in place to support it. However, the situation is more complex than it might at first appear. The teaching and learning techniques associated with competitive market advantage for the post-Cold War 'information age' involve inculcating in all learners complementary 'post-fordist' skills such as interdisciplinary and systems thinking, problem-solving, research ability, the recognition of prior learning, and communicative competency - all the skills associated with 'transdisciplinarity, heterogeneous, trans-institutional production sites' productive of 'socially useful knowledge' - that is, in the current jargon, with 'Mode 2' knowledge production (Kraak, 1997: 60). But these methods no longer fit a behaviouristic, positivistic mould of teaching and learning -in fact, this pedagogy is recognisably Freirean.

CHAPTER

5

J A N ES K I N N E R

For the first time, therefore, it would seem that the prevailing social system calls for educational techniques able to provide (as Freire hoped) the means for their own internal critique and thus to create a society able to transcend and not only to perpetuate itself. But if, as seems more probable, these critical skills are applied only to the current issues of knowledge ('what will be the most efficient strategy for corporate survival?') and not to their underlying assumptions ('what is the nature of corporate thinking and do we like it?') then education will again be supportive of existing systems, and without the benefit of any critique beyond itself. It would seem, therefore, that the potential for critical thought is on the one hand being eclipsed and on the other is finding itself embedded within the very system which it should be its task to critique. Hence the special dangers in our current situation of pragmatism ('what is, is fine - let's just make it work') and 'end of history' theories; and the special opportunities for critical and sceptical philosophies to act as the watchdog of prevailing assumptions.

The South African situation In South Africa any analysis of these questionswill involve consideration of the new 'outcomes-based' curriculum.' While purporting to respect academic freedom at tertiary level, current policy in fact intervenes significantly through the structuring of 'programmes'. It intervenes even more directly in insisting that curriculum planners in all disciplines take cognisance of specific 'critical cross-field outcomes' required for the National QualificationsFramework -outcomes which are clearly informed by Mode 2 thinking. Traditionally tertiary education has been jealous of its independence from government, but in this instance the implications of government intervention are far from being finally established. Generally,progressive educationalistshave given 'critical cross-field outcomes' their approval. They see their implications as educationally exciting and potentially transformative. They were, of course, involved in their drafting. However, representatives of commercial interests and government ministers, who see the solution of existing economic problems as education's primary raison dztre, are equally enthusiastic - hence the extraordinarily ambivalent readings which are possible about the kinds of skills and competencieswhich 'critical outcomes' support. To 'identify and solve problems . . . using critical and creative thinking' may involve (depending upon your point of view) either an active commitment to solving the problems of society, or competence in dealing with commercial problems. To 'work effectively with others' raises visions equally of support for a vibrant civil society and of 'flat management structures'. 'Communication skills' are as significant for an effective 'dialectic' between student and teacher as they are for management training. An 'understanding of the world as a set of related systems' can promote an awareness of systems thinking in ecological terms, or its relevance to corporate -- - -

3

--

-

----. -

-

-

This paper deals only with higher education. The introduction of OBE in the South African schooling system is fraughtwith more, and to some extent different, problems.

SECTION

C

stmctures. To 'collect, analyse, organise and critically evaluate information', in short 'research skills', can be used to produce new knowledge in any field, or to keep ahead of competitors. And, finally, the 'recognition of prior learning' which is accepted in all recent government policy (although not directly included in the list of critical outcomes) can imply recognition of indigenous understandings to those with an interest in transformation, or equally the value of prior experience in specific workplace situations to those interested in industrial training.

The nature of the paradox These tensions and their apparent balance between the widely educational and transformative on the one hand, and the more narrowly commercial on the other, are already in fact weighted in favour of the commercial. This is not only because of the huge influence of the global market economy on all aspects of education, but also because the compilers of 'critical outcomes' themselves had moved so far from the vision of the National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) Report of 1992-1993 and of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) of 1994 as to omit 'non-racism', 'non-sexism' and 'democracy' from the list.4The epistemology of this kind of 'Mode 2' knowledge is therefore clearly not, as it stands, 'critical' - that is, it does not raise awareness of issues of power in the constitution of knowledge. These possibilities remain latent and 'critical outcomes' are therefore open to being applied purely for commercial advantage. And, as the sites of knowledge production move away from the traditionally academic, the possibility of this awareness becomes further eclipsed. Peter Scott (1997: 37-38) sees the problem, from an international perspective, in this way: The ...main objection to [a] largely optimistic account of the transition from mode 1science to Mode 2 knowledge production is that it leaves power out of the equation. In the end-of-history,apolitical, and unideological discourse of the 1990s, the shift is taken as inevitable and neutral, a given that must be accepted. Yet an alternative and more contested account is possible that relates this shift in knowledge production to the working of a transgressive and global late capitalism in which market relations have subsumed all moral questions. Certainly under Mode 2 conditions the power of relatively autonomous, and notionally disinterested, scientific communities, governed by professional norms is reduced, and the power of 'markets' (and those who dominate them, whether in the political or market arenas) is increased. Hence the attractions of this analysis to political and business leaders, and the unease with which it has been received in academic circles. This shift undoubtedly embodies, and perhaps conceals, a sharp contest for ideological supremacy. These are issues which remain adequately to be explored by analysts in knowledge production.

This chapter hopes to initiate that exploration.

4 120

This was pointed out strongly by WITS Education Policy Unit when these critical outcomes were first agreed upon. olvlarlr?,I m

CHAPTER

5

JANESKINNER

THE CURRENT HEGEMONY

I have been involved over the past two or three years in a fascinating study of the underpinnings of currently dominant knowledge systems - and all the evidence points to their being entirely positivistic and behaviouristic (that is, no different from before). Of course, positivism and behaviourism are two approaches to knowledge which progressive educationalists have rejected for decades -but it would appear that now these are introduced through the back door as 'market imperatives' they are not recognised or, more significantly, are seen as pragmatism. The links which behaviourism has to positivism and scientism are philosophically close. Clearly the notion that a particular stimulus will provide an identifiable response brings human behaviour convenientlywithin the scope of 'science'. But when the two approaches were conjoined in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970swithin much social science thinking they were tempered by a greater democratic awareness and a greater respect for community. (Here, of course, I am speaking of Europe and North America -not of South Africa.) This sociodenlocratic ethos not only softened their impact but also provided the grounds for their critique, and hence for their demise as appropriate or adequate tools for understanding the social sciences (and notably education). Now they return within a more individualistic and potentially more dangerous environment. The political, economic and philosophical ideas which order our society (net* liberalism, neo-classical5 economics and neo-pragmatism) are clearly all newer versions of earlier sets of ideas. In each case they appear to represent a simpler, harsher, less socially aware version of their earlier prototypes. Neo-liberalism is less concerned with free people and more with free trade, neoclassical economics less with morality and more with markets, and neo-prapatism less with democracy and more with materialism. Overall this thought is overpoweringly influenced by market thinking, with an interesting subtheme of neeDarwinism. The general acceptance of the importance of economics (and pragmatism) to education is well illustrated by an article written by Suzanne Rees, President of the Association of Professional Teachers, which appeared in the Sun@ 7i'w.y at the beginning of 1996, and which concluded that: 'in this way [that is, through efficient teaching] the country can have a state education system it can be proud of, one which delivers competent, educated youngsters to the economy'. It may, therefore, be interesting to examine some of the principal assumptions o f this current world order on the tinderstanding that these will 'structure the field' of possible knowledge operating in our society and consequently in our education system. This is to borrow from Michel Foucault's idea of 'power/knowledge' but it is also common sense I think. For instance, if we assume that the market is 5

More accurately 'new classical' economics since 'neo-classical economics' has gone through various phases since its predominance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century before the Keynesian revolution.

SECTION

C

CONCEPTS,CONTEXTS, CRITICISMS

the only sensible, or the best, or the most 'scientific' way of ordering things, this allows various different interpretations of what would be sensible or possible but to give one's competitor an advantage because he or she is more needy or more deserving of consideration than oneself would not fall within the realm of the sensible or possible - only of the impractical or utopian.

The term 'neo-liberalism' is interesting in itself. This new version of an earlier 'liberalism' involves recapturing the freedom of the individual and the right to private property, at a time when these are no longer needed to win democratic freedoms for the formerly disempowered -but rather to entrench, in a different context, the existing freedoms of the already empowered - against any possible inroads of the currently disempowered. Hence the strange overlap between 'neo-liberalism' and 'neoconservatism'. In the present context, despite differences in emphasis, they are one and the same.6But it is impossible to isolate neo-liberal thought as a political system from the economic ideology which supports it.

Neoclassical economics Because of the preponderance of economic thinking everywhere, and notably in education, it will be necessary to stay a little longer with economics. Here we come up against an odd phenomenon -the extreme unwillingness among economists to examine their own assumptions. They appear to be uninterested in critiquing their methodology, in researching their discipline,or in considering its past history and current context. 'Explicit methodology analysis and commentary are widely frowned upon in contemporary economics' (Lawson, quoted in Hart, 1996: 1). Almost no economics departments in the country responded to last year's CSD survey of research methodology teaching (CSD Economics Education mailing list) and where research in economics is taught it is generally within very strict frameworks of modelling (Hart, 1996: 5 ) . Economics departments, where these are coming together with economic history departments, are doing so because of 'rationalisation' rather than for academic reasons. But maybe all this becomes clear when one understands that economics is probably the last remaining social science to see itself in the light of a natural science - and therefore not something that needs to be contextualised.The version of natural science adopted varies (somewhat confusingly to the outsider) between Newtonian physics on the one hand and Darwinian 'natural selection' on the other. Economists, of course, have a huge influence upon government policy everywhere (and hence upon educational policy) and it is perhaps worrying to consider that the academic background of economists is seldom, as it was in the past, one 6 122

There is an interesting alternative suggestion which holds that liberalism in fact ended in 1989, exactly two centuries after its inauguration in the French Revolution (Wallerstein, 1995). epml&~ir I.-

CHAPTER

5

J A N ES K I N N E R

involving a study of politics, philosophy and economics - but economics only. Leading business schools around the world currently support versions of positivist economic theory - in line with Milton Friedman's belief that economics 'is, or can be an "objective" science in exactly the same way as any of the physical sciences' (Friedman, quoted in Hart, 1996: 5). Thus those who influence our destiny see the market as something which can be observed as a natural phenomenon, that economic facts can be derived from it, that 'market signals' will indicate appropriate solutions to economic problems. In short, they assume that it is possible to derive facts about how people will and do behave - and this is a highly contentious assumption. 'The prevalence of scientism in economics ... is in marked contrast to the epistemological humility and confusion of the other social disciplines' (Ormerod, 1992). This is not to suggest that economic predictions arrived at by means of this system may not be helpful at the micro level (its powers of prediction on a macro scale are acknowledged, even by its practioners, to be poor) but it is to suggest that the system itself should be understood as a contested one, almost certainly in need of revision. It is not true, however, that there are no dissenting voices in the ranks of mainstream economists. Donald McCloskey sees economists as involved in the art of persuasion rather than in truth-gathering, even in the apparently factual fields of econometrics and statistical quantification. The problem is that because of adopting a pragmatic philosophical understanding, McCloskey is equally as accepting of neoclassical economics as of any other type - indeed he himself works within this paradigm (Fine, 1998: 3). (McCloskeysees himself as 'especially fortunate' in meeting Richard Rorty and being directed by him towards pragmatism (Hart, 1996).) His criticisms are therefore unable to offer any way out from the present impasse. Friedrich Hayek, Nobel laureate in economics and harbinger of the era of Reagan and Thatcher, denies that analysis of the economic situation can provide appropriate tools for prediction and thus for intervention - which, after all, is the main value of the knowledge of a natural science such as physics. He believes that economists will never be able to know enough of the facts to make more than general estimations - and this only within microeconomics (Hayek, 1983: 21). However, Hayek has another, different, and ultimately more worrying, scientific analogy for economics. He interprets Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' as an evolutionary, organic development in which the global free-market economy will automatically produce the best and most effective society.' Therefore any interference in its workings is very dangerous -particularly any assistance to the ~narginalised(Hayek, 1983: 53). He believes that the natural proclivity of people 7

D p m & l I ~1.m .

The strength of economic arguments which reject 'end states' is that they see economics as a process involving a myriad of transactions which cannot be appropriately captured in blanket legislation. The analogy with the growth of common law (which is built up over time and which very much involves human agency) is as useful as the analogy of biological evolution (in which interference may indeed be dangerous) is inappropriate -and yet the same theorists will advance both arguments (eg Norman Barry, 1988).

123

SECTION

C

CONCEPTS, CONTEXTS, CRITICISMS

toward altruism had to cease in order to make 'the great society [sic!] possible' (Hayek, 1984: 30) It is interesting here to find that Charles Darwin was influenced in his development of the theory of natural selection by his reading of Adam Smith - to the great benefit of natural scientific understanding. However, as the biologist Stephen Gould (1995: 23) argues: [Flrom my point of view it is a great irony of Adam Smith's system that it does not work in economics, and it cannot. We are moral agents, we cannot bear the incidental loss involved in letting laissez-faire work in an untrammelled way. There is too much death and destruction. But nature does not care.

Of course, both the great classical economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo saw economic theory as embedded in society and could not have envisaged its presentday abstraction from reality. Significant thinkers (notably Samuel Bowles, an economist well known to educationalists) still argue that there is no real barrier to social factors being readmitted - to democracy reasserting itself over the economy. However, the power of multinational corporations and international trade agreements to which nations surrender their sovereignty make this less and less of an option.

The most significant philosophical underpinnings of this world order might be illustrated by a brief look at the ideas of Richard Rorty. Rorty is a committed 'liberal' in politics and he established neo-pragmatism in his major work Philosophy and the Mirrm of Nature. His roots are in analytical philosophy which has been the principal school of philosophy throughout much of the English-speaking world (includingSouth Africa) for most of the twentieth century. He says of this approach to knowledge that 'analytical philosophers are content to solve philosophical problems without worrying about the source of those problems or the consequences of their solution' (Rorty, 1991: 23). Rorty himself goes further. He not only dismisses the possibility that power might be a significant factor in explaining societies, he denies to the discipline of philosophy itself any explanatory power. As he sees it, philosophy is no different from any other cultural activity. He identifies his project in Philosophy and the M i r m of Nature as concerned with establishing the truth of 'behaviorism and materialism' (Rorty, 1980: 17,379) and in this he is close to the 'physicalist' ideas prevalent in the current philosophy of science. Rorty suggests that if only our understanding of neurology and biochemistry were greater we could discard any need for the notion of 'mind' - a major chapter of his book is entitled 'Persons without Minds'. The implications of this kind of thinking are sinister if taken to their logical 8

John Maynard Keynes, who represents the school of thought which argues for limited but appropriate state intervention, held that economics was not a natural science but rather a 'moral science', as did the classical economists, (Hart, 1996: 6).

CHAPTER

5

J A N ES K I N N E R

conclusion. Morality is not ultimately an option if one's neurons control one and neurologists can know us in ways which are 'truer' than anyone else particularly ourselve~.~ Consciousness is compromised in a far more radical way here than the epistemology of either Mam or Foucault would suggest. The influence of Charles Darwin is again significant in Rorty's philosophy. It would be tendentious to suggest that current neeDarwinists have any of the leanings to the far right with which Darwinism was formerly associated - but thinkers (videDarwin himself) may be more innocent than the tendency of their ideas, just as they may, on occasion, be less innocent (vide Heidegger - but this needs the further exploration of scholars).

It seems ironic that the world should be bent, at this particular moment, on a pragmatic acceptance of conservative, scientific theories just when its most pervasive theory -economics -has such dubious scientific underpinnings, with such limited explanatory power. Economic thinking, in the guise of science"' and rationality, increasingly affects all of the social sciences and especially education. The effects are particularly poignant in South Africa which so recently emerged from an epic struggle against inhuman ways of rationalising society. The acceptance by the ANC government-in-waiting of the Western world's economic models, even before 1994, inevitably led to the demise of their Reconstruction and Development Programme once in power. The arguments in favour of a different understanding of economics, one more appropriate to the building of a new democracy, were strong (Asghar Adelzadeh; Ben Fine; Vishiirl Padayachee) - but the weight of global opinion was against them - and there can be no certainty that they could have succeeded given that constraint. No arguments in support of the 'fiscal discipline' and 'structural adjustment' which are meant to bring new economies up to speed are as corlvincing as the logical understanding that free trade is disastrous for the poorer of two unequal partners (Allais, quoted in Ormerod, 1994: 8). States which have attained economic prosperity have never done so through free-market policies in the early stages of their rise to prosperity, and even the most orthodox of economists agree that huge disparities of wealth within a country militate against the effective operation of a classical free-market economy. Nonetheless, government finance ministers, accepting the need to conform to World Bank and International Monetary Fund proposals, took South Africa faster down the road of tight monetary controls than

9

If anyone should be worried that this will ever actually come about, let him or her listen to Professor Anokhin of Moscow University whose major study of the nature of brain cells shows that 'each of the ten billion neurons in the human brain has a possibility of connections of one with 28 noughts after it' (Buzan, 1993: 29).

10 Paul Ormerod believes that the current state of economic knowledge can be compared with the state of medieval science before Newton. (Ormerod was for several years head of the Economic Assessment unit of The Economist, and, from 1982- 1992, Director of Economics atthe Henley Centre for Forecasting.)

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

even their international bankers demanded. Trevor Manuel, as recently as the 1998 'Job Summit', reaffirmed his government's adherence to these basic orthodoxies in the name of the GEAR strategy. The material effects of 'fiscal restraint' on educational reconstruction are clear to all of us, but it is perhaps the conceptual shift which is the greater problem in the long term. Education as part of the mathematically calculated market economy must produce people to fill the appropriate niches. Where economic niches do not exist, that is too bad. Where machines fill the niches better (more effectively and efficiently),people must 'reskill' or drop out. Where people are prepared to do the same job for less, industry must move to the more 'favourable' location. The current terminology for each of these is 'rationalisation', 'lifelong learning' and 'flexible labour policies', of course -but we are not really deceived. The evermounting unemployment levels which are the real issue here are understood by South Africans as their most pressing present concern. The commodification of education is not new but it may be the first time in history that a society has been prepared, in general terms, to rationalise education down to this simple deployment of isolated profit-maximising individuals divorced from any sense of community, into whatever spaces 'fate' (read 'global capital') dictates.Yet educationalists,even formerly progressive educationalists,are coming to accept all of this, if reluctantly, because they can see no alternative. Among the most significant of these are, of course, the education policy-makers themselves. Despite their desire to make education a means of redress and transformation, a close reading of the government's White Papers since 1994 shows that education policy sees both the ends and the means of education in largely economic terms. (Whether to see 1994 as a significant point of departure here therefore becomes doubtful. The De Lange Report (1982) and the Education Renewal Strategy (1993) similarly, if less ambiguously, offered an entirely economic reading of education.) There is emphasis on science, technology and commerce at the expense of other disciplines; 'programmes' must fit graduates for an identifiable place in the market place; higher education must allow South Africa to compete in the global economy - and where the economic prospects look hopeless, the private sector must be drawn in to fill the gaps. (This particular strategy deserves some attention in passing. To say that society must be run in accordance with the dictates of a market economy, but when it inevitably falls short in human terms, then that this shortfall must be met by organisations whose rakon d' itre is profit and not welfare, indicates something of the circular nature of the problem - and the ultimate hopelessness of any reliance on 'corporate social investment' to provide the answers.) At the macro level, therefore, government policy towards universities is materially constrained by the 'prevailing economic climate' (note the metaphor which sees the workings of the economy in terms of an act of God). These constraints suggest that the only response must be to run universities on commercial lines. It is, of

C H A P T E R

5

JANESKINNER

course, highly doubtful whether this will provide the best in scholarship -and it is certain that it cannot provide the best means for redress and transformation but this appears to be the only response possible at an institutional level.

Rethinking from the bottom up At the micro level of teaching and learning the perception is that people need to be trained to think, to solve problems, to compete, to innovate, in order to attain the necessary commercial advantage on the world stage -or, as seems more likely, to make a living for themselves outside of the formal economy. Hence the tenor of the curricular requirements of 'critical cross-field outcomes', as we saw earlier. The overwhelming evidence is, of course, that the kind ofjobs which are in reality being created, particularly in the South, are unskilled, insecure and gendered -and it may be that the need is no greater now than it was at any other time in our industrial history for large numbers of innovative thinkers. But, be that as it may, in that perception alone may lie interesting possibilities for an educational system which is able to provide critical thinkers willing and able to find new directions for society. And this brings us back to a further consideration of the possibilities which 'critical cross-field outcomes' may provide for realising something like Freire's understanding of transformation and redress through policies of progressive pedagogy. Freire's theories of learning and of personal transformation and empowerment have proved themselves wherever they have been implemented -as educational theory they can therefore claim strong explanatory power. But beyond a significant influence which they have had upon adult and community education, these ideas have had little direct effect upon formal educational practice here - or indeed elsewhere in the world. It is only now that current legislation requires all academics, including the majority who may never before have thought about transformative pedagogy, to take cognisance of 'critical outcomes' in order to gain accreditation, and funding, for all their new and existing 'programmes'. For the first time therefore it would seem that this kind of teaching and learning stands some chance of becoming institutionalised -of being accepted simply as good practice, as making educational sense. It remains to be considered whether the political agenda which was integral to Freire's conceptions could - or should - provide the means for transforming South African society.

The epistemology of transformation When things go badly wrong - as in the global economy at the present time the hope is that the critical approach to education should provide a bigger pool of people with the skills of independent thought able to suggest solutions. But only some appreciation that it is possible to see the world differently, that different explanations of how society might work are available, that we have not reached

S E C T I O N

C

CONCEPTS,CONTEXTS, CRITICISMS

the end of history, can allow for this kind of radical questioning to be given a hearing, let alone a chance of being implemented. And this is particularly difficult to achieve at present. The situation of theory in a pragmatic and scientific age is a peculiar one. Since it is given no role in explaining or in critically eduating society's norms, theory becomes abstracted from its social setting (as with econometrics) and given an artificial life of its own. In education this has led to the reification of numerous complex theories which would appear to have little use beyond causing headaches for students constructing 'conceptual frameworks' for research projects, while the real world sees education in econometric terms. This has led to serious questioning of the value of studylng theory at all in education (GaryThomas, 1997),and to the gradual demise of philosophy of education courses. However, the danger of not thinking about thought at all, of not being critical or sceptical about i t , is the greater. With this in mind I would suggest that the theory of 'critical pedagogy' itself should be scmtinised as to its power to explain democratic transformation. I would argue that, while it retains its power as a theory of how students ideally learn, it has lost much of its force as a political programme. Once the world ceased to see itself as divided into two opposing ideologies, the 'unveiling' of a (socialist) truth became less convincing - and in South Africa the current ANC government can hardly be cast in the role of 'oppressors', nor emancipation in any straightforward way be seen as the goal of education. I would suggest that post-structural theory, and particularly Michel Foucault's ideas of 'power/knowledge' -deriving as they do from our own sceptical, post-Gulag, post-1968 world - promises more nuanced political explanations. In general terms, Foucault sees that we need to take account of the power structures of the day in any attempt to unearth the nature of prevailing knowledge. Thus hegemonic understandings of pragmatism and newlassical economic theory could not be glossed over as tjust the way things are' but would demand an awareness of the power structures which have promoted them, and the particular historical juncture which has constructed them. But no utopian or overarching political alternativeswould be sought or offered. Foucault suggests that one power structure inevitably gives over to another in a neverending succession, and each in its turn must be dealt with anew. In our case the ANC creates its own nexus of power/ knowledge. We are as free to applaud its success in overcoming its predecessor as we are to be critical of the nature of its own hegemony. In Foucaultian theory our awareness is raised but our assurance is reduced. There are no final answers. The ethical implications of post-modern and post-structural thought have been much maligned. People feel that if there are no foundational truths there can be no moral systems for society to adhere to, and therefore no ethical standards. Jacques Derrida suggests, more interestingly, that we should never give up our responsibility for independent thought to any prescribed moral system - that a

CHAPTER

5

J A N ES K I N N E R

good conscience is always suspect, that each contingent circumstance requires responsiveness and responsibility on its own merits - and these will not be in any final way available to us: 'it is just that there be law, but the law is notjustice'. This may, of course, cause us a lot of anxiety, 'but who will claim to be just by economising on anxiety?' (Derrida, 1993: 20). This is an understanding which entails respect for others and for otherness and which questions the oversimplistic role which we assign to rationality in ordering and in judging our society. The kind of knowledge production which critical forms of pedag~~gy (including 'critical outcomes') promote would seem to be compatible with this open-ended and non-prescriptive understanding. The Enlightenment vision of open enquiry became suspect when the Frankfurt School pointed to its blindness to issues of power - but Freirean conceptions of emancipation suffered also from a certain incongruence between 'open enquiry' and the 'vanguard' role necessarily played by educators to bring about change. Post-structural understandings avoid both pitfalls; they are neither blind to issues of power, nor are they prescriptive of particular forms of society. Only totalitarian and fundamentalist regimes would seem to be incompatible with this understanding. But if we are looking to open forms of pedagogy to rethink 'existing systems' and to transform society, we cannot expect them to do so from within these systems themselves. A commercially run and funded institution will not promote radical questioning of its own forms of existence. This would suggest the crucial significance of the maintenance of academic freedom at the present juncture - but freedom from commercial take-over and not from government interference in this instance. Therefore, to come back to our original concern: will 'critical outcomes' he functional only for existing systems?The answer would seem to be 'yes', if the trend towards commercialisation of knowledge production continues unchecked. Can they promote the democratic transformation of our society?Paradoxically 'yes' again, if academic systems of teaching arc open to an understanding that current ways of thinking are not immutable but that any new (better?)ones will always be thernselves challenged and challengeable. The scales, as I write, are tipped heavily on the side of the commercial. This paper has been an atten~ptto throw some theoretical weight into the other scale.

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barry, NP. 1988. The Invisible Hand in Economics and Politics. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Buzan, T. 1993. The Mind Map Book. London: BBC. Derrida, J. 1993. Aporias. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fine, B. 1998. A Question of Economics: Is It Colonising the Social Sciences? (Unpublished.) Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Inlen/iews and Other Writings 1972- 1977 (Edited by C Gordon). New York: Pantheon. Gould, S.J. 1995. The Individual in Darwin's Warld London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Governnzent Gazette. 1997a. Draft White Paper on Higher Education, Notice 712, April 1997. Pretoria. Government Gazette. 1997b. A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, Education White Paper 3, Notice 1196, August 1997. Pretoria.

Hart,J. 1996. Why Economic Methodology Should be a LegitimateField of Study. Unpublished seminar paper, presented at the University of Natal. Hayek, FA. 1983. Knowledge, Evolution and Society. London: Adam Smith Institute. Kraak, A. 1997. Globalisation, changes in knowledge production, and the transformation of higher education. In N Cloete, J Muller, MW Magkoba & D Ekong (eds), Knowledge, Identity and Curriculum Transfmation in Afica. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Jmatisonn, J. 1997. How the ANC battled to balance the ideological books. Mail and Guardian, November 6-1 3. Ormerod, P. 1992. Neat little theories that crash into the real world. TimesHigherEducatimutZ Supplement, September 18. Ormerod, P. 1994. The Death of Economics. London: Faber and Faber. Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell. Rorty, R. 1991. Essays on Hn'degger and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, P. 1997. Changes in knowledge production and dissemination in the context of globalisation. In N Cloete,J Muller, MW Makgoba & D Ekong (eds), Knowkdge, Identity and Curriculum Transfmation in Afica. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Rees, S. 1996. End the Rhetoric: We need efficiency. Sunday Times,January 14. Thomas, G. 1997. What's the Use of Theory? Haroard Educational Rariew 67(1), 75-102 Spring. Wallerstein, I. 1995. After Liberalism. New York: New Press.

CHAPTER 6

Outcomes-based Education: Teacher Identity and the Politics of Participation JEAN BAXEN & CRAIN SOUDIEN SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

South Afi-ica,as a fledgling democracy, is faced with the challenge of reconstruction and social recovery having only recently (1994) held its first democratic elections. This reconstruction involves a reimagining of its political, economic and social structures and the abandonment of the apartheid ideology which legitimated racial and cultural segregation. Education, as is well known, was, and remains, central to the discursive process of racial and cultural segregation. During apartheid it was used not only to achieve social separation but, in so far as it was built around a social philosophy, also as the legitimating arena for white hegemony and the racial ordering produced around it. Within it the hidden and explicit curricula were configured to produce, reproduce and validate the legitimacy of separation and hierarchy. Central to it were presumptions of European superiority and African inferiority which were invoked as modern truths about human potential, progress and development. These truths provided the ideological foundations upon which apartheid education was built. Lotz (1996: 58) claims that arguments of scientific forms of rationality which formed the interpretivegnd around which norms, concerning the ways individual groups may be classified and what might constitute a correct policy, were defined [for] the ensuing development of apartheid ideologies and [its].. . educational policies and practice.

A flagrant feature of the education system was the extent to which schools for children other than white were the object of neglect, indifferenceand discrimination. The system of teacher education, influenced largely by Fundamental Pedagogics' - ~- -

1

~

-

-

--

The tenets of fundamental pedagogics which are relevant to this discussion are those which seek to construct teachers simply as practitioners. They are subject to specialists or pedagogues who understand practice philosophically and they receive from these specialists what it is they are supposed to do in the classroom and how it should be done. It is this deprofessionalisation of teachers which is of consequence in this discussion.

SECTION

C

CONCEPTSC , O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

and its philosophical position, contributed to training teachers who lacked the ability to exercise their professional autonomy. In particular, their authority and curricular competence were undermined to the point that they were prevented from developing an understanding of the relationship between education and the context in which knowledge and understanding are created and shared. The resultant effect was that their professional identities were distorted, leaving them without the intellectual resources to critically assess their professional practice. Those resources they had to find independently. It is this legacy that the Government of National Unity, established after the first democratic elections of 1994, has had to address. How to meet the challenge of changing a previously fragmented, inequitable and culturally oppressive system of education into one which would satisfy the requirements of equity, equality, redress and social and cultural empowerment has been the question of the day and is one which this paper interrogates. It inquires how one might understand and deconstruct the emerging discourses in the slew of social reforms, particularly as they are embodied in the outcomes-based education (OBE) reforms proposed by the new national Department of Education (DOE). The chapter begins with a critique of the South African and international debate in the domain of OBE and advances, on the basis of a documentary analysis of the new proposals and interviews with teachers and selected role-players, to interrogate the discursive imperatives of the process as they impact on teachers. The chapter has a regional focus in so far as the principal subjects of the interviews which were conducted are based in the Western Cape Province, one of the nine provinces in South Africa. The basis on which the study is conducted is shaped by an appropriation of critical and post-structural theories: In critical theory terms, the question which is posed is how much space is accorded to teachers' voices within the new curriculum development process, while the post-structural angle brought to the discussion is that of interrogating the parameters of power, as defined by the nexus between race and class and knowledge in particular, in the making of new discourse.

The announcement of the South African Act on 28 September 1995 signified a major step forward in the development of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), a co-ordinating structure and mechanism devised to respond to the fragmented and inequitable system of education and training. These proposals have been tabled amongst a magnitude of expansive proposals which have as their intention the fundamental restructuring of the South African educational system (see Gilmour, 1997). None of the reforms, as the work of Gilmour (1997) and Chisholm, Gilmour and Soudien (1997) seek to argue, have been without controversy. In some ways, asJansen (1997b) has argued, the controversies have not

CHAPTER

6

J E A N BAXEN& CRAIN SOUDIEN

been entirely unexpected as, on the one hand, old power bases have sought to mount rearguard actions in defence of their long-standing privileges and on the other, new power bases have emerged announcing and legislating new orthodoxies. Notable within the construction of the NQF is the way in which it seeks to reconfigure, almost entirely, the architecture of the country's learning frame at every level of its operation, from the formal to the most informal areas of education and training. The objectives of the NQF, for example, are 'to create an integrated national framework for learning achievements and to enhance access to, and mobility and quality within, education and training' (national Department of Education, 1997: 14). An outcomes-based approach to education and training, which has as its focus the transformation of the country's pedagogical and ideological legacy, is proposed as the organising curriculum framework through which the NQF will be operationalised. Adherents to an outcomes-based approach to education (OBE) in South Africa and internationally have claimed for it the potential to meet the needs of 'all students regardless of their environment, ethnicity, economic status, or disabling condition' (Capper & Jamison, 1993: 428). They suggest, too, that it enables teachers and educationists to have a more explicit, unequivocal curricular focus, be able to develop better instructional procedures, and assess learners' achievement with exactitude, clarity and validity. The principles that underpin such a system are based on the assumption that 'all students can learn and succeed, success breeds success and schools control the environments or conditions of success' (Spady & Marshall, 1991).

It is important, for the purpose of locating the relevance of the approach to South Africa, to understand where OBE comes from. Outcomes-based education has its basis in two educational reforms, namely competency education and mastery learning. The former was a reaction to the changingjob market in the late 1960s in the United States when there were queries regarding the role of education. The primary questions related to whether education was preparing young people adequately not merely for their life roles. The fundamental premise of competencybased education is that it should be fabricated around the integration of outcome goals, instructional experiences and assessment mechanisms. In practice, though, this approach to education remained largely rhetorical, partly because there was little agreement as to what competency represented. The mastery learning movement, established by Benjamin Bloom, is built on the assumption that all learners are able to master desired outcomes if educators reconstruct the time and instructional parameters in which learning is set. Prevalent in both these movements is the emphasis on input rather than the culminating point of a set of learning experiences. Outcomes-based education proposes to appropriate this and intends to shift current educational practices to include: a move towards a different philosophy and

SECTION C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S . C R I T I C I S M S

belief, objectives tied to 'learner outcomes, core and extended curriculum development, mastery learning, accountabilityvia an information management system, and criterion referenced assessment' (Capper & Jamison, 1993: 431-432). This is seen as a major paradigm shift from a contentdriven to an outcomes-driven curriculum and is assumed to be the necessary response to the complex educational dilemmas of South Africa. The allure of OBE for South Africa, a fledgling democracy eager to level the playing fields, is the assertion, as official documents have announced, that it (OBE) is 'learner-centred,results-oriented design based on the belief that all individualscan learn' (national Department of Education, 1997: 17) and that it has the capacity to meet the needs of all children irrespective of race, ethnicity, gender and religious conviction. However, what is conspicuous in the many official documents produced nationally and provincially by the respective education departments, is the undeveloped state of the debate and tension regarding the philosophical and pedagogical principles underpinning the OBE initiative. Absent in the developments is a sense of the relationship between the process, the players within it and what is produced. This paper seeks to highlight the lack of a reflective sense on the part of the proponents of OBE of the discursive modalities of the process. While official spokespersons (see Mohamed, 1997 and Simpson, 1997) have been at pains to spell out an argument for an OBE, almost nowhere do they acknowledge the need for accounting for the reforms in their broader socio-cultural context. Questions of epistemology and ontology, expressed as indices of power, knowledge, inclusion, access, legitimacy, coherence, integration, and equity and equality of opportunity, are strikingly sublimated in the discourse of reform, in favour of a narrow discourse of progress. Although proponents of OBE, particularly in South Africa, have stopped short of making the explicit claim that OBE has the potential for being an emancipatory and liberating initiative, they have, however, made strong suggestions in documentation that OBE will address issues of social change. They claim that it is built on the principles of 'equity, redress, nondiscrimination, democracy access andjustice'. The further claim is made that 'for the first time, high quality education will be available to everyone in South Africa irrespective of age, gender, race, colour, religion, ability or language' (Western Cape Education Department (WCED), 1997: 1). But how and by whom is the process being conceptualised, developed, implemented and managed? In what way are the 'interactions and contradictions among [personal identity], power, language, and unquestioned underlying assumptions ... to examine how power is exercised and the potential for change' (Capper & Jarnison, 1993: 435) being addressed? What the official claims stand for, therefore, are in urgent need of interrogation. In particular, the question of how and by whom the process is managed raises uncertainty about ownership. Do teachers and learners have a feeling of being 'done to'? How does the new system affect their lives, their identities, their professional autonomy and

CHAPTER

6

J E A N B A X E N& C R A I NS O U D I E N

confidence?Do they hear their 'voices' in the documentation especially since ' [The] . .. aim of the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) is to make the process of change as inclusive and participatory as possible'? (WCED, 1997: 1). In engaging this discussion, it is necessary to locate the state of the debate around OBE in South Africa. Two levels of critique of OBE have been advanced. The first level of critique is essentially processual, while the second is focused around the theoretical assumptions which frame the policy. Important about the critique, from both the process and theory perspectives, is the non-adversarial ground on which it stands and its commitment to the ideals formally proclaimed by the new education order. While newspaper reports have been hostile and belligerent, the criticism has been shaped by a desire to find ways of making the reform process in South Africa work. The first critique of OBE advanced by Jansen (1997a and 1997b) has resonated deeply in the wider educational community. He argues that teachers and schools are in distress about how they are meant to implement the proposals. He makes the point that while there is goodwill amongst teachers, in particular teachers who are black, towards the new government, they are insecure about how they will be bringing the policy into practice in their classes. A second level of critique emanates from commentators such as Muller (1996), Kell (1997) and Harris (1997). At the heart of these critiques is an anxiety about the pedagogic form and logic of the reform proposals for education. Briefly, Muller argues that the proposals represent an alliance between two opposing groups, one of which stresses the performance of skills and the other the ability to decode skills being performed. His anxiety is whether such an alliance can survive and he asks what kind of subjects it will produce (Muller, 1996: 22). Interestingly, this debate has, as yet, focused only slightly on the question of culture and identity. While Muller, by implication, sets up the identity of the 'well-tempered learner' in his title, little in any of the key texts addresses the significance of the proposals for the identity struggles which are presently playing themselves out in South Africa. While proponents of the proposals in government, such as Mohamed (1997),speak of OBE as supplying a riposte to apartheid's Eurocentric past, there is nothing in their work which addresses the question with any degree of clarity.

THEPROCESS

OF

OBE:

ISSUESOF MANAGEMENT, CONTROL AND IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION The following sections seek to develop an understanding of the initiative's discursive modalities by addressing the following questions.

+ Who is spearheading and managing the process and how are teachers' voices being 'vocalised' within it?

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S , CRITICISMS

+ What identity-producing mechanisms are at work in the process and what particular notions of a South African identity are coming into shape as a result of the process?

Participation and control in the management and development of OBE The question of the management of reform initiation in policy discussion is of crucial significance in understanding the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. Emerging out of a struggle where democracy and participation have been watchwords for political practice, South Africans are understandably deeply sensitive to criticisms about democracy and public participation in the reform process which is presently playing itself out. Processes of public participation have not, however, as Salazar (1996) in a trenchant critique of the constitution-making process has argued, been innocent. While public process is indubitably,and inevitably,always contradictoryand tension ridden, the point to be made for the purposes of this work is the strategic impact of the management decisions that have been and are being made around questions of process. For many, especially teachers, who were drawn into the process of curriculum-making,many of the tensions were profoundly troubling. From the onset, one of the teachers involved in one of the Learning Area Committees (LACS)~ expressed concern regarding the lack of teachers on the LACs. According to him, 'The person who co-ordinated the LAC said that he actually made all efforts to get in touch with everybody and to make the LAC as representative as possible.' Much more disconcerting for him, though, was the question of control. He attempted to find out who and how the co-ordinator was appointed, especially since he was a high-ranking provincial departmental official. How that appointment was made was never disclosed. When it came to sending representatives to national meetings, the subject adviser who co-ordinated at provincial level was sent as delegate. As the teacher pointed out: 'Certainly the people at the LAC made no input into who the reps would be at national level'. Right from the conception of this process the powerful hand of the formal bureaucracy was apparent in the construction of the reform and its content. The bureaucracy not only facilitated the process, but also managed and conceptualised it. In the Western Cape the major structures which were established to develop the curriculum were a Curriculum Management Committee (CMC) and eight Learning Area Committees (LACs). People were nominated by various stakeholders, including the teacher organisations, to serve on the LACs.

2

The eight LACs were Language, Literacy and Communication, Mathematical Literacy, Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, Human and Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Technology, Arts and Culture, Economics and Management Sciences, and Life Orientation. The brief of each LAC was essentially to write a rationale and learning outcomes for the domain in which it operated.

CHAPTER

6

J E A N BAXEN& CRAIN SOUDIEN

In the Western Cape, the majority of the IACs were co-ordinated and chaired by departmental officials. The result has been that the kind of participation which has evolved has essentially taken a responsive form. Representatives on these committees were confronted with the OBE narrative and were not provided with an opportunity to examine its origins -politically or pedagogically. The level of their involvement was entirely responsive. As the teacher quoted previously states: There were many things that would be decided at national level, that [would be] brought to provinces and provinces would ... be asked to follow those guidelines more rigidly with very little sort of meaningful input. We were told by the national reps or the provincial people who represented us at the national level that the esselitial outcomes or critical outcomes were cast in stone, there was nothing that we could do in making any kind of input. This teacher questioned whether it was indeed the case that the policy way cast in stone or whether it was the perception of the provincial reps. What is clear, though, is that the DOE 'think-tankers' -as one official in the WCED described the small group of people in the national Department of Education -effectively supplied the core idea of OBE which they hoped the representative stmctures would amplify. The view of a leading WCED official is instructive: Now this .. . guideline document, a reference was made to the Scottish Model. I a\ked the question while 1 was there [in Pretoria where the DOE is located], why n Scottish . .. guide document was preferred .. . and they wid that it was the onl) available [one]. .. The racial character of this bureaucracy, furthermore, was a matter of some concern. A teacher belonging to a major union remarked about the domination of white officials within the process - 'The white people, if you [want] to call it that, are still driving the process in the Western Cape.' For many who were not white, it was difficult to raise the question of representivity in racial terms. A recently appointed official in the WCED who was not white commented: '. . . because once you come up with those kinds of' issues today, you are seen as a racist ... [I,]et's be honest .. . every time they send people up [to Pretoria], its still I-ace.' The point to make about the development of the process is the extent of it5 tcndentiousness. The introduction of OBE allowed only a minimal degree of input frorn the participants to the development procesy. Not unexpectedly, these ohstrttcted origins I aised the suspicions of many of tllc participants in the proces5, who not only questioned the foreign pro\cnnnce of the idea, hut al\o its politicnl underpinnings. The major teac he1 organisition in the process, the South Africdn Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU), entered the development \ i t 1 1 deep concern. A member of the orgnnisation who had participated 111 the \ e n first nleetiilg when the outcorne+ba.sed edllcdtion proposals were dlinounced explained:

[M]e hati n b ~ gdebate in otr~SAL)TU drlegatlon when wc met fol thc. f i ~ s ttnnc 111 PIrtot In We [dccldcd to h,i\ r 1 ,I c ntrcrl4 111duc sn~d w r AI c. l)otr~ld to tllv pr oc c\\

SECTION C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

because we are in alliance with the government. But the concern was also there that this is the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that is pulling the strings over here ... That the country is becoming an international role-player and therefore we must fall in line with the rest of the world.

While there was a commitment to making the reforms work, the process was unquestionably presented as a prescripted initiative.As a result, public participation, particularly that of teachers, essentially involved the passing on of the concept to an increasingly wider audience whose task it was to assimilate the ideas contained in the proposals. Their capacity to critique was constrained, as Moharned (1997) suggested previously, by the presumption held by the DOE that it knew what the public mood was. Several incidents within the process confirm the relationship of the curriculum developers in the DOE national office to other role-players within the provinces. The teacher delegate from SADTU who served as a technical advisor to a Learning Area Committee commented that when the issue of performance indicators arose initially,and when a subgroup of people from the LAG was mandated to advise on the development of the indicators, they found that the indicators had already been developed by a separate specialist group at national level.

OBE and the making of identity Curriculum-making processes are by their very nature processes which are concerned with identity-making. Pinar (1993:60) makes the point that curriculum is one highly significant form of representation. As Curriculum 2005 and the South African version of OBE are settled into the country's pedagogical and social imagination, so too are setting distinct conceptions of a South African identity. Pinar (1993:61) makes the point that 'we are what we know'. But he also adds: 'We are, however, also what we do not know. If what we know about ourselves - our history, our culture, our national identity -is deformed by absences, denials, and incompleteness, then our identity -both as individuals and as Americans -is fragmented.' @nst the backdrop of South Africa's fractured and hierarchalised history, how its curriculum engages with its various peoples is a matter of profound concern. The key identity-making references in the processes of OBE have been to those of South Africa's place in the new world order. The central imperative within this line of thinking has been the necessity for synchronising education with the economy, and that of producing skilled young men and women able to bring flexible competencies to the world of work. The first point to make about the identity-producing impulses of the OBE process relates to the epistemology of OBE. It might be argued that OBE is a script for modernity. As Kell (1997: 5) has said elsewhere, the dominant approach of the new reforms has been the privileging of a form of instrumentality. The abiding concern of OBE has been that of producing a universal subject with universally good attributes. The nature of these attributes and their social history has not been

CHAPTER

6

J E A N B A X E N& C R A I N S O U D I E N

addressed. Their locatedness, for example, in middleclass discourses and representations of the ideal learner (see Ellsworth, 1989 and Delpit, 1988) is taken for granted as a universal good. The learner, furthermore, is abstracted from the social conditions of poverty, continued racial oppression and pedagogical neglect; and is also abstracted from the specificity of the cultural orbit of South Africa where, as Manganyi (1991) has argued, young people are having to learn how to navigate their way through the competing ontologies and epistemologies of a white and middle-class world and an African and often working-class township or rural location. The process of installing OBE thus talks past the ideological and cognitive tensions which permeate their everyday lives. Instead, the learner is constructed simply as an innocent subject of the shaping pedagogical gaze of OBE. Outcomes-based education is the transformative text which will move South Africans from a 'primitive' past into a 'modern' future. In describing adult basic education and training (ABET) pedagogies within this framework of OBE, Kell (1997: 11) describes the protocols around letter-writing observed in a class: In the second observation we saw how the standard Western, letter-writing form is fetishised. The 'elements' of the letter are taught as if they are outside of the actual context,in an abstract sense to be grappledwith and 'mastered'. The teacher is a skilled Xhosaspeaker who grew up in a rural area, and yet she found it necessary to spend a large part of a lesson imposing a schooled letter-writingconvention on her learners, which clearly involved some kind of identity conflictfor them, and their own submission to the convention through a process of recognition that they were in deficit. While this process is essentially an ABET one, it is embedded in the cognitive regimes specified by the movement towards achieving learning outcomes. The curriculum advisor who spoke of the ability of OBE to assimilate African knowledge, at no stage reflected a sense of the modalities of that appropriation. The cultural text was separate and distinct from the modalities of learning. That the modalities might themselves carry cultural imperatives was not an issue. In this sense OBE is a form of technology designed to shift learners' mind-sets from the backward to the modern. The standardisations implied in the general outcomes associated with OBE are cultural and carry with them the markers of a modern world from which there is no escape. While this critique of the new proposals by no means seeks to recuperate nonmainstream epistemologies for the purpose of rejecting the modern, it is important to make the point that within the single logic of OBE, as a learning and teaching frame, there are few opportunities for problematising the question of ways of knowing. The second point to make in terms of identity-forming pressures within OBE relates to the discursive modalities of the process. It can be argued, withjustification,that the explicit racial discourse of apartheid has been expunged from the transformation process in South Africa. The mechanisms and modalities which have been

SECTION C CONCEPTS, CONTEXTS, CRITICISMS

developed have worked strongly and directly with the notion of transformation. Delegations have invariably been demographically representative of apartheid's racial groups. Process itself, however, has not been recognised as a discourseaffecting feature of transformation. Instead, process, and the very character of OBE itself, is seen and critiqued in terms of its technical parameters. A few teachers were aware of the discursive modalities in the process and how these modalities produced inclusion and exclusion and served, as a result, to shape identity. One teacher who was closely involved rejected the time frames which were constructed around the process and the pressures which these imposed: For me it's the whole thing about pace and about the clarity of the issues because ... they are going so fast through things .. . They [DOE] decide they need someone at national level . .. and they phone, so it would be selective, they keep choosing people they know, okay this person can make an input ... If I look at the documents you can see it's put together by a group of people who have a few days to think about it ...

What the factor of availability sets up is a certain form of privileging which is sometimes represented as 'old-girl or old-boy networks' at work. The ownership of the process is perceived to lie with a group of experts funded by the authorities. The othering impact of this process has been profound, as a teacher from a teachers' organisation put it: I don't think it's a matter of teachers not having time [which has produced their non-attendance ... There is a perception within SADTU that it won't work, although we are constantly being reassured by . .. people working in Canada ... who said that they tried it out in the Indian reserves ... The people are disillusioned with .. . socioeconomic problems ... [There are] basic thing(s) like transport . ..

More complex forms of privileging and othering lie within the apolitical frameworks within which the process has operated. Up to now the process has been constructed according to timing considerations-which of course are politically driven -but is represented in politically innocent terms. Time in these terms is a strategic conditioning device which privileges some and disadvantages others. Within its conditioning imperatives are preferred notions of how agendas are constructed and addressed and what people who manage these regimes are like. What these conventions do is to project identities which are self-sufficient, time conscious and agenda driven. By contrast, identities of deficiency are projected for those unable to operate within these parameters. It is the innocence and the universalised notions of change and progress which operate within the OBE process which are crucial to understand. Groups of privileged people, whether white or black, promote preferred notions of learners' and teachers' identities in their control of the process and the kinds of knowledge they transact within it. These preferred identities stand in stark contrast to the identities which learners and teachers manifest in their everyday worlds.

C H A P T E R

6

J E A N B A X E N& C R A I N S O U O I E N

Simpson (1997) has called for the need to avoid New Right models of outcomesbased education and to highlight the need for access of the previously disadvantaged into the educational and economic systems. Interestingly, the character of the modem world as a uniform and seamless cultural space has almost entirely been taken for granted in the outcomes-based education framework. While Mohamed (1997), as indicated earlier, genuflects in the direction of a nonEurocentric OBE, his notion of access is crucially that of access of the disadvantaged into the existing dominant world order. As an identity-producingmechanism, this form of OBE is political. Its icons, its cultural modalities and its parameters speak to the assimilation of the previously disadvantaged into the world system. What is silenced in this scheme, in Pinar's terms, are rival epistemologiesof the modern world and, even more subversively, rival epistemologies of knowing the world. What it is crucial to understand about the process is its silencing of rival modalities in the construction of curriculum and the possibility that alternative modalities may lead to alternative and different epistemologies and ontologies. This chapter seeks to argue, therefore, that evident in the agenda of the OBE process is a presumption of the reform process as benign and innocent. The counter-argument the paper seeks to make is that the reforms are partial and profoundly one-sided. In so far as they seek to facilitate the assimilation of young people into the modern order and its economic machinery, the reforms are of vital importance. They speak, therefore, to South Africa's ravaged class history and its denial of access of the working poor to the levers of power in the economy. What is being foreclosed in the consensual language of OBE are the more complex manifestations of difference and inequality, therefore, of equality and equity. Omitted in the discourse of OBE is a deliberate awareness of the very divides and fractures which have specified the public face of South Afnca. Racism, to be specific, as an ontological and epistemological reality embedded in pedagogical practice is absent from the modalities of OBE. Outcomes-based education is presented as a mediating device for entry into a modern future, but not as a device for working with the suppressed identities and the stereotypes to which people were forced to conform in South Africa's payt. What is called for in curriculum-makingin the new South Africa is a process which is more sensitive to the multiplicity of differences which have animated its 300year-long history and an interrogation of those differences. There is undoubtedly merit in so far as OBE seeks to make young people literate in the ways and habits of modernity. At the same time, they need to be able to recognise that script for what it is -a text for a very particular understanding of the world. They also need to be able to insert their own epistemologies and ontologies into the process by which they weigh up who and what it is they choose to be.

SECTION C

CONCEPTS,CONTEXTS, CRITICISMS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Capper, C &Jamison, M. 1993.Outcomes-basededucation reexamined: From structural functionalism to poststructuralism. Educational Policy, 7 (4), 427-446. Chisholm, L, Gilmour, D & Soudien, C. 1997. Implementing Equity in Post-Apartheid Education, (Mimeo). Delpit, L. 1988. Silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Education Review, 58(3), 280-298. National Department of Education. 1997. Outcomes-based Education in South Africa. Pretoria: National Department of Education. Dubow, S. 1995. Illicit Union.Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press. Ellsworth, E. 1989. Why doesn't this feel empowering?Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324. Gilmour, D. 1997. Intention m In Tmion?Recent Educational R e f m in South Afica. Paper presented at the CIES Annual Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, 17-21 March 1997. Giroux, HA. 1994. Insurgent multiculturalism and the promise of pedagogy. In DT Goldberg (ed), Multiculturalism: A Critical R e a h 325-341. Oxford: Blackwell. Hall, G. 1997. South Afican Qual$cations Authmily and the NQE Paper presented to the Workshop on the Revision of the Norms and Standards for Teacher Education. Harris, J. 1997. The Recognition ofPrior Learning (RPL) in South Afica?: Drifts and Shzfts in International Practicex Understandingthe ChangingDiscursive Terrain. (Mimeo). Independent Examination Board (IEB). 1996. Understanding the NQR Draft Publication. Johannesburg: Education Information Centre. Jansen, J. 1997a. Why OBE WiW Fail. (Mimeo). Jansen, J. 1997b. Can Policy Learn? Re$kctions on Why OBE WillFait. (Mimeo). Kell, C. 1997. TheDeuil in the Detail? Contradictions in Implementing an Outcomes-based Approach to Adult Basic Education and Training. (Mimeo). Lotz, HB. 1996. TheDmelojmmt ofEnvimmenta1Education &MLTC~ MaterialsfmJuniar firnay Education through Teacher Partin'pation: The case of the We Care' Primary Project. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. Manganyi, N. 1991. Treachery and Innocence: Psychology and Racial Difference in South Africa. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Mohamed, H. 1997. The Implementation of OBET in South Afica: A RecipeforFailure orPathway to Success?Paper presented at SAALA Conference, 10July 1997. Pinar, W. 1993. Notes on understanding curriculum as a racial text. In C McCarthy & W Crichlow (eds), Race, Identity and Rep-esentation in Education. New York: Routledge. Muller,J. 1996. A Hannonised QualzficationsFrameworkand the Well-tempered Learner: Pedagogzc Models, Eacher Education and the NQE Paper presented at the L. Vygotsky 1896-1996 Conference, 1996, Moscow, Russia. Salazar, J. 1996. The Ethics of Pmnogaphy. Paper presented at the AERA, New York City, New York, 8-12 April 1996.

CHAPTER

6

J E A N B A X E N& C R A I N S O U D I E N

Simpson, L. 1997. An Outcomes-based App-ouch to Educational and Curriculum Deuelqbment in South Africa. (Mimeo). Soudien, C. 1997. Schools and democracy: Case Studies of the Adaptation Process of Ten Schools in the Western Cape, South Africa. Paper presented at the CIES Annual Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, 17-21 March 1997. Spady, W. 1982. Outcome-based instructional management: A sociological perspective. AustralianJournal of Education, 26, 123-1 43. Spady, W. 1988. Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4-8. Spady, W & Marshall, K. 1991. Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2),67-72. Western Cape Education Department (WCED). 1997. Curriculum 2005: Information Bmchure. Compiled by the Subject Advisory Service, April 1997.

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 7

Why Outcomes-based Education Will Fail: An Elaboration JONATHAN D JANSEN UNIVERSITY OF DURBAN-WESTVILLE

Since South Africa's first post-apartheid elections in April 1994, the Ministry of Education has introduced three national curriculum reform initiatives focused on schools. The first such initiative attempted to purge the apartheid curriculum (school syllabuses) of 'racially offensive and outdated content' Uansen, 1997),while the second initiative introduced continuous assessment into schools (Lucen & Ramsuran, 1998). However, the most ambitious curriculum policy since the installation of a Government of National Unity has been referred to as outcomesbased education (ORE). This chapter offers a critical assessment of the claims, assumptions and silences underpinning ofiicial policy on OBE. In the process, I intend to demonstrate how the current status of education in South Africa militates against sophisticated curriculum reforms such as ORE. And, in concluding, I will argue that it is important to ilndcrstand thc origins and anticipated trajectory of OBE (and indeed other curriculum reforms) as primarily a political response to apartheid schooling rather than one which is concerned with the modalities of' change at the classroom level.

Background With great fanfare, culminating in the release of 2005 multicoloured balloons, the Minister of Education launched C;umculum 200.5 in Cape Town on 24 March 1997. Leading up to this event, schools and their allies had been repeatedly warned by the National Department of Education that January 1998 was an 'absolutely nonnegotiable' date for the implementation of what has only recently become known as outcomes-based education. Within months, an explosion of curriculum activity thundered across South Africa as committees of departmental officials, curriculum developers, subject specialists, teachers, lecturers, trade union and business representatives, and a good representation of foreign 'observers' from Scotland

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S . C R I T I C I S M S

to Australia attempted to translate OBE into workable units of information for teaching and learning which would be ready for first-phase implementation in 1998. At a first glance, there appear to be sound reasons for a curriculum policy modelled on outcomes-basededucation. Outcomes would displace an emphasis on content coverage. Outcomes make explicit what learners should attend to. Outcomes direct assessment towards specified goals. Outcomes signal what is worth learning in a content-heavy cumculum. Outcomes can be a measure of accountability - that is, a means of evaluating the quality and impact of teaching in a specific school. These are universal claims associated with OBE in several First World countries. Yet there are several problems documented regarding the OBE experience in these countries. Do outcomes in fact deliver what they claim? How do outcomes play out in a resource-poor context? Can OBE survive its psychological roots in behaviourism? Do outcomes in different contexts mean the same thing - for example, are outcomes specified for education equivalent to those identified for training? These are some of the questions addressed in this comprehensive criticism of OBE using as reference points the current status of South African schools, experiences of other countries with OBE and, more broadly, important philosophical arguments against an outcomes-based approach to education. Outcomes-based education does not have any single historical legacy. Some trace its roots to behavioural psychology associated with BF Skinner; others to mastery learning as espoused by Benjamin Bloom; some associate OBE with the curriculum objectives of Ralph Tyler; yet another claim is that OBE derives from the competency education models associated with vocational education in the United Kingdom (Mahorned, 1996).In South Africa, the most immediate origin of OBE lies in the competency debates followed in Australia and New Zealand (Christie, 1995) which animated training and development discussions in the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU).These eventually appeared in documents of the National Training Board (such as the National Training Strategy Initiative) and, subsequently, crystallised in the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). It was largely the result of deliberations within the NQF to integrate education and training that the debate on competencies was extended to education. More recently, 'competencies' was refrarned as 'outcomes' in the Department of Education. This history is important because it partly explains the growing disaffection with OBE in the education community given the very recent exposure to this policy in schools and the absence of a sustained debate on OBE among teachers and educators. It also explains the parameters of the criticism which follows.

PRINCIPAL CRITICISMS OF OBE In this chapter I outline ten major reasons why OBE will impact negatively on South African schools. My thesis is that OBE will fail, not because politicians and bureaucrats are misinformed about conditions of South African schooling, but

CHAPTER

7

J O N A T H A N0 J A N S E N

because this policy is being driven in the first instance by political imperatives which have little to do with the realities of classroom life. Rather than spawn innovation, OBE will in fact undermine the already fragile learning environment in schools and classrooms of the new South Africa. Firstly, the language of innovation associated with OBE is too complex, confusing and at times contradictory. A teacher attempting to make sense of OBE will not only have to come to terms with more than fifty different concepts and labels but also keep track of the changes in meaning and priorities afforded to these different labels over time. For example, to understand the concept of 'outcomes' requires understanding of competencies, unit standards, learning programmes, curriculum, assessment criteria, range statements, equivalence, articulation, bands, levels, phases, curriculum frameworks and their relationship to SAQA (The South African Qualifications Authority), the NQF, NSBs (National Standards Bodies), SGBs (Standards Generating Bodies), ETQAs (Education and Training Qualification Agencies); and reconciling the twelve SAQA fields with the eight learning areas with the eight phases and the fields of study; and on and on. But it also requires understanding the sudden shift from 'competencies' to 'outcomes' in the official discourse on OBE, what lies behind the change and how the two terms now relate within the new policy. The only certainty about OBE and its predecessor language is that it has constantly changed meaning. This language is quite simply inaccessible. So, for example, essential outcomes are distinguished in most policy papers from specific outcomes only to see the former displaced recently with 'critical outcomes'. Having been there from the beginning - that is, when COSATU first proposed competency-based education in the early 1990s, an idea taken up in the National Training Board and transferred into the Department of Education as official discourse - I still find the maze of jargon and tortured definitions intimidating. For this reason alone, the language of OBE and its associated structures is simply too complex and inaccessible for most teachers to give these policies meaning through their classroom practices. Secondly, OBE as cumculum policy is lodged in problematic claims and assump tions about the relationship between cumculum and society. Among advocates, OBE policy claims in South Africa are either associated with, stated as prerequisite for, or sometimes offered as a solution to economic growth. Consider the following: South Africa's inability to generate an economic growth rate to sustain all of its redress needs is largely due to the lack of relevant skills ... [the] present education and training system is designed to meet the needs of an outdated and narrowly Taylorist specification and this renders the economy incapable of competing with workforces that are trained to be 'self-directed, innovative and reflective.' (Mahomed,1996; following Tyers, 1996) It is believed that the economy must grow at approximately 6 % in order to create sufficientjobsto drastically reduce unemployment levels in the country i.e., to absorb

SECTION

C

CONCEPTS,CONTEXTS,C R I T I C I S M S

school leaven and the present unemployed. South Africa's economy is however growing at a rate which is around 3 %. In order to change this the transformation of the Labour Market is seen as being a step in the creation of growth. This would require a clear change in the nature of the South African education system. Hence the move towards an outcomes-based approach to education. (Unofficial Department of Education document, undated, A) Allied to the vision of South Africa as a prosperous ... internationally competitive country, is a vision of its people as literate and productive human beings. (Department of Education document on OBE, undated, B) Equally OBE is argued as facilitating human resources development and potentially contributing to a vibrant economy. (The National Cumculum Development Committee (NCDC), September 1996)

There is not a shred of evidence in almost eighty years of cuniculum change literature to suggest that altering the curriculum of schools leads to, or is associated with, changes in national economies. Even the most optimistic of studies, conducted in Tanzania and Colombia by the World Bank, suggest that there is simply no evidence from experimental research that curriculum diversification - that is, an attempt to make curriculum responsive to economic conditions has 'significant' social or private benefits (Psacharopoulos& Woodhall, 1985:60-64,

229-235). This is particularly the case in developing countries where economic problems have little to do with what happens inside schools and much more to do with the economics and politics of the Third World state - for example, sustained high unemployment (Carnoy & Sarnoff, 1990).What official documents therefore claim is at best misleading since they offer an economic development panacea to benefit those alienated from education and training under apartheid in the name of a complex curriculum reform policy. To make such connections between curriculum and society has understandable political goals; but they have no foundation given accumulated research on curriculum change. Not only does OBE offer a solution to economic problems, it is also sold as a solution to universal and deeply entrenched pedagogical problems. Consider these claims in the popular version of NQF/OBE policy under the caption 'Lets Find out More about Outcomes': In the old education system only the content of the courses and what the teacher or the textbook had to say was important. Learners received information from the teacher and did not play a very active role in the learning situation. Most of their learning was memory-based. Learners were seldom given the opportunity to show what they learned and how to use their knowledge. It was important that learners remembered and repeated everything they learned, and not whether they understood and were able to use what they had learned in different ways or situations. (Education Information Centre (EIC), 1996: 12)

CHAPTER

7

J O N A T H A ND J A N S E N

Departmental documents are equally ambitious with respect to the changing demands made on the teacher under OBE: Current learning institutions place the teacher in a particular role. The teacher is seen to be in a position of authority to the learner and an authority in terms of content which must be transmitted ... The teacher, as opposed to being the repository of all knowledge and wisdom, must now facilitate and mediate the educational experience ... The teacher, now a facilitator of learning, will create relations between learners and facilitator which engender values based on cooperative learning .. . The teaching and learning strategies which will mediate the learning are the responsibility of the teacher and must reflect the learning outcome. (national Department of Education, undated, A: 12-13)

Such claims are clearly ridiculous; they represent a conceptual leap of staggering proportions from outcomes to dramatic changes in social relations in the classroom. How will this happen? It is such oversell of OBE policy which not only misguides and misinforms teachers and the public, it undermines the authenticity of the policy itself. Thirdly, OBE is destined to fail in the South African education system because it is based on flawed assumptions about what happens inside schools, how classrooms are organised and what kinds of teachers exist within the system. The claim that 'transformational OBE ... is a collaborative, flexible, transdisciplinary, outcomesbased, opensystem, empowerment-orientedapproach to learning' (NCDC 1996: 7) suggests that highly qualified teachers exist to make sense of such a challenge (let alone the terminology) to existing practice. The policy requires not merely the application of a skill but understanding its theoretical underpinnings and demonstrating capacity to transfer such application and understanding across different contexts. Anyone who seriously believes that such an innovation will be 'implemented' with these original insights in mind has not spent enough time inside the average South African classroom. As Vithal(1997: 1-2) correctly argues in a submission to AMESA (Association of Mathematics Educators in South Africa): In mathematics education in South Africa there is arguably a tradition of defining narrow behavioural objectives derived from the content mathematics teachers are expected to teach. So how are 'outcomes' different from 'objectives'? Even if the policy intends a 'transformational' OBE that moves away from a 'traditional' OBE, how will it counter the implementation of such a model from degenerating into specifying and teaching narrow mathematical techniques and procedures in ways that teachers have been doing all along?

It is against this background that an alternative scenario to that envisaged by the national Department of Education seems inevitable: that OBE will be implemented in 1998 in most provinces, regardless of the calls of teachers for more time and training; that the drive towards detailing 'specific outcomes' will become an exercise reminiscent of the 1970s 'objectives movement' where the outcomes become the

SECTION C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

focus of overspecification - that is, hundreds of little objectives being defined in an attempt to be precise about what is meant; that these outcomes then are taken by teachers (both qualified and underqualified) to be the ends of education and, therefore, the focus of assessment; that teachers then teach towards the minutiae of outcomes or objectives with a reinforcing backwash effect from the assessment system; and that what started off as an enlightened model of 'transformational competencies' will become a mechanical model of behaviourism in the majority of South African schools and classrooms. Such a scenario, I would argue, is inescapable, especially since there is no sustained intervention at the classroom level in the lead-up to OBE 1998 to effectively address this possibility. Fourthly, there are strong philosophical rationales for questioning the desirability of OBE in democratic school systems. One need not take the radical but enticing position that specifying outcomes in advance might be antidemocratic. It is sufficient to argue that this policy offers an instrumentalist view of knowledge, a 'means-ends OBE stance ... that violates the epistemology of the structure of certain subjects and disciplines' (McKernan, 1994: 2). Developing technical writing skills or the mechanical repair of a bicycle tube lends itself to speclfylng instrumental outcomes; developing appreciation for a complex reading in English literature or poetry does not. Richard Peters makes a persuasive argument that 'worthwhile activities have their own built-in standards of excellence, and therefore they can be evaluated according to the standards inherent in them rather than according to some end or outcome' (in McKernan, 1994: 2). And there is a fundamental contradiction in insisting that students use knowledge creatively only to inform them that the desired learning outcomes are already specified. In the fifth place, there are important political and epistemological objections to OBE as cumculum policy. The question must be asked again of the African National Congress (majority party in the Government of National Unity) and its democratically aligned partners: how is it that a movement which predicated its politics on the notion of pmcas organises its policies on a platform of 'outcomes'? There is something fundamentally questionable about a focus on ends as final outcomes, when much of the educational and political struggle of the 1980s valued the processes of learning and teaching as ends in themselves. This problem extends to the manner in which teachers as a constituency have been limited in their participation around this important policy. A small elite of teachers, often expert a n e h i t e , have driven the Learning Area Committees and other structures in which OBE has been developed. The sad reality is that the overwhelming majority of teachers simply do not have access to information on OBE, or understand OBE in instances where such information may be available. In other words, there is not a process, systematic and ongoing, in which teachers are allowed to conceptualise and make sense of OBE as curriculum policy. In a cruel twist of history, teachers continue to be defined as 'implementers' and even in this

CHAPTER

7

JONATHAN D JANSEN

marginal role, official support is uneven, fragmented and, for many teachers, simply nonexistent. In the sixth place, OBE with its focus on instrumentalism -what a student can demonstrate given a particular set of outcomes - sidesteps the important issue of values in the curriculum. Put more directly, OBE enables policy-makers to avoid dealing with a central question in the South African transition - namely, what is education for? For example, there is little evidence in the report of the Learning Area Committee for Human and Social Sciences that this question has been directly addressed (September, 1996).One would expect in this Committee that core values and commitments would be more readily evident than, for example, in the natural sciences. Yet there is not a single commitment to combatting racism and sexism in society, or developing the Pan-African citizen, or on the role of dissent in a democracy. Of the seventeen learning area outcomes identified, the closest approximation of a value statement is the phrase: 'participate actively in promoting a sustainable,just and equitable society' - a statement so broad as to become meaningless, especiallywhen this is unpacked in specific objectives such as 'display constructive attitudes' or 'participate in debate and decision-making'. These statements could have been written for Hawaii or Buenos Aires or Western Nigeria. They are bland and decontextualised, global statements which will make very little difference in a society emerging from apartheid and colonialism. Furthermore, OBE as outcomes does not define content or what policy bureaucrats call the actual learning programmes. As a result, the same set of learning outcomes could be exposed to a wide range of interpretations by teachers; this means, for example, that outcomes with good citizenship goals could mean one thing in a conservative school setting and another in a school with a broad democratic ethos (see elaboration later). There is nothing within the OBE framework to prevent such a latitude of interpretation that would mute even the modest directions signalled in an outcome. The seventh criticism is that the management of OBE will multiply the administrative burdens placed on teachers. A useful example of such trends is found in recent research on how teachers understand and implement continuous assessment, a policy instructive issued to all schools in the wake of the syllabus reform process spearheaded by the National Education and Training Forum in 1994/ 1995. Rather than encourage a more progressive, holistic assessment of students as the policy stipulated, continuous assessment in practice meant little more than assessing continuously in most schools (Lucen et al, 1997). The range of assessment tasks remained more or less constant; however, the number of tasks multiplied significantly. The same is likely to happen with OBE; to manage this innovation teachers will be required to reorganise curriculum, increase the amount of time allocated for monitoring individual student progress against outcomes, administer appropriate forms of assessment and maintain comprehensive records. As experienced elsewhere (Schwartz & Cavener, 1994),OBE fails in the absence of

S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S .C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

adequate support such as 'release time, aide support, smaller class sizes ...' (Brady, 1996: 13).With current policies of teacher rationalisation and the directive to increase average class sizes, OBE enters an environment which directly mitigates against the conditions for its success. In the eighth place OBE trivialises curriculum content even as it claims to be a potential leverage away from content coverage which besets the current education system. Children do not learn outcomes in a vacuum. Curriculum content is a critical vehicle for giving meaning to a particular set of outcomes. An outcome such as 'appreciating the richness of national and cultural heritages' (LAC: Human and Social Sciences) could be based on content which glorifies a narrow Afrikaner nationalism but could also valorise, in another context, a militant ethnic Africanism. Content matters. A fixation with outcomes could easily lead to serious losses with respect to building a multicultuml curriculumwhich both moves beyond ethnicitywhile simultaneouslyengaging with the historicity of such concepts and ideals in the context of apartheid South Africa. But selecting curriculum content implies choice. And this is where the politics of curriculum reform coincides with the broader politics of transition. Who makes those choices, where and under what conditions? It is crucial, therefore, for OBE evangelicals not to renege on a commitment to making strategic curriculum choices which would form the basis for the critical outcomes which underpin a new curriculum. But OBE trivialises content in another way: it threatens to atomise and fragment curriculum knowledge. By organising knowledge around discrete competencies, OBE overlooks the important cross-curricular and interdisciplinary demands encountered in learning a complex task. It further assumes that knowledge acquisition proceeds in a linear way such that one outcome is linked in a stepwise direction to another. This is one of the most common criticisms made of OBE and yet it appears to be ignored in the move towards implementation (Holland, 1994). A ninth criticism is that for OBE to succeed even in moderate terms requires that a number of interdependent innovations strike the new educational system simultaneously. It requires trained and retrained teachers, radically new forms of assessment (such as performance assessment or competency-basedassessment), classroom organisation which facilitates monitoring and assessment, additional time for managing this complex process, constant monitoring and evaluation of the implementation process, retrained education managers or principals to secure the implementation as required, parental support and involvement, new forms of learning resources (textbooks and other aides) which are consonant with an outcomes-based orientation, and opportunities for teacher dialogue and exchange as they co-learn in the process of implementation. In other words, an entire reengineering of the education system to support the innovation. There is neither the fiscal base nor the political will to intervene in the education system at this level of intensity. Yet nothing less is required to give the policy a reasonable chance of success.

CHAPTER

7

Finally, as suggested earlier, OBE requires a radical revision of the most potent mechanism in schools militating against curriculum innovation - the system of assessment. It is striking, for example, that the policy of continuous assessment was not allowed to be introduced in Std 10 (the final year of formal schooling) because of the powerful interests insisting on the assessment status quo with respect to the matriculation examination. Unsurprisingly, the international experience with OBE suggests that assessment changes only moderately with an outcomesbased innovation. In the United States, where human and material resources for innovation are generally available: Few schools appear to have actually reorganised their curriculum and overhauled their assessment and reporting schemes to reflect new, higher outcomes. More commonly, schools and districts draft outcomes based on the present curriculum or write ambitious and far-reaching new outcomes while changng the curriculum very little. (Brandt, 1994: 3) Even supporters of OBE in the same country caution that: Given their complexity,outcome-based performance task5 probably cannot be used very frequently by classroom teachers; thus, they will probably not totally replace more traditional assessments ... much research is needed to determine the validity of outcome-based performance tasks and the conditions under which high interrater reliabilities can be guaranteed. (Marzano, 1994: 6). The fact that the hurried discussions in the LACS in South Africa are not accompanied by intensive debates about the reorganisation of the assessment system means that the traditional examinations will continue to play a powerful role in shaping the nature of OBEdirected teaching and learning, reinfbrcing the curriculum status quo as was evident in the local experience with continuous assessment. In conclusion, how does one explain these dilemmas of OBE as outlined in the policy criticism offered? I propose two levels of analysis, technical and political, equally valid. From a technical perspective, it could simply be argued that the prerequisites for fundamentally changing the apartheid curriculum are not in place. Indeed, OBE as a curriculum innovation has not taken adequate account of the resource status of schools and classrooms in South Africa. As policy OBE is not grounded in the curriculum change experiences of other countries with similar initiatives. Moreover, OBE will further underniine the already weak culture of teaching and learning in South African schools by escalating the administrativeburden of change at the very time that rationalisation further limits the human resource capacity for managing such change. The longer-term effccts o f OBE are also unavoidable, nan~elythat the more school\ are loaded with unworkable innovations, the less likelv they arc to adopt such changes in the future. The weak reception of continuous assessnlent ( 1995/96) iri schools and the complete ineffectiveness of the syllabus revision process (1994/95) in changing curriculum practice shorild

SECTION C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S . CRITICISMS

have sounded alarm bells among planners and policy-makers. On simple technical grounds, therefore, OBE as a national curriculum initiative is likely to fail. From a political perspective, it is important to understand OBE as an act of political symbolism in which the primary preoccupation of the state is with its own legitimacy. The proliferation of Green and White Papers, and corresponding Bills and Acts, has not been matched by visible changes in the schools. Earlier research has demonstrated that the national syllabus revision process (1995) was driven almost exclusively by official attempts to demonstrate to constituencies that at least some action was forthcoming from the Ministry of Education in the period immediately following the elections (Jansen, 1997). Similarly, OBE is primarily an attempt to push forward something innovative into the schools at all costs in order to reclaim political credibility for a Ministry of Education which is still charged, within and outside of government, with having delivered little concrete evidence of transformation in the schools. Not a single official interviewed in the national Department of Education believed that OBE should be introduced so soon; yet they all worked feverishly towards implementation at all costs in 1998. There is no other way of understanding such behaviour outside of a political analysis of state and curriculum in the South African transition.

CHAPTER

7

J O N A T H A ND J A N S E N

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bsadv, Laurie. 1996. Outconie-based education: A critique. T / L(:u7~irulun~Jourrzal,, ~ 7 (1) , 5-16. Brandt, R. 1994. Aiming for new outcomes: The promise and reality. Educational I,eadP)ship, 5 (March), &10. Carnoy, Martin & Samoff, Joel. 1990. Education and Social Transition in the 7hird WwM. Princeton, NewJersey: Princeton University Press. Christie, P. 1995. Global Trends in L20cccl Contexts: A South A f i m n Perspective on Competency Debates. Unpublished paper, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. National Department of Education. (Undated,A). An Outrms-Bmed A m n c h toEduratzona1 and Curnrulum Ijuueement in South Afm'ca. Pretoria, ~~nofficial document. National Department of Education. (Undated, B). A Pre-Implemtation S t r a k ~ f o Phasingr In Nnu Learnin,g Pro,gramrnes in General and Furtho Eduratzon and Tmining. Pretoria. Education Inforniation Centre (EIC) 1996. Understanding the National Qualzjrntions Framuork: A Gui& for LifPlong Learning. EIC in conjunction with the Independent Exa~ninationsBoard, Interpak Rooks. Holland, D. 1994. AHE As~er~rnuntc for Lmels 1 and 2: A Summary Paper /or the Independent E:xamznc~tionsBoard. Unpublished. Jansen, JD. 1995. Understanding Social Transition through the Len5 o f Curriculum Policy, ,Journal of (,'urnrul?~mStudze~,27(3), 245-261. Jansen, JD. 1998. 'Essential Alterations?' A Critical Analysis of the State's Syllabus Revision Process. Perspectiues in b;ducntion,, 17('L), 1-1 1. Kanpol, Barry. 1995.Outcome-based education and democratic commitment: Hopes and possibilities. Educational Polzty, 9(4), 359-374.

Lucen, Anusha 8c Ramsuran, Anitha. 1998. Interim findings of Research on Continuous Asses.s.~mentin kiuaZzclz~Natal High LG./i,ooLr. Durban: University of Durban Wesnille, Masters Degree Dissertations, COMET. Mahomed, Nissar. 1996. C;ornfietmrcI'n~tLl~batrcant1 Future P r o b h . EPU Working Paper No. 10, December. Durban: Univer-sity of Natal. Mar~ano,Robert. 1994. L,essonc frorn the field about outcome-based performance assessment.. . I
S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S .C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

Peters, R. 1966. Ethics and Education. London: George Allen and Unwin. September,Jean. 1996. LearningArea CommitteeReport: Human and Social Sciences. November. Tyers,J. 1996. Competence-A South Aficun Perspective. Paper presented at the Education, Training and DevelopmentWorkshop. Report of the Proceedings for the Committee on South African Trade. Vithal, R. 1997. A Response to the Positions and Recommendations of the AMESA Curriculum Committee. University of Durban-Westville, Faculty of Education.

CHAPTER 8

The Implementation of OBET in South Africa: Pathway to Success or Recipe for Failure? HAROON MAHOMED GAUTENG INSTITUTE FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMEN1

When learners have opportunities to examine their work in the light of known criteria and performance standards, they begin to shift their orientation from 'what did I get?' to 'now I know what I need to improve' (Jay McTighe) We are moving from a paradig111 with a focus on QUANTITY and EFFICIENCY to

a paradigm based on QUALITY and EFFECTIVENESS. (Artis, 1993) In the present system, WHEN and HOW students learn something is more important than WHAT and WHETHER they learn well. In the envisaged new system WHAT and WHETHER learners learn well is more important than WHEN arid HOW they learn it. (Spady, 1993) As with other basic services, the distribution of education and training provision in our country follows a pattern of contrasts and paradoxes. SA has achieved, by a large measure, the most well developed and resourced system of'E&T on the African continent, with the highest participation rates at all levels of the system. In the best resourced, well staffed, highly motivated, elite sector of the school system, almost all students succeed in their senior certificate exams, and an impressive proportion qualift for admission to higher education. The quality of SA's diploma, de
At the same time, millions of adult South Africans are functionally illiterate, and millions of South African schoolchildren and youths are learning in school conditions which resemble those of the most impoverished states. In the large, poorlyresourced sectors for the majority of the population, a majority of students drop

S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

out prematurely or fail senior certificate,and a small minority win entrance to higher education.. . Access to technological and professional careers requiring a strong basis in maths and science is denied to all but a fraction of the age cohort, largely because of the chronic inadequacy of teaching in these subjects. (From the White Paper on Education and Training -Part 2, para. 7&8.

Outcomes-based education was introduced in South Africa at the end of December 1995 as a response in the curriculum field to overcome the problems in the national system of education and training. The introduction of OBET is intended to:

+ develop an authentic national system of education and training; + afford equal opportunityof access and outcome in education and training to all citizens in terms of race, class, gender and ethnicity; + provide a qualitative system in terms of relevance, learnercentredness,

critical thinking, economic growth and development,social responsibility, integration and ubuntu. Since the release of the first national curriculum policy documents in December 1995, there has been a raging debate about the formulation and implementation of new curriculum policy for South Africa. Outcomes-based education and training has been at the centre of this debate. In this essay, I will focus on my understanding of the current state of the debate which revolves around the content, process and implementation of OBET in South Africa. The public responses to the debate can be broadly categorised as a recipe for failure by some and a pathway to success by others. The spate of print media articles, government policy and public debates on the issue confirms this division of opinion, or public controversy. Critics and commentators from all sides of the socio-political spectrum, right, left, centre', liberal and others, present reasons for the possible success or failure of OBET in the South African context. An attempt is made to analyse some of these perspectives.

CONTEXTUALISING THE CHANGE PROCESS TO OBET: WHYOBET COULD SUCCEED IN SOUTHAFRICA

+ Change is always and everywhere a difficult phenomenon. Like giving birth, moving house, or taking a newjob, it is accompanied by inevitable and uncomfortable processes such as taking risks and adjusting to new conditions. Eventually, the fruits of the exercise are usually reaped. In the last three years our country has been taking the first steps in a massive change from apartheid authoritarianism to a non-racial, nonsexist d e m o cracy. The implementation of OBET is enmeshed in this immense process of change and its accompanying problems.

C H A P T E R

8

HAROCIN M A H O M E D

+ Educational change and the controversy that usually surrounds it is not unique to South Africa. It is on the agenda of every country in the world and the motivation for this change is often political, economic or social or a mix of these factors. This global situation in education has an agenda which is usually defined by issues of educational quality, relevance, equity and systems improvement. The OBET project we are undertaking is in this international sense quite normal. The difference is that our context is defined by a deep contradictory tension. There is an abnormal legacy of inequality and discrimination which accentuates the need for reducing the gaps. This is accompanied by an acute lack of resources and disparities in the distribution of what there is, leading to social conflicts which inhibit the transformation process.

+ International experience has also shown that questions of educational change

in general - and curriculum change in particular - are always controversial. The change programmes take a long time and are accompanied by fierce social contests. For instance, the introduction of OBET in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere has been accompanied by fierce, and bloody debates. We can anticipate that this will be the case for us here too. Already things are boiling over. This is not surprising, given the diversities of our country and the particular skewed cultural profile of educational provision that we have experienced. Those who benefited from the system will oppose the changes; those who were disfavoured will generally support it, and those who operated in a cocoon will find the change process rough. We can safely guarantee an inferno of debates on this question for many years, even if we cannot as safely anticipate the outcomes of this vastly complex project.

+ The shared interrlational and historical educational agenda qfmcess, equzly,

quality, and w h a n c e in educational reforin can be further explored in the following burning questions: does the educational system provide an education which would suit the interests of all the people in a given country - that is, does the system enable equality of access as well as equality of outcome to all? Is any group advantaged or disadvantaged by that system? For-countries experiencing colonialism, the sarne questions translate into whether the system-in-use is relevant to its myjority population. In South African terms, the questions are about how an educational system can overcome racial, class, gender, ethnic and epistemological divisions. 4 Outcomes-based education and training presents South Africa with

opportunities to progress in a context where the retention of the present curriculum system is untenable. This view is justified for the following reasons.

SECTION C C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

+

The content of the old and major parts of the present curriculum tends to be Eurocentric and representative of middle- and upperclass Eurocentric ideas and values. It is also gender biased.

+

The legacy of inequality has produced a very poor record of human mourn deuekykmt. South Afnca has one of the poorest HRD records compared with other countries in similar stages of development. This is according to the 1995 and 1996 World Competitiveness Reports. Some of the indicators of these reports are: low literacy rates, high drop-out rates, little opportunity to return to the formal education system, no recognition of prior learning and experience, poor links between education and training, and between education and economic and social development.

+

The current curriculum is not keeping sufficient pace with the gbbalising patterns of modern life that is the changes in patterns of work, socialisation, leisure, identity-formation and learning brought about by the fast and multiple lanes of the information highway and the technotronic revolution. In South Africa, the effects of globalisation and other causes are manifest in the various reports presented by the Department of Labour. They argue that the mode ofprduction in SA has been changing from primary production (mining and farming) towards manufacturing and service industries. Since work and living patterns are significantly changed by these phenomena, the curriculum needs to reflect this. Outcomes-based education and training theory argues that educational practices should be inextricably linked to possible and intended life mles. Also, the Department of Labour argues that we presently have a kind of hourglass society with a few people in the top half having toplevel managerial skills, a small middle level, and a huge bottom of underskilled and unskilled workers. It is suggested that we need an onion- shaped society with a greater focus on the education and training of middle managers. With its emphasis on developing the talents and skills of all learners, OBET is more likely to produce such an outcome than our present system with its early selection and socially dividing effects.

+

The curriculum should equip our citizens to participate effectivelyin the political institutions of the new democracy as well as of civil society. Statistics indicate that the percentage poll in elections is world-wide generally around 45 to 50+ %. The South African poll figures for the 1994 general and 1996 local elections are well below 50 %.

+

The curriculum needs to be better aligned to the world of work The employment rate is significantly low to suggest that it is linked to

CHAPTER

8

H A R D O NM A H O M E D

the high rate of crime and violence. Underemployment and the disarticulation between academic knowledge and the world of work suggest that closer links are necessary.

+ A research report on OBET in the US by Karen Evans andJean King states, amongst others, that the 'implementation of OBET generally requires a restructuring of the entire educational system and consequently takes a significant period of time'. It goes on to state that 'although the evidence is limited, districts with more complete implementation of OBET also appear to demonstrate higher student achievements' (Evans & King, 1994).

WHY OBET HAS TO SUCCEED, RATHER THAN WHY rr WILL FAIL

+ There is widespread and general support for the need to make a break with apartheid education. There is also growing consensus about the introduction of OBET, albeit with recognition of the need to provide adequate resources for the successful implementation of the new curriculum.

+ The key argument presented by the proponents of OBET is that the main

aims and goals of the current education system are in Pfect not being achieved. Ironically, these educational goals are in most respects consistent with OBET goals. These goals are high quality education for all, and the acquisition and production of the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes for production processes, citizenship and creativity. Advocates of OBET suggest that it is the emphasis on contmt, the content itselfand the tpcuher-centred and exam-centrd rmthodologyof the current curriculum that prevents it from achieving its stated objectives. Hence, the curriculum and the system in which it is placed need to be rethought. In South Africa, the apartheid curriculum was a curious mixture. It contained explicitly racially divisive goals, and sirnriltaneously contradictory well-intended objectives in syllabuses for all groups. In this new context, a clear rethink of the aims, goals, objectives and processes is necessary. This pzlp between stnled aim and achimrd eff~ctis universal, and the mainspring for educational reform throughout the world.

What does the re-think involve?

Rethinking assumptions about l e a r n , learning and learning centres A statement of the premises of OBET contains the following re-examined assumptions.

+ All learners can learn and succeed (but not all in the same time or in the same way).

+ Success breeds success. + Learning sites /schools(and teachers) control the conditions of learner success.

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S , CRITICISMS

+ All learners have talent and it is thejob of the learning sites to develop it.

+ The role of learning sites is to find ways for learners to succeed rather than finding ways for learners to fail.

+ Mutual tmst drives all OBET learning sites. + Excellence is for every learner, not just a few.

+ By preparing learners every day for success the next day, the need for correctives will be reduced. + Learners should collaborate rather than compete negatively. + As far as possible, no learner should be excluded from any activity. + A positive attitude is essential.(Ifyou believe that you can get every student to learn well, then he or she will.) (From Spady, Marshall & Mammary, 1991, in Killen, 1996) The relevance of these premises for the South African context is crystal clear. The entire social system has alienated and broken the faith of the majority of people in the education system. The premises of OBET carry thepotential of mfJimingpeqpleS belief i n themselves and can be a rehumanking force.

OBET cummculumprogramming, design and delivery Outcomes-based education and training distinguishes between educational inputs (what teachers and schools do, per pupil expenditure, class sizes, teacher salaries) and educational outcomes (what students learn, how well they learn and to what effect). It rephrases the question of educational quality in terms of the signijicance of learning experiences rather than the content of the inputs. Many educators and policy-makers in different countries favour OBET because it offers a 'technology of curriculum design, assessment and reporting than can enable a good mix of centralisation (national norms) and localisation (school flexibility),and a mix of common purpose with local purpose, and w a l l coherence across schools without putting schools into a strait-jacket'(Malcolm, 1996, my italics). In our context, this seems to apply for several reasons.

+ To move all schools from the straitjacketing, rigid, authoritarian experiences of the past (rigidity and authoritarianism were common to all the exdepartments, although differently applied).

+ To enable schools to design context-based, innovative and individuahed

teachingand leamingexpenencessuited to learners in their particular settings, while being consistent with national goals. In the context of the South African need to develop a system of unity in diversity, OBET offers us excellent opportunities. Outcomes-based education and training encourages schools and teachers to become more accountable. They become more accountable to the community for results and

CHAPTER

8

H A R D D NM A H O M E D

teacher- and school appraisal can be more systematic. This factor is directly linked to the CO12TTS(culture of learning and teaching smices) process currently under way, and also to the reexamination of educational delivery in the better resourced parts of the system in terms of equity and social effect.

+ Outcomes-based education and training is considered as a useful thing

to do because mapping out where we want to go and having milestones to indicate procgress helps us to reach our goals better: (Having a red dot in the target can only assist us in hitting it with the arrow). The educational process is made more precise and rigorous in this way.

Response to criticisms of OBET A number of negative criticisms have been levelled at the introduction of OBET in South Africa. I have tried to itemise these criticisms and to present some counterar
S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

Wrong assumptions are made about the relationship between curriculum, society and economic pi.& It is true that in less industrialised countries there is little evidence suggesting that curriculum/educational change has led directly to economic growth. It would therefore be misleading to present the view that the introduction of OBET will quickly generate the skill base necessary to boost the economy by 6 % to reduce current unemployment levels and meet global participation needs. It is also misleading to suggest that OBET should be a merely technicist skills development programme. However, these facts do not refute the universal evidence that increasing educational levels leads to social and economic benefits to society. The fact that curriculum change will not necessarily lead to projected economic growth goals is not the same as the fact that it will not promote positive changes at all, or that it will not have desirable benefits. One can accept that a technicist application of OBET will lead to undesirable outcomes and should be resisted.

OBET misreads school conditions and the readiness of teachers to implement Detractors of OBET in SA frequently present this as a reason for not implementing it. This is curiously contradictory for the following reasons.

+ Everyone agrees that the quality of teaching in SA needs to be enhanced, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Outcomes-based education and training intends to dojust that (that is to find better ways of ensuring that the quality of teaching and learning improves).

+ If teachers are not ready to implement OBET, then isn't this all the more

reason for preparing them for it, and shouldn't a start be made somewhere?

+ If we do not introduce teachers to OBET, as the critics recommend, then

what should teachers be introduced to? None of the detractors has suggested an alternative to address the problems. In the absence of alternatives,we are left with nothing to introduce teachers to except old discredited approaches. This leaves the situation in a dead end.

+ It is argued that OBET is unsuited to our situation because of our fiscal constraints, resource shortages, historical problems in our teacher training system, and large teacher and classroom/learner ratios. Even with optimistic projections of economic growth, the desired growth rate of 6 % is not going to be met quickly; nor is it likely that that this will be achieved in the foreseeable long term. If we add to that the available population projections,we have an education scenario in terms of access, teacher/learner ratios and provision which can be predicted to be the same for a very long time in very much the way it is now. This means that the challenge of teaching in the context of the problems we have has to be met in innovative and creative ways of teaching and learning. These should

C H A P T E R

8

H A R O OM NA H O M E D

enable teachers to respond to the varied needs of learners and conditions which exist. It is precisely for such a context that OBET can lend itself as a provider of solutions. Outcomes-based education and training is not only sophisticated to the extent that it responds to the relevance needs of learners in a highly technological context requiring hi-tech resources for the demands of modernity, and critical and creative thinking; it is also sophisticated in the sense of enabling and encouraging teachers and learners to use whatever is available or accessible in their environment, albeit rural, poor or less developed. This creative use of limited resources can be achieved by enabling teachers to become effective mediators/facilitators of learning, good managers of learning and assessment activities, and stimulating the process of learning how to learn. In this way we stand a better chance of improving our educational delivery. Without such initiative, we are doomed to remain with teacherfatahm about their constraints and a desertion of responsibility for enacting changes; learners will remain deprived of the opportunity of learning from whatever is available in their environment. There are resources from which to teach and to learn natural science, language, technology, history, art -in fact, the whole corpus of knowledge -in many rural settings. The surrounding geography, biology, newspapers, magazines, radio and TV could be used. Teachers need to be made aware of and encouraged to iae creatively whatever is available, and to access other resources skilfully.

OBET is instrumentalist, and therefore potentially technicist and undemocratic There is a view that OBET has its roots in behaviourism and other related philosophies. It is also claimed that OBET is being presented with prespecified outcomes and a means-end stance. On these grounds, critics reduce the OBET programme to a potentially instrumentalist and allegedly undemocratic programme. The dangers presented above could easily occur in our context; however, to describe the problem does not solve it. The issue of prespecification of outcomes is not as foreclosing as it looks at first sight. After twenty centuries of history, it is not only po.ccihlu, but perhaps desirabk for us to state what educatiorlal outcornes should he, and to strive towards their achievement. In any case, outcornes are inevitable because all systems operate with implicit goals or outcomes. In our present system, the underemphasis on clearly stated outcomes and the criteria for their achievement is possibly one of the causes of non-attainment of educational goals and of lack of clarity among parents and learners. If we don't state our outcomes, the likely eff'ect is lack of direction. Educators and government officials open thernselves to the charge of abdication of responsibility and leadership. The recognition in OBET literature that outcomes have to be ~ i ~ p i f i c aimplies nt that their continued worthwhileness is always under scrutiny and subject to change. The issue of prespecification of outcomes is also related to the complex question of arriving at a social consensus on worthwhile outcomes. The present proposals

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

are the result of extensive national and international deliberation and experience on the question of the most appropriate education and training system in the modem world. If every teacher or stakeholder has not been intimately consulted about all the details of Cumculum 2005, does it reduce the validity of the content of the programme? Do we have to reinvent the wheel at a great cost in time and finances when the broad goals of education in a society can be relatively easily anticipated, even if not easily agreed? Of course, this does not mean there has to be or will be absolute consensus about all the details, but the broad goals of education are transversal, and in a given society a broad consensus has to emerge if any kind of target is to be attained. This is the case with us, even if the consensus is only a sufficient one. Another strand in this criticism is that the meansend stance of OBET violates the epistemology of the structure of certain subjects and disciplines -that is, that technical writing skills or the repair of a machine lends itself more to the specification of instrumental outcomes whilst developing appreciation for poetry, literature or music does not. Does this argument deny that there are certain instrumental skills in artistic activity, and that the repair of a machine cannot be done using a variety of creative methods? Do we not use criteria in the assessment of a literary text when its literary value is described? It can be agreed that there are differences in the nature of the activities described, but how was the conclusion that repairing a machine which is vital to supply water to thousands of people is a less important outcome to achieve than to write brilliant literary criticism which is appreciated by only a few who have been initiated into the inner circle of the literati? Another question which is begged by this criticism is what the consequences are of not specifying outcomes. If we do not specify outcomes, it is likely that we will have an amorphous set of educational practices and outcomes into which a considerable amount of time, money and energy will have gone. In a context of scarce resources, one can argue that this is not really responsible.

OBET trivialises the issue of content In the South African context, the issue of content is sensitive for two key reasons. The first is that our system has been a heavily content driven one which has resulted in rote-learning practices in almost all parts of the system. The content also tended to be biased in most respects towards Eurocentrism, maleness, and middle- and upper-class perspectives of knowledge. In the OBET process, outcomes are the focal point of learning experiences and content is not prescribed. The intention of this is to loosen the strait-jacket of rigidly following the syllabus, irrespective of its relevance or offensiveness, and to encourage a variety of reflections of knowledge found in different life experiences

C H A P T E R

8

HARQQN MAHOMEU

of people. The danger the openness presents, it is argued, is that some groups of people could choose content which reflects racial and other biases while showing by some means or other that the nationally agreed outcomes have been achieved. If the critical outcomes and the policy framework of the new South Africa are in proper use, then it is hardly likely that the desired outcomes will have been achieved in such an instance. Also, such practices can and will be easily identified and dealt with. Furthermore, the view that OBET neglects the centrality of content in learning is misplaced. All learning has to contain content, the difference between OBET and the traditional education system is on the use of and emphasis on content. In OBET, content is not the be-all and end-all of learning as tends to be the case in traditional learning; it is the vehicle for the achievement of knowledge, skills and values in a particular field of learning.

OBET overlooks the basics of education, oueremphasisesp

p work and drops stundardr

Nowhere in the OBET literature is there reference to the down-playing of basic educational skills like reading, writing and counting to the advantage of meeting selfesteem needs. In fact, the 3R skills are emphasised in relation to how well learners will be able to demonstrate their undmstnndingand useof them. The OBET accent on us$ulness and siip$cance adds to the value of these skills which are a means of access to our historically accumulated treasures of knowledge. The emphasis on selfesteem which OBET brings to education is justified in our context when we reflect on the battered self-worth of millions of South Africans in the past, and the consequent need to address this reality. Every good religious, moral or ethical programme stresses the need for building esteem; so the OBET emphasis is neither a misplaced nor a surprising one. The diatribe against the emphasis on group work in OBET is also quite strange. Our society is everywhere permeated by the importance of the group. The biblical injunction to 'love thy neighbour', the importance of family values, team work in sports and the workplace t o the inevitability of our social existence all show that humans are group oriented. What OBET is suggesting is that the best possible use of the energy, resources and skills which are present in groups be made to achieve collective improvement. This does not mean that individual growth is stymied. It suggests that present group arrangements which lead to domination by a few individuals as a result of negative competitive tendencies be reorganised to enable more persons to express and develop themselves. The critical outcomes, in fact, state the importance of individual self-management and organisation and team work. We do not have an either/or situation on this issue, but one which complements individuality and the group.

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

It is surprising that critics simply state that OBET practicing countries produce learners with high school certificates and are functionally illiterate but present no hard evidence or account of this.

The implementationplan is poorly cmeiued It is true that the introduction of Curriculum 2005 is occurring in a fragile and volatile context of rapid societal change and a huge legacy of underresourcing. Also, the implementation time frame is squeezed and the human and financial resources for implementation are limited. Yet, we have to confront a number of factors which have shaped the inevitability and necessity of the process.

+ For the majority of South Africans the retention of the present curriculum

dispensation with its biased content, content-heavyand Eurocentric texts, rigid methods of delivery, insufficient support and flexibility for teachers, and learner unfriendliness, is untenable. There have to be changes in the distribution of the resources which we have, however scarce they are, and also in the way we use what we have.

+ If we don't make a start now, when will the time be appropriate? Will

we ever reach a point when all the resources will be available? A start has to be made somewhere even as we agree that is desirable to move at a pace at which the majority of the affected are able to be comfortable in their management of the delivery.

+ The fact that there are obstacles to the implementation (and these are

admittedly many), is not reason to fall into despair or cynicism. The obstacles need to be turned into challenges to be overcome. Looking for possible solutions increases the chances of finding them. Seeing failure leads more easily to self-fulfillingprophecies of failure.

+ The observation that the OBET plan is overloaded with noble ideals at

the expense of pragmatism can be countered by the fact that it is no less idealistic than that of any other country in the world. We have to set high goals for our education system if we are to reach any level of meaningful quality. Of course, the plan has to be shaped by the reality pfincipk, and implemented solidly on pragmatic grounds.

+ One body of opinion argues that OBET is a reform system that is applied in mainly industrialised countries, and that is unsuited to African conditions. One can respond to this by asking whether the reform initiatives in African and other less industrialised countries are not driven by the same principles as OBE -that is, are the key principles of OBET not relevant to these countries?

CHAPTER

8

HAROON MAHOMED

The appeal of OBET for SA lies in its potential to address our critical educational problems. The emphasis in OBET on accountability,equity, positivity, mix of central and local responsibility and competence, changed roles and responsibilities of teachers, learners, and communities and on the significance of what is being learned, lends itself to responding to many of our educational concerns. The position we are in now is that the question 'to OBET or not to OBET' is for the next eight years at least not an issue. The issue is how we can tap into its international experience and potential for assisting us in addressing our particularly deep and complex educational problems.

C C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S , CRITICISMS

SECTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brandt, R. 1994. On creating an environment where all students learn: A conversation with A1 Mamary. Educational Leadership, 51 (6),24-30. Capper, A &Jamison, M. 1993.Outcomes-basededucation reexamined: From structural functionalism to post-structuralism. Educational policy, 1(4), 427-455. Evans, K. & King,Jean. 1994. Research on OBE: What we know and don't know. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 12-14. Jansen, Jonathan. 1997. Why OBE will fail in South Africa. (Unpublished mimeo and article in The Star.) Killen, R 1996. Outcomes-based education -Rethinking education. Paper presented at Unisa, Pretoria. Malcolm, C. 1997. Outcomes-based Education: an Australian Perspective. Paper presented to RADMASTE, University of the Witwatersrand. Ministry of Education and Training, Ontario. 1995. The Common Curriculum: Policies and Outcomes, Grades 1 to 9. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Mulholland, S. 1997. The dumbing-down of South Ajizca's schoolchildren. The Sunday Times. Business Times, Section 3 , 8June. National Department of Education. 1997. Curriculum 2005, Lifelong Learningfor the 21st Centuq. Pretoria. National Department of Education. 1997. OBE in South Ajizca. Pretoria. National Ministery of Education. 1995.White Paper on Education and Training. Pretoria. O'Niel, John. 1994. Aiming for new Outcomes: The Promise and the Reality. Educational Leadership, 51 (61, 6-12. Spady, WG. 1994. Choosing Outcomes of Signifance. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 18-24. Spady, W.G. 1994. OBE -CriticalI s m andA1wwers. Virginia: American Association of School Administrators. Spady, WG. 1996. The Trashing and Survival of OBE. Education Week. Zitterkopf, R 1994.AFundarnentalist's Defense of OBE. Educational ~

~51(6),76-79. h

~

,

CHAPTER 9

Critical Responses to 'Why OBE Will Fail' MAHOMED RASOOL RESERVOIR HILLS SECONDARY SCHOOL. D U R B A N

Curriculum is a problematic and disputed terrain of contestation. This is so because the act of developing a curriculum is neither neutral nor a function of immutable and disinterested laws. It is an act of power, set within relations of political and socioeconomic domination and subordination. It is also a philosophical and moral act which is informed by the values of those who have access to the structures through which the curriculum is planned, implemented and evaluated. As Giroux (1981: 28) puts it: . .. the school institutionalizes, in various aspects of the curriculum, modes of knowing, speaking, style, manners and learning that most closely reflect the culture of the dominant social classes.

The point is that curricula throughout the world tend to contribute significantly to the perpetuation of a stratified economic and social order, and does so on the basis of political decisions taken by those who have access to power. The way in which a curriculum allocates people to different levels of the labour market, and so to different status and power positions in society, is not an accident but an outcome of policy (King 8c Van den Berg, 1992: 12). This pervasiveness of curriculum is clearly demonstrated by a cursory glance at the past record of the South African curriculum and the way it was constructed. The then Nationalist regime had long understood the importance of control over the curriculum as a means of consolidating power and privilege. The use of the curriculum as a mechanism for an exclusive concept of nationhood had been the ideological cornerstone of apartheid policy. This happened by the imposition of a particular ideology and by the way the curriculum functioned to reproduce the political and socio-economic order by allocating its clients to differential positions of status, power and privilege within society (King & Van den Berg, 1992: 3 ) .

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

Paradoxically, it is equally clear that any efforts by the present ruling order to serve the interests of a non-racial and democratic state through curriculum will also be an inherently ideological and politically informed process aimed at preserving the existing status quo. This, of course, is not unique to South Africa since curricula throughout the world operate to the benefit of the dominant groupings in society. Therefore it came as no surprise that the introduction of Curriculum 2005 with its outcomes-based education (OBE) approach by the Ministry of Education has become a major flashpoint in the South African education scenario. It sparked an emotionallycharged debate and led to a wide-ranging reassessment of the issue of curriculum in a post-apartheid state. This debate, as crucial as it is, cannot be neutral or free from ideological or political consideration. Indeed, as Edelman (1997: 120) puts it: 'To politicize an issue is to define it as appropriate for public decision-making.' To this extent,Jansen's presuppositions enrich the curriculum debate by adding a sense of realism to it. The strength of Jansen's monograph, through its dissection of OBE, lies in the fact that it exposes the stark reality that this curriculum innovation, like any other, is not without its inherent limitations and therefore cannot be simplisticallyviewed as a panacea to solve all of South Africa's educational and socio-economic ills -an aspect strikingly absent in discourse emanating from the state education departments. Added to this, Jansen's paper illuminates possible impediments that must be overcome to ensure the overall success of Curriculum 2005 and, in so doing, provides decision-makers with a point of departure for curricular implementation. Be this as it may, a notable shortcoming in the monograph is a conspicuous silence on the concrete specification of the lines of curriculum reconstruction. Progressive academics and researchers need to make a transition from a discourse rooted on the discursive plane of pure critique to a discourse in which scholarship continues to be critical in character, but simultaneously addresses possible strategies that will advance the project of educational transformation - in other words, the challenge lies in thinking and acting reconstructively instead of oppositionally. To date, not a single critic of Curriculum 2005 has provided a semblance of an alternative of any sort. At thisjuncture in our development, intellectuals must not end with criticism but go further to posit new ways of effecting educational change. This article, a countercriticism of Why OBE WillFail, written by ProfessorJonathan Jansen, is intended to further stimulate the emerging curriculum debate on the reconstruction of education in South Africa. Broadly, it is argued that Curriculum 2005 is destined for the scrapheap of humanity because: the language of OBE is too complex, no relationship exists between curriculum change and economic growth, it is based on flawed assumptions about what happens inside schools, offers an instrumentalist view of knowledge, involved limited teacher participation, side-steps the issue of values, multiplies teachers'

C H A P T E R

9

M A H O M ERDA S O O L

workloads, trivialises content, lacks a political will and appropriate assessment systems. While it is conceded that some of these reasons deserve serious consideration by the authorities, others need to be questioned for what they are worth. Firstly, it is claimed that the language of OBE 'is too complex, confusing and at times contradictory'. In addition, teachers would need to 'come to terms with more than fifty different concepts' which 'change in meaning over time'. Here it should be remembered that every academic discipline develops, in the course of time, a language of its own. For instance, it is impossible to talk medicine without the use of medical terminology or, for that matter, computers without the use of computer terminology. Likewise, it is imperative to acquire and utilise the language of education in discussions around education. As far as changes in the meanings of concepts are concerned, it is no different from the phenomenon of language itself - there is no beginning or end to the process of language development. Meanings are never static and change in response to societal and individual changes in society. If the language of OBE is still too complex, it ought to be watered down. In any event, coming to terms with fifty new concepts is not an insurmountable task for teachers who already possess a repertoire consisting of hundreds of learning concepts at their disposal. Teachers will over a period of time assimilate new concepts incidentally by engaging in meaningful communicative situations that necessitate an understanding of the relevant concepts. Words such as curriculum, assessment, criteria, levels, phases, outcomes, etc are not new to teachers but simply need to be applied in different contexts. Secondly,Jansen contends that 'there is not a shred of evidence in almost eighty years to suggest that altering the curriculum of schools leads to, or is associated with, changes in national economies'. To support this position, World Bank studies of the relationship between curriculum and economic growth in Tanzania and Colombia are cited. Not only is such a contention ludicrous in all its proportions, but it questions the worthiness of a formal education system in a modern society in the first place. If there is no study in existence which demonstrates a positive correlation between curriculum and economic growth, it could well mean that researchers do not have the capacity to draw such a correlation. Common sense informs us that if a learner is taught specific vocational skills, that learner will he better equipped to function productively in the national economy. This means higher productivity, lower post-school training costs, greater competence to tackle work tasks and better quality workmanship or service - all contributory factors for economic growth. Fi
C C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S .C R I T I C I S M S

SECTION

Admittedly, in some education systems to which utilitarian elements such as vocational education and the so-called diversified curriculum in Third World countries have been introduced, the results have been negative (Department of Education & Culture, 1990: 36-39; Pracharopoulos 1987: 23-27). However, these results have also been inconclusive, as it would seem that vocational training when properly administered does advance the economic development of a country. If the impact of curriculum on the economic development of a country is small, it could well be that the school fails to prepare the school-leaver for the world of work. According to this argument, it is not the education system which is the culprit, but the lack of relevance within the formal system (Claassen,1992: 110).The human cost factor, as Claassen (1992: 110) puts it, is further aggravated by the fact that many youths play truant, rebelling against a system they regard as irrelevant to the realities of life and work. Claassen (1992: 110) further argues that an irrelevant education system costs a country more than it delivers. High formal education input costs, which account for 22,s % of the national budget, as in the case of South Africa, often cause government spending to outstrip income. This is the main cause of inflation. The fact should be faced that education is not simply a victim of inflation, it is often the very contributor of the inflation that hurts it (Coombs & Hallack, 1972: 92). The formal system is also accused of being counter-productive in that it fosters a conformist attitude which kills entrepreneurial motivation (Syncom, 1986: 7). Moreover, economists have long cited the pivotal role that education plays in fuelling the miracle economic transformation of the Asian Tiger countries (Rasool, 1997a: 33). In Hong Kong, the expansion of educational opportunity receives priority. The economic success of Taiwan, China, Korea, India and Malaysia is often related to the educational policies followed by those countries. Even in the United States, the relationship between curriculum and competitive ability on world markets is given serious consideration (Heese, 1992: vii). At a domestic level, the realities of constant change, globalisation, transformed workplaces, new competitive pressures and worldclass performance standards are some of the challenges facing South Afiica as it enters the global arena of the twenty-first century. At an organisational level, survival has taken on a global perspective and businesses that ignore the realities of global competition are doomed to fight for a dwindling share in the domestic market. Pressures on workplace productivity have intensified with organisations looking beyond efficiency gains to breakthrough ways of becoming low-cost producers of high quality goods (Rasool, 1997b: 14). Business strategies have become more reliant on the quality and versatility of their human resources. Whether they rely on productivity, quality or innovation, delivery does not take place if an organisation's people aren't committed and capable. Ask

C H A P T E R

9

M A H O M ER D ASQOL

any Singaporean and he or she will tell you that Singapore has no resources other than its people; to survive they have to be the best.

As a result of these circumstances, there is now a new realisation that our country will not achieve global competitiveness, which is essential for survival in the next century, without repositioning the development of human resources as an important priority at all levels within the education and training system. O n a regular basis local businesspeople bewail the current state of education, saying, among other things, that the system produces vast numbers of people who are virtually unemployable, questioning the relevance of the educational offerings of the school, stating clearly that the schools leave their learners technologically illiterate and largely ignorant of the skills required to function in a modern economy (Heese, 1992: vii). Curriculum 2005, on the other hand, is mindful of national economic and development imperatives by aligning itself to the National Qualifications Framework. It takes far more seriously the need for schooling to be articulated with the economy and its maintenance, development and transformation. The general education provided in Curriculum 2005, and the way it is mediated to learners, fosters their ability to make a meaningful contribution to the national economy on leaving school, but without education being seen as a handmaiden at the service of the economy. Outcomes-based education strongly advocates a general education sensitised to the world of work by preparing learners for a meaningful career choice, promoting learner trainability and increasing learners' eventual capacity for effective, efficient and productive career performance. Curriculum 2005 represent? a starting point to view the world broadly, learn appropriately, develop new7skills and competencies and find new ways to frame and solve problems. These are the building blocks to create the much-needed 'critical mass' for high performance with the twenty-first century (Rasool, 1997a: 7). Thirdly,Jansen asserts that the Government of National Unity lacks the 'fiscal base' to intervene substantively in the education system so as to allow OBE even a reasonable chance of success. Any debate around the financing of education should be located within a framework of econonlic realism. And the reality is that South Africa is currently spending, as mentioned earlier, something like 22,s % of its national budget on education - far too high by international standards. Increasing the budget further will not only have adverse inflationary effect5 but will place undue pressure on other already hard-pressed social sectors such as housing, health, social welfare, policing and urban and nlral infrastn~cturaldevelop ment which also vie for public money alongside education. In any event, the problem of shortage of finance for the provision of schooling is one that we will always have to contend with. What group of educationists anywhere in the world will ever claim that their education system is adequately funded? It is a case of the more you get, the more you need.

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

Arguments that radical curriculum changes cannot be effected as a result of 'diminished state funding' and would undermine the 'already fragile learning environment in schools' are built on the fractured foundations set in place at a time when the needs and aspirations of a few were deemed paramount. Such arguments take no cognisance of the new needs of our fledgling democracy - the social upliftment requirements only an economically competitive nation can meet. And an economically competitive nation requires a relevant and focused curriculum designed to produce innovative solutions for the social good of all its citizens. The challenge facing education managers is to improve the quality of spending in the face of severe funding cuts, to maintain higher levels of capacity, to rethink priorities, to maximise the impact of existing resources, and to work towards greater partnerships with commerce and industry and communities (Focus, 1997: 2). For it is an impalatable truth that for far too long education bureaucrats have premised their thinking on the fallacy that the output of education will be improved simply by increasing the financial input. An irrelevant education system operating in isolation is not rendered relevant by spending more money on it. The fallacy that throwing taxpayers' money at a social problem will resolve it is often pointed out by free-market exponents, who maintain that the exercise creates a bottomless pit down which the money vanishes (Louw & Kendall, 1986: 59 ). In the fourth place, Cumculum 2005 is criticised on the grounds that a small elite, often expert and white, have driven the Learning Area Committees and other structures, whilst the overwhelming majority of teachers, invariably black, had limited access to participation in the process. The notion of stakeholder participation in the curriculum development process is a problematic one. Firstly, the definition of a black teacher is controversial, especially when it is employed to convey the picture of a homogenous mass, unfractured by ethnicity, class, gender and other divisions. Secondly, all kinds of people claim to speak on behalf of black teachers. This includes politicians, community leaders, education departments, trade unions and employer associations as do civic organisations, political parties and cultural bodies. The problem of definition, however, does not mean that the issue of participation is untenable, but it is more complex than has hitherto been accepted. Teacher participation in the curriculum process can only be effected by a system of representative participation as has been the case. Given the numbers of teachers and the complexity of modern society, it is unrealistic or impractical for everybody to be involved in the making of all decisions. The present curriculum decision-making structure in South Africa, unlike its predecessor, is predicated on the notion of visibility and transparency of power. In other words, the curriculum development exercise is visible, available for all to see in the way that it operates. If we are able to discern quite clearly who it is making decisions (that is, exercising power), and on the basis of what authority, then we have access to the

CHAPTER

9

M A H O M ERDA S O O L

practice of power - once power is visible it can be challenged - as Jansen so aptly demonstrates. In the fifth place,Jansen makes the erroneous judgement that OBE side-steps the important issue of values in the curriculum. This line of argument makes no sense whatsoever. It is inherently impossible to educate a learner without utilising the value dimension in every aspect of teaching and learning. Valuing, by its very nature, is a cognitive outcome of learning and is part of the cognitive structure of knowledge. This allencompassing notion of values is underscored by Volkor (1986: 12), who makes the following observations: Our values are implied in the communication of contact with others, the cause we support, the memories we hold dear, the actions we take and the ends to which we turn our life force. Inevitably, children learn values from the school environment through continuous input into their value system by their peers and teachers. Parents, community leaders and the media also contribute to the process. On the contrary, far from side-stepping values and ethical considerations, Curriculum 2005 makes ample provision for a balanced curriculum. Through learning areas much as Human and Social Sciences, Arty and Culture and Life Orientation, the resulting curriculum incorporates values such as non-racism, nonsexism, democracy, equality and nation-buildingin a manner never imagined under the apartheid education system. Outcomes-based education also makes provision, through a process of interaction and stimulation, for a system which enables learners to think critically and clarify values. The teacher becomes a facilitator of value development. His or her role is non-directive, supportive, non-judgemental and creates a climate conducive to learning and change. The teacher is not to impose his or her views, as in the case of apartheid education, but to provide the opportunity for growth and development through interaction. The learner is gven the freedom to work through problems so that he or she can gain in his or her ability to solve not only immediate problems but also to deal with problems that may arise in the future. The teacher as facilitator-can help to clarify the child's values by allowing the freedom to choose after evaluating the consequences of each available alternative. In the sixth place, the assertion that OBE trivialises content and threatens to fragment knowledge is highly debatable. The traditional education paradigm, prevalent in schools, is characterised by a heavily content-driven, teachercentred approach. Subjects are broken down in terms of rigidly defined syllabuses and tend to be knowledge fcused rather than performance focused. While methodologies vary, the role of the teacher as subject matter expert is largely that of provider of content. This role is fulfilled through the provision of extensive notes. Such

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

an approach has led to heavily bureaucratic schooling contexts, ritualised classroom activity and a mindless examination fetish based exclusively on memory recall that typically has little to do with improving competencies, knowledge and skills to enable learners to function in a globally competitive and technologically advanced environment. Outcomes-based education makes a conceptual shift away from contentdriven, rote learning, without trivialising content, to one where learners discover and construct knowledge, learn about the relevance of content and are taught to use critical thinking skills and problem-solving matters across broad learning areas. Teachers who used to rely on the textbook without engaging their pupils in active discovery and application of knowledge and skills will now be exposed to ways of 'learning about learning', to ways of accessing information and using content in a more effective way. Learners who are given an opportunity of 'learning how to learn', become responsible for their own learning and, consequently, display greater enthusiasm and involvement. Simultaneously, a strong foundation is laid for the practice and cultivation of research skills, numeracy, good writing and presentation skills and enterprise skills. Outcomes-based education affirms the importance of life skills such as the ability to classify, infer, suggest, analyse and form testable hypotheses, rather than concentrating on mastering content. According to Suleman (1986: 3), pupil motivation will be high in this type of learning because:

+ learners are involved in the actualisation of goals; + the learning environment is non-threatening; + learners work together in a co-operative manner; and + learners see tangible results for their efforts.

With learners assuming greater responsibility for their learning, the role of the teacher will change from transmitter of knowledge to facilitator of learning. Some teachers, however, may feel their central role in the learning process being eroded with the advent of OBE. It is true that major modifications in the present responsibilities of teachers are in the offing. It is also true that OBE will increase the teachers' workload, forcing them to become more productive, accountable and creative. But these are the essentialities that have long applied to workers in the private sector - perhaps the time is long overdue to make such demands of public sector personnel. This applies to every teacher. Each teacher needs to focus constantly on the needs of the learner, and all teachers need to be more efficient in managing themselves and the resources, including time, which are at their disposal.

CHAPTER

9

MAHOME R ADS O O L

Outcomes-based education extends itself beyond the present subject clusters taught in the usual ways. In an attempt to meet the challenges of an increasingly integrated, competitive and technological world, learning areas are organised so that learners go beyond isolated facts, make connections across disciplines and help shape a more holistic view of life. This is in keeping with the new emerging paradigm where the world is viewed as an integrated whole rather than as a disassociated collection of parts, where problems are perceived as systemic, interconnected and interdependent. It becomes the responsibility of the teacher to create ways of fostering these connections, promoting systemic thinking and facilitating interdisciplinary studies. It is manifest from the analysis presented here thatJansen's monograph does not provide a coherent curriculum alternative for the long-term future of education in South Africa. More generally, his eclectic and partial use of the South African and international literature in education is symptomatic of his desire to select only those 'facts' that support his set of political objectives. His educational vision is certainly not in any way neutral. Indeed, it is the very political nature of this monograph that seriously undermines its academic value as an objective analysis of education in this country. Apocalyptic analyses that paint a worst-case scenario such asJansen's are nothing more than an ideological assault on the new path for our country as agreed upon by the broadest alliance of our citizens. The risk is that ordinary South Africans will be stampeded into perpetuating policies which are all too often conservative and supportive of the status quo. Apocalyptic thinking also obscures the real nature of complex systems likt. education - namely, that they change in slow and structural ways only. Schooling tends to follow changes in society rather than to bring thern about, and educational systems are inherently conservative if not inert. This being the case, the transformation of our schools and c~~rriculum is a quection of political will and political mobilisation. To move from the present situation to one in which schooling can begin to be transformed in a serious way requires that the nation at large develops the political will to transcend the evils of'the past. All stakeholders face a great challenge in this regard. In the final analysis, the question is not whether OBE should be implemented, but rather whether sufficient support and encouragement is being given to teachers by all interest groups in education. Only when this line of action is taken can South Africans acknowledge that they have taken a step toward maturity in discussions around curriculuni.

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

BIBLIOGRAPHY Claassen,J.C. 1992. Economic perspectives on a new education dispensation. Educare, 21 (1&2), 106-113. Coombs, PHE & Hallack,J. 1972. Mana@ngEducational Costs. New York: Oxford. Department of Education and Culture (Administration: House of Assembly). 1990. Main wort of the Committeefor the Evaluation and Promotion of CareerEducation. Pretoria. Edelman, M. 1997. Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. New York: Academic. Focus. 1997. Editorial. 7 (4), 2.

Giroux, H.A. 1981. Ideology, Culture and t h Process of Schooling. London: Falmer. Heese, C. 1992. Metaphors, myths and slogans. In C Heese & D Badenhorst (eds), South AJizca: The Education Equation. Pretoria: Van Schaik. King, M & Van Den Berg, 0. 1992. The Politics Pietermaritzburg: Centaur.

of Curriculum: Structures & Processes.

Louw, L & Kendall, F. 1986. South Afica: T h Solution. Ciskei: Amagi. Psacharopoulos, G. 1987. To vocationalise or not to vocationalise: That is the curriculum question. International Review of Education, 33 (2), 23-27. Rajah, K. 1989. Values conflict and values clarification. Spn'n@ld Journal of Education. 6 ( I ) , 27-30. Rasool, M. 1997a. Lessons to be learnt for the new millennium. TheDaily News, 31July, 33. Rasool, M. 1997b. Teach students to meet the new standards. The Teacher, 14 August. Suleman, GH. 1986. Resource-based learning: The logical alternative. Spingfzdd Journal of Education, 1 (3), 4-9. SYNCOM. 1986. Towards a Community Based System of Education. September. Fellside. Volkor, C B. 1997. Values in the Clasmoom. London: Merill.

CHAPTER 10

Integrating Differences: Implications of an Outcomes-based National Qualifications Framework for the Roles and Competencies of Teachers KEN HARLEY & BEN PARKER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NATAL. PIETERMARITZBURG -

-

--

--

The development of an outcomes-based national qualifications framework in South Africa provides an interesting case study of globalisation at work. On top of the violence and poverty, the national debt and malformed economy, the corruption and crime, one of apartheid's most enduring legacies lies in the education system. An expensive and expansive system consuming close to 25% of the state's budget, employing approximately 400 000 educators, the education system contains chronic inequalities and inefficiencies. South Africa's education system is a miasmic morass marked by systemic crisis. This situation persist? in spite of some highly innovative policy and the best intentions of the state departments of education. It has become a cliche to talk of the gap between policy and implementation, and to search for scapegoat?to take responsibility for each new crisis. Much of recent education legislation (The SAQA Act, Curriculum 2005, SAQA regulations, Norms and Standards for Teacher Education) rests on two pillars: outcomes-based approaches to learning, and a national qualifications framework. Strongly influenced by similar movements in England, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, these approaches to education and training are attempts to introduce new forms of economic and social relations that have arisen in advanced industrialised countries. In South Africa, these approaches have been both imported and indigenised in recent education policy discourses. In this article we speculate about the impact that an 'indigenous foreigner" is likely to have on South African schooling. 1

The term 'indigenous foreigner' is used with acknowledgement to Thomas Popkewitz (1998).

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

In earlier empirical research we explored the ways in which school principals were reacting to desegregated schooling (Appel, Harley, Muir & Penny, 1993; Penny, Appel, Gultig, Harley & Muir, 1993;Wedekind, Lubisi, Harley & Gultig, 1996; Harley & Wedekind, forthcoming). Despite their overwhelming goodwill towards the prospect of a new democratic social order, principals did not feel able to promote curriculum change. Conservative teacher practices emerged as one of the powerful constraining forces. Now, however, with the introduction of OBE and the NQF, there has been a radical shift in what is expected of teachers - with even more being expected of them from their employers, from parents and from local businesses and communities. We argue that the dominant discourse is a hybrid integration of competence and outcomes-based approaches. Using theoretical concepts drawn from Durkheim and Bernstein, we raise questions about the radical changes in identities, roles and competences required of teachers if the new education policies are to be made to work. In so doing we venture into a theoretical perspective that seems to us to provide promising criteria for empirical investigation into the identities and practices, and roles and competencies, of educators and learners in diverse contexts.

The National Qualifications Framework Dating from the early 1990s, the idea of a National Qualifications Framework became a point of agreement that appeared to bridge the oppositional chasms of the past between apartheid education and people's education, and between academic education and vocational training. An NQF offers the possibility of extending educational opportunities to the whole population in a way that redresses the ravages of apartheid and addresses the social, political and economic future of the country. In South Africa, it is not only the economic role of qualifications that the new government has recognised, but their social and political role in sustaining (or overcoming) the gross inequalities that have been inherited from apartheid. The political and economic roles of qualifications come together in the recognition that it is the slulls and knowledge of the whole population, notjust the top 20%, that will be crucial in determiningwhether South Africa ... is able to be internationally competitive in the next century. (Young, 1996: 1)

Under the auspices of the National Training Board (NTB) and, more recently, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), a conception originally imported has developed an indigenous South African flavour and has become embedded in white papers and education legislation. As Christie (1997) notes, there has been an interesting interplay between global imperatives and local

CHAPTER

10

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

resources, risks and opportunities. The emergence of global markets, mass consumerism, electronic technology and communications, and shifts in international power relations, have all contributed to a context within which South Africa while under austere financial constraints -must negotiate a radical transformation of the state schooling system.

An indigenous foreigner's attempts at meeting perceived needs from both global and local perspectives will inevitably be somewhat schizophrenic. Globalisation generates a demand for citizens who are economically competitive, multiskilled, flexible, and performative. Local imperatives privilege redress of the country's unhappy past, and equity rather than development. South Africa's NQF, then, is an attempt to bind all education and training into an integrated system in which there are minimal barriers to diversity, flexibility, portability, progression and to the breadth and depth of learning. However, for an NQF to achieve either an integration or articulation of education and training there has to be agreement on some core unit underlying a qualification which makes explicit, and therefore recognisable and transferable, what a 'qualified' learner is able to do. On the basis of what learners are able to do, it is possible to construct rules of access from one qualification to another, and recognition of prior learning enables progression and flexibility,vertical and horizontal mobility (Department of Labour, 1997; Ministry of Education, 1997; National Training Board (NTB), 1997; South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), 1997).

A qualification must therefore make explicit what a qualified learner is able to do. Broadly, in South Africa, there are two positions on how this may best be achieved. Competence-basedapproaches to assessment are rooted in the ultimate inscrutability or non-observability of learning, making assessment reliant on the professional judgement of the assessor(s). Whilst assessment is based on ohsex-vation of a learner's performance, the evaluation of performance is mediated and interpreted by the assessor's inference andjudgement. From a learner's perspective, competence-basedapproaches are associated with tacit knowledge, with a learning by doing that can never be made completely explicit. Competence-based approaches are associated with apprenticeships or 'learnerships' in which learners work (individually or in groups) with a master or mistress from whom they learn in a holistic and integrated manner over long periods of time. The learner is directed to become 'expert' in a particular craft or discipline largely through induction into a body of knowledge and ritualised practices. Learning is always contextualised within specific practices of the body and/or the mind. Boundaries between disciplines are kept strong, and knowledge is mostly specialised. By contrast, outcomes-based approaches to assessment emphasise the observation and measurement of performance. Outcorne statements indicate what learners must be able to do when they have successfully completed a specific learning programme. Assessment by means of judgement and inference is replaced by

SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S ,C R I T I C I S M S

measurement. In fact, the role of assessor is reduced to a minimum and is seen as a source of bias. All that is needed is careful observation of specific performances that can be checked off against a 'task' list in which there are only two grades: pass (100 %) , and fail (0 %). The emphasis is strongly on the learner who can either do something, or not do it, and how he or she learns it is irrelevant to the assessment. From the learner's perspective what has to be learned is made explicit, spelled out in clear segments that are embedded, as far as is possible, in their everyday life-worlds (albeit in the virtual reality of a classroom). Outcomes-based approaches are associated with training practices in industry, and with rote-learning and other behaviourist practices in schooling. A Hybrid Competence/Outcomes Approach

Of course, these neat analytic dichotomies are not played out in practice, and it is interesting to note the evolving positions of SAQA Traditionally, training has been understood as task based and explicit. This allows for assessment of small, disconnected or loosely connected segments of learning that can be written up as 'unit standards' and registered on the framework. Employers and unions, as well as sectors such as Adult Basic Education and Training, and Early Childhood Development, support this approach in the belief that it facilitates accurate definition of occupational grading scales, recognition of prior learning, and access to qualifications and recognition for those previously excluded. By contrast, competence-based approaches as found in higher education seek longer 'whole' qualifications which promote either a general formative education (for example, a 'generic' undergraduate qualification), or a disciplinary or professional specialisation. Competence-based approaches also dominate the 'crafts' where a period of apprenticeship is required. Universities, in particular, argue strongly that an overreliance on segmented knowledge undermines the coherence and depth of a university qualification. To accommodate these differences, SAQA has allowed for the registration of unit standards (usually representing between 50 and 100 hours of learning), and whole qualifications (usually between 1200and 3600 hours of learning), and for a hybrid qualification based on unit standards with specified rules of combination. It is not surprising that adherents of competence- and outcomes-basedapproaches find themselves in conflict over their interpretations of assessment and, by implication, the curriculum. For upholders of outcomes-based approaches, assessment is atomistic, explicit and measurable; for exponents of competence, assessment is holistic, tacit and inferential (based on reason and/or intuition). In spite of these tensions, SAQA is attempting to adopt a hybrid or pragmatic approach which binds together unit standards and whole qualifications and which mediates between performance and competence. This integrationist approach is apparent in the N m and Standards for Teacher Education, Training and Dmelopment discussion document, which advocates the concept of a generic educator, described using

CHAPTER

10

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

the language of roles and competencies. The roles and competencies of a generic educator, however, are always embedded in specialised contexts: Schooling, Early Childhood Development, Adult Basic Education and Training. The generic core promotes breadth, portability and flexibility; the specialised context provides depth. At the centre of this hybrid approach lies a concept of applied competence in which learning programmes and qualifications for teachers are to be described using an analytic distinction between three kinds of competences. The distinction is analpc in so far as in practice the three kinds of competences are integrated into an applied competence: In a practical competence,a learnerwill demonstrate, in an authentic context, the ability to consider a range of possibilities for action, to make considered decisions about which possibility to follow, and to perform the chosen action. A foundational competence is the ability of a learner to demonstrate an understanding of the knowledge and thinking which underpins the action taken. And a reflexive competence is the learner's ability to integrate or connect performances and decision-making with understanding and with an ability to adapt to change and unforeseen circumstances and explain the reasons behind these adaptations. (Draft Report on the Revision of the Norms and Standards for Educators, 1998: 88/89) In teacher education, practical competence is linked to occupational skills, and can be expressed as extrinsic objectives, most notably in the form of requirements negotiated by employers and unions; foundational competence reflects the academic requirements of a learning programme, the knowledge that is explicitly and implicitly embedded in a cuniculum; and reflexive competence is linked to critical and ethical dimensions, to the values and dispositions that are linked to lifelong learning and to citizenship.

An applied competence can be assessed only through inte
SECTION

C

C O N C E P T S .C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

which must be explicitly described using statements containing performative verbs that make reference only to observable events. Spady combines a competenceoriented focus on the learner with an outcome approach to assessment. Spady's charisma and revivalist discourse in workshops held in various provinces in South Africa has contributed to his influence. His approach has similarities to the craft approaches of the past, but with a strong organic-typeemphasis on the interpersonal and the importance of professional development of teachers. The danger, however, with an outcomes-based approach in the Spady form is its reliance on a combination of outcomes and competence that can too easily be reduced to a mechanical form of rote-learning which is heavily reliant on materials provided by the state. According to Spady, clear outcome statements are all that is necessary for the teacher to be able to design an appropriate curriculum. This emphasis on outcomes-based assessment is evident in Curriculum 2005, where the emphasis has been on the designing of learning outcomes with little attention paid to the inputs necessary to achieve the outcomes. The crucial role of the educator as designer, manager and teacher has not been addressed. In sum, then, an attempt is being made to deconstruct the dichotomy between competence and outcomes approaches to assessment, between education and training, and to reconstruct the relationship as a continuum. This 'representational reconstruction', it is hoped, will play an important role in making the country competitive in the global economy, while at the same time contributing to the development of a new social formation in which the divisions and inequalities of the past will be replaced by a new social solidarity based on respect and co-operation between citizens within a democratic,just and fair societywith strong constitutional protection and promotion of human rights. Such lofty ideals are clearly praiseworthy,but they operate at a very abstract, general level. They are decontextualised. In order for these ideals to have the substance that comes from being practised in daily life, they have to become part of a common, communal culture with a common set of beliefs and practices. So, too, in the case of teacher education, in seeking a hybrid integration of outcomes and competence approaches to assessment and certification, qualifications and their associated learning programmes will have to achieve a balance between generic cores and specialised electives. Each learning programme must contain a minimum amount of generic knowledge (and skills and values) that is common or shared between all curricula, as well as a minimum amount of specialised knowledge. Integration of the generic and the specific makes the teacher a competent practitioner. Social integration, the 'rainbow nation', and reconciliation have become motifs of South Africa, although viewed with increasing scepticism as they remain unrealised with the passage of time. As is the case with educational policy, there is an increasing sense that the constitution is 'hollow' unless one can also actualise

CHAPTER

L O

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

the values embedded in the constitution. This is no easy task in a societywith rampant crime, and random, but all too frequent, violence. At this point it is helpful to retrace the thread of our argument. It has been argued that there were compelling reasons -from both global and local imperatives for the introduction of the NQF and for outcomes-based education. At a policy level, this has led to the integration of two different practices: education and training. In practice, a hybrid competence/outcomes approach to assessment has emerged from the tension between the two different discourses of competence and outcomes. The binding thread in the story is the integration of difference. The integration of difference is strongly evocative of Durkheim's conception of organic solidarity as a response to the question of how societies cohere despite differences. And although our primary focus is on teachers' roles in the implementation of policy, it is worth taking a brief detour through Durkheim and Bernstein, identlfylng a number of key concepts with which to outline a perspective on broader social and educational change, and on some of the challenges facing teachers.

Durkheim provides two conceptual forms of social solidarity: mechanical and organic solidarity. The distinctive feature of mechanical solidarity is a common belief system in which individuals are strongly influenced by the 'collective or common conscience' (1964: 79). Underlying mechanical solidarity is a simple division of labour linked to hierarchic social structures which underpin relations between people and which shape their identities into roles based on their position in multiple but coherently articulated hierarchies: family, clan, tribe, church, race, language, gender. On the other hand, organic solidarity is characteristic of a more complex division of labour, such as new forms of specialisation in a modern industrial society. Society is no longer segmental: 'Different parts of the aggregate, because they fill different functions, cannot easily be separated' (1964: 149). There is thus a high degree of interdependence between individuals. Through recognition of this interdependence, moral integration and social solidarity is achieved out of difference. The key index of the particular form of social solidarity is law. In societies with a simple division of labour (mechanical solidarity),law assumes a penal form. Penal law privileges specification of sanctions above specification of obligations; covenant comes before contract. Legal bonds, the spelling out of rights and duties, privileges and obligations can be imprecise and implicit because norms and traditions are accepted and practised in everyday life. Each person knows his or her position and role. The ability to perform roles competently is passed on through initiation and apprenticeship. Crime, the breaking of the covenants, challenges the very existence of society by undermining respect for the common belief system

SECTION

C

CONCEPTS,CONTEXTS, CRITICISMS

that frames each person's position in relation to others. Legal retribution is thus an act of defence, although an 'instinctive and unreflective one' (1964: 87), hence the term 'mechanical'.

As a more complex division of labour emerges, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a common belief system and a positional interdependence between persons. Contract therefore replaces covenant, binding individuals to each other not by a common belief system, but by a social contract spelled out in constitutions, bills of rights, and legislation. A penal legal system is replaced by '... restitutive sanctions and the solidarity which they express' (1964: 127). Over the years Bernstein has both nuanced Durkheim's concepts of the mechanical and organic and linked these to curriculum organisation and educational identities. In Bernstein's work, organic solidarity is not depicted as a change from a simple, undifferentiated society to modernity. Whereas Durkheim used his typologies to characterise whole societies,' ... for Bernstein it is a matter of differing principles within the same societies' (Atkinson, 1985: 25). In Bernstein's hands, then, society (and individual schools) do not simply exhibit one or other form of solidarity in a homogenous or undifferentiated way. Bernstein's classic 'Open schools, open society' paper (1971) argued that in principle British state schools were in a process of transition from mechanical to organic solidarity.At stake were the principles on which different identities and modes of consciousness rested (Atkinson, 1985: 25). It was not being argued that all schools now reflected organic solidarity in pure form. Bernstein's argument allowed for internal cleavages and unevenness between the forms of solidarity: 'Clearly, some schools will have shifted not at all, others more ... (1971: 167). Forms of solidarity and their accompanying social features have crucial implications for identity formation and for the kinds of social cohesion and fragrnentation in which identity is embedded. The purpose of this brief detour has been to sketch templates of mechanical and organic solidarity so that these may be conceptually mapped onto change in South African society, curriculum and teacher development. Key features on which we rely appear in tabular form below.

MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY :;~rnplr c ? ~ v ~ s io'o nlahour)

ORGANIC SOLIDARITY (Cornpl.x

c:~vlstrn ) ~i ~Inboirr\

1

Individuals resernbk one anoiher

lndiv~dualsdrffrr from one another

I

Roles are socially ascribed

Roles are socially achieved

I

Modes of control are positional

Modes of control are personalised

Social cohesion is based on

Social cohesion is based on

I

common faith or covenant

contractual relationships

Common faith is sustained by

Justice is sustained by

penal law

civil (restitutivel law

/

I

!

i

C H A P T E R

1 0

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

The broader socio-politicallevel Using the key indicator of criminal law, we may argue that the 'old' South Africa (pre 1994) reflects features of mechanical solidarity.?People know their position, and this knowledge is enforced by a pervasive penal system (expressed most overtly in the 'pass laws'). Inconsistent with Durkheim's account, however, the mechanical form did not arise out of, and was not sustained directly by, the particular form of division of labour. It originated with political power, and as a political vision of different ethnic groups realising their cultural identities in their 't)wn' nation-states or 'homelands'. The principles of differentiation were mechanical: they were ascribed on the lines of race. When people were forced, mostly for economic reasons, to mingle, race became an explicit indicator for 'position'. Racial groups were accordingly intended to form solidarity by developing a common faith on the basis of similarities within their 'own cultures' and difference fi-om 'other cultures'. One of the reasons for the failure of apartheid, however, was its inability to hold together vast inequalities within one society/nation without too high a degree of violence and force. The 'new' South Africa (post 1994) reflects a dramatic shift from the principles of mechanical solidarity to a new legal-organisational basis reflecting organic solidarity. Most notably, the previously strong criminal penal code - symbolised most overtly by the death penalty- has been superseded by an emphasis on human rights and a strong civil society. The interdependence between people is based on contractual relations with an emphasis on the rights and duties of individual citizens and their contractlial relation with the state. There was, for example, considerable debate over the issue of whether the contractual relationship of rights and duties was only horizontal (between citizen and citizen), or horizontal and vertical (between citizen and state) .? If the organisational structure of mechanical solidarity was legislated rather than being an epiphenomenon of a 'natural' division of labour, the same is true of organic solidarity. We have one of the most progressive human rights constitutions in the world. But the organic has also been fashioned legislatively, as a new form of social glue, rather than representing an evolution in the division of labour and social relations. The essence of our argument is thus that while the 'old' and the 'new' South Africa exhibit the structural forms associated with mechanical and organic solidarity, these forms were not expressions of an underpinning social solidarity.4 On the contrary, the structural forms were designed to nurture the particular forms of solidarity.

Oh".k4>,, I

2

The use of the present tense is deliberate, as far from being past, the 'old' South A f r ~ c astill has a considerable presence.

3

The resolution of this debate was left open to be part of the brief of the Constitutional Court.

4

Durkheim (1964) reminds us that the division of labour produces solidarity only if it is spontaneous.

",

181)

SECTION

C C O N C E P T S .C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

In terms of the principles of solidarity shifting from the mechanical to the organic, the contentious Employment Equity Bill is perhaps not the simple form of 'reverse discrimination' that many critics label it. We might see it as an attempt to put down benchmarks or standards that must be implemented and developed in an evolutionarymanner leading towards the organic. Like attempts to produce a more demographically representative national cricket team, it is not a simple reversal of policies of the past. It is a fundamental dislocation with the past, an attempt to create a symbolic moral consensus, a form of symbolic interdependence, out of difference.

The schooling system There are convincing indicators of the broader organic-type legal framework now being reflected strongly in the schooling system.

+ Contractual relationships are the essence of the Education Labour

Relations Act of 1993that also provided for the constitution of the South African Council for Educators (SACE).All educators in public schools must be registered with this professional body with its overwhelming employer-union representation.

+ The Ministry of Education appears to have prioritised the development

of policy frameworks with the aim of putting into place legal and r e p latory frameworks (De Clercq, 1997). The recent discussion document N o w and Standards for Teacher Education, Training and Development, together with other policy documents, defines the roles of competencies of educators at all levels. Emphasising the need for research into the roles and competencies of educators understood as being linked to academic, occupational and professional requirements, the Norms and Standards serves as an exemplar of one of the key features of organic solidarity: that of determining 'the obligation with all possible precision' (DurkheimJ964: 75) and creating 'among men an entire system of rights and duties which link them together in a durable way' (1964: 406).

+ With respect to the curriculum, Curriculum 2005 has been promoted

as a panacea, as a new form of moral consensus fashioned out of differentiation by simultaneously emphasising the individual student and the interdependence of all learners and teachers. 'Learners take responsibility for their learning; pupils [are] motivated by constant feedback and affirmation of their worth' (Department of Education, 1997: 7). We turn to a consideration of curriculum and curriculum practices in an educational system built on organisational features of organic solidarity.

A detailed outline of the implications of the new operational principles of organic solidarity embodied in a hybrid competence/outcomes curriculum approach is beyond the scope of what can be accomplished here. However, using some of Bemstein's early concepts, we are able to identdj some daunting challenges for teachers.

4 One of Bernstein's foundational concepts is that of 'classification'. The essence of classification is boundary strength between different areas/fields/regions of learning. Changes from strong classification (mechanical) to weak (organic) entail a new construction in the identity of learners: from ascribed to achieved roles. Whereas learners were previously stratified and positioned in a highly structured environment, now they are both differentiated and expected to develop coherence through civil interpersonal relations. It is a truism to observe that in the 'old' South Africa, schools were sites of resistance in 'the struggle' with teachers often targeted as being agents of the apartheid regime.

4 The tensions contained within a hybrid SAQA curriculum approach are likely to manifest themselves in the classroom. O n the one hand, competence invokes the 'universal democracy of acquisition' (Bernstein, 1996: 56).While students may learn at differing rates, there are no pupil deficits, and education is about the learner's realisation of innate potentialities that simply need the right environment to develop. O n the other hand, outcomes-based assessment implies that learners are assessed against specific benchmarks. Learning is aimed at what is missing: the deficit. The focus shifts to the teacher and his or her ability not just to elicit, but to impose the 'correct' knowledge, skills and values required to achieve the specified outcomes.

4 The integration of knowledge into 'learning areas' (a shift from strong to weak classification) means a collapsing of the traditional boundaries

and subject clisciplines.' Teachers are expected to work together in teams and to promote a co-operative culture of learning amongst str1dent5, encouraging a problern-solving and project approach to c~trriculum.At the same time, outcomes-based assessment promotes a solution-giving and task-oriented curriculum.

4 With knowledge weakly classified,so the power embedded in social relationships shifts from the vertical to the horizontal. In the vertical plane, the loyalties of pupils are t o sllbject teacher, and from subject teacher t o sttbject head, and so on. On a horizontal plane, learners have stronger relationships with one another in co-operative learning, and teachers with one another as they attempt to intrgrate knowledge. Teachers and learners also 'work together' t o achieve a common goal: - ~- -

5 mp,.

*4>,,

1.-

~

-

--

In the previous system, school subjects enjoyed hallowed status.

S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S ,C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

achievement of the outcomes. This implies a profound shift in personal allegiances and loyalties from the positional emphasis of a mechanical solidarity and strongly classified curriculum to the interpersonal, weakly classified emphasis of an organic solidarity.

+ There is much evidence in the symbolic interactionist literature to suggest that, in practice, a good deal of teaching is about control first, and education second (for example, Woods, 1979).As the law has changed from repressive to restitutive, corporal punishment (formerly rife) is prohibited and teachers have to adapt from reliance on positional control (being respected because one is a teacher) to personalised forms of control (enjoying authority because of one's personal attributes).

+ Societies characterised by mechanical solidarity have strong boundaries

between the inside and outside. In organic (differentiated) societies, there is a blurring of all symbolic boundaries (Bernstein 1971).We see this in the weakening of the boundary between home and school in the Schools Act. Teachers will increasingly be subject to a variety of accountability relations to the employer, the parents, SACE, the unions, the governing body. And, of course, to learners, who must be encouraged to express their different identities in a co-operative environment in which they are all equalised and their differences are made equivalent. The learners must both learn through their own activities (on their own) and learn specified outcomes - a difficult balancing act.

+ A shift from a strongly classified collection code curriculum to a weakly

classified integrated code threatens teachers' abilities to appreciate the new context. Weaker classification changes the recognition rules 'by means of which individuals are able to recognise the speciality of the context that they are in' (Bernstein, 1996: 31). By making the context clear, strong classification orients individuals to what is expected and appropriate. Ifweak classification can cause ambiguity and confusion by making the 'recognition rules' elusive, Curriculum 2005 could be creating a new set of recognition rules unfamiliar to both teachers and learners.

+ If classification defines what meanings are available for teachers and

learners to construct appropriate practices, Bernstein's concept of 'framing' regulates how meanings are put together. Framing refers to the nature of control over:

+ + + + +

the selection of the communication; its sequencing (what comes first, what comes second); its pacing (the rate of expected acquisition); the criteria; the control over the social base which makes this transmission possible (Bernstein, 1996: 27).

CHAPTER

I 0

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

When framing is weak, the learner has apparent control over all of the above. The difficulty for teachers becomes clear. In Curriculum 2005, framing is weak in all respects -except t.m'terin.Criteria in Curriculum 2005 are expressed in generic arid specific outcomes, and these are now the single element of strong framing. In otlieiwords, the criteria (or outcomes) represent the only domain in which the tlane mitter has apparent control. But the transmitter here is not the teacher -it is the National Department of Education which declares outcomes in policy documents. Curriculum 2005 states that: Teaching will become a far more creative and innovative career. N o longer will teachers and trainers just implement curricula designed by an education department. They will be able to implenient many of their own programmes w long as they produce tht: necessary outcomes. (Department of Education, 1997: 29). While indisputable, this judgement does not adequately capture the complexity of the teacher's role in ensuring that outcomes (controlled at national level) are achieved within a particular pedagogical relationship (the apparent control of' which rests with learners). This is especially problematic in a context in which the rules of the game (the 'recognition rules') are ellwive, if not inscrutable.

The discolirse of competence, and the identity roles associated with it, have been developed in countries with a fi~rmof social integration very different to that inherited by the 'new' South Africa. National qualification frameworks have emerged primarily in countries with a tradition of'dernocracy, advanced econoriiic systems, and social welfare. South Africa, having only just begun its.journey away from apartheid, has put in place a new legalistic framework created along liiles that exemplify L)urkheim's contracts of organic solidarity. In stark c.oljtrast, tlir 'old' South Africa exemplified mechar~icalsolidarity and its covenants of clan and tribe. Bernstein's theory wollld suggest that teachers' identities wci-c fishioncd in a mechanical mock or forrn of'social organisation. While Rerristein's theory can be applied to changes in many settings, the sheer scalc and speed of change in South Africa make the theory resonate evocatively. The irriplication of what wc have argued is that one aspect of South Africa's dif'fic~ultiesin iniplementirlg (;ur~-icull~ni 2005 lies in the attempt to graft ;r legalistic social fi-a~neworkarid cturicrllurn of'oi-ganic solidar-ityonto a corps of teachers whose identitics and roles were fi~rgedin the apartheid niills of mechanical solidarity. This begins to expose thc sofi untlerbelly of the hybrid approach to ORE: that it assumes as already existi~igwhat it is ir~tendedto prod~ict..The new systcrn of OBE attempts to produce the kinds of consciousr~essant1 ider~tityon which its operationalisatio~i,workability and success actually depend. In these terms, one appreciates the immensity o f t h e shift that ORE and (hrr-icull~~n 2005 ask teachers to make.

SECTION C CONCEPTS, C O N T E X TCSR,I T I C I S M S

Are teachers well positioned to meet this challenge? From the international literature we know of the gap between policy and practice, and the effect of teachers' beliefs on their practice.6 An important recent study of sixty-eight rural teachers in KwaZulu-Natal Uessop, 1997) demonstrates the role of teachers' life histories on their pedagogical beliefs, skills and practices. Major themes identified in this useful study include the following.

4 Pedagogical conservativism is a biographical safety net for teachers who feel insecure with new ideas and practices.

4 Teaching is viewed instrumentally in the sense that tangible artefacts of teaching assume greater importance than pedagogical relationships.

+ Much practice appears to be 'trial and error', routinised, or intuitive. Curriculum is perceived as the textbook or syllabus.

4 Teachers do not have a language of theorising or thinking about their practice.

4 In general, policies do not reach schools or even speak in the same 'language' as teachers.7 In contrast with the teachers who believed that the provision of physical resources alone would improve their practice, Jessop concludes that working from where teachers 'are at' and building in their own experience and strengths is more likely to be effective than sweeping change. This view concurs with that of Hargreaves (1994),who argues that teacher development should be focused on teacher mindsets to enable 'root changes' to take place. Yet Curriculum 2005 requires that teachers become curriculum developers, classroom managers and learning mediators in the context of a discourse which is unfamiliar, perhaps even unrecognisable. In this regard it is notable that the sponsors of Curriculum 2005 have, from the outset, given very little consideration to the context in which the new policy is to be implemented. As Christie observes, the 1995White Paper 'had almost nothing to say on implementation processes' (1997: 6 5 ) . Indeed, critics have had a lot more to say about implementation than the bureaucrats, Jansen's (1997) courageous broadside 'Why OBE Will Fail' being the best-known example. The need for teacher development is often pointed out, including by Spady himself. In a speculative way, we have used the theoretical implications of Durkheim and Bernstein as a way of conceptualising the possible implications of a particular model for the organisation of knowledge and the structure of the curriculum; and for the way in which educators conceptualise and construct their professional identities. The implication of this argument is that teacher development for OBE

-

.-

-.

-

6

See, for example, Broadfoot, (1988) on professional~sm,Johnston (1991) on teacher images; Vulliamy et al (1997) on teachers' self-identities and ideologies as powerful mediators of imposed changes.

7

A good deal of empirical work in this country suggests that our teachers do not, by and large, perceive themselves as curriculum developers. See, for example, Modiba (1996); Walker (1994); Wedekind et al(1996).

C H A P T E R

10

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

is a lot more complex than simply being a matter of 'training' teachei-s.8 However, broad generalisation about teachers in an extremely diverse context inevitably leads to oversimplification. Teachers' roles as citizens and as educators are formed within markedly differing contexts, making it difficult to talk about a South African teacher in universal terms. It is to the question of teachers, curriculum and social context that we briefly turn. This is necessary because the inheritance of the 'new' South Africa embodies a mixture of organic and mechanical solidarities.

Much education policy misrecognises the nature of the relationship between school and society (Whitty, 1997).In South Africa, an organic solidarity has been imported and recontextualised, disembodied from the forms of social organisation that gave rise to it. In the adoption of such an approach '... [t] here is ahvays the dangeithat changed curriculum formulations will do little more than introciuce new enclosing orthodoxies which continue to privilege the social groups with cultural capital' (Christie, 1997: 64). Cultural capital, in the present context, is likely to be the preserve of the fornlerly privileged white community. Although the 'old' South Africa, as we have argued, etidenced the outward forms of mechanical solidarity, the policy of racial differentiation resulted in a strongly segmented division of labour. By and large, whites occupied the modern sector jobs while blacks were locked into jobs associated with a simple division of labour. People of colour were debarred from the more modern jobs and, until state policies began collapsing, occupietl the largely unskilled, manualjobs. Despite economic sanctions being applied against the state, white society increasingly moved into the more complex division of labour asociated with an industrialising and then globalising economy. Whiles were thus given the opportunity of working in the field of what Scott ( 1 997) refers to as 'Mode 2 knowledge'. Generated within a context of application, Mode 2 knowledge is generated in an open systern in which producers, brokers, users and others 'mingle promiscuouslv' (Scott, 1997: 35). Mode 2 knowledge is heterogeneous and transdisciplinary. As such, it has strong affinity with Kernstein's concept of' 'weak classification', and with the interdisciplinary principles on which Icarning areas are premised in Curriculuni 2005." The sector ofthe division of labour politically demarcated for whites would at very least have permitted this social grouping exposure to the principles of weak classification. As an example to substantiate this point, it is interesting to recall that in the 1980s the ex-Natal Education 8

While we do not know of any rigorous evaluation of the 'training' documents, it appears as if these deal with surface manifestations of a profound curriculum shift The heading of one of the training documents, for example, appears to rely on cheerful optimism in its announcement that: 'You have time! You will be trained!' (Median In Educat~onTrust, undated). In presenting differences between the 'old' and the 'new' curriculum, the original Curriculum 2005 document did so in dichotomies so crude as to be unhelpful for purposes of real understanding of what was at stake.

9

Mode 1 knowledge, produced in more traditional ways by closed communities, would be strongly classified

S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S .C O N T E X T S , C R I T I C I S M S

Department embarked on a project to introduce theme teaching across traditional subject boundaries in its primary schools. For many teachers in rural areas, the continued recognition given to tribal authority structures, customary law and communal land ownership reproduces strong bonds of mechanical solidarity. One interesting example of the shift in legal coding has been the prohibition of 'corporal punishment'. For many teachers and students in the 'old' South Africa, corporal punishment in a variety of forms was a pervasive part of everyday life. Its sudden removal has impacted on teacher/student relations in unexpected ways that have complicated the work of the teacher, most noticeably, by a lack of respect and discipline. There was nothing to replace the cane -just 'hollow' words about human rights, responsibilities, duties and liberties, and even this language is restricted to a largely urban elite. These distinct principles of solidarity are likely to persist for some time to come in South Africa's schooling system, and teachers will be faced with a kind of role schizophrenia as they become key relays in the transformation of schooling. Sometimes positional, sometimes personal, their curriculum practices are likely to reflect tensions and dissonances. There is thus evidence suggesting that the 'new' South Africa was born as a rainbow nation but with a privileged enclave of those whose identities had been formed in conditions most closely approximating organic solidarity. It is interesting to note that while questions have been raised about the implications of importing global economic wisdoms into the economically differentiated system which the ANC has inherited (Kraak, cited in Christie, 1997),there has been little consideration of how OBE will nest into a strongly differentiated education system. If our analysis above is accurate, then it is likely that previously 'white' schools will benefit most from the new policies and discourses. They already meet many of the conditions assumed to be in place for the implementation of OBE: well-resourced schools, supportive parents, and efficient and co-operative management. The o b vious danger is that those schools most ravaged by apartheid may well be further disadvantaged by the new approach.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION What then can we do to get out of the impasse? In building the rainbow nation, how do we integrate differences into workable principles of organic solidarity embodied in a hybrid competence/outcomes curriculum approach? To achieve this requires recognising our mutual interdependence and our essential independence and multiple subjectivities. In South Africa's recent past, there were clearly distinct forms of social solidarity and curriculum that shaped political identities determined by dichotomous oppositions. The differing principles of solidarity were closely associated with political movements engaged in a civil war.

C H A P T E R

10

KEN HARLEY & BEN PARKER

In emerging from such a context it is a very difficult shift to see relationships as those of mutual in(ter)dependence - the basis upon which an organic legalorganisational framework rests. South Africass primary form of 'co-operative governance' is a 'stakeholder' model in which distinct constituencies engage in debate and try to reach corrlprornises acceptable to a significant majorih (the principle of sufficient consensus). ... the National Department relies on multipartite structures in the form of task teams and forums made up of key stakeholders to foster consensus, contain conflict and plan the steps necessary to develop and put this systern in placc.. (De Clercq,

1997: 142)

In the case of SAQA bodies, constituents are divided into six sectors: state, labour, business, providers (universities,technikons, colleges), N o s and Critical Interest Groups. As with the implemeritation of OBE, there is a paradox here. The creation of these SAQA governance bodies assumes as already existing what they intend to bring about. There is a danger that co-operative governance will become conflictual, with represented groups asserting their interests rather than working on the hasis of mutual interdependence. To work successfi~lly,SAQA's cooperative governance assumes that the people in the structures have the necessary applied conlpetencies to perform their roles efficiently and effectively. In other words, the legislation of a new 'organic' solidarity can be achieved/implementeci only if it already exists. The debate and arguments in the governance bodies have to be rational - a case of the best argument winning - for organic solidarity ro take hold. If arguments and debates are settled by the 'voting' power of a rcp1.csentative, then a principle of mechanical solidarity persists. Viewing the samr: issue from a different angle, we agree with De Clercq's view that the stakeholder network model is '... likely to entrench and not confront the already uneven relations t~etweenand among the dif'f'crent education stakeholtlers' ( 199'7: 142). llisjunctt~rebetween legislated rules and act~ialpractices pnlrnotes, i r l Durkheim's terms, anomic a break from the 'old' Sot~thAfrican principles of' rnecl-lanical solidarity,but without sufficient subjection t o new fonns of'inoral obligation, rights, duties and responsibilities. This runs the risk of creating a sense of' despair and powerlessness at the very mornent teachers are being called upor1 to play a major role in transforming education and training.

We have argued that the importation of OBE and the NQF may have misrecognised the nature of the relationship between school and society in South Atrica, especially with respect to teachers' personal and professional identities. Indeed, we suggest that teachers and student5 are likely to experience a loss of stnictur-e, ho~indary,continuity and order in a way that will make implementation of (:ilrriculurn 2005 extremely problematic. To implement OBE and the NQF, teachers may well need first to shift their own identities, their understanding of who they are and how they relate to others. This requires a high degree of

SECTION

C

CONCEPTS, CONTEXTS. CRITICISMS

interpersonal skills, self-reflection and adaptation. These are the very skills that the mechanical mills of apartheid failed to forge. How then does one make that which has not yet been made? The policy-makers for, and the educators of, South Africa's teachers face a daunting task - to transform the identities and roles of teachers. Their task is made more challenging by the underlying weaknesses that emerge from adopting an imported model which emerged in very different societies with organic solidarities binding together a highly advanced division of labour into a context still dominated by mechanical solidarities. The argument that led to this conclusion has been theoretical and speculative. As committed educationists, we do not like the conclusion: it is pessimistic and depressing. Yet as researchers we feel it has a compelling if undeveloped logic. To attempt to provide 'quick fix' solutions to practical curriculum problems on the basis of what has been attempted in this article would be to trivialise intractable issues in the same way that OBE training has trivialised complex issues. It would be equally culpable of formulating proposals abstracted from the real world of educational practice in schools. The best we can venture is to argue for theoretically informed qualitative empirical investigation into the roles, competencies and practices of teachers. What really is happening in classrooms and, if teachers are struggling with curriculum issues, what are the problems? In this respect we believe that the theoretical view we have outlined, gloomy though its commentary may be, does contextualise promising concepts and criteria offered by Durkheim and Bernstein. These concepts and criteria provide a fruitful foundation for the kind of research that could serve as a basis for teacher develop ment, as well as reflexively informing the theoretical perspective that we have attempted to develop.

CHAPTER

10

K E N H A R L E Y& B E N P A R K E R

BIBLIOGRAPHY Appel, S, Harley, K, Muir, R & Penny, A. 1993. School integration in the former 'white' schools: the example of Pietermaritzburg and its environs. South Afican Journal oj'Srience, 89 (9), 418-419. Atkinson, P. 1985. Language, ,Structure cind Repduction: A n Introdurtion to thr Sociolo~ofBasil Hemstpin. London: Methuen. Bernstein, B. 1971. Open schools, open society? In BR Cosin et al (eds), School and Soczetj: A Soriolog.lca1R e a k 166-169. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M I T Press. Bernstein, B. 1996. PedagoOg,Symbolic Control and Identity. L,ondon: Taylor and Francis. Broadfoot, P 8c Osborn, M. 1988. What professional responsibility means to teachers: National contexts and classroom contexts. British Journal of Soriolog?' oft.,'cluration, 9 (S), 265-287. Christie, P. 1997. Global trends in local contexts: A South African perspective on competence debates. 1)z~rourw:Studie~in thr Cultural Politzts oft.':Luratzon, 18 ( I ) , 55-69. De Clercq, F. 1997. Policy intervention and power shifts: An evaluation of South Africa's education restrl~cturingpolicies. journal of Education Polil~,12 (3), 127-1 46. Department of Educatioli. 1997. Curriculum 2005: Lzfrlong 1,nlrvting for t h 215t ~ (,'rntury. Pretoria. 7Faznlng and Department of Education. 1998. Norms and Stc~ndarclsfir 7 k t hrr Edl~rc~lzon, I)~(~rlopment. Discussion doc~itnent.Pretoria. Department of Labour. 1997. Green Paper on Skills Developnierit Strategy for Economic and Employment Growth in South Africa. Pretoria. Durkheim, E. 1964. 7 %I)zvz~ton ~ of I,abour zn ,Sorwh. Tranddted b y G Sinipwn. New Ynrk: Macmillan. Chanpng 'linvc: 7 k ~ c h m\.l/ork ' and Cliltuw In (I I'octHnrgrenves,A. 1994. (;hnnpng I~(L(IwT-\, moci~rV I A p . Lotidon: (:acsell. Harley, K 8c Wedekind, V. Vision ant1 constrairlt in curricul~~rn change: A case study of Solith Afiicarl secotidaty school principals. (Fortllcoming in 0j)m l5~i71mtiQ RPadrr).

J e w ~ pT., 1997. /ozoc~)cl-\ (I Grountl~d771rory o/ 7i.achrr I~~-i~rLof)wz~nt: A Stucl) o f [he Nc~r~atl-clrr (PhI), King Alfrrtl's Univer\~h/(;allege 8c of Rum1 Pnmnq 7i.nthnr trz KzcrcrZ7rl~r-Nc~tn1. Univer 5ity o f Sol~tharnpton,U K ) . Johnston, S. 1990. Understanding curriculum decision-making through teacher images. ~ ~ 0 2 1 1Of/ l ~((:t~r)-l)%( l 11l~?11 ,stll(I~~\, 22(5), 46,%71. Ministry of Edllcatiotl. 1997. (;o71ur-nrn~nlGnzrllr, 6 ,]line 1997, No. 180.5 1. Pretoria: (;overnrnent Printel; Modiba, M. 1996. South African black teacher$' perception$ about their practice. I'rr~f)r(tiup\ in kciut nt~orz,17 ( 1) , 1 17-1 33. National Tra~ningBoard. 1997. I','duccction, 'llc~znzngand l)P-i~rlqi)rn~nl I'rutllc~~ Prqrct Phctr~ 2 R+rl. Pretot ia.

S E C T I O N

C

C O N C E P T S , C O N T E X T S , CRITICISMS

National Training Board. 1998. Education, Training and Development Practices Project Phase 3 Report -Model 2. Pretoria. Muller,J. & Taylor, N. 1995. Schooling and everyday life: Knowledges sacred and profane. Social Epistemology, 9 (3), 157-275. Penny, A, Appel, S, Gultig,J, Harley, K & Muir, R. 1993. 'Just sort of fumbling in the dark': A case study of the advent of racial integration in South African schools. Comparatiue Education h i e u , 37 (4): 412433. Popkewitz, T.S. 1997. Globalization, Regionalization, Knowledge and the Restructuring o f Education: Some Notes on Comparative Strategies to Educational Research. Paper presented at the 10th World Congress of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies, 12-17 July 1998. Scott, P. 1997. Changes in knowledge production and dissemination in the context of globalisation. In N Cloete et al (eds),Knowledge, Identity and Curriculum T r a n s f i t i o n in Afica, 17-42. Cape Town: Maskew Millar Longrnan. South African QualificationsAuthority (SAQA). 1997. Government Gmtte, 29 August 1997, No. 18221. Pretoria: Government Printer. (SAQA 14/P ETQA Regulations: 8/97 Revised). Spady, W. 1995. Outcomes Based Education: Critical Issues. American Association of School Administrators. USA: Breakthrough Systems. Vulliamy, G et al. 1997.Teacher identity and curriculum change: A comparative case study analysis of small schools in England and Finland. ComparatiueEducation, 33 ( I ) , 97-1 15. Wedekind, V, Lubisi, C, Harley, K & Gultig,J. 1996. Political change, social integration, and curriculum: A South African case study.Journal of Cum'culum Studies, 28 (4),419-436. Walker, M. 1994. Professional development through action research in township primary schools in South Africa. InterrzationalJournal ofEducationa1Development, 14 (1), 65-73. Whitty, G. 1997. Social theory and education policy: The Legacy of Karl Mannheim. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18 (2), 149-163. Woods, P. 1979. The Divided School. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Young, M. 1996. The Outcomes A m a c h toEducation and Training Theoretical Groundingand an International Perspective. Paper presented at the Inter Ministerial Conference to launch the National Qualifications Framework held at Technikon SA,Johannesburg, April 1996.

SECTION D

Inside Classrooms

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 11

'A Very Noisy OBE' : The Implementation of OBE In Grade 1 Classrooms JONATHAN D JANSEN UNIVERSITY OF DURBAN-WESTVILLE

You find it very noisy, and when you're trying to teach - you're to do different things with different groups. The noise level .. . it can be too high. Because then you can't work with others on a quieter level. So you've got to control that some way. I find that quite difficult. It is a noisy OBE. And it is quite stressful not only for the teacher but also for the children. (Interview with Grade 1 Teacher, 1998)

The announcement by the South African state that OBE would be implemented in all Grade 1 classrooms in January 1998 triggered a vigorous public debate about, inter alia, the prospects of implementation given the lack of teacher training, the low levels of material support for the new curriculum and the complexity of this curriculum innovation (Jansen, 1998a). But what actually happened in Grade I classrooms during the course of implementation? This chapter provides preliminary evidence about OBE implementation in thirtytwo Grade 1 classrooms in KwaZulu Natal and Mpumalanga provinces during the first ten months of 1998. This large multiyear study on OBE implementation is guided by a single research question: how do Grade 1 teachers understand and implement outcomes-based education in their classrooms? The findings reported in this chapter constitute a tentative and preliminary account of OBE implementation, given the short period of time in focus (that is,January to August 1998). Nevertheless, the emerging findings suggest important trends and trajectories regarding OBE implementation which already offer critical insights and formative lessons for post-Grade 1 OBE policy, plans and programmes.

S E C T I O N

D

I N S I D CEL A S S R O O M S

This study was conducted in two of South Africa's nine provinces, namely KwaZulu Natal and Mpumalanga. These provinces were selected for both practical and purposive reasons: KwaZulu Natal is the province in which the research team is based, thereby allowing not only for easy access and low evaluation costs, but also providing immediate relevance to the different stakeholders served in this province through the general work of CEREP. Mpumalanga was chosen in part because the research team has conducted work in this province before on behalf of the provincial department of education and has established positive working relationships with officials in the region. More importantly, both provinces represent the typical South African contexts required for the evaluation - that is, small urban centres with a large distribution of rural areas; large discrepancies in educational resources across racial and spatial divides; and generally low standards of performance in the schooling system (Department of Education, 1996). The unit of analysis in this study was the Grade 1 classroom. The study consisted of three components: (1) a baseline study leading to (2) an impact assessment followed by detailed (3) case studies of Grade 1 classrooms. The baseline study was conducted in all the Grade 1 classrooms selected for this research using a combination of profile questionnaires of resources and teaching before and after OBE. In the impact assessment component of the study, a starting minimum of five schools was selected within each province, each school dstinguished on the basis of a sliding scale of available resources. In other words, the evaluation made the assumption that there is a relationship between available resources and the ways in which teachers understand and implement OBE in their classrooms. The five school types include:

+ a very well resourced school with excellent infrastructure, for example a typical urban-based white school; + a school with reasonable infrastructure but with less of a resource base than the typical white school, for example a typical urban-based Indian school;

4 an established township school with stable infrastructure but with the minimum of resources available for operating the school, for example a typical urban township school; a school in a peri-urban area commonly described as an 'informal settlement' in which there is a decaying infrastructure and few, if any resources for operating the school, for example a school in a squatter settlement area; a school with poor infrastructure and few, if any resources available for supporting the school, bearing all the characteristics of a rural school

+ +

C H A P T E R

I 1

J O N A T H ADN J A N S E N

such as large class sizes, for example a rural school far removed from city or even town centres. Within each school, two Grade 1 classrooms were selected for study - that is, ten classrooms per province and therefore twenty classrooms in the study as a whole. However, because of the availability and interest of both schools and additional researchers to participate in the study, the number of classrooms extended to was thirty-two, with the additional sixteen coming from eight other schools in KwaZulu Natal province. As evaluation studies mature in South Africa, the critical value of baseline data is

being appreciated as a measure against which to track changes following a particular intervention (Jansen, 1997; Taylor, 1997). The difficulty with the evaluation design of this study is that both the suddenness of OBE implementation and the late availability of funding meant that it was almost impossible to establish baseline studies during 1997. The compromise reached during our deliberations was to generate retrospective baseline data using a collection of instrumentation (ME, 1998) as soon as the sampled schools were established. The instrumentation used in the study can be summarised as follows.

4 A questionnaire profile of the school, assembling data about the aggregate levels of human and material resources available in the school as a whole.

+ A questionnaire profile of the two sampled Grade 1classrooms, collecting data on the resources available within each of these classrooms in considerable detail.

4 A questionnaire profile of each of the two teachers per Grade 1 class room per school, developing a detailed portrait of the teacher in terms of fonnal qualifications, teaching experience, preparation levels for OBE implementation, levels of personal confidence in relation to the new curriculum, etc.

4 A questionnaire profile of teaching practices of the two teachers concerned by comparing teaching approaches and strategies before the intrcl duction of OBE (that is, prior to 1998) and since the introduction of OBE (that is, since January 1998). The teacher's recollection of how he or she taught prior to OBE implementation in 1998 therefore constituted the du facto baseline data for measuring the dimensions and directions of change since the new curriculum was formally introduced at the beginning of the year.

4 A classroom profile which combined the quantitative questionnaire data (second) with photographic evidence and other measures, for example measuring classr-oom space against number of learners occupying that classroom.

S E C T I O N

D

I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

+ A detailed teacher interview protocol which was conducted after each of two five-day observational periods; these open-ended interviews probed for teacher understandings of OBE based in part on what the researcher observed over the said fiveday period.

+ An observation protocol which consisted of detailed indicator specifications (seven indicators later elaborated into a set of ten indicators based on initial observations); these observation documents, containing both categorical, narrative and critical incident accounts of OBE implementation constitute the most direct measure of how teachers understand and implement OBE inside Grade 1 classrooms. The observational studies were done at two points: early in 1998 (February/March) for five consecutive days and later in the year (September/October) for the same period, in order to gain a more reliable account of teacher understandings of OBE. The observational indicators were carefully crafted from a study of official documents on Curriculum 2005 and OBE in which the main goals set by the Department of Education for this new curriculum were translated into a tangible and observable set of indicators. The initial set of indicators was piloted with Grade 1 teachers and OBE trainers to establish their credibility (OBE Instruments, 1998). The case studies were conducted in four classrooms, two in each province. The set of two classrooms per province, from different schools, was selected as reputational samples - that is, one classroom with an outstanding record of successful OBE implementation, and another classroom in which the teacher was clearly struggling to implement the new curriculum. Such selection was made by talking to teachers and trainers in the province and through the observations of researchers during the impact assessment phase of the study. The case study methodology used most of the instrumentation developed for the impact studies but quadrupled (four times longer) the observation time and included several interviews with the teacher throughout the period of observation.

WHATDO WE KNOWABOUTTEACHER UNDERSTANDINGS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OBE? The findings presented are necessarily tentative and based largely on the baseline and impact assessments. However, across the thirty-two classrooms drawn from different contexts there are clearly converging findings while, at the same time, there are also diverging patterns based on differentiated implementation contexts. Teachers hold vastly different undmtandings of OBE, men within the same school. The teachers interviewed expressed considerable variation in their understanding of OBE. Some described OBE as synonymous with C2005. Most teachers defined OBE by reference to certain common practices -for example, learner-centred instruction, activity-based learning,

C H A P T E R

1 1

J O N A T H ADN J A N S E N

group work, learning by discovery, less direct teaching and more teacher facilitation, less of a focus on content coverage, learning by doing, etc. In other words, teachers certainly held and expressed a very practical and immediate view about what constitutes OBE. None of the teachers referred to OBE in Spadyean terms - that is, in the terms described in official elaborations of what constitutes OBE, such as the principles of 'success for all learners' or the reorganisation of time schedules or 'culminating demonstrations' of learning specific tasks o r assessment based on outcomes. Instead, teachers referred to OBE in terms common to most progressive pedagogy everywhere, rather than the mastery learning underpinnings of the Spadyean version. This wide variation of meanings attributed to OBE by teachers simply reflects the range of terms and concepts used in official documents. The research study was certainly not expecting a uniform understanding of OBE; however, the considerable range of meanings attributed to OBE has implications for implementation which could, similarly, be expected to reflect a very broad set of teaching and learning strategies within Grade 1 classrooms. And the range of meanings implies a lack of coherence and focus in the communication of policy on OBE and C2005.

Euchers display considevable uncertainty about whether their practices i nfict constitute OBE, imspective of the aggregate h e l s of institutional resources cw years of personal teaching experience. While all teachers expressed a clear view about what they understand as OBE, most teachers were uncertain about whether they were in fact 'doing' OBE in their classrooms. Well-qualified teachers with years of experience and a reputation for being outstanding Grade 1 instructors, demo~lstratedthe same levels of uncertainty about their practices as in the case of poorly qualified and inexperienced teachers. In part this uncertainty derived from the feeling that there needs to be a distinction between past and present practices - the fact that there was little affirnlation of existing practices in the policy documentation where the emphasis was on changing current behaviour. Teachers did not appear to know, therefore, whether drilling the three Rr, was inconsistent with OBE or acceptable within an OBE framework or requiring adjustment along an OBE practice continuum. The uncertainty also reflected teachers' starting the year with what they have always done - that is, their feeling of comfort and security with the familiar; the lack of in-depth training; the uncertainty of the planners arid trainers themselves; and the lack of on-site supercision and feedback on current practices in the Grade 1 classroom. In short, what is striking in this research is that the clarity of conceptual meaning about OBE is disynchronous with the uncertainty of meaning in-practice among Grade 1 teachers implernenting the new curriculum.

SECTION

D

I N S I D CEL A S S R O O M S

+ Teachers u n i f m l yfelt that theirprzparationfor OBE implementation was inadequate and incomplete.

+

All the teachers in the study regarded the OBE training in the fiveday block period as inadequate. There were two strands of opinion in the assessment of training. The first strand regarded the training as necessary and useful but felt that much more training was needed in order to become more meaningful in the lives and practices of Grade 1 teachers. A second strand regarded the training as simply misguided - that is, the training was too basic and offered at a level which such teachers had long surpassed in their own development. Perhaps predictably, black teachers held the former view and requested much more training for longer periods of time than the standard fiveday training. And white teachers saw the need for no training or a totally different kind of training; this group would at various points in the interview process suggest that the Department should concentrate its limited resources 'on those who need it' (read: black and disadvantaged) while the rest of 'us' would manage by and with ourselves. This raises an important issue witnessed during these interactions, particularly with white teachers: a high level of ambiguity about their own practices expressed within a ten-minute period as both clear and certain understandings of what OBE means and what should be done, and strong feelings of confusion and uncertainty about whether they were really understanding or doing OBE. The common thread in teacher responses, though, was for a different quality and frequency of teacher preparation for OBE. Teachers in most classrooms had the basic C2005 documentation required for the Foundation Phase. Despite initial unevenness in the delivery of OBE materials, all schools and classrooms visited during the period of study had the basic C2005 materials. This basic documentation consisted of the Foundation Phase programmes in literacy, numeracy and life skills. Some teachers had personal copies of these materials in their classrooms; other teachers had to access the materials through the principal's office or the Grade 1 or Foundation Phase co-ordinator. Of course, a distinguishingelement with regard to OBE-related materials is that some schools had many other resource materials to support the new curriculum such as the South Afiican Institute of Distance Education (SAIDE) multimedia distance education resource, OBE writings, etc. What this research did not document, however, was the extent to which teachers actually used these policy documents in designing and reviewing their lessons; this would constitute an important follow-up study of OBE-in-use.Such follow-up research would be particularly important, given the claims of many teachers that they were not implementing OBE, at least in the early part of the Grade 1 year.

C H A P T E R

I 1

J O N A T H ADNJ A N S E N

+ Teachersstrongly expe,ssed the uiau that OBE, -runs not impkmentnbk in t h early ~ part of the school year with young children. Grade 1 teachers regard the first year of schooling as inappropriate for an OBE programme. When expressing this view, the teachers describe OBE in C2005 terms: that is, as requiring active learners who construct their own learning based on self-initiated activities in which the teacher stands back as facilitator of the process. The reasoning behind this view is expressed in three different ways. Firstly, that very young children need to learn some basic disciplines in mder to gain from formal education for example, sitting quietly, taking turns, active listening, etc. For teachers, an OBE (in their terms) approach either does not take account of such prerequisite learnings or assumes that these learnings already exist. Secondly, teachers argue that the sophistication of an OBE approach needs learners with a starting level competency in reading and writing to engage with this new approach. This means some drilling work, phonics, number recognition and other basic skills; in short, an exposure to traditional Grade 1 teaching prior to the introduction of OBE within such classrooms. Thirdly, teachers argue that children in Grade 1 classrooms come from different backgrounds with respect to language competency, reading abilities, numerical literacy, personal confidence and mastey of early life skill routines (for example, toiletry needs). For instance, children who did not attend preschool or school readiness programmes differed markedly in terms of their preparedness fixformal schooling from those children who did attend such schools. This difference is 1101-mally treated by Grade 1 teachers through a notion of 'bridging' the less able learners into the basic adjustment for formal schooling. Again, this means that long before teachers can implement C2005, as they ~ulderstandit, these basic preparatory skills need to be learned. Teacher after teacher made the distinction as fbllows: 'I have my OBE, and I have my skills'. In other words, fix Grade 1 teachers OBE was incornpatiblc with h r i d g i ~ ~org basic skills; it w a s only possible after the latter-was achieved in the Grade 1 classroom. For this reason, many teachers expressed the view that they might very well makc thc trr-lnsition t o ORE later- in the Grade 1 school year: But not vet.

+ 'li.nc.hprs g~murccllvc.laimeti thnf t h m

IIIPTP .sotrw thing^ fhnt thq 7uer~doing clif;krentlj si'nc~l h zntrodmctzon ~ of'OBt,; Out lhaf thq ~ I J P T P mainly tmching as they did befi)r~, OBI';.

Teachers made general claims that they were changing their practices as a result of OBE. The specific changes mentioned were the following: allowing learners rnore time to explore and articulate their own learning - that is, teacliers were teaching less; being more flexible with the timetable; doing less written work in books sirlct. learners were

D I N S I D CEL A S S R O O M S

SECTION

encouraged to use multiple representational contexts for their tasks; and introducing life skills more deliberately in the curriculum. Other than these specific changes, teachers claimed that their practices did not change very much: they were still doing the three Rs; they were still concentrating on their phonics; they still did drilling of basic skills; they have always used activities to structure the learning tasks in Grade 1;and they have not really followed the specific outcomes closely, even though teachers are aware of them.

+

It is important to state clearly that there was a disjunction between teacher claims (as made during interviews and on questionnaires) and teacher practices (as observed during the teaching episodes).Most teachers were talking for more than 90 % of the teaching time, whether in white or black schools. Learners never asked questions, though this might be related to the nature of Grade 1discourse where learners appear to constantly provide commentary on the lesson ('My Daddy has a large knife' when the teacher introduces eating utensils) or interrupt with information, especially in white classrooms. Learners respond in unison to most teacher questions or prompts, with relatively little individual tutoring or feedback, irrespective of class size. The ongoing Grade 1 observational studies will later provide much more systematic and reliable accounts of either synchrony or dis-synchrony with respect to teacher claims and practices. Other research in South African classrooms suggests, however, that often claims and practices are not synonymous when working with teachers Uansen, 1996; Ntshingila-Khosa, 1998). Teachers understand and implement OBE i n very d i f f m t ways within and across dqfermt resource contexts. Each Grade 1 classroom is different with respect to OBE implementation. Reading across the multiple and 'thick' datasets, there are patterns emerging with respect to teacher understandings and implementation of OBE.

+

Pattern 1:Most of the Grade 1 teachers observed are clearly not doing anything differentlyfrom what they did before -that is, conventional Grade 1 teaching, focused on making the young learners competent in the basics of reading, writing, numeracy, discipline and confidence. Within this group there are two kinds of teachers. In the first group, both the formal statements of these teachers (interview and questionnaire data) as well as the observational evidence suggest that most of the teachers are doing what they feel comfortable with and what is familiar to them from years of practical experience. These teachers do not claim to be doing OBE nor do their practices suggest that to be the case. In the second group, the teachers claim that they are doing OBE perfectly and completely within their classrooms; yet in our

observations of these teachers, there is very little evidence to suggest that they are practising OBE at all. Profession apart, both groups of teachers within this frame are not practising OBE.

+

Pattern 2: Some teachers use C2005 and OBE simply as a broad and guiding framework against which to plot or refer their own teaching. That is, they profess a selflconsciousness about the new curriculum policy and attempt to organise their work within that curriculum frarnework. This is often done at a very superficial level, such as a retrospective labelling and categorisation of classroom activities under one of the three learning programmes. These teachers imposed the framework provided by the new curriculum on what they had already planned or implemented as a way of demonstrating conformity or conlpliance with official policy, or simply as a way of confirming the claim that 'we have always done OBE'. In the latter view, OBE simply provided a language and terminology to describe what was already happening. It is this
+

P a t t m 3: A few teachers claim and understand that their implementation moves constantly between the new requiremerits of policy and the established conventions and practices of teaching in their Grade 1 classr-oorns. This movement between policy and practice, between innovation and convention, between what is required arid what is possible, was most clearly expressed by the more confident arid experienced teachers in the sample. These teacher3 were actively negotiating the meaning of OBE within the constraints of their-classroorns arid the lessons drawn from their experience. Sorne of' these tcacliels cxpccted OBE to gain greater currency within their classi-ooms as the calendar year unfblded; once basic competencies had been established among teachers, more (>BE practices would probably be introduced as learners become more confident (Mariickchund, 1998).

SYNTHESIS AND REFLECTION Since this report follows only ten months of implementation, it is difficult to make any firm and conclusive claims about the central question: how teachers understand and implement outcomes-based education within Grade 1 classrooms. However, there are some deeper theoretical issues ernbedded in these findings which move beyond the specifics of the teacher-level data or the element of implementation time. Indeed, there are much broader issues of policy, politics and practice embedded within OBE implementation. It is appropriate, therefore, to ask the following questions of the OBE experience. What model of curriculum is emerging from the South African transition? What

SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

images of policy are projected through the ways in which curriculum innovation is implemented in schools and classrooms?What conceptions of teachers are being produced through curriculum policy after apartheid? The first issue of significance is that South Africa has developed a conception of what I would like to call policy by declaration. By this I mean the practice whereby the mere promulgation of a particular set of policies is expected to transform institutions in a rational, linear and uniform way. Policies are understood as being good and worthwhile in themselves. And any questioning of policy is a sign of resistance and disloyalty to policy as a public good. This argument is supported by the elaborate and sophisticated policy documents which have been produced under the umbrella of either C2005 or OBE; the lack of a comprehensive implementation plan prior to the announcement of the new curriculum; the low level of resource commitment (apart from a few pilot schools and a standardised fiveday period of teacher training) quite late in the process; the lack of a national monitoring and evaluation programme within classrooms; and the absence of any supervision and support strategy for teachers during the course of implementation. The repeated declaration of policy through the media, parliament, brochures and political speeches, even in the face of negative implementation effects, has taken on a life of its own among political strategists. The declaration of policy is good and worthwhile, irrespective of its consequences.

A second issue of importance is the broader symbolism which has accompanied and defined curriculum policy in South Africa. As I have mentioned several times before, all states invest in policy as a matter of political legitimacy. What is striking in South Africa is the scope and scale of this investment to the exclusion of other possible considerations - such as the effects of policy on marginalised schools and disempowered teachers. The launch of C2005 in which the same number of balloons (2005) were released in the various colours of the new national flag had political significance which was overlooked by the average OBE commentator. Never before were curriculum and patriotism bolted together in such a public, overt manner. The national report on the evaluation is a testimony to patriotism captured in such superlative phrases as 'OBE sets children free!' (Media in Education Trust (MIET) 1998; see also Schlebusch,Baxen, Wildschutt & Naiker, 1998). As other scholars have warned (Weiler, 1990), this short-term legitimacy investment produces a long-term political crisis which engulfs the modern state.

A third issue of broader relevance is the emergent curriculum model suggested in the South African mode of doing curriculum policy after apartheid. A consistent claim made about curriculum development under apartheid described this model as authoritarian, racially exclusive, expert driven, and context blind. It should be conceded that the formal arrangements for a broader participatory process have been established under the new regime, although this is by no means unproblematic (see next point). But teachers have in various ways been involved

C H A P T E R

I 1

J O N A T H A ND J A N S E N

in the curriculum process and there is certainly a much more racially representative cast of curriculum makers involving more than the traditional university experts or government officials. What the emergent model has not changed, however, is the isolation of the curriculum policy and planning processes from the varied and unequal contexts within which South African practitioners work. There is no evidence of any planning process which analysed the context for curriculum implementation in ways that made decisions about the planned and focused allocation of the resources necessary for curriculum change. All teachers and classrooms were assumed, at least in the mode of curriculum implementation, to be at the same level of understanding and work in the same kind of institutional context. In short, curriculum policy, planning and development remains context blind.

A fourth issue is the way in which OBE and the new curriculum redefined teacher identity in the classroom. In particular, it is my thesis that Curriculum 2005 posited the notion of the disappearing teacher. In the OBE classroom, the teacher disappeared into a facilitative, background role while the learners emerged as the initiators and creators of learning. The teacher fades away so that learning displaces teaching, constructing meaning among learners takes priority over dispensing information by teachers. Or, in the poetic words of state officials at OBE training workshops: 'the teacher becomes the guide on the side rather than the sage on the stage'. In general, these tenets of progressive education are not contestable. What should be contested, though, are the consequences of such a m i n g of teachers given that most South African practitioners lack both confidence and competence within their classrooms. Yet the advent of two new policies mandatory increases in class sizes and a complex, sophisticated curriculum -would clearly aggravate the crisis of confidence and competence in many South African classrooms Uansen, 199%). In other words, at a point where teachers are most vulnerable, this same group of practitioners is required to declare themselves marginal within their own classrooms. Clearly, this insistence on disappearing teachers under (22005 was completely naive about the working conditions and proficiency profiles of most South African teachers. Unsurprisingly, our data shows clearly that teachers did not, indeed could not, displace themselves in such conditions of instruction. Yet the symbolic image that teachers have of themselves, as consumers of policy discourse, remains one of marginal facilitator within their classrooms - that is, a powerfill reshaping of their professional identities.

A fifth issue of importance concerns the consequences of policy. As I have argued elsewhere, critical scholarship within South African education now needs to attend to what I would like to call consequential analyses of policy. 1avoid the Inore familiar reference to 'policy effects' given its narrow attention to intended or prespecified effects, and the focus on specific teaching and learning outcomes rather than the broader social consequences of policy. In this regard, I wish to draw attention to the race-differential consequences of policy with respect to OBE in South Africa.

SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

Indeed, the varied implementation strategies employed by teachers (including non-implementation)reflect back inequalities across the post-apartheid education system. Teachers within white, well-resourced classrooms were clearly reflecting C2005 and OBE principles within their practices even when they were unsure about the meaning of OBE or uncommitted to its implementation. In the white classrooms we observed, the sheer weight of material resources demanded some level of C2005 implementation. In one class, the following were all used within a fiveday period: individual computer-based learning, sophisticated teacher aids, learner-prepared materials, audio-visualfacilities, other specialist equipment and five different learning sites outside the official classroom -including a field trip. In the same class there was a qualified full-time teacher assistant working with smaller groups (normally 4-6 children) and assisting with individualised assessment. Within 5km of this school, another teacher read off a lecture to Grade 1 children for long periods of time, and then disappeared for hours while these learners tried to teach each other. The packed classroom, without any facilities or materials, simply experienced the same scenario day after day through the period of observation. Among teachers themselves, there are clear racialised readings of the meaning and intentions of OBE. As a consequence, there are varying levels of teacher commitment to OBE as a political project. White teachers understood OBE as 'meant for black pupils'. Time and again, a version of the following would be shared: 'we are doing fine; why does the Department not take the little money available and give it to black schools where they really need help.. .?' Black teachers, on the other hand, express such strong commitment to OBE and its implementation that their personal profession outstrips their actual practices, as mentioned previously. In short, OBE is seen by many black teachers as an intervention to improve the plight of black children; by contrast, it is seen by many white teachers as an intrusion misdirected in challenging 'tried and tested' practices within white schools.

A sixth issue of concern is the way in which teachers have understood OBE and C2005 in relation to broader imperatives of challenging racial and gender inequalities in the emerging South African democracy. The new curriculum, and OBE in particular, have been understood as a technology to be managed (seeKraak, 1999; and Malcolm, 1999, both in this volume) rather than as an instrument in the transformation of the school curriculum. In fact, our analysis of teacher and learner transcripts in the case study component of the research showed clearly that the content of OBE remained traditional and conservative with little explicit reference to those outcomes regarded as setting transformative goals. Teachers used materials familiar to past practice; and, even when new materials were introduced (such as newspapers), they were not related to any social consciousness or critical awarenesswith respect to inequality, democracy or transformation. I would argue that this outcome (sic) is by no means the fault of teachers; it is a consequence of a policy which has not projected a critical social orientation within its

C H A P T E R

I 1

JONATHAN D JANSEN

substantive propositions, even though the encapsulating discourse has invoked tenets of People's Education from the previous decade of educational struggle against apartheid (Kraak, 1999). A seventh issue worth problematising concerns the modes of participation within the curriculum policy-making and development processes in South Africa. In one sense, a small and elite group of teachers have been involved in the elaboration of OBE as curriculum policy. At both national and provincial levels, small numbers of teachers and bureaucrats from departments have shaped the development of the curriculum at various stages, for example the Learning Area Committees. The majority of teachers, however, have had very little insight into or substantive participation in the development of OBE. Yet the broader, official discourse is one of widespread participation and consultation. In addition, those consulted were often 'stakeholders' which, in the new state, means primarily the teacher union and labour representatives. Teachers standing outside of these bodies are not included. More seriously, whether unions or LACS, there is little systematic participation between official representation and grass root participation in the development of OBE. But further, it is important to understand that participation was limited to the elaboration of OBE, and did not concern its adoption or conceptualisation.No teachers were 'consulted' about whether OBE was workable or useful in their classrooms. As suggested in the first chapter, the introduction of OBE into the educational arena was sudden and immediate. For the most part, any teacher 'participation' only happened in the standardised fiveday workshops which have often been described as and observed to be information-dispensing sessions by trained facilitators. My point here is to make participation problematic and to suggest that there is a much more complex politics of participation which needs to be explored and unpacked in curriculum scholarship in South Africa. What, then, are the implications of this study for policy-making, politics and cur-liculum practice in the South African transition? I believe that pursuing any relationship between OBE and transformation in research progranlmes of this kind is a futile exercise. Teachers do not and cannot understand OBE in these terms, nor has official conceptualisation of OBE allowed for this intervention to serve a5 a systematic progxamme of implementation training, development and support. Problems of implementation merely made visible what was already inevitable in the packaging of (;2005. It is also clear that the dominant rnode of curriculum policy will retain its centralised and context-blind character while continuing to create a legitimating discourse of participation and consultation. This model of curriculum policy can be explained in three ways. It is partly explained by the need to presenrecentral control over a process that cannot be left to the provinces, especially those under the political authority of'non-AN<;governments. It is partly explained b) the need t o rnohilise curricillurn policy as an instrument of legitimacy, particularly in a context

SECTION

D

I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

where there are clear signs of stagnation, if not regression, in the quality of education at school level. But it is largely explained by diminishing central resources under conditions where there is widespread suspicion in political circles, such as the Cabinet, that while education receives the largest share of the national budget, this cannot be sustained at current economic growth levels; nor is it justified in that single measure of public accountability: matriculation results. What this means is that C2005 and outcomes-based education will gradually fade into policy insignificance. There is already evidence to this effect given the series of decisions to postpone to later years the implementation of OBE beyond Grade 1; and not to provide systematic training on the limited scale provided in the runup to Grade 1 implementation. The mere absence of a school-level monitoring system suggests little of an official attempt to formatively evaluate and inform OBE implementation in future years. But while policy regarding OBE will fade into insignificance,legitimacy problems facing the transitional state will remain, even escalate, with the failure of social and educational delivery in a depressed economy. In these conditions, it is reasonable to expect yet another flurry of curriculum polices in the near future. And as that happens, the lessons of OBE will simply be ignored.

CHAPTER

1 1

JONATHA DN JANSEN

BIBLIOGRAPHY Department of Education. 1906. 7.h School Kegistw of Needs. Pretoria: Hurnan Sciences Research Council, Education Foundation, the Research Institute for Education Planning at the University of the Orange Free State. t The (Ionf~ssionsof a H a r h e d Evaluator Jansen, J . 1996. Doe.r 7krher I ~ ~ v e l o p mWorlz?: Johannesburg:Joint Education Trust Conference Report: Quality and Validity in INSET Evaluations, 1.3-1 9. Jansen,J. 1998a. (:urriculum reform in South Africa: A critical assessment of outcomesbased education. (:ambrzdp,journal of Edutation, 28 (31, 321-33 1. November: Carfax Publishing Limited, UK. Jansen, J . 1998b. 1)oe.r (,'lass Size Matter? International XPsearrh and the Education Policies ofIleveL$ing (,'ountrie,r. Plenary address presented at the World Chngress on Comparative Education, Cape Town. Kraak, A. 1999. Competiting education & training policy discourses: A 'systemic' versus 'unit standards' framework. In-JJansen & P Christie (eds), Changzng Curriculum: S t u d z ~ ~ on Outtomus-ba~rdEdutntzon an South Afnra. Cape Town: J u t a & Co, Ltd. ME. 1998. 7Rr int ear(%: I n ~ t r u m t u t i o nL)atubrwe. Durban: University of Durban-Westsille, Centre for Educational Research, Evaluation & Policy (CEREP). Malcolm, C. 1999. Oulcomes-bnsrtl rducation has diJ>rent,forms. In J Jansen & P Christie (eds), Outcom~.s-basedducati ion: I'mspectives, Policy, Practice and Possibi1itie.s.Juta & Co,Ltd, Johannesberg: Manickchund, N. 1998. OBE - Keflrctzons oj a (;mde 1 Zachpr. Paper prepared for the South African Institute for Distant Education (SAIDE) C:urriculum Module, University o f Durban-Westville, Durban. Media in Education Trust (MIET). 1998. Curnrulum 2005: 7'he Slory ofthe ( h d r 1 Pzlot Proyui. Durban, MIET. Ntshingila-Khosa, Rosline. 1996. 7~~~rhws'I'e'rrln~q,crir11l l'r(~ctz~~s: Studz~s2% Sozu~toC:lassroom\. Durban: The Improving Education Quality Project. OBE Instruments. 1998. 7'he (;ra(lr I Instrumtalion j0r the Outcomes-based E:duration Er,aluntion. Durban University of Durban-Westville, Centre for Educational Research, Evaluation & Policy ((1EREP). Spady, William. 199.5. Outcomes-based Education: Critical Issues. American Association of School Administrators. USA: Breakthrough Systems.

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 12

Outcomes-based Education: Issues of Competence and Equity in Curriculum and Assessment IAN BELLIS INDEPENDENT EDUCATION TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT

In his important, provocative and perhaps contentious book, 7he Limits of Competence, Ronald Barnett (1994: 71) asserts that: The new vocabulary in higher education is a sign that niodern society is reaching for other definitions of knowledge and rea.oning. Notions of skill, vocationalism, transferability, competence, outcornes, experielitial learning, capability and enterprise, when taken together, are indications that traditional definitions of knowledge are felt to be inadequate for rrieeting the systems-wide problerns paced by contemporary society. M'hereas those traditional definitions of knowledge have emphasised language, especially tlirorlgh writing, an operi process ofcommunication, and formal and disciplirle-hound conventions, the new terminology urges higher education t o allow the term 'knowledgt.' to enihrace knowledge-throughaction, partici~laroutcomes of a learning transaction, and transdisciplinary forms of' skill.

Perhaps the newjuxtapositions that give rise to Barnett's comments are that the historically separate worlds of 'work' and 'learning' are no longer to be seen as separate if one is to understand 'knowledge' in our present situation. Clearly the relationship between work and learning, between learning and capability, between learning and employability,between qualification and employment are problematic. In South Africa they are not only problematic but demanding of urgent and sensible discussion, attention, policy-making and implementation. Barnett's work is a careful, detailed, powerfully structured and equally powerfully written argument against outcomes-based and competency-based approaches. In

D I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

SECTION

sharp contrast in style, in substance and in accuracy, a local South African journalist recently (Sunday Times,1June 1997) wrote a short comment on outcomesbased education which he entitled: 'The dumbing of South Africa's school children'. Despite the muddledness of this writing, many could be influenced by this article and feel great concern over the future of education, particularly of their children's education. Because of the power of Barnett's arguments, it is necessary, I believe, to argue for wider, richer, more open understandings and definitions of the concepts and their applications.

TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF 'OUTCOME',

'COMPETENCE' AND 'EQUITY'

One of the difficulties experienced in thinking about these issues and in working through the literature is that the writers either attempt no particular definition of the terms or clarification of the concepts, and simply use the words as if all readers had common understanding; or give definitions that are so narrow that they exclude the possibility of exploring the notions; or are so vague that they are unhelpful; or so technicist that they lead to reductive applications. Having said that, one is also conscious that there is significant and trenchantly argued opposition to the outcomescompetence position from the broad 'education' fraternity on a number of grounds. One cannot avoid the impression that while opposition is expressed in substantial reasoning, a good deal of the opposition may be based on the origns of the current debate as much as the nature of it. Barnett (1994: 73) asserts that 'the approach begins unashamedly from the concerns of interest groups in the world of work'. Those in higher education are not familiar with (comfortablewith?) ideas about learning, qualification and standards emanating from 'non-academic' sources. In this paper, however, I will not be attempting to debate all the issues raised by both protagonists and antagonists but rather to propose a position around the notions of outcomes and competence that supports the approach, yet takes cognisance of issues that antagonists raise. In most areas of human life, policies and processes, systems and structures,activities and behaviours are largely determined by the meaning given to central concepts and issues, whether consciously articulated or not. The term 'outcome' is, in South Africa, being favoured in the formal education system whereas both 'outcome' and 'competence' are being used (at times it seems) interchangeably in the training or human resource development system. The notion of 'outcome' seems clearly to relate to results. These results are seen to relate to consequences within the person, in economic contexts or in societal contexts. In the present position of the national Department Education the language around outcomes is varied. 'Outcomes' are defined as 'the results of learning processes and refer to knowledge, skills, attitudes and values within particular contexts'. In

C H A P T E R

1 2

I A N BELLIS

more broad terms 'critical cross-field outcomes' are defined as 'generic, cross-curricular, cross-cultural outcomes' and these are strongly reminiscent of what in Australia in the Mayer Report were categorised as 'key competencies' (now we have less clarity rather than more!). Yet again in the South African education position 'learning area outcomes' are rather unhelpfully described as 'outcomes related to specific learning areas', while 'specific outcomes' are described as 'contextually demonstrated knowledge, skills and values reflecting critical cross-field outcomes' (Department of Education, 1997). While these descriptions emphasise that outcomes reflect the result of learning and that they occur in specific contexts, the more generic, noncontextual character of an outcome is also asserted. In practice, however, learning outcomes appear to me to be expressed more as performance statements, skill statements with neither contexts nor standards specified. They are typically 'the learner will be able to ...' statements. This is particularly of interest when the same source document referred to above describes assessment as 'a way of measuring progress'. More on this later. In the plethora of definitions of competence one also has to try and deal with the distinctions between 'competence', 'competency' and 'competencies'. It is not this writer's primary interest to explore these differences in this particular paper. Definitions vary. There is a Tayloristic understanding where competence is 'that worthy performance ... for which someone is willing to pay' (Blank, 1982: 58).There are others where the distinction is drawn between 'competency' relating to 'aspects of the job at which the person is competent' and 'competence' relating to 'aspects of the person that enable him or her to be competent' (Woodruffe, 1992: 17). Yet again 'competency is the integration of knowledge, skill and value orientation, demonstrated to a defined standard in a specific context' (Meyer, 1996: 34) In the Green Paper issued by the South African Department of Labour (March 1997) it is asserted that 'applied competence is the overarching term for three kinds of competence 'which are identified as 'practical', 'foundational' and 'reflexive'. This last term should surely read 'reflective'. While it is true that some definitions are focused (erroneously in this writer's view) almost exclusively on thejob, some referred to above are also attempting to include what Barnett asserts is now the 'lost vocabulary' -namely understanding, critique, interdisciplinarity and wisdom. It is with the worlds of work and of institutionally based learning in mind; with the concerns of those whose focus is the jobs people are doing a5 well as those whose focus is on the intellectual and discipline-related development of the individual, that I wish to propose the following definition of competence:

A skill or inte
D INSIDE CLASSROOMS

SECTION

to specijic standards of perfmance of integrated understanding of the performance and its knowledge base of understanding of the system in which the performance is carried out of the ability to transfer to other related contexts of the ability to innovate when appropriate. I wish to stress that in this definition I am speaking of performance and not of task performance only. I am as concerned as any 'opponents' of the outcomescompetence approach that any definition of competence that we formulate and put into use has regard for understanding, for reflectiveness, for development. I am as concerned as Barnett or Stenhouse about the quality of learning and teaching and therefore opposed to any definition or use that is narrow, mechanistic or reductive. It is evident from the definition proposed above that the notion of 'skill' is central to the definition. I must therefore attempt to state what I mean by skill; again we have a literature that either assumes a common understanding of the term or gives a definition that is very narrowly aimed at a specific context. The definition proposed here is 'a generalised, performed capability in any domain of human learning and endeavour'. This definition, in speaking of generalised, seeks to avoid describing the mechanistic carrying out of a procedure being described as a skill or even competence. Such a use permits, in fact requires, a level of repeatability and understanding or, to put it the other way round, requires a level of understanding in order to be repeatable. In speaking of perfmed, this definition attempts to clearly distinguish a skill from potential, from latent ability and is consistent with most dictionary definitions which stress the aspect of a skill being evident, executed, visible (directly or indirectly). In speaking of capability the definition attempts to stress that primarily skill is about a person and that skills are the antithesis of that which is passive receptivity or mere 'recording' of information. Such a statement then already links the notion of skillwith that of outcome. The definition of competence suggested earlier, namely 'a skill or cluster of skills, executed with an indicated range or context to specific standards of performance and understanding' is clearly attempting to wrest the notion of skill and competence away from where they usually reside, namely, the psychomotor domain, firmly into the broader spectrum of cognitive and affective domains. I am suggesting that we could possibly view competence through the symbol of an onion where the 'layers' or 'rings' are distinct but are integral to the whole

C H A P T E R

1 2

I A N BELLIS

and are in living interaction with each other. The definition proposed then could be represented as follows.

An implication of this image is that if competence, or if an outcome (though not implying that outcome and competence are synonymous terms or concepts) are only seen as related to 'perfmance: then such an understanding limits competence to being a functional or i n s t r u m t a l concept. If competence implies also to understand (at the relevant and appropriate levels), then such a view expands the notion of competence to being responsive and deveEopmental. Can training, for example, ever be spoken of as development if there is not understanding? Understanding of 'why', of 'on what basis do I know or do this?'. If competence also means to understand the system, however limited or extensive that may be, then it would appear that competence becomes flexible and integrative. Learning or performance that does not know the context in which it is expressed, of the impact on the 'system', cannot truly stretch capability.Nor can such illdefined competencies truly have impact on the level of national capability. If competence does include performing and understanding, then experience already tells us that such competence can be applied in related contexts and experience further tells us that even in the usual or given context it may result in innovation, in creativity of response, in improvement of outcome and of output. Such a view when applied to the notions of outcome and of competence may also allay the fear of many that 'content' is now held to be unimportant, that discipline-related learning is rejected. It is my conviction that such an understanding of competence could be acceptable within general education in all its stages, in higher education, in 'vocational education' and in training and human resource development. It ought also to inform the starting points of analysis and the starting points of thinking about curriculum as it should inform the techniques of derivation that are adopted.

In terms of my title, the question now arises whether such an understanding of skill, outcome and competence relates in any way to the issue of equity. In this regard and because I speak out of a South African experience and in a South African context, I quote here from the report of the National Commission on Higher Education's Frammurk fur Transfinmation (1996). Generally speaking, the principle of equity concerns the distribution of benefits; in this instance, the benefits of higher education opportunities, privileges and funds. It demands that such distribution be impartial and fair. Impartiality means that everyone qualifying on relevant grounds for the benefits in question should be treated

SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSRDOMS

equally, according to the established rules of distribution. Fairness means that the rules of distribution themselves should exclude unjust differentiation or discrimination, in the sense of disqualifying some people or institutions on irrelevant grounds, such as race, colour or creed. Applying the principle of equity implies on the one hand a critical identification of these inequalities, on the other hand a programme of transformationwith a view to redress. Such transformation includes not only abolishing all existing forms of unjust differentiation, but also measures of empowerment to bring about equal opportunity for individuals and institutions disadvantaged by the discrimination and inequities of the past.

How may such an understanding of competence as I have proposed lead to 'impartiality' and to 'fairness' and lead to 'redress' of inequalities? Probably not at all of itself. It should, however, imply that if the systems and programmes for schoolbased learning (or other formal institution) or 'work-based' learning are based on such an understanding of competence, and are directed towards the achievement of competencies as thus interpreted, all have equal opportunity regardless of the sites of their learning. It also ought to mean that the quality of learning destinations would be spread across the system and be the intended destination of learning for all learners. That in itself would at least ensure that even if it does not directly guarantee redress, it at least militates against an exacerbation of differences.Such an approach ought also to imply a richer general outcome of the schooling process than in the still all-toecommon 'content' approaches to curriculum and teaching. Implications for approaches to curriculum and practices of curriculum design and development

Traditionally 'curriculum design' or 'curriculum development' is seen as incorporating at least the following elements:

4 4 4 4

the purposes, goals and objectives of learning or instruction; values and principles underlying the above; broad strategies regarding contextual issues; a methodology for and methods of selecting, structuring and delivering the content;

4 processes to facilitate learning; 4 ways of evaluating intentions, outcomes, methods and the curriculum itself;

4 the selection of facilitators/instructors, teachers; 4 characterisation of learners;

4 the planning and execution of the management of the setting in which the curriculum is implemented.

C H A P T E R

1 2

IAN BELLIS

This process could be regarded as the explication of a particular ideology (political, social, philosophical, religious, educational) within which often resides a particular understanding of the nature of knowledge. These positions are given expression in a particular social context with its particular policy and implementation agendas. Education and/or training are frequently also expressions of particular understandings of how human learning and development occurs and is encouraged. Not infrequently such understandings are subject not only to the notions that rightfully dominate the field but also to mere fashions. Some evidence of this can be seen in the tendency, certainly in this country, to move from one teaching-learning paradigm to another, often abandoning the insights of an earlier position. Thus one can observe a move, certainly in the education and training of adults, from

4 a typically pedagogic approach which is characterised by both subjectcentredness in curriculum and syllabus and contentcentredness in the delivery of those syllabuses, to

4 a more behaviourist, objectivecentred, productcentred approach delivered via competency-based or outcomes-based education and/or training to

4 more cognitivist,gestalt approaches which, in delivery, focus on processes that stress experiential learning.

AV Kelly (1989) suggests that there may be three broad views of the way curriculum is understood and given focus.

4 When curriculum is seen primarily as to do with content, then education and training are seen primarily as a process of transmission.

4 When curriculum is seen primarily as to do with product, then education and training are seen primarily as instrumental towards that achievement. 4 When cuniculum is seen primarily as to do with process, then education and training are seen primarily as devrlopmunl. Is there a means, both conceptual and able to be implemented, in which all three emphases can be given due weight and held in creative tension? It is my opinion that the notion of praxis offers such a conceptual base and directs the mode of' implementation. In her important work Cumiculum: Product m Praxis, Shirley Grundy (1987: 105) describes the constitutive elements of praxis as action and reflection. She goes on to state that some of the key propositions in this approach to curriculum are:

4 praxis takes place in the real, not an imaginary or hypothetical world 4 the reality in which praxis takes place is a world of interaction; the social or cultural world

4 the world of praxis is (as follows from the two preceding points) the constructed, not the 'natural' world

SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

+ praxis assumes a process of meaning-making, but it is recognised that the meaning is socially constructed, not absolute. Such a view, which stresses context, stresses meaning-making, stresses action and reflection would seem to suggest the need for the integration of content, process and product. I wish therefore to propose that a curriculum that is competence based and competence directed in the light of my earlier definition of competence is the 'best fit' with the praxis approach. How does a praxis approach to curriculum relate to my proposed description of competence which stresses performance, understanding for and of the performance? Firstly, the action-reflection nature of praxis. If, as is universally agreed, a key component of competence is performance, this would relate to the 'action' aspect of praxis. It is important, however, to stress that 'performance' is interpreted across the whole spectrum of human capability and therefore the performance, the action is not limited to the 'doing' of a task as it may also have to do with a cognitive performance, an intellectual 'doing'. The performance may also be in the affective domain and be a relating capability, of an interpersonal nature or an intrapersonal nature, an expression of values. Secondly, the other side of the praxis coin, namely reflection. The second aspect of the onion-like image of competence that I am proposing stresses understanding. This implies the understanding necessary to performing and making meaning of the performing. It implies the understanding ofthe performance. Thus the understanding becomes the basis of reflecting upon the action and the action is informed and guided by the understanding. Thirdly, the praxis approach also stresses the reality of the context, the 'constructed7 nature of that context and the making of meaning within that context. In the proposed definition of competence the next 'layer' is that of understanding the system. This would relate to the system or part of the system that has impact on the performance and on the understanding. It would also relate to the impact that the performance makes on the system. It would seem to be essential to making meaning that the system, the context be understood, however limitedly. Fourthly, the suggestion that competence contains within it the ability to transfer to other related contexts and to innovate. Both of these would require the ability to perform, and to understand. In particular, the capacity to make meaning is probably that which enables an innovative thought or action to emerge. It is contended then that the onion-like understanding of competence is entirely consistent with the notion of praxis. It was also suggested earlier that a praxis approach to curriculum offered a way of integrating content and product and process. The aspect of 'product' relates to performance; the aspect of 'content' relates to the theoretical, subject- or discipline-related knowledge relevant to the performance; the aspect of process relates to the way in which the learning is

CHAPTER

1 2

experienced, and this in turn implies a reflection on the content towards the product. This does not, however, mean that the issue of equity is better addressed in these positions per se. It is my conviction that education based on such concepts and approaches may well enhance quality. The fact that the outcomes and competencies, the 'destinations' of a teaching-learning programme or course are known, will require teachers to teach to those ends, thus ensuring a wider spread of greater opportunity. It must be clear that I am advocating a particular understanding of competence and suggesting that there is, in practice, significant difference between competence and outcome. I further argue that there is a consistency between such an understanding of competence and a praxis approach to curriculum design and a consistency with problem-centred curriculum development as an example of teaching/learning methodology. How such problemcentred curriculum development reflects an integration of the concept of competence, a praxis-related curriculum a@roach and a particular methodology for teaching and learning may be expressed as follows. COMPETENCE

PRAXIS CURRICULUM APPROACH

METHODOLOGY eg PROBLEM-CENTRED

LEARNING PERFORM

-

ACTION

THE OUTCOME 'Solv~ng"the problem

H

UNDERSTAND

-Content REFLECTION and process

UNDERSTAND

-

MEANING

-

ACYION

THE SYSTEM

INNOVATE

MAKING

4

f

Exploring

THE THEORrnCAL BASIS Content nnrl process

3

THE CONTEXT The problem solved

J.

- THE OUTCOME

Generat~nga solution

The issue of asemnent The issue of assessment needs now to be addressed. Does an outcomes approach lead to greater equity in terms of assessment? Does a competence approach, in which the context and performance or assessment criteria are more clearly specified, lead to greater equity in terms of assessment? The immediate response is in the affirmative in that student/pupil/trainee performance is assessed in terms of achievement ofthe outcomes, of the competence as described in the learning objective for the relevant portion/s of learning, and not assessed in relation to other learners. Such assessment would also need to achieve a good 'fit' or 'match' in terms of what is assessed. The 'test' must be valid. This 'fit' would also apply to processes

SECTION D I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

of continuous assessment such as are envisaged in South Africa's Curriculum 2005. Continuous assessment ought to provide fair opportunity for progress and achievement.Despite what is stated in one Curriculum 2005 document, one would hope that assessment does not only relate to progress but also to achievement. It could well be argued that if a learner does not achieve the 'outcome' or the 'competence' to the criteria specified and yet is allowed to progress automatically, the very purpose of attempting to establish 'levels' of achievement as steps toward 'qualification' would be made a nonsense. Such a practice would hardly provide redress and would ultimately prove unfair and prejudicial. The other traditional principles of assessment in terms of reliability, of sufficiency of evidence to enable a judgement to be made, apply equally in outcomes- or competency-based assessment. Other issues also need to be addressed, namely: flexibility-ensuring that the same performance and standard can be fairly assessed even through another 'instrument'; authenticity - ensuring that the evidence being assessed is indeed the work of the candidate. This seems especially to be at issue where the majority of learners may be studying through distance learning programmes. In general, then, it is my contention that an outcomes- or competency-based education, with all the components of cuniculum design and development being consistent with that approach, ought to enable an enhancement of learning and of teaching and of learner capability but will exhibit a greater or lesser degree of equity, primarily in the imphmmtation - in the actual teaching and training and assessment. Equity in education may well be influenced in the following directions:

+ if competency-based (outcomes-based)education is founded on rich, multilayered understanding of competence as consisting of performance, understanding, understanding the system and innovation;

+ if such a type of curriculum or programme is correctly and committedly managed; + if the specification of outcomes/competencies enables a significantapplication of the recognition of prior learning, permitting multiple entry points;

+ if curricula are designed in terms of the notion of praxis and delivered with an appropriate balance and interaction between content and process and product, with action-reflection;

+ if outcomes and competencies relate to clearly indicated levels of achievement; + if sites of learning are more varied than the classroom while still enabling the appropriate quality of learning, then it is possible that there will be greater equity in education with fair access and fair opportunity for progression. 228

a y . r ~ >1.m~ ,

CHAPTER

1 2

I A NB E L L I S

Such a n approach may contribute towards the values expressed in the statement made in recent education legislation: The curriculum, teaching methods and textbooks at all levels and in all programmes of education and training, should encourage independent and critical thought, the capacity to question, enquire, reason, weigh evidence and form judgements, achieve understanding, recognise the provisional and incomplete nature of most human knowledge, and communicate clearly. (Department of Education, 1995: 22)

SECTION

D

I N S I D CEL A S S R O O M S

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnett, Ronald. 1994. The Limits of Competence. Ballmoor: SRHE and Open University Press. Blank, WE. 1982. Handbook for Deueloping Competency-based Training Programmes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Department of Education 1995. White Paper on Education and Training Pretoria: Government Printers. Department of Education. 1997. Curriculum 2005. Discussion document, Pretoria: DOE. Grundy, Shirley. 1987. Curriculum: h d u c t or fiaxis? London: The Falmer Press. Kelly, AV. 1989. T h Curriculum - Themy and Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. National Commission of Higher Education (NCHE). 1996. A Framework of Transfiation. Pretoria: DOE. Meyer, T. 1996. Competencies. Randburg: Knowledge Resources (Pty) Ltd. Woodmffe, C. 1992. In R Boam &P Sparrow, Designing and Achieving Competency. Maidenhead: Mc Graw-Hill International (UK) Ltd.

CHAPTER 13

A Destination Without a Map: Premature Implementation of Curriculum 2005? BY

EMILIA POTENZA & MAREKA MONYOKOLO GAUTENG DEPARTMENT O F EDUCATION & GAUTENG INSTITUTE FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT In conjunct~onw ~ t hthe Foundation Phase Team of the BenoniIBrakpan Teach~ng& Learning Unit'

The views expressed in this chapter are the individual views of the authors. The paper does not represent the views of the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) or the Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development (GICD)

This chapter argues that the critical factor in successfully translating Curriculum 2005 into practice is to ensure that the three pillars of curriculum transformation are in place and in alignment. These pillars are curriculum development, teacher development and the development, selection and supply of learning materials. As implementation of Curriculum 2005 begins, there are apparently no clear strategies to put these pillars in place in any province. What have some of the consequences been! This question is addressed by reflecting on the curriculum development process in Gauteng and looking at a case study on the implementation of Grade 1 in the Benoni/Brakpan district. Curriculum debates over the last year have centred around the question of whether or not OBE is the right philosophy to be adopting as a basis for transforming the school curriculum.: We believe that, as a country, it has been necessary to come to terms with the essence of OBE and how it rnight be implemented in our context. However, the real test of the success of OBE depends on how effectively it mn be implemented.

1

The members of the Foundation Phase Team are Valerie Ramsingh (Foundation Phase Co-ordinator), Cheryl Kindon, Suraiya Casoo, Winnie Kananda, Mmela Sikhosana, Jabu Mabuza and Dr Brahm Fleisch.

2

Our current definition of curriculum includes the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that inform teaching and learning, and how these are taught and assessed.

op,?akdr?, I m

231

S E C T I O N

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

The question we need to be asking now is what strategies and institutional structures need to be put in place in order to implement OBE effectively. The promulgation in October 1997 by the national Minister of Education of the new curriculum for the General Education and Training (GET) band implies that Curriculum 2005 is now national policy and that all state schools in this country are obliged to implement it. The national department has determined the norms and standards. It is now,the responsibility of provincial departments to mediate them and develop the strategies and tools for implementation. But, what is there to implement? The original idea behind Curriculum 2005 was that the critical and specific outcomes would be developed at a national level to ensure basic norms and standards. These outcomes would then inform the three key pillars or the essential components of the curriculum, namely:

4 cum'culum development, including illustrative learning programmes and progress maps' or some framework for assessment;

4 learning materials based on the illustrative learning programmes; 4 teacher trainingthat would assist teachers to translate all of the above into practice.

3 232

A progress map describes the path of typical learner progress through an area of learning. It is a tool that can be used by teachers and parents as a framework for assessing progress. e p , a * 4 > , , 1.m

C H A P T E R

1 3

E M I L I A P D T E N Z&A M A R E KMAO N Y O K O L O

In order to translate the Policy Document for each of the phases of the GET band into practice, we believe that it is a necessary precondition that the three pillars of the curriculum are in place and in alignment. To spell it out a bit more clearly, we believe that at a provincial level the following aspects need to be addressed.

+ Illustrative learningpmgramnw~and progress maps or tools for assessment for every grade/level within each phase need to be developed. These need to be accessible to teachers and made available to publishers. They should be available well enough in advance of implementation to inform the learning materials that will be developed by publishers for each 'qade, as well as the content of the training courses that are desi
+ Eff'ectivesystems for providing learners and teachers with quality learning

materials need to be in place. This means pidingpublGhm timeously with illustratiue learningpogrammes to be used as a basis for designing learning materials, training department officials and teachers to maluatelearning materials, training teachers to select appropriate learning materials and &livering materials to schools on time.

+ A well-conceived strategyfor retraining teachers in the new policy needs to be devised that goes beyond the 'cascade' model to include direct workshopping of every teacher by district personnel, as well as providing ongoing support of a school-based nature. It is not merely desirable that these three aspects should be in place. Alignnlerlt between these three aspects is essential if we want to begin to transform what is happening in classrooms throughout the country. Failing to create alignment between curriculum development, teacher development and learning materials is tantamount to forcing teachers to fumble around trying to make their own way to a specified destination when we could and should be providing them with clear maps of how to get there. The 'maps' that were provided by the national Department of Education to inform the implementation of Grade 1 in 1998 were the Foundation Phase Policy Document, and the national illustrative learning programmes. Gauteng schools received these documents in November 1997, c@er the initial training of Grade 1 teachers had already taken place. As a result, teacher training in the province had to be based on the draft Foundation Phase Policy Docurnent - the only 'training' docurnent in existence at the time. Because of its complexity, the Policy Docurnent has, in some cornrnentators' eyes, had the effect of 'intimidating tetcchrrs and making f h ~ mf&/ that moything th~yhuor (Lvn~in thu pc~.s/1zn.s b e ~ n71rrong'.' In any event, because of financial constraint\, each school was only given one set of these docutnents. School visits in the Benoni/Brakpan district during the cotuse of 1998 indicate that both the Policy Document and thc national illust~;itive learning - ~- -

4 ojwa.&4rl, I m

~

From notes on class visits by Suraiya Casoo

D

S E C T I O N

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

programme documents tend to be kept in the principal's office and hardly used by teachers at all. According to the Pilot Reports5 published by the national Department of Education, this appears to be a countrywide trend. In December 1997, the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) distributed their own Guidelinesfor Learning Programmesfm the Foundation Phase: Grade 1 document. This was an attempt to mediate the Policy Document and provide a work programme for Grade 1 teachers for the first term. Though it has its own problems, this document provided support for teachers for planning a term's work. Teachers in the Benoni/Brakpan district have found it to be more accessible than any other curriculum documents they have received. National exemplars of learner support materials were also developed, translated into all official languages but only reached most schools in Gauteng by April/May 1998. Some teachers who have worked with these exemplars in the Benoni/Brakpan district feel that these learning support materials have been helpful in providing ideas for activities, integrating outcomes from different learning areas and stating the performance indicators for each programme organiser very clearly. One problem was that particularly ex-DET schools did not receive sufficient numbers of learner workbooks in the required languages. Other Grade 1 teachers appear to be planning their lessons without using these exemplars because they find it too timeconsuming to refer to so many different documents on a regular basis.

As far as assessment is concerned, no national policy was in place until October 199fL6Assessment is an indispensable part of any curriculum, and perhaps even more so in the context of outcomes-based education. In developing the curriculum, simultaneous attention should have been given to the development of policy for assessment. It is a serious indictment of the education establishment that implementation of OBE started before a coherent policy on assessment had been formulated. Part of the reason for this is the structural separation of the assessment and curriculum units in both national, as well as provincial departments. No province has yet supplied publishers with learning programmes to provide guidelines on what knowledge, skills, values and attitudes they would expect to see in learning materials. In fact, only two provinces -Western Cape and Gauteng purchased new learning materials for Grade 1learners in 1998and managed to deliver them to schools in time to support the implementation of the new curriculum. What we are arguing is that the curriculum was implemented in the Foundation Phase before the basic pillars were in place. This has severely compromised the process and may continue to do so if corrective action is not taken. At the same - ~-

234

~

~

-

-

--

5

See National Evaluation and Monitoring of the Trial of Curriculum 2005 and OBE in Provincial Pilot Schools in SA, 7 November 1997, Department of Education. Also, Curriculum 2005: The Story of the Grade 1 Pilot Project, 1998, Department of Education.

6

At the time of writing this article, the national assessment policy was just about to be gazetted and had obviously not yet reached teachers in the province. oyarcr..

I.-

C H A P T E R

1 3

EMILIA P O T E N ~&AM A R E KMAO N V O K O L O

time, we recognise that curriculum reform is urgently required given its centrality to educational transformation. The difficulty is that transforming the curriculum takes a long time. Our point is simply that if our desire to move ahead quickly takes precedence over proper planning, then confusion and even chaos will ensue. In the process, some provinces, some districts and some schools will cope. However, many will flounder and this may undermine the entire process. In the next section of this paper, we consider each of the three pillars in more detail in the context of attempts that are being made to transform the curriculum in Gauteng.

Curriculum is the life-blood of education. Reconceptualising its processes and content is crucial for reexamination of schooling,so necessary during the present state of flux that characterises the global political economy. (Taylor, 1993) With the national norms and standards in place, the focus of the curriculum development process has now shifted on to the provinces which are supposed to be developing learning programmes. Making the development of learning programmes a provincial competence on the surface seems an appropriate way of allowing for the accommodation of regional differences and decentralising the curriculum development process. However, anyone with experience in curriculum development would know that developing a curriculum requires a degree of resources and capacity that, at this stage, does not exist in most of the provinces. Further, there is an argument to be made for core national learning programmes that redress some ofthe silences of the old cumculum, provide an orientation that is in line with national curriculum policy and give substance to the values of our new Constitution, such as anti-racism and anti-sexism. Going the provincial route is already leading to fragmentation along provincial lines that has serious financial and other implications for the successful implementation of the new curriculum. The process of turning a set of national outcome statements into classroom practice is a tremendous challenge even for very well resourced institutions. Is it realistic to expect that this complex process can be done successfully nine times over in poorly resourced provinces in a very short period of time? What is needed is a carefully conceived national strategy, which involves collaboration between the national department and provincial departments, as well as interprovincial collaboration. The Cauteng Department of Education (GDE) is managing the process of developing learning programmes in collaboration with the Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development (GICD),which has been in existence since October 1997. In May 1998, a Foundation Phase Team was appointed by GDE/GICD to design

D INSIDE CLASSROOMS

SECTION

illustrative learning programmes and progress maps for the Foundation Phase. It is expected that the work of this team will be distributed to every Foundation Phase teacher in the province in 1999. However, the work of the Foundation Phase Team needs to be viewed against the backdrop of the implementation of the new curriculum in Grade 1 in all Gauteng schools this year (1998), and therefore Grade 2 in 1999 and Grade 3 in 2000. This time-frame will make alignment of the three pillars of curriculum transformation for the whole of the Foundation Phase virtually impossible. Illustrative learning programmes for Grade 1, together with progress maps, are being designed after Grade 1 has officially been implemented, afterinitial teacher training of one form or another (however uneven) has taken place and after learning materials that are not informed by the work of the GDE-GICD Foundation Phase Team have been approved by the department and ordered from publishers by teachers. In addition, Gauteng policy on assessment for the Foundation Phase was only finalised on 23 October 1998 and is in the process of being communicated to districts and to schools right now. As far as learning materials are concerned, alignment will not be achieved for the whole of the Foundation Phase. All publishers have produced their learning materials for Grade 2, and learning materials for Grade 3 are already in relatively advanced manuscript form. This lack of alignment has and will continue to undermine the effective implementation of the Foundation Phase for some time to come.

SinceJuly 1998, teams have been set up by the GDE/GICD in each of the eight learning areas to develop illustrative learning programmes and progress maps for Grades 4 to 9. If the national timetable of implementation is slowed down, then there will be a betterpossibility of being able to achieve alignment between the curriculum development process, the development of learning materials and teacher development in the Intermediate and Senior Phases. But this will only happen if there is a clear strategy in place to achieve this alignment, as well as sufficient resources to implement this strategy.

Teachers are in many senses the most important educational resource we have and they will determine whether the new curriculum succeeds or not. Therefore, the success of the new curriculum depends on the training and support that teachers receive, and their ability to mobilise and manage the resources around them to implement the curriculum. The policy issue for us is that curriculum change should have as an integral part teacher involvement and development. However, both of these aspects appear to have been afterthoughts in the process of developing the new curriculum. It is generally acknowledged that teachers were not sufficiently involved in the process of developing the curriculum. Further, from the outset, teacher development was not an integral part of curriculum planning.

C H A P T E R

13

E M I L I A P O T E N Z A& M A R E K A M O N Y O K O L O

Outcomes-based education makes enormous demands on teachers. To use the favoured cliche, 'OBE requires a major paradigm shift on the part of teachers'. Given the poor quality of teacher training in this country, intensive teacher development is a priority if we are to develop the calibre of teachers required by OBE. Teacher development should, therefore, be a national priority. Teachers have to be trained to understand the new curriculum and its challenges, including how to plan learning programmes in an integrated way, how to facilitate learning using new methodologies and how to use a variety of methods to assess whether outcomes have been achieved. The major professional teacher organisations have been explicit about the need for teacher training to be given priority. The point is that unless teachers are properly trained and supported and unless they develop a sense of ownership of the process, the implementation of the new curriculum will simply not be realised. Johann Muller, as quoted by Anstey (1997: 2), notes that: The curriculum does not talk much about the teacher, but the teacher has to do a lot more work. He or she has to choose the way to get to the outcome and help establish the environment in which the learner will get there . . . They [the education authorities] don't have the money or the time to raise all the teachers to the right level. The leap is too big. There is a risk it will widen the inequalities. Muller is correct in cautioning that if teacher development is not prioritised, the existing inequalities in the education system will be perpetuated. This implies that educational authorities have to invest significant resources in ongoing teacher development for the new cumculum to have the transformative effect it is intended to have in the majority of schools in the country. It is important to note that there are national initiatives such as the Teacher Supply, Utilisation and Development (TSUD)7policy process, the Committee on Teacher Education Policy (COTEP) process and the Teacher Appraisal process which, it can be argued, are taking us in the direction of a courdinated and integrated teacher development policy. However, some of these initiatives are still in the policy formulation stage or their implementation has just begun. Another problem is that these initiatives, although aimed at promoting integration and coherence, are themselves located in fragmented sections of education departments. And, in most of the cases, they have very little or no relationship with the curriculum sections of these departments. There is a distinct need for both a conceptual, as well as a structural coherence between the three pillars of the curriculum within education departments. By drawing in some detail on the Benoni/Brakpan experience of teacher development, we try to highlight some of the problems as well as successes that have been encountered in attempting to implement the new curriculum. We also consider -

7

--

- ..-

--

--

See Department of Education (1997) An Agenda of Possibilities: National Policy on Teacher, Supply and Development -A Stakeholder Response Pretoria: Department of Education

SECTION

D

INSIDECLASSROOMS

some of the policy implications of our findings primarily in relation to different models of teacher development. It goes without saying that other districts in Gauteng and in other provinces may have had different or similar experiences to those cited in this case study. However, we believe that some of the reflections presented here may be useful in informing future policy-making and strategic planning.

A case study Teacher development in the Benoni/Brakpan district from June 1997 to June 1998 Teacher development began inJune/July 1997 in this and other districts in Gauteng in a policy vacuum. Key INSET posts in the GDE had not yet been filled, notably the Head of INSET. Further, there was no co-ordinated strategy for teacher development in the province to guide the implementation of Curriculum 2005. The Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development (GICD) had not yet been set up. At a provincial level, no further development of the curriculum policy frarnework had yet taken place -that is, no illustrative learning programmes or progress maps for Grade 1 existed. All officials an'd teachers had to go on was the Draft Policy Document for the Foundation Phase. In this particular district at this stage, there was only one person with a Foundation Phase background in the Teaching and Learning Unit. All these factors had the potential of compromising the quality of the training and support that the unit would be able to provide to Foundation Phase teachers in the ninety primary schools in the district.

Media in Education Trust (MIET) orientation course The first exposure to training in Curriculum 2005 was the Media in Education Trust (MIET) Orientation Course. The national Department of Education commissioned this training to introduce departmental officials (trainers),and then teachers, in all the provinces to the new curriculum. From the point of view of course content, it was a bold attempt to popularise outcomes-based education and the policy framework of Curriculum 2005 at a time when a great deal of confusion and anxiety abounded. The course materials included a set of very effective posters to be used by trainers, in conjunction with a facilitator's manual and a workbook for every teacher. However, there were two key weaknesses in the materials. The first was the fact that none of the examples of the outcomesbased activities that were modelled pertained to the Foundation Phase. This was a grave oversight in the light of the fact that implementation of Grade 1 was happening in 1998 and those teachers had the greatest need to know. The second weakness related to the 'Simba chips' activity. During a session that focused on resources, all participants were divided into groups. They were allocated a learning area and a packet of chips. Their task was to generate ideas for a set of lessons in a particular learning area using the packet of

CHAPTER

13

EMILIA P O T E N Z&AM A R E KMAO N V O K O L O

chips as a resource. The message was that an enthusiastic and creative teacher can create a learning resource out of any 'oldjunk' and that teachers should move away from being 'so textbook bound'. While it is clear that teachers need to use a range of resources to be effective in their teaching, this activity reinforced a very worrying aspect of the new curriculum policy: the tendency to underplay the importance of learning materials or textbooks as a way of modelling for teachers what the new system expects of them. A further weakness was with the model used to deliver this training -the 'cascade' model. To begin with, most of the trainers (Teaching and Learning Facilitators) in the Benoni/Brakpan Teaching and Learning Unit had not yet been appointed when the training of the master trainers took place in our province (May 1997). This meant that those (two from this district) who had received the MIET training had to 'cascade' the training down to the few members of the Teaching and Learning Unit who had been absorbed from the old department or seconded from schools. To increase the size of the training team, a few excellent teachers were recruited from the schools. These teams of trainers ran day-long workshops to which two teachers from every school in the district were invited. At these workshops, the two representatives from each school were introduced to the key concepts of outcomes based education. The task of the two representatives of each school was to 'cascade' this training to the rest of the staff at their schools. The evaluation of the MIET training in this district revealed that the cascade model was not an effective way of training teachers for the following reasons.

+ Many teachers who received training (master trainers) were not given suf+

ficient time to train the staff back at their schools. In several schools, these teachers were only given time to report back on the training during break. Because principals and HODS were generally not involved as trainers, the management of most schools did not provide the necessary support required to 'cascade' the model at school level effectively.

+ Many teachers who were trained by the district indicated that they felt confident to deliver sessions at their schools. However, when district staff visited schools to observe them training the rest of the staff, they were often disappointed at the poor quality of the training that was being presented.

+ Most presenters and teachers felt that the session on assessment was extremely weak and created a lot of anxiety and confusion.

However, given the number of teachers and the time available to train before the beginning of implementation, the 'cascade' model seemed the only feasible option. It is our contention that the 'cascade' model has a place only if it is used in conjunction with other models. This emphasises the need for a coherent and wellconceived teacher developnlent strategy, which includes a variety of models.

D INSIDE CLASSROOMS

SECTION

The Grade 1 Pilot By the time the Grade 1 pilot began in the district (August 1997), a cohort of new members of staff had been appointed to the Teaching and Learning Unit. However, of the eighteen members that now made up the unit, only three had any experience and expertise at the Foundation Phase. The Foundation Phase team, together with seven other members of the unit, became very intensively involved in supporting the two pilot schools in our district - one ex-model C school and one ex-DET school. Many reports have been written on the Grade 1pilot. Though it had its problems, one key success in the district is that it forced seven members of the Teaching and Learning Unit with no Foundation Phase experience to engage with a whole range of issues that affected Grade 1 teachers. This resulted in debates on topics like how to teach reading and writing effectively, making the transition to learnercentred teaching, the importance of reading schemes, multilevel teaching and inclusion, as well as automatic promotion in the Foundation Phase. In this way, the Grade 1 pilot functioned as a form of INSET for Teaching and Learning Facilitators who would be involved in the training of Grade 1 teachers only a few months later.

Evaluation of Eeat-ning support materials The provincial process of evaluating learning materials for Grade 1 took place in September 1997. Foundation Phase teachers were invited to apply to evaluate materials. Since only a small number of teachers in this and other districts applied, there was no selection process and aU those who applied were appointed as evaluators. It is significant that they were given the responsibility of participating in a process that would decide what leaming materials should be approved for Grade 1 for the province b e f i they themselves had received any training in OBE that focused on the Foundation Phase. Many of the evaluators did not even know that there would be three learning programmes in Grade 1 in 1998 and that outcomes from all eight learning areas needed to be integrated into each leaming programme. The training of evaluators was inadequate. The extremely rushed and chaotic nature of the evaluation process itself indicated a lack of effective planning by the GDE. It also led to the reliability of the results of the evaluation process being questioned. We will return to some of these issues in the section on learning materials that follows this case study.

The training of all Grade 1 teachers in the Bmi/Brakpan district The lessons learned from the lack of success with the MIET 'cascade' model informed the decision by the Benoni/Brakpan Teaching and Learning Unit to attempt to reach every Grade 1 teacher in the district as directly as possible. In order to do this, a workshop-based model was developed that involved all

CHAPTER

IS

E M I L I A P O T E N Z A& M A R E KM AO N Y O K O L O

eighteen members of the Teaching and Learning Unit. The unit was divided into six teams. Where a team did not have any Foundation Phase experience, a very competent Foundation Phase teacher was recruited to be part of the team. There are approximately 500 Grade 1 teachers in the district. These teachers, together with the HODS and the principals (who were expressly invited to attend the training course in an attempt to get management on board), were divided into twelve clusters. There were roughly fourty teachers in each cluster. Each cluster met for three hours once a week for a four-week period throughout October 1997. The training roster was organised on a rotational basis so that four teams trained every day and each team trained for two afternoons a week. The training course itself was designed collaboratively by those Teaching and Learning Facilitators with Foundation Phase expertise and a curriculum specialist. The course content covered a basic introduction to the concept of outcomes-based education, explanation of the new terminology, how to plan lessons using the new policy, outcomes-based assessment and classroom and school management. The session that dealt with lesson planning focused on resources. This session coincided with an exhibition by publishers of all the learning materials that had been approved for Grade I. Selecting learning materials was an overwhelming task for teachers. Firstly, the sheer number of materials - over 600 titles had been approved - was difficult to interact with. Secondly, most teachers did not have the necessary skills to make informed decisions. Evidence of the negative effects have been observed during class visits in 1998. One example is that many teachers who ordered materials for the three learning programmes from different publishers are struggling to reconcile the contradictions between the different interpretations of the policy embodied in the materials. An article by Julia Grey in 7 h e Teacher (1998), reporting on the intensive training in the new curriculum that teachers in the Benoni/Brakpan district were receiving, captured the feelings of one of the Grade 1 teachers: Constance Mkhabela, now in her second year of teaching, says that she is particularly keen on outcomes-basedassessment.Instead of the exam system where a learner crams facts and forgets them as soon as the test is over, Mkhabela says, 'now children must think and remember every day'. But Mkhabela's enthusiasm changes to concern when she thinks about rnaking groupwork happen in the under-resourced school where she works. With 528 learners and only three classrooms between them, the school organised two empty buses as makeshift learning areas. Implementinggroupwork successfully within such an environment, she says, verges o n the impossible.

SECTION

D

INSIDECLASSROOMS

%@ng~PpW After the intensive workshopbased training of all the Grade 1 teachers in the Benoni/Brakpan district, cluster committees were set up on a geographical basis to provide ongoing support to teachers. There are approximately twelve schools in each cluster. Each cluster has a chairperson who is herself a Grade 1 teacher. The 'cascade' model is used to provide information and support to the chairperson who passes this information on to the rest of the members of the cluster. In addition, school and class visits have become an important part of the ongoing support provided by the Foundation Phase team in this district. They believe that it is only through classroom observation that they can get a real sense of how effectively teachers are managing to make the shift to teaching in an outcomesbased way. As Cheryl Kindon, a member of the Foundation Phase team who has been doing regular school visits throughout this year, puts it: The implementation of OBE in Grade 1 has been an exciting challenge for some and a daunting nightmare for others. Many of our teachers have thrown themselves into the process with incredible energy and worked for long hours to become familiar with the various policy documents and curriculum guides that have been produced by both the national and provincial education departments. They have produced excellent worksheets, recording documents and reports to send to parents. Some have also designed wonderful activities through which they are more consciously attempting to accommodate all the learners in their classes. However, there are also teachers who are finding the shift to OBE very difficult. They are saying that the process has been too rushed and that the documents are far too complicated to understand and work with. The language is not user-friendly and they feel that they should not be expected to cope with the theory and philose phies of OBE in their everyday teaching. Many of these teachers are giving up and doing nothing.

Another disturbing observation made by the Foundation Phase Team during class visits is the tendency of less confident teachers to focus on designing activities that relate to the Programme Organiser (Theme) at the expense of teaching basic reading, writing and mathematical skills. Teachers repeatedly ask questions like, 'Do we still have to teach reading and writing?' and 'What do we do about reading if the readers we have don't fit in with the Programme Organiser?' Nevertheless, a very positive effect of both the MIET training and the more intensive training that has taken place in this district has been the unprecedented extent to which Foundation Phase teachers in the district are engaging in discussion and debate about the school curriculum. 'What do you expect your learners to know and to be able to do by the end of Grade I? What do you mean by knowledge? And skills? And values and attitudes? How can I assess whether a learner has achieved an outcome or not? Is it educationally more effective for learners to be

CHAPTER

I 3

E M I L I A P O T E N ~&A M A R E K AM O N Y O K O L Q

automatically promoted from one grade to the next?' The fact that teachers are asking these questions is an indication that they are becoming more reflective practitioners. In this way, Curriculum 2005, for all its deficiencies, is beginning to restore to teachers their role as professionals and intellectuals in society. THE DEVELOPMENT, SELECTION AND SUPPLY OF LEARNING MATERIALS

Most education departments have been dealing with the development, selection and supply of learning materials in the absence of policy or through the use of 'strange mixtures' of the systems from former education departments. This partly explains the problems that departments have been experiencing in this regard. For instance, some provinces have only managed to deliver materials to schools for Grade 1 in the second or third tenn of this school year. Another problem has been the lack of clarity regarding the national curriculum implementation plan. This has made it difficult, if not impossible, for provincial departments as well as publishers to develop proper plans around the development, selection and supply of materials. What is at stake here is that learning materials are a critical part of curriculum implementation. This is particularly the case in contexts such as ours in which there is a severe shortage of basic educational resources in the majority of schools and where many teachers lack the basic skills required to teach effectively. The development, selection and supply of learning materials should, therefore, be seen as an integral part of curriculum planning. Learning materials should not be treated as an optional extra. The argument that teachers should make the shift from an overreliance on textbooks, and start using other resources makes sense as a long-term strategy. However, in a context where the majority of schools lack basic educational resources, it is not surprising that teachers tend to rely on the textbook. The answer lies not in doing away with textbooks but rather in improving the quality of them. Much of the international literature5uggests that, in developing contexts such as ours, textbooks tend to be the most costeffective and accessible vehicles for supporting the curriculum. According to Kromberg (1993): the centrali~ of the textbook to education is welldocumented, and is stressed par-

ticularly in educationally deprived contexts where educators and learners have less capacity or confidence to venture beyond the safe boundaries of the printed word. We believe that, in order for the new curriculum to be successfullyimplemented, every learner should receive a textbook for each learning programme under study. Further, the learning programmes and progress maps that curriculum institutes such as the GTCD are in the process of designing should inform these learning 8

See Altbach, PG & Kelly, GP. 1988. Textbooks in the Third World -Policy, Content and Context. Garland Publishing Incl. New York. Also Farrell JP & Heynernan SP (eds). 1993. Textbooks in the Developing World - Economic and Educational Choices Washington DC: The World Bank.

SECTION

D

INSIDE C L A S S R O O M S

materials. This would ensure that the curriculum as it presents itself in the classroom will have been designed by teams of curriculum developers appointed by provincial departmentsrather than by teams of authors commissioned by publishers. This would also ensure that the learning materials approved and purchased by provincial departments would be in line with the new curriculum policy. The education establishmentcan play an important role in helping the publishing industry to transform itself and grow because education publishing constitutes such a critical market for this industry. Equally, the publishing industry has a major role to play in developing materials that will assist the process of transforming the curriculum. Effective mechanisms need to be put in place by provincial departments to ensure that publishers develop good quality materials. These might include:

+ providing detailed illustrative learning programmes and progress maps to publishers for a particular grade at least 18 months before a call for submissions;

+ making the criteria that will be used for evaluating learning materials available in advance; + ensuring that publishers have sufficient time to develop quality materials; and + empowering teachers, through training, to select appropriate materials. It is our contention that a good working relationship between education departments and publishers, informed by the principles of the White Paper on Education and Training (DOE, 1995), will make a great diierence to improving the quality of teaching and learning.

We do not for a moment underestimate the difficulty involved in creating the alignment between the three pillars of curriculum outlined in this paper. The experience of the Benoni/Brakpan district shows that, even in the absence of this alignment, it is possible to provide effective training and support to teachers. But it is clearly preferable to do so on the basis of wellconceived national and provincial strategies. The challenge facing us as policy-makers, curriculum developers, teacher developers and producers of learning materials is to provide accessible ways of translating the national curriculum policy framework into practice. We need to do this because, if teachers and learners are to negotiate their way successfully through Curriculum 2005, to borrow from Alan Paton's Cry, The B e h e d Country: '... they need, for the rest of this journey, a star that will not play false to them, a compass that will not lie.'

C H A P T E R

1 3

E M I L I AP O T E N Z&A M A R E KM AO N Y O K O L O

BIBLIOGRAPHY Altbach, PC & Kelly, GP. 1988. Textbooks in the Third W d - Policy, Content and Context. New York: Garland & Co. Department of Education. 1995. WhitePaper on Education and Training. Government Gazette No 16312. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. 1997. An Agenda ofPossibilities: National Policy on Teacher; Supply and L)eve@ment -A Stakeholder Response. Pretoria: Department of Education. Farrell, JP & Heyneman, SP (eds). 1993. Textbooks in the Deueloping World -Economic and Educational Choices. Washington DC: The World Bank. Grey, J. 1998. A new point of view. The Teacher, 2(9),January. Kromberg, S, et al. 1993. PublishingforDemocratic Educatkm. Johannesburg: Sached Books. Muller,J. In Anstey, G. 1997. A new curriculum to make kids want to learn: shifting the spotlight onto learners. Sunday Times. 30 March. Taylor, N. 1993. Inventing Knowledge. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 14

Outcomes-based Assessment: The Need for a Common Vision of What Counts and How to Count It MEG PAHAD INDEPENDENT EXAMINATIONS BOARD, GAUTENG

It is widely agreed in educational policy circles in South Africa today that a paradigm shift in assessment is required in order to ensure that assessment practices guide, support and underpin our transformative outcomes-based model for education and training (for example, Department of Education (DOE) May 1998;June 1998). But the practical implications of this shift are not well understood. In spite of evidence put fonvard over the last thirty years showing the powerful influence (for better or worse) of assessment, particularly high-stakes examinations (Madaus, 1988;King &Van den Berg, 1992;DOE, October 19981,it is still the most neglected aspect of curriculum policy. Various draft policy documents have been circulated for discussion by the national Department of Education (DOE) during 1998, but at the time of writing none has been gazetted. And yet appropriate assessment practices are essential for the successful implementation of Curriculum 2005. At last consensus is emerging about several broad principles of assessment. These include the need to use assessment formatively and developmentally, to make the assessment criteria explicit and the assessment process transparent (Pahad, 1996; Gultig, 1997'; Pahad, 1997;DOE, May 1998 and July 1998). These principles flow directly from the guiding principles of our education and training policy in South Africa, and focus on quality, relevance, equity and access. They are reflected in the standards setting, assessment and quality assurance processes that will make the NQF viable. However, there is very little practical help for teachers and other practitioners trylng to assess learners within the new outcomes-based curriculum. The term continuous assasment is used to cover a wide range of different assessment techniques which are used to inform varying types of decisions made by a number

SECTION

D

I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

of people. This has helped to conceal important conceptual distinctions that we should be making about ongoing daily assessment practices. Whilst a general understanding of the need for a paradigm shift on assessment policy and practice has now been acknowledged, the actual implementation is hampered by a lack of understanding of the complexityof the issues involved. As a consequence, essential research and development on assessment is not being given the priority it deserves -for example, the design of assessment tasks, rubrics and exemplars, crucial pilot projects, the development of quality management systems and assessment support materials, vital INSET and PRESET training. This chapter sets out to define the elements of good outcomes-based assessment practice in a manner that combines some rigour with accessibility. It will explore some of the difficultiesfacing educators in the context of helping learners to achieve the outcomes that have been defined through our national education and training policy process. The inability of many teachers to demonstrate any convincing links between what they assess in their daily practice and the critical and specific outcomes contributes to the trivialisation of the goals of OBET. If the learning process in reality does not usually focus on what really counts, how can we help teachers and learners to identify, in practical classroom contexts, what counts and how, why and when to count it? It will be argued that it is important to make clearer distinctions between formative and summative assessment, and that the blurring of such distinctions can lead to practices which contradict the basic principles of outcomes-based assessment. I shall try to demonstrate that assessment guidelines and policies cannot be implemented effectively unless teachers understand why they are assessing, what they are assessing, and how to assess in a manner appropriate to the purpose of the assessment. Practical suggestionsabout ways of improving assessment practice in the classroom will be outlined, with a particular focus on the importance of the fair, reliable and valid assessment of outcomes that really count. Time and space limit the scope of this chapter. In this context, the selected focus is on teachers working in compulsory schooling, because at this time they comprise the majority of those trying to assess in the context of outcomes-based education. Most of what is argued will also be relevant to other education, training and development practitioners, but not all. It should be understood that the focus on teachers is in no way intended to minimise the importance of all the other educators in this country, especially ABET, ECD and ELSEN practitioners who are also struggling to come to grips with outcomes-based assessment. In terms of the area of assessment, the chapter highlights the assessment of learner achievements, rather than the use of assessment to evaluate learning programmes, the teacher's own effectiveness or other aspects of educational provision.

CHAPTER

1 4

M E GP A H A D

THE MISLEADING USE OF THE TERM CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT

Teachers are often exhorted to use continuous assessment as if this were a panacea for all the inadequacies of past assessment practice, and as if the term were selfexplanatory. Neither of these assumptions is true. Continuous assessment is not a precise concept, but merely a general description of an approach which is designed to encourage learners to develop and demonstrate competence in a variety of ways and across numerous contexts throughout any learning programme. Teachers use this assessment primarily in a formative and developmental manner, and it is an integral part of their own daily professional competence. This is in contrast to traditional assessment which often used to be almost exclusively focused on grading a learner or placing a student in rank order and which typically took place at the end of a fixed period of study. The term continuous assessment is thus loosely used to emphasise the shift from a j u d g m t a l approach on behalf of the education establishment to a dPueIspmentalapproach in which teacher and learner work together to improve performance. At a practical level, teachers are faced with a stream of recommendations which make theoretical sense but, unless contextualised in real-life examples, can lead to confusion and even counter-productive activity. Both William Spady and Cliff' Malcolm have been struck (in diff'erent ways) by the confusion around assessment philosophy in our country. 7'he n m assessment paradigm and continuous assessment and f m a t i w assessment are often used interchangeably. Is this acceptable? This chapter will examine some of the distinctions that are being blurred. The term continuous assessment is interpreted very differently by different people (or even by the same people in different contexts). Is it formal or informal, or a mixture? Does it rely solely on the judgements of individual teachers or should these,judgement$be supported by systems of' quality assurance? Do we assess the specific and critical outcomes or assessment criteria directly, or indirectly, through more manageable performance indicators? Is the purpose of'a~sessmentformative or summative, diagnostic or evaluative, or all of these? Does it require carefully prepared assessment tasks with a clear focus on defined outcomes, or is it simply a matter of being alert and sensitive to the progress of learners in the classroom, noting significant progress or problems (or both)? Does it mean accumulating marks for classwork and homework throughout the year (cumulative), or is it a question of the level achieved in a final demonstration of competence at the end of a defined period (culminative) (Spady, 1998)?Does it reflect a behaviourist approach, with the educator using 'stick and carrot' corlditioning to encourage the desired learner responses, o r a broadly constructivist approach in which the teacher helps the learner to make sense of experience and develop applied competence through a shared participation in the assessment process (Malcolm, 1998);)Or is the most popular interpretation correct: that continuol~sassessment means setting more fi-equent formal test? and examinations (continual testing)?

SECTION

D

IMPORTANCE OF MAKING CLEARER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT

Assessment must be aligned to a clearly defined purpose. The kind of assessment, the frequency of assessment, the detail and extent of recording, the pains taken (or not) over design, implementation, marking and moderation: all these should depend on the type of decisions to be made as a result of the assessment. In relation to assessing learner achievements, these vary from decisions about planning the next lesson to decisions about selecting a learner competing for a place at a higher education institution. Many teachers are currently trying to follow guidelines for the practice of assessment which demand that all assessments be put to a formative use whilst also contributing to a cumulative year mark, helping to build a learning record for each student. To assume that all types of assessment can be used appropriately for summative purposes is problematic. To assume that an aggregate of marks collected throughout the year is a suitable indicator of competence at the end of the year is even more problematic.

A consensus has emerged that we need to pay more attention to formative assessment than in the past, where it has been sadly neglected. However, this does not mean that summative assessment does not have its place. In our IEB assessment workshops many educators talk and write about summative assessment as if the very idea were reactionary, and as if summative assessment consisted exclusively of examinations and tests. It is often assumed that examinations and tests are necessarily focused on lower-order skills and the recall of information, are necessarily time-restricted, stressful, culturally biased and so on. In contrast, all other forms of assessment are assumed to be progressive and also formative. The DOE'SDraft Assessment Policy released for discussion in May 1998 exemplifies the ambivalence towards the role of summative assessment. On page iv, summative assessment is defined in the following way: In summative assessment carried out either at the end of a term or at the end of a grade, assessors should include information about a learner's progress drawn mainly from continuous/formative assessments made throughout the learning process. But on page 14 it states, under the heading, 'Continuous/formative assessment': The practice of ContinuousAssessment (CASS) implies a paradigm shift from prcl motion decisions based on the results of a single test or examination (summative evaluation) to the on-going formative assessment of the learner ... (DOE, 1998) This confusion about whether or not summative assessment is necessarily based on terminal examinations,whether continuous assessment is necessarily formative, whether summative assessments can be achieved simply by collecting and aggregating formative assessment, and so on, recurs throughout the draft policy discussion document.

C H A P T E R

1 4

M E GP A H A D

But it is not the form of the assessment which determines whether or not it is formative or summative (or both), but the u s to ~ which it is put. It is quite possible to set an integrative assessrnent task consisting of, for example, an extended assignment, project or examination, to assess the progress of learners in relation to a particular set of outcomes at the end of a section of a learning programme. These results could be used sulnmatively: that i\, they could be recorded in each learner's profile, providing a summary of the level of achievement reached for those outcomes at that point in time. This would then be a summative assessment. However, if the teacher then took the trouble to give back the marked assignments with individual constructive feedback, and took steps wherever possible to provide opportunities for learning in areas where weaknesses had been identified, he or she would be using that project, or examination, or other form of assessment, foi matively. So, whatever forrn the a s s e ~ n e n took, t it would, in this example, 1)e achieving both a forinative nntl a \t~ininativt-ptirpose. To make matters more complicated, the teaclicr inight well use the integrative assessrnent task as the basis for a summativt: assessmerlt of the work recently covered (for example, over a term), but might add to it insights noted during the tern1 in the course of fornlative assessment. I11 this case, tht: teacher is conducting the kind of summative assessment which the policy doct~n~cnts seem to he seeking. Stlmniative assessment is a surnlnary of the learner's achievements over a period of time, and the infornmation included in the srunmary is gained both tlirougll cai-ef~~lly designed assessment tasks and observations noted bv the teacher and learner (luring the course of'teaching and learning.

PROBLEMS IN USING ACCUMULATED

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR

SUMMATIVE PURPOSES

The fact that a good surnmative assessment can also be used f'orrnativtxly does not itlean that tlie rt:s~lltsof for-malive assessment shoultl 11e constantly recorded to produce a surnmativt: record. This is partictllarly prohlernatic within the context of'thc tradition of' teachers in South Africa, where the record kept te~ldsto be a record of rnclrks awarded for pieces of work.

For example, certain fi)rnmr clcpartrnents of education included a course work coinpo~lcntin the Senior (:el-tificate mark (and in year mark5 for Standards 8 and 9). This was coinprised of'an average derived fi-om illarks aw-ardedfor certain work set against pr-cscril~edcriteria throughout the year. 'Suiriniative' was interpreted as nieaning 'the slliri of 'asscssnicnts, rather than 'a sllrnmaiy o f ' assessments. This kind of's~rrnmativeassessineiit did not air11 t o describe which or~tconlesa lear-ncr had achieved, 1)irt rattier to iiitlicatc' how wcll hc o r she had pcrforrncd throughout ;I lei-m in relation to the pcrforrnancc of'others in the class. The1c will nlwa\i.\be n plat e IOI norm-refer enling, especially in caw\ wlier c taliclidntc~n r c co~npetiiigfor plnc c\ or jobs, or education p~ov~dcr\a1c, cornpdring

D INSIDE CLASSROOMS

SECTION

standards. But internal school assessment in an outcomes-based system must be criterion referenced. Consider the following example, which focuses on outcomes-based teacher assessment. The role of self- and peer assessment will be examined separately. It has not been forgotten.

Example

A teacher embarking on a new section of a learning programme (for example, dealing with the concept of volume and ways in which to calculate it, or the concept of register in language, and appropriate usage), sets a base-line assessment to try to gauge the range of levels of understanding and applied competence within the class at the outset. The teacher selects (for example) one critical outcome and one specific outcome as a focus for the section of work, which could, of course, also touch upon a wide range of specific and critical outcomes without addressing them deeply. She then decides on a set of activities for her class. Once these learning experiences are on offer, learners progress along the continuum of increasingly sophisticated performance (in groups, pairs or individually), moving to new tasks when they are ready. Each task or activity has its own smaller outcomes, building blocks towards the outcomes selected for the main focus. The teacher observes, notes certain strengths and weaknesses displayed by some individual learners in relation to the smaller outcomes, and affirms successes whilst addressing problems (either directly or by pairing or teaming children who can help each other). She tries to move learners towards the next level of achievement by asking questions, providing activities and making suggestions as appropriate. In order to do this she keeps track of what they can do, and provides opportunities to extend these successes to new areas of achievement. Learners move to higher levels of performance or to more complex tasks when they are able to do so, progressing at their own rates. The teacher sets a carefully designed integrated assessment task at the end of that section, before moving on to a different section of the progamme. This task brings together some of the skills, concepts, knowledge and dispositions acquired, and demands the use of these in the context of the targeted critical and specific outcome. It tests the ability to transfer knowledge and apply it in a new, previously unrehearsed, context. It attempts to place the learner at a particular level on a continuum of learning in relation to the selected specific and critical outcome. It also provides learners who have made a conceptual leap in understanding near the end of the section with an opportunity to demonstrate that recent achievement. Where the results of the final integrative assessment contradict the record of progress tracked during the work on this section of the learning programme, the teacher looks at her noted observations and the children's completed work to find

evidence to help her to evaluate the learner's overall level of achievement. She also questions one or two learners whose erratic results puzzle her, and notes, in one case, a family problem, and in the other, a possible learning difficulty to follow up. Finally, she makes a short summative descriptive assessment in each individual's learning profile, summarising the level of achievement reached by the end of this section ofwork, based both on the outcomes achieved in the summative integrative assessment task and her other observations made during the sessions.

What we can learn from this example about the purposes of assessment The purpose of the base-line assessment was formative, providing the teacher with vital information to guide her planning. (It was not formative in the sense of gving direct guidance to the learner.) The aim was to help the teacher to provide a range of appropriate learning experiences suitable to the range of needs of' the indi\
It WPWLY clear that thr haw-hne ccsse~srn~nt coulcl not and shoull not contrrbrztr to ,urnmntzv~ nssrrsmmt. Stunmative outcomes-based assessment is conterned with how far cl learner has progressed clt thp ond of (I smrr o / l u a ~ ~ 7 z n g ~ x p e t not ~ e / 7with ~ ~ ~whertl , he or she started f rorn. However, in ternis of self-referenced (ipsative) aswssment, ,i I-ecordshould be kept, so that the distance trd\elled call be estiinatetl, slid l e a l nc1s who nl,ikkc grcnt le'ips foiwal-(1,whilst still onlk entling r+itha rnodclatt. , ~ chic\crncnt, call be praised. It ~ b hu@c o lhp l ~ n t h to ~ rcwc~lrcaLrho- olc11iu//o~/~vunr\\, i~~l~otlicttr~g tlio ~/ thail w/lml ?rrflc / / I ? tontqhl o/ ualzrr ccd(/r(/(ho711/flu, h /rrogrusr h(i5 /IPI?I/ N ( / L / ~ J II~,rthel rncl rr\mlt?) \+hich is vital for tvachers, especidllj tliow struggling i l l histo1 lcnll~ tlisnd\ a i ~ t ~ i gtco~n~riu~iitics. ~l the identified vnalle1- otlttorncs was '1140 The a\sessnlent 01 Ic,zrners ,~gair~st for rndti\ c. I t nns a11 essential pt~ t of the tenel'tsses, i t 1s i l r ~ p tom ~ t to I e ~ ~ l c . l ~ l111~1t, l > e ~1v1t11the inaIoiit\ 01 lcni nc1 s, the sirnplc fnt t tlint the\ are mo\ lng t l i l oligli t hc nc tnitlcs s~lcc essf~~ll\ s ,u c. Inlling brllincl n n t l \ \ h ~11( indicntcs piogr ess. I t \vi11 be \clv cleni uhic 11 leal i i c ~ art. at ]lie\ing I cslllts l?evolicl cbxj)cctations. 7 7 /~/trporr ~ of thtr otlgolng/otr~~nllou ~\\~\\?not/t ?ON\ lo g u i d ~110th the t ~ ( i ( l(7t)Izo ~ ~ r nrk, tclsk is nppropiiate to1 this learner?') and lo ,pz(k, nnd vntwt)clgu hrv\rl/ 'What tollo~t~-up ~ / E k)cinrn~r, P u ~ z (O?I\~~IC(~~TIP/P(~(UI(~~I~. ~g A lot of tlii~tornlatiye assessment simply consists of normal ~noiiitoring of pi-ogress ant1 helping with difficulties. Many teachcis hut just '(4 nor~n(11 p ~ r tof t o ( ~ ( h ~ ~1111~1 lg'. wotll(1 not even thirk of it ns (LS\PFTWZP?Z~, the\ would be right.

S E C T I O N

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

Thef m a t i v e assessments might also supply obseruatim and insights which have been noted and could be used as e u i h c e to support the summative evaluation made at the end of the section, and recorded on the students' learning profiles if appropriate.

These formative assessment tasks were also teaching tasks. Very few of them tested skills, concepts .. . etc that had already been taught, but they primarily sought to challenge the learners to higher levels of performance. So the main purpose of these tasks was developmental. F m a t i v e assessment should usually consist ofthe assessment of learning tasks, not special tasks designed with the sole purpose of testing. The most common exception relates to learning tasks that demand memorisation (like vocabulary tests), where the test may be used to motivate the learner. Such tests should comprise a minority of the range of assessment tasks offered as formative assessment. In this way, time spent assessing learners does not detract from the amount of time spent on teaching and learning. Thejnal integrative assessment should be designed more carefully, and should befair; reliable and valid. It would hopefully confimz the teacher>and learnerk own perc@tions of the leuel of achievement reached. This final assessment is the only assessment in this example that has apimarily sumrnatiuepurpose. If it indicates a level of achievement which conflicts with the apparent level reached during classwork/homework (which will not happen very often), the teacher should re-evaluate the evidence available and possibly question the learner to ascertain more accurately the level of understanding/competence achieved.

The teacher and learner should then both be aware of the level of achievement recorded on that learner's individual learning profile for the set of related outcomes targeted. Thefinal integrative assessment (summative) should also be used to give fmntivefeedback to the student and notes should be made of any sigrz2ficant at@ical rupmue in piaration for the next time these outcomes are addressed. Not all educators are following the kind of approach outlined in the example above. Frequently the approach is unthinking, mechanical, and indeed, even illogical. Look at the following example of teacher assessment, in which the teacher uses aspects of norm-referencing inappropriately and incorrectly:

Example

A teacher gives a series of lessons on a section of the learning programme that relates to a set of learning outcomes linked by a programme organiser. This includes ten tasks (performance tasks, exercises, tests, homework assignments, etc) which the teacher assesses. She simply gives a mark for each of these ten pieces of work from the base-line up to the final assessment. Some of these may be marked out of 10, or 20, some 15, some out of 50. She adds all the raw marks and divides the total by ten in the belief that this gives an average mark. This 'average' is then recorded as the course

CHAPTER

14

M E GP A H A D

work or continuous assessment mark, worth 50 % of the total mark for the section. In this case, the teacher would he giving a greater weighting unintentionally to some pieces of work than others. (Of course, many teachers correctly work out an average, or consciously choose to give a greater weighting to one task than another.) She then sets a traditional written, silent, time-restricted examination where no communication or reference to sources of information is allowed. She believes that the examination is designed to test several critical and specific outcomes. In reality, the examination simply asks learners to recall work completed in class or read from the textbook. There is no demand for the learner to use ideas, concepts, skills, knowledge or dispositions in challenging new contexts. (This will indicate to a smart learner that the skill that is really valued is memorisation, and the rest is simply talk.) This examination provides the other 50 % of the total mark for the section.

What we can learn from this example about the purposes of assessment The teacher collected marks allocated to a series of learning assignments,including her first task -which should have provided her with base-line data for planning. Although these should have been understood as having a primarily formative purpose, she used them summatively. She used calculating processes that she did not understand to reach an 'average' and recorded this as an indication of the level of achievement of her learners against several critical and specific outcomes that had not been targeted carefully at any stage. She then gave a heavy weighting to one particular form of assessment, thus disadvantaging learners who had difficulties with examinations. In addition, this 50 % was attributed to achievement against outcomes that it did not really test. The approach followed in this second example is not an outcomes-based approach (neither would it constitute acceptable assessment practice in any kind of education system). The main question the teacher needs to be able to answer in an OBET system is how far along the continuum of increasingly compkx p e r f m a n c e the learner ha5 progressed i n relation to the outcomes which have been selected as the focus of the section. The answer to that (summative) question, in an OBET system, has to depend primarily on the applied competence displayed at the end ofthe section. ( I am using the notion of a@lied competenceas used in the Education Training and Development Practices Project: integrating foun,dational, practical and reJlPxive competence.)

The other important questions, which should have been asked along the way, concern the building blocks that contribute to the level of achievement in relation to the more holistic outcomes. The answers to these need to be used formatively, as described in the first example. The performance in all the learning tasks en route should be monitored (not simply recorded) by the teacher in order to ensure

SECTION

D

I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

that no learner is getting lost on the way, or else becoming bored by the lack of an appropriate level of challenge. Learners need to be motivated by the acknowledgment of their positive achievements,and challenged by being offered a task which will demand that they move to a higher level. They should not feel that everything they do is being assessed and will be put on record. They need to be free to explore and experiment, take risks and attempt the impossible. Summative assessment should be brought in only after time has been given to reflect and consolidate learning, not every minute of the day. The example given above about calculating a cumulative course work mark is not as extreme as it sounds. Here is another real-life example that I shall include simply to alert quality assurers to the kinds of practices that are creeping in as a result of a poor understanding of assessment (and mathematics!). The teacher has endeavoured to use a table provided by her principal in order to record a level of achievement (summatively) for each student on a scale 1-5 (1: excellent -5: poor). Critical orrtcomes covered

, working together

1

communication skills

3

4

d

1 problem-solving 1

2

d

d

--

So far, so good. But then the teacher decided to add up the rating as a mark so that she could include it in the continuous assessment contribution to the summative mark for the term. This is how she did it: Total (out of 15): 5 = 33 % This 33 % was added to the examination score to arrive at a summative score for the term. The teacher was unaware that she was giving the highest score (up to 100 %) to the poorest performers, and penalising the best with a maximum score of 20 %. Even when this was pointed out, she found it hard to understand that her method of reaching a summative assessment mark was unjust and illogical. However, not all learning environments demand the same assessment practices. It is important to point out, at this stage, that in certain learning programmes, it may be educationally sound to carry out a series of assessments targeting smaller skills, knowledge, etc and use all of these summatively, gradually accumulating credits towards the achievement of a unit standard. This is especially appropriate in certain FET and ABET programmes with strong practical components, for example those linked to learnerships. But the application of these discreet skills should also be assessed integratively in relation to each unit standard as a whole, and then in relation to the purpose of the qualification in a final summative

CHAPTER

1 4

assessment, testing applied competence. Credits for the summative assessments should be linked to the achievement of whole unit standards, and the award of both these credits and the actual qualification should depend on successf~ll completion of integrative assessment tasks, and not merely consist of the sum of the credits for the smaller, possibly fragmented, outcomes.

As a genm-al@nci@le, however; educators should not includeformative marks in summative assessment unless they can justzh the inclusion in a particular rase. It is the traditional practice of gzving marks with each assessment which makes this such a common problem in this country. When marh for base-line and daily learning tasks are included unthinkingly into summative scores, because it is understood that 'continuous assessment' (seen as meaning regular recording of results) is better than summative assessment (seen as meaning results of terminal examinations only recorded), it can be very harmful. However, if descriptive observations about achievements (for example), are recorded, they can be very helpful in developing a fuller profile of learning for individual learners. THE USE OF MARKS IN OUTCOMES-BASED ASSESSMENT

The use of transparent criteria is very important, and the teacher can allocate marks to each criterion if he or she wishes. Many OBET purists insist that marks should never be used in outcomes-based assessment. This position is sometimes linked to a behaviourist concept of competence or to assumptions sometimes made by educators working in sectors in which the outcome is generally a visible (and more easily measurable) performance, as in the more practical aspects of vocational and professional training (the airline pilot is most often cited). Here the predominant concept oC competence consists of either a c h i a ~ ~ord 1701 yet ackiYo~d. In mopt fields of learning this simplified approach is totally inadequate, as it is clear that achievement is measured again51a con tinuurn of increasingly complex demai~ds,and the performance statement required is achiurJpdat x h d or arhieued at y h e l , rather than achimetl or not yet arhzmed. This includes areas where achievement is demonstrated by external performance, like sport, for example, as well as areas of learning which target more hidden cognitive operations, where thc level of achievement has to be inferred from performance rather than measured directly. Many educators in this context argue for systems of evaluation which allow room to express degrees of competence, for example grades, marks or descriptive categories such as rnPm't or Oklinrtion. The use of marks to weight criteria for assessment is acceptable in certain contexts because it is one way of indicating to the learners what weighting the educator intends to gve to different elemerlts of the performance. It can often help to make the assessment process transparent and empower the learner to participate. This

SECTION

D

is particularly the case in the context of education in this country, where, in all the exdepartments, there has been a tradition of 'working for marks', and giving little value to work which was 'not for marks'. In some other learning cultures, descriptive written and verbal feedback is considered equally important and marks are not given - and yet learners are motivated to work hard.

I should like to recommend to teachers to try to give descriptive feedback and to avoid marks as far as possible, especially in the context of developmental, formative assessment. One of the most useful professional experiences I have ever undergone resulted from attempting to follow an instruction to give learners constructive verbal and written feedback for one month without using any negatives. It is surprising to discover how frequently educators tell learners what they have done wrong, rather than focusing on how to improve! Children new to school have no culture of 'working for marks' and will not acquire it if they do not have it forced upon them. Older learners can be weaned, but only if parents and teachers stop asking about the mark rather than the mpmegiven. In this context, the development of progress maps (representing a developmental continuum of learning for certain selected strands building towards the critical and specific outcomes) is very useful. Learners, parents and teachers can use such maps, as well as rubrics, to track progress and respond to learners with comments rather than marks. Many educators who mark summative performance assessments, projects, assignments, orals, practicals and examinations find that it is nevertheless useful to begin the marking process by constructing a marking memorandum based on the assessment criteria (which in an OBET system the candidates should have received). The marking memo typically breaks down the criteria, allocating a particular number of marks to different performance indicators in order to achieve the desired weighting. I can see no objection to this in principle and think that it is avery useful approach, especially in the context of external and large-scale assessment. This process can, however, lead to fragmentation and the trivialisation of the outcomes originally targeted. More experienced markers usually have the confidence to combine the initial use of marks dependent on weighted criteria with the exercise of their judgement in relation to an overall, more holistic evaluation of the candidates' performances. As the marking process continues, particularly when large numbers are involved (as in higher education institutions), educators often construct a range of descriptive statements in relation to each criterion, for use in descriptive feedback. These can be converted into rubrics. This same process can be used to pretest an assessment task and construct an assessment rubric in advance of the use of the task for summative purposes. When using pretested summative assessment tasks it is, therefore, possible to mark in terms of a purely descriptive rubric, marks, grades or percentages plus comments for feedback, or a combination of any of

C H A P T E R

1 4

M E GP A H A D

these. The appropriate choice will depend on the primary purpose of the assessment and on the learning environment. The feedback must always involve more than a mark, if marks are used. Wherever practical, learners should be involved in feedback through direct conferencing, peer assessment and class or group discussion of common issues arising from the work. Learners need to be helped to reflect on their own and others' work, understanding what distinguishes adequate work from exceptional work, for example, so that they can improve the quality of their own efforts next time. In relation to the critical outcomes in particular, learners will revisit them time and again in different contexts. Teachers must ensure that the learners learn to assess their own progress (or lack of progress) and reflect on the reasons for it. This is one of the essential foundations for lifelong learning. To summarise, it is concluded thatf m a t i v e and summative assessment, in particular; need to be distinguished and that summative assessment requires a more rigwous design than is nomal& necessary in ongoingf m a t i v e assessment. F m a t i v e assessment, particularly in, theJbmz of marks, should not be unthinking4 fed into a summative record. The nature and d e p of formal recording of ir$mation gathered through assessment will depend on the particu1arpurpo.r~of each assessment task set, and the)equenry with which the outcom,e is like4 to be visited. Achievement leuels can most easily he recarded if the teacher and learner are provided with some kind of descriptive continuum, along which progress is tracked. This can t a k ~thef m of progress maps, rufics or leuel descriptors of various types. They should be linked to smalkr outcomes which build the competencies described in the critical and specijiic outcomes.

The general principle which emerges from the above is that no educator or learner .should assess anything at all u n b s they are certain that they can explain what t h q are asse.s,sing why they are assessing it and how thty will do it itfictively and fairly. If we can actirally put this principle into practice, wc shall be half-way to establishing an outcomes-based assessment system in keeping with South Africa's education and training policy. PRACTICAL

SUGGESTIONS ABOUT WAYS OF IMPROVING ASSESSMENT PRACTICE

IN THE CLASSROOM

Outlined below is a set of guidelines for educators that can help to achieve this goal. All educators should work towards the following outcomes:

+ a shared and transparent focus on selected outcomes, emphasising the critical outcomes; + a shared sense of tracking and encouraging learner progress along a lifelong continuum of learning; + a commitment to develop self-assessment,peer assessment and reflective skills;

SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

+ the systematic application of an assessment cycle which ensures regular constructive feedback and the planning of the next learning steps; + a concerted effort to provide access to a range of appropriate assessment types and contexts; and + involvement in and commitment to a quality assurance system which ensures that assessment is fair, reliable and valid. Each of the above points will be explored in turn.

A shared and transparent focus on selected outcomes, emphasising the critical outcomes 'Eyou cannot count it, it doesn't count; if you can count it, it isn't it.' (Glickman,in Chantavich, Chantavich & Fry, 1990) The above quotation expresses the 'Catch 22' of traditional behaviourist and 'scientific' testing. Many people have expressed fears that OBET would lead to an exclusive focus on easily measurable, visible, demonstrable outcomes. The things which good educators really value are not clearly visible and are hard to measure. In some contexts and in some countries such fears have proved justifiable. In South Africa we have made a particular effort to avert this narrow focus on unimportant lower-levelskills by stressing the critical outcomes. These not only encompass higherorder cognitive skills, but also lifelong learning skills and social dispositions (attitudes and values). If we do not take the critical outcomes very seriously as the key outcomes for the whole of our education and training system, the fears of those who prophesied the reduction of education to narrow skills may well be realised. However willing teachers may be to try to assess these critical outcomes, there is currently a widespread failure to do so in reality, resulting in the unintentional trivialisation of the goals of OBET. In other words, because 'it' is extremely hard to count, most of us are busy counting things that aren't 'it'! For these reasons the next section addresses the question of what we need to assess and explores this question quite extensively. Fortunately, we do have nationally agreed outcomes in some areas of learning, and mechanisms to evolve them where they are not yet in place (through SAQA registered Standards Generating Bodies). In compulsory schooling these are the specific outcomes which have been established by the Learning Area Committees of Curriculum 2005. They were derived from the critical cross-field outcomes. These critical outcomeswere defined by stakeholders across education and training in South Africa so that all educators and trainers could have a common focus when striving to improve learner performance. The critical outcomes address areas of education, training and development which are crucial to the development of a competitive and compassionate society. They target competenciesthat are recognised throughout

CHAPTER

1 4

M E GP A H A D

the modern world as vital, and yet were largely neglected under both 'Bantu Education' and Christian National Education. The contention in this chapter is that the critical outcomes are the 'it' which we should strive to count. If we accept that improved performance in relation to the critical outcomes is an acceptable focus for teaching and learning, we have to be certain that we value these outcomes in our assessment practice. We must also understand that, particularly at higher levels on the NQF, they need to be achieved in the context of a particular discipline (hence the specific outcomes). In Curriculum 2005 we have sixty-six specific outcomes, each accompanied by assessment criteria and range statements. Inevitably, given the speed with which they were generated, these are very uneven, and will need ongoing revision in the light of curriculum evaluation. We need to flag the additional problem that many teachers find it impossible to assess the specific outcomes in their preferred learning areas effectively because they do not have a sufficient depth of subject expertise. Having been poorly taught themselves, they struggle to explain and assess the knowledge, concepts and skills they are expected to teach.

When we try to focus on these nationally agreed significant outcomes, it is not easy to do so directly, because they are so broad and general. When we set a written assignment, test, oral, practical or other performance task, we often (not always) intend to assess it. The task may focus on a small building block that can contribute towards the achievement of several of those critical outcomes. The main focus may be to improve reading with comprehension, or to develop the skill of using paragraphs in a structured piece of writing, or to read a map, play the penny whistle, or interpret a bus timetable. None of these are critical outcomes, but all can be pursued in the spirit of the critical outcomes, and all can be clearly linked to one or more of them. So what is the .shared and transparent focu~?Lxarners and teachers should try to define some of the smaller, more specific skills, concepts, etc which can be assessed directly, in the context of an overall critical or specific outcome, as the focus of the lesson or assignment. The Gauteng Institute for Curriculum 1)evelopment (GICD) has been constructing progress maps to define some of these in a systematic and structured way. This helps to illuminate the concept of a continuum of learning, where we achieve the same important outcomes at higher and higher levels, in contrasl to the concept of many discreet outcomes that are either 'achieved' or 'not yet achieved'. The shared use of explicit desired smaller outcomes using developmental mapping in this manner should not be allowed to dictate the order or pace of learning for each learner. Motivated and curious learners may well progress along lines not mapped out in advance, and different from each other. So flexibility should be built into whatever design is chosen. In this context, it would be a great mistake to try to prescribe performance indicators within national education policy.

SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

There has been some controversy around this question, with some suggesting that the illustrative performance indicators produced for the pilot should be prescribed for all. In practice teachers need to be free to choose their own performance indicators, as these should flow from the task or activity, the interests and needs of the particular learners, and be responsive to other aspects of the learning environment. If teachers are working with smaller outcomes and performance indicators on a daily basis, it is nevertheless essential to return from time to time to the critical outcomes in order to ensure that the teaching/ learning process has a worthwhile focus which is understood by everyone concerned. This will minimise the likelihood of teachers losing sight of the all-important aims of education. It will make it less likely that students will disadvantage themselves in summative assessments by misdirecting their energies as a result of their misunderstanding the teacher's intention. Sharing an understanding of the targeted (big) outcomes and assessment criteria in advance also empowers the learners to make self- and peer assessments and to take a more active role in monitoring and directing their own learning progress. So the smaller, more easily assessed outcomes need to be linked systematically to the specific and critical outcomes. Educators need to assess the skills and knowledge, concepts and dispositions that can be used to build up applied competence in relation to the critical outcomes. But they must bring these together at regular intervals in more extended tasks (like projects, designs, presentations or performances involving data handling, selfexpression and communication skills, team work, critical and/or creative thinking, and/or problem-solving). That way they will be able to encourage learners to make significant progress, achieving holistic outcomes, not simply learning small, fragmented and disconnected skills and gathering little pieces of information. Hence the importance of integrated assessment tasks.

Example A problem which commonly emerges in our IEB workshops is that teachers seem to focus on fragmented, mechanical and lower-order skills, without building towards the critical outcomes. For example, in the assessment of written work, overwhelming attention is typically given to spelling, handwriting, grammar, neatness, etc. Little value is placed on the ability to reason, to communicate effectively, to express oneself creatively and imaginatively, to analyse critically, to interpret, to detect bias, to synthesise ideas from different sources. Indeed, learners who display these qualities but have poor spelling and untidy presentation are almost always given lower marks than those who, using correct grammar and spelling, write neatly about nothing of interest. So teachers must set writing tasks (for example) which have a clear challenge to address in terms of the critical outcomes, and they must ensure that the weighting in their assessment (whether marks are allocated or

not) and the focus of their written and verbal feedback is directed towards these more important skills. To allocate, for example, 2 marks for neatness would perhaps be appropriate if marking an essay out of 50, but not if marking out of 10. Basic skills must not be neglected, but these can be practised in the context of a variety of stimulating and challenging tasks. At the end of a series of lessons and homework assignments representing a section of the learning programme, an extended task should be set. This will provide the opportunity for a more integrative assessment that addresses directly a significant part of one or more critical outcomes, and tests the ability of the learners to transfer their knowledge, skills etc to be applied in unfamiliar contexts. The task should provide opportunities for students to bring together some of the skills they have been acquiring, and apply them critically and/or creatively to solve a problem, evaluate a proposal, or test a hypothesis (for example). This firial integrative assessment task forms the basis of the main summative assessment, and it is the most crucial task in our effort to redirect focus towards significant outcornes, including particularly the critical outcomes. Teachers need help in designing and using such integrative assessment tasks. 'IX o most u y f u l startzng poznt would be to provzde sampk znteCqatzvf(~5~rrrnzrnl lmk~ fo? ~clcfz phase, rubmcs and progress maps pzdelznes for uszng tlzpm, uxcnipkars of a lypttal mngc of le(~rnerresponse^, and moahutzon workshops where tearhen [ollld rwrh {cCq-~ernPnl 017 l h ~ In trrpretatzon standards. Finally, in this section we have wed the word f o c ; ~ advisedly. Many Foundation Phase teachers are frantically trying to prove that they have 'covered' at leasr t\venty-two specific outcomes each year, as well as all the critical outcomes. This can he achieved superficially in terms of learning programme coverage, hut not deeply in terms of' the Li)cus provided by assessment. It is really inlpossible li)r teachers at this rnolncnt of twelir!,in our history to assess the level oi'perfi)rmancc achievctt i r r a ~nini~tir~rli two outcomes each year by each learner in large classc:~wit11 only vc.r?s sliaky gtlidcnational levels of'~w~~-fonllanc.t.. lines and a few hastily prepared rxarnples t o ill~lstr-atc Teachers usunlly find it is endel to focus on onc critic nl olitc olnc. at ~itirne, n l ~ d nllocntc enough time to this outcotne to nllo\v the cotripetcnc c o f the learnel s t o gro\$ vivisihly. Other outcomes \ d l grow dlongsldc the tar getcd one, il the led1 nets alc glklfll sufficient space dnd encolu-dgenlcnt t o realise their potentlnl. This is satisking for all concerned. If the edrlcatol focuses on the s1nn1lc.rhurldi~igbloc ks i n g \
SECTION

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

from time to time, and let the learners know that the final integrative assessment task will demand good team work. The integrative task can then focus on the critical outcome, (or the specific outcome(s), or both) whilst including some of the building blocks already practised. With such a combination we have both focus and transparency at a higher level. It may be necessary to elaborate briefly on the use of the term transparency in the context of assessment, since this is one of the principles informing outcomes-based assessment. When the assessment is transparent, all the significant role-players (for example, learner, teacher, parents, education department, employers of graduates) have a clear idea of what outcomes are targeted and what achievements are expected in relation to these outcomes at different levels. During the assessment process all concerned understand which outcomes are being assessed, and the criteria which will be used. Learners who fail to meet the criteria may ask for feedback on their performance, and if they are not satisfied there should be some procedure for appeal or review. Assessment should be conducted within a system of quality assurance which ensures that evaluation of learner performance does not depend on the judgement of a single professional. The most common form this takes is that of moderation.

In response to concerns about covering the sixty-six outcomes, my personal experience as a teacher leads me to believe that learners will make greater overall progress if they are encouraged to work in depth on selected outcomes. Progress will also be apparent in relation to a whole range of outcomes that were not the primary focus of their work. In contrast, superficial coverage of large numbers of outcomes may result in a loss of interest in learning, little real progress in the short term and a lack of motivation in the long term. Referring once again to the title of this chapter, we cannot measure (or count) critical outcomes. However, we can assess them. But assessing such outcomes invariably requires the teacher to use his or her professional judgement, because the achievement has to be inferred from visible performance. Teacher assessment of this kind is perceived to be subjective (although it is often no more subjective than the way he or she might mark a test and interpret the information gained from that test -which is perceived to be objective!). It is unreasonable to expect teachers to take on this responsibilitywithout support. Teachers' evaluations need to be backed up by evidence and relevant feedback in relation to the progress map, rubric or assessment guidelines, and also by quality assurance systems. These will be mentioned in more detail later. This section has highlighted the importance of the critical outcomes, and the need to focus learning on building applied competence in relation to these. Since they are hard to assess, teachers tend to focus on smaller, more easily assessed outcomes. These can be the focus of day-to-day formative assessment, but they must be clearly linked to the more significant critical outcomes.

CHAPTER

1 4

M E GP A H A D

In order to avoid trivialisation and fragmentation, integrative assessment tasks should be set at regular intervals, helping learners to bring together and apply skills, concepts and dispositions holistically in meaningful contexts. Transparent assessment processes will empower students to become active participants in assessing and reflecting on their own learning progress.

A shared sense of tracking and encouraging learner progress along a lifelong continuum of learning This chapter is attempting to address the question of 'what counts and how to count it'. I will continue to focus on the need to assess really valuable and important outcomes, with the emphasis now moving from the what to the ho7u. This subject is so extensive that a few pages cannot do it justice. In this context it seems best to highlight a few important principles. The idea of a lifelong continuum of leczmingis crucial. The draft national policy for assessmerit sets parameters but does riot go into detail, and provincial departments of education and other education providers are expected to produce their owri interpretations of the policy arid guidelines for implementation. In this context it is not sitrprising that different models have begun to emerge in projects co-ordinated by the national Department of Education, the Gauteng Institute for (;urriculum Development and the Independent Examinations Board assessrncnt training unit (for example). Educators in the main accept that teachers need some kind of 'benchmarks' to guide their expectations in the absence o f a natioi-ral iunified systern of education in the past. These 'bench~iiarks'shottld include examples of the kinds of activities which could be set for clifkre~ltage groups (sample tasks) and the kinds of responses the learners might be expected t o produce (exemplars),showing how these could be assessecl. Ouc rnotlel stresse4 the neeti f o ~indi\;idudI\ to work through ,I comrnon c ltrricillitrn, along tlie sariic contiriuum of Icarnilig, albeit progl essing at cliffct-ent I nteu. He1 c \w h,t\tl o\er lapping expet tcd I alige\ of perfo~ manc t. lot the Foi~ndntion, Intel medi'lte, n ~ i dSenior (;ornpltlsoiy phases, also o\crlapping into the FET hanti. Thi, \ricw sees henchinarking rclatetl to the phnx., wit11 n rniiio~l,ench~nnrk nt tiiicl-phnse. Examples illu\tratir~g/ h p rango o/ ccccc.l,tcihlo /cwo/s o/ pcq/or~~~cctic~ 1s olltlinccl for eac h phnse b\ clelineating the pnlanlctet s within whit 11 we exprc t 11105t leal ners to achieve. I'erforii~anceoutsidc thcse parameters sltggests that the learner rnay have needs lot bcing addressed, and so a~ttoriiaticallyleads to investigation and corrective action. Each C;r-ade 3 class, fbr-example, woltld expect to have some learners still working at a level more typical of(;lade 2 learners, and some workirig at a 1c1,t.l more t!.pical oi'(;radc 4 learners. 1,carners in Grade :3 who were ~~srlally engaged in work typical of (;rade 1 or (;rade -5 learners wot~lclneed to he given special consitleratiou in the light of'ho\v best to provide for their needs. In a flexihle ant1

SECTION D INSIDE CLASSROOMS

responsive learning environment of this kind, learners who are lagging behind in certain areas often 'catch up', whereas once they are made to repeat a year they very rarely skip one later.

A d8erent model sees expected levels of performance assessed in relation to benchmarks pegged annually, related to each grade, and expressed in terms of three possible levels of quality for that grade. There are two main objections to this approach. Firstly, it is likely to be interpreted in practice as constituting a promotion policy: that is, learners ought to have reached the stated expected level of performance at the end of grades 1 , 2 , 3 . .. etc, so, if they haven't, they ought to repeat the year. In favour of benchmarking for each grade it is argued that we are working in a context where former standards were so different that teachers now need to be given a clear indication of what is expected. In this way, expectations can be raised in formerly disadvantaged communities. It is stressed that promotion policies will be delinked from this pegging of expected levels of performance. But many educators believe that, even though policy guidelines make it clear that this is not the intention, the model proposed using annual expected levels of performance is too similar to the old model of annual promotion requirements not to lead to misunderstanding at grass-roots level. The second objection is that it can so easily lead to a situation of streaming, in which learners are, in reality if not in theory, consigned to one of three parallel curricula, condemned to be treated as poor, average or bright students, according to the quality categories outlined. All educational research bears testimony to the fact that learners adjust to teacher expectations, particularly when these expectations are reinforced by a differentiated approach in which certain learners are offered learning experiences with less breadth and depth than others. This can easily result in streaming or tracking. We must ensure that all learners work within a common curriculum, receiving the same opportunities. The allocation of performance quality statements at each of the common levels negates this philosophy and reopens the door to inequality of educational opportunity. The sense of a single learning continuum is also helpful in response to the concern expressed by some educators in the FET and HE bands. Particularly at these levels some systematic building of mastery of specific disciplines, some with hierarchical content, is essential. Basic scaffolding needs to be provided to assist the developers of learning programmes, books, etc to produce coherent, thoughtful and sequential materials that build skills and knowledge systematically. This should not be left entirely to publishers, or teachers will be forced to buy complete sets of textbooks covering the whole ten years of compulsory schooling, instead of being able to choose the most appropriate within a coherent system. The word encouraging is chosen to emphasise the need for positive feedback wherever possible and for constructive feedback in each case. It also highlights the importance of motivation, achieved by the teacher selecting interesting,

C H A P T E R

1 4

M E GP A H A O

stimulating and challenging tasks which are adapted so as to be suitable to the learners' interests, ages, language levels and life experiences. Young learners are naturally curious about the world and enjoy learning new skills and developing new understandings. It is one of the tragedies of education systems all over the world that this natural motivation to learn is often stifled soon after children begin to attend formal school. Children need the time and space to pursue their interests, making connections and pushing forward their understanding in thought processes which may be invisible to adults. Teachers can often learn how to help the child forward best by simply observing and responding to initiatives made by the child. Hurrying them off to do some prepared activity when they are fully absorbed in something else is a mistake. Some learners remain motivated throughout their lives. However, those who lose motivation through insensitive treatment at school lose the main prerequisite for achievement, becoming reliant on external motivation (the carrot and stick, prizes, punishments, and so on). Learners work harder if they receive encouraging feedback and constructive advice. This feedback should also encourage them to reflect and participate in the assessment process, gradually improving their own selfassessment skills. If an atmosphere can be created where peer and teacher assessment taking the form of constructive criticism is accepted as non-threatening and supportive, we shall see motivated learners increasing their rate of progress and extending their natural thirst for lifelong learning. Most successf~illearners are driven by their own high standards, their own sense of achievement, their own interest in finding out more about whatever interests then1 at any given time. In thzs sectzon zt has been argued that teachers should track mch lpamer's~ O ~ ~ 7n P rekatzon S Y should be ma&bed wzth r i m r u to hzs or her development along a learnzng cmtznuum. ProProqa~ to ~malleroutrom~slinked to the mtiral outcoma, hy means Ofpr~~gr~sr mn;Ds. The mazn focu 7 of thzs ongozng a~sessmentshould FP fmatzvu and dwe@mmtccl. Ikcrhw 5 rnu~tnot Low czght oj the psycholopcal zmpact qj assessment, and should rtrrr~rfo enruw that t h ~ uorcl~r Pedbark a porztlve, constructive and dfl~fl$t,rn~ntal, motl-clatzr~gh r n ~ r sto7unrO~h~ghw , IPamer, should be d~vf)l\ nchzmmnt. A non-thr~atmzngatmosphmt shoulcl bu h ~ l O p e dand znvok7~edzn thu cw wsrmmt porrss so that group and peer n ~ ~ e ~ s r nran t w fpkcq cr po~zt?7)e rok.

A commitment to develop self-assessment,peer assessment and reflective skills

The skills of self- and peer assessment are central to the concept of lifelong learning. It is vital to fbster these skills, which do not develop automatically. For example, children can be encouragec-l to develop critical and creative thinking skills from the reception year, using them in the evaluatiori of each other's 'work', whilst being sure t o make constructive (and never derogatory) remarks. If children have produced drawings, for example, the teacher can encotui-age them to explain to eacl.1 other what the drawings are about. She rnight ask thcrn for- 'criteria' (not using the word) to explain how they evaluate each other's work (~vhatthey like

SECTION

D

about it). Ideas including colour, shape and composition (not using those words) will normally arise. By Grades 1 and 2 many learners will be able to explain which they like best, and why. They can apply this collaborative/peer assessment experience to their own efforts and explain how they think they might improve on them. Similarly, children can help each other (and themselves in the process) to improve their handwriting (form) and written expression (creative selfexpression as well as grammar, etc). Teachers have to create the time and space for this, encouraging drafting and redrafting of work, making it clear that the assessment and the improvements are both valuable parts of the learning experience and not simply frills. This applies to all aspects of the learning programmes. Some teachers have experienced difficulty with older learners suddenly introduced to peer assessment, where a negative remark or ridicule has emerged. This does not happen in a non-threatening culture where learners have become used to peer and self-assessment from an early age. In such difficult situations it may be best to encourage self-assessmentfirst, and to introduce peer assessment gradually, in a very structured manner. Space does not allow for detailed suggestions about ways of encouraging selfassessment. However, the use of portfolios, folders or boxes containing 'best work' and/or 'representative' collections of work chosen by the learners, containing reflective comments on why the choices have been made, is a good way to begin to encourage reflective self-assessment. Teachers will have to guide learners so that they make explicit criteria for their choices, perhaps design a format for comments, perhaps set themselves a target and track their own progress towards it. In addition, teachers (and parents) may wish to add comments, to date and evaluate the work from time to time if it offers evidence of progress in relation to particular outcomes. Journals and informal learner-teacher as well as parent-teacher discussions, as well as conferencing (more formal, recorded discussions), are also useful. Where learning difficulties appear to be caused largely by a lack of motivation, learners sometimes respond well to 'learning contracts', where individual agreements are negotiated (for example, less homework if key tasks are completed to the best of the learner's ability). Teachers should devote time and energy to helping learners to develop key learning skills, which include self-motivation, self-knowledge, self-discipline and time-management skills - all of which are encouraged through self- and peer assessment practices. To summarise, an outcomes-based approach to assessment highlights the need for both the learner and the educator (and others as appropriate, like parents) to understand and participate in the assessment and monitoring of learning progress. It points to the need for the use of agreed transparent assessment criteria to help learners to develop the skills of self-assessment and the ability to take

CHAPTER

14

MEG P A H A D

increasing responsibility for their own lifelong learning development. Teachers should give learners opportunities to assess their own and each others' work/ performance, to edit, to resubmit, to practise and improve performances in the light of this assessment, either before or after (or both before and after) receiving the teacher's own assessment and constructive feedback.

The systematic application of an assessment cycle which ensures regular constructive feedback and the planning of the next learning steps The Gauteng draft policy discussion document for assessment suggests that a cycle be introduced: 'assess, plan, implement, reflect' (Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) March 1998).This kind of planning is widely recommended but it is rarely implemented in the schools with which the IEB works in terms of assessment training. Teachers will find it easier to work in this way if the school management works with the staff as a whole to agree on a whole school assessment policy. The IEB works, where possible, with the Management of Schools Training Programme (MSTP) in the context of school-related assessment training, because we believe that good management practices and good assessment practices inform and support each other. Whole school planning, whole school policy development and whole school staff development, as well as the involvement of parents, community, the organised teaching profession, local education officials and local business are all important ingredients which can contribute to the success of outcomes-based assessment in the school context. Although the management issues involved fall outside the scope of this chapter, the implementation of assessment policy initiatives, especially those concerning systematic planning, record-keeping and reporting to parents, cannot succeed without both good management and the involvement and support of all the key stakeholders. This can be achieved gradually, over a period of years. Each year an important aspect of assessment policy can be tackled, a proposal agreed, tried out, adapted, adopted, implemented, evaluated and revised. For example, giving encourag2ng and constructive feedback might be adopted and implemented as a part of school assessment policy. Another very important step to take would be to try to reach consensus around the teachers' planning and record-keeping. If staff and management could agree on a policy around this cycle it would help to make explicit and systematic the teacher planning and reflection which already takes place in most cases. Some teachers do this intuitively, but do not keep records. Others do it from time to time. Many school managers insist on seeing teachers' half-termly or weekly lesson plans. Outcomes-based education and training plans should take the form of sets of common tasks selected to address certain outcomes, together with alternative follow-up tasks for those who experienced difficulties or race ahead. As a general guideline, assessments could broadly be based on the

S E C T I O N

D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

pattern already outlined in this chapter: base-line, several formative teaching and learning tasks, structured to allow targeted observation, and a more extensive, carefully designed integrative summative assessment task.

A concerted effort to provide access to a range of appropriate assessment types and contexts Many educators already assess much of the normal course work -classwork and homework -not relying solely on tests performed under examination conditions. This is a tremendous advance, particularly for those learners who freeze under the stress of examinations and do not do themselvesjustice. However, taking the critical outcomes seriously puts even greater demands on the teacher. The contexts must vary, for example, homework, classwork, individual work, work in pairs, in groups, in teams, open book, no book allowed, silent or collaborative. Educational aids such as calculators, computers, libraries and the Internet should be used. It is also important to vary the medium for assessment. This not only gives leamers a range of different opportunities to demonstrate competence, thus being fairer, for example, to those who express themselves better verbally than in writing. It also encourages learners to develop the range of skills needed in the modem world to communicate effectively, and thus addresses one of the critical outcomes repeatedly throughout the programme. However, in attempting to provide a greater variety it would be a mistake to provide too much variety too often. It is very important not to create a busy, activityxentred classroom in which learners are rushed from one incomplete and unsatisfying activity to another. Learners need time to become deeply involved, pursuing their ideas and pushing forward the boundaries of their understanding. Assessment should not be yet another activity to add on. Rather, it should be a part of the activity itself, either embedded (as in the case of teacher observation) or should flow naturally from it (as when different groups present their findings to each other and to the teacher). Although variety is important, the key criterion for the teacher to apply is apprqpriaateness. For these reasons it is suggested that school assessment policies should include agreement on some kind of range and frequency of assessment types. This should not be a management decision, but rather a genuine consensus reached by all relevant staff. In the development of all new school policies, it is better to agree on something that is possible and acceptable to everyone (as an agreed minimum in terms of variety and range) and, if necessary, to extend it after a trial period, in light of teacher responses. A school might start with (for example, in the Intermediate Phase) one integrated assessment per term per learner which was assessed through an oral presentation, one assessed through a piece of writing, and one assessed through an artefact/poster/drawing/graph, chart or map. The actual range chosen would depend on the learning area/subject, resources available and the age of the learners.

CHAPTER

14

M E GP A H A O

Once the need for variety is established, it is important to consider the ageappropriateness of assessment. Foundation Phase teachers should focus on how young children learn through activities that are relevant to their lives and of interest to them at that moment. For this age group learning involves more concrete experience and less abstract thought and young learners need time to explore ideas thoroughly. Selfexpression through stories, movement, music, rhyme, painting and drawing (for example) as well as basic skills such as reading, speaking and concrete number operations should be the focus of assessment. Assessment will be less formal and will usually be carried out through daily, targeted observation. This needs to be sensitive and analyucal observation followed by interpretation, planning and interaction. (Why are those two so fascinated by emptying that jug? What could Iprovide later to extend their exploration?How can I help Vusi to participate more actively ? What kindr of things does he seem to enjoy watching.. . ? Why can't Thando answer that question on a worksheet when she can do it using play coins? What can I do to he@ her make the link?) Teachers should also help learners to begin to develop self- and peer assessment skills, discussing and reflecting on their own and each other's work/play. Intermediate Phase teachers would focus on learners beginning a transition to more conventional and formal ways of communicating their ideas and achievements. Teachers must emphasise the intended outcomes of activities, and incorporate self- and/or peer assessment regularly into selected assignments. This will lead to redrafting and editing written work, and gving learners second and even third chances to achieve success in other areas wherever possible. The emphasis on expecting learners to be able to demonstrate competence using a range of media is sharpened, and the teacher must help them to achieve the necessary skills by sometimes making the presentation the focus of the activity (and, of course, the explicit focus of the assessment). By the Senior Compulsory Phase teachers should expect learners to display a greater capacity for abstract thought, but this must be integrated with practical skills and the ability to reflect on their own progress. Consequently, assessment should focus on the specific and critical outcomes in the context of developing 'reading to learn' study skills, note-taking, mind-mapping, essay writing, and the analysis and application of various scientific, artistic, mathematical and technological concepts and processes. The critical outcomes should now be assessed in terms of approaching competence at GETC level in specific outcomes for the various areas of learning. Carefully designed summative assessments should be used more often now, to gauge more accurately a level of competence that could lead to the award of credits and/or qualifications on the NQF. Finally, there is another important aspect of' appropriateness which also needs consideration. This is in relation to the assessment suiting the task. For example, assess oral skills using an oral; the ability to work collaboratively by observing

SECTION

D

I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

collaborativework; and practical application by demanding practical application (not, for example, a description of how one would go about practical application!).

Involvement in and commitment to a quality assurance system, which ensures that assessment is fair, reliable and valid The question of variety brings us to the final basic principle for teachers to bear in mind in their assessment practices. Fairness involves adopting a consciously culture-fair and anti-bias stand. In reality, no assessment task rooted in the real world can be entirely culture-fair, so an important principle to remember is that the more variety you provide in setting assessment tasks (and learning tasks, which are normally the same tasks in terms of formative assessment), the more balanced your overall assessment profile is likely to be. If some assignments use a rural context as an example, make sure that some use an urban context; if some appear to be more appropriate or appealing to girls, ensure that an equal number, over a period of time, are likely to appeal more to boys, and so on. Fairness in relation to language is the most challenging aspect of assessment in our country. This needs a separate paper devoted to it. Here, we must simply flag the issue and remind teachers that learners need to have their home language explicitly valued in the school context. Teachers must celebrate linguistic diversity, mount and display work in different languages, encourage learners to discuss new concepts in whichever language they prefer. This is particularly important during primary school, but the validation and support for language diversity should continue throughout the whole education and training system. In the context of formal assessment tasks (whether internally or externally set), assessors (examiners) should remember that learners demonstrating competence through a language which is not their home language need clarity about what is required. This is especially important in terms of setting assessment tasks, where clear instructions should be given and the use of unnecessarily difficult vocabulary avoided. It is also crucial in the context of marking, especially in the context of external assessmentslike the Senior Certificate,where the markers do not know the learners. It is important to look beyond linguistic competence towards understanding what a student is struggling to express, particularly when marking work or assessing performance in subjects which are non-language subjects. Validity of assessment has already been discussed. If we think we are assessing a particular outcome, we must ask ourselves if this is really the case. For example, if the teacher carries out an experiment to test a hypothesis in front of the class, and they all write it up, the teacher may have been able to demonstrate effectively a particular problemsolving approach. The learners might have been thoroughly engaged and have internalised the methodology and understood the concepts involved. The teacher and learners might all be able to apply the same process skills effectively in a different context to test another hypothesis. On the other hand, we all know that teacher and class could have all simply been following a

CHAPTER

1 4

M E GP A H A D

textbook with little understanding of the concept of fair testing or the point of the experiment. If the class is asked to write up this same experiment in a test, they are simply being assessed on recall: not on process skills, not application, not problemsolving, not on understanding the scientific concepts involved. However, if they are given a problem in which they have to select a methodology to apply in order to find a solution, and they have to transfer the higher cognitive skills involved to an unfamiliar situation, then the test becomes valid. Validity should be emphasised. The research conducted by the Ministerial Committee Investigation into the Senior Certificate Examination (Pretoria, October 1998) into examiners' reports showed clearly that many examiners did not intend to challenge learners to demonstrate higher-order cognitive skills. Indeed, some thought it unfair to do so. One examiner complained that a question required candidates to use information which came from two separate chapters in their textbook, and was therefore poorly answered (Yeld, 1998)! Reliability of assessment is an area that can be best helped by the introduction of effective quality assurance systems. The report mentioned previously (Pretoria, October 1998) showed that, although most provincial departments of education had such systems on paper, the actual functioning of these systems left much to be desired. We should like to be sure that internal assessments carried out by one teacher in a school were comparable with those carried out by another, and that they consistently interpreted the standards expressed in the form of outcomes, and had a common understanding of levels of achievement. There should also be consistency between clusters, districts, regions and provinces. Policy documents recommend a move towards teacher assessment contributing about 50 % of the assessment at GETC and/or FETC level. In this context, teachers themselves are going to ask for quality assurance, so that it is clear to learners, parents and the community that judgements made by teachers do not merely represent their personal opinions. Suchjudgements need to be backed up both by evidence of performance levels (in the form of records of achievement or learning profiles) and by a whole system of monitoring and moderation that verifies them. The new Education and Training Quality Assurance bodies to be set up under the SAQA legislation will have the task of ensuring that current quality assurance regulations, procedures and practices are improved and properly implemented. This should be a priority concern for government and teacher organisations alike. The DOE and provincial departments of education already have plans for 'learning site effectiveness units' which will be designed to play an important role in improving current quality assurance practices. Several other elements which will support the development of quality assurance systems have been proposed in a number of policy documents (for example, DOE, May 1998 and DOE; October, 1998) and seem to have the support of national

D I N S I D EC L A S S R O O M S

SECTION

and provincial departments. These include a massive INSET and PRESET training campaign for teachers and managers on assessment and quality assurance practices. In the future, every teacher will be a trained assessor -this will be part of all professional training. There is no intention to create an elite of assessors and disempower ordinary teachers in this field. However, in the short term we need to encourage the existing teaching force to train as assessors, so that at least we can ensure that each school has a proportion of staff adequately trained in outcomes-based assessment. The training of markers, examiners and moderators in relation to the Senior Certificate and the GETC has also been recommended. Systemic evaluation at the end of Grades 3,6 and 9 has been mentioned in policy documents consistentlysince the ANC's policy document on education and training was released (ANC, 1994). This is advocated both as a way of monitoring and evaluating provision and as a possible way of moderating internal assessments, particularly in relation to the award of credits towards GETC and FETC (or currently, Senior Certificate).Assessment for accountability of teachers, schools, and systems is normally carried out by sampling. Learners, teachers and schools can remain anonymous. The information may be divulged on a 'need to know' basis, in order to iden* problems and take remedial action. The idea of the results of systemic evaluation being used to produce a published league-table of schools, as it does in some countries,would be particularly counter-productivein the context of our history in South Africa.

A number of proposals have been put forward in relation to creating a moderating instrument to moderate across examination bodies/assessment agencies. Suggestions include using a common examination paper or common questions, for use in relation to the Senior Certificate. More recently, there have been proposals to design an entirely new cross-curricular instrument based on the critical outcomes, as a way of establishing national consistency in relation to the GETC (and later the FETC) which may rely heavily in other respects on internal teacher assessment. The use of the critical outcomes in this manner might help to transform the curriculum from the exit points of schooling downwards, building on the positive backwash effect that examinations and other forms of assessment can have. This would complement the transformatoryeffect ofthe introduction of curriculum 2005 from the Foundation Phase upwards. Although there have been many such proposals about quality assurance systems and moderation instruments, further research and development work is urgently required in these areas. Finally, it is important to emphasise that, however difficult the successful implementation of OBET and, in particular, outcomes-based assessment may be, we in South Africa have no viable alternative.The NQF provides us with a structured invitation to growth, but the growth is not guaranteed. It is the responsibility of each one of us. We have no choice but to find the resources, the political will,

CHAPTER

14

M E GP A H A O

the energy and the commitment to make OBET succeed. This requires a better understanding of outcomes-based assessment. Let us not talk about why it might fail, but rather about how to ensure that it succeeds.

SECTION D

INSIDE CLASSROOMS

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANC Education Department. 1994. A Policy Frammlz forEducatwn and Training Discussion document,Johannesburg. Brodie, K 1998. Private conversation, University of Witwatersrand,Johannesburg. Chantavich, A, Chantavich, S & Fry, G. 1990. EvaluatingPrimary Education: Qualitative and Quantitative Policy Studies in Thailand. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. Department of Education (DOE). 1998. Draft Assessment Policy in the General Education and Training Phase: Grade R to 9 and ABET. May. Pretoria. Department of Education (DOE). 1998. Implementing OBE: SaRF Bookkt 2: Assessment. June. Pretoria. Department of Education (DOE). 1998. Report ofthe Ministerial Committee on an Investigation into the Senim CertificateExamination. October. Pretoria. Gultig,J, (ed). 1997. Knowledge, Curriculum and Assessment in South Afica. Johannesburg: SAIDE and DOE. King, M & Van den Berg, 0. 1992. Success m Failure? Examinations and Assessment, Johannesburg: IEB/Centaur. French, E. 1998. Discussion D o c u m t on New GETC. IEB internal document. Madaus, G. 1988. The Influence of Testing on the Curriculum. In L Tanner (ed), Critical Issues in the Cummculum.Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education. Malcolm, C. 1998. IEB internal workshop, June. Pahad, M. 1996. Issues in Assessment in South A j k a during the Period of Transition, 1989-95. M Ed. Research Report, University of Witwatersrand,Johannesburg. Pahad, M. 1997. Assessment and the National Qualifications Framauwk. Johannesburg: Heinmann/IEB. Spady, W. 1998. Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development, Seminar,July. Yeld, N. 1998. Preparatory material collected in preparation for the Report on the Ministerial Committee on an Investigation into the Senior Certificate Examination,August, Pretoria.

SECTION E

Insights, Implications

Thispage intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 15

OBE and Unfolding Policy Trajectories: Lessons to be Learned PAM CHRISTIE FACULTY O F EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND. WITWATERSRAND

INTRODUCTION It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state's constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing laws on their side, and partly because men (sic) are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience. In consequence, whenever those who oppose the changes can do so, they attack vigorously and the defence made by the others i~ onlv lukewarm (Machiavelli, 1 9 9 5 : 19)'. From a policy perspective, OBE and Curriculum 2005 may be viewed as part of a suite of policies adopted by the post-apartheid government to restructure and transform the legacy of apartheid education and training. The national Department of Education set out its agenda for change in the first White Paper on Education and Training (1995).Subsequently, it has focused on developing framework policies for different parts of its vision. These have included the establishment of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) to give expression to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) in 1996; new proposals for governance and financing set out in the South African Schools Act (1996); (X~niculum2005 (199'1); and reports from the Task Team on Education Management Development (1996), the National Committee on Further Education and Training (1997), the Gender Equity Task Team (1998) and the National Commission on Special Needs in Education and Training (1998). This chapter will argue that, as Machiavelli observes, fundamental change of this nature is difficult to achieve and win support for. This chapter suggests three major reasons for this in the case of new -

1 awakdr,I m

.-

-.

-

Thanks to Samual lsaacs for tntroduc~ngme to thts quote from Mach~avell~

279

SECTION

E

education policies in South Africa: the way the new departments of education have interpreted their policy task; the way they have approached school change; and the difficulties they have faced in managing change. Each of these provides lessons to be learned in the complex task of transformation in South Africa. To provide a context for these arguments, this chapter begins with a brief outline of the new policies, including Curriculum 2005.

Proposals for the transformation of education and training in South Africa first emerged during the civil society policy activities that led up to the 1994 elections. During this period of intense debate within and between the ANC, COSATU, private sector groups, and community groups, an education and training agenda was drawn up, borrowing explicitly from a range of international experience (see Christie, 1997) to meet the joint goals of equity and social and economic development. As Nzimande points out:

... there was unprecedented co-operation between the national liberation movement and mass democratic movement on the one hand, and progressive left-wing academics on the other ... around the development of policies for the democratic movement in preparation for the ascendency of the movement into state and governmental power (1997: iii-iv) .

The emerging vision for education and training was a systemic umbrella agenda. Education and training would be integrated in a system of lifelong learning that would articulate adult basic education and training, formal schooling, and learning programmes for out-ofschool children and youth. Structures representing stakeholder interests would ensure accountability and participation at all levels of the integrated system. An NQF would plot equivalences between qualifications to maximise horizontal and vertical mobility. An outcomes-based curriculum would allow different pathways for learners in different contexts so that adults, out-ofschool children and youth, and in-school children would be able to follow different curricular content and even assessment methods which would be articulated through outcome statements. In this complex reform agenda, demands of both equity and human resources development would be brought together in policies that would shift the values and practices of apartheid education into a democratic, rights-based approach to social and economic development.

As it happened, there were considerable shifts after the 1994 elections. The new agenda was dealt a blow when education and training were kept in separate ministries, and policies for the two were developed separately. The negotiated settlements and moderate politics of compromise favoured by the Government of National Unity (GNU) and subsequently the ANC government tempered the more radical preelection ideals. The hub of policy activity moved from civil society into the new state, which was a complex mix of senior civil servants of the old

CHAPTER

1 5

PAM CHRISTIE

order, whosejobs were protected under the new Constitution,and new appointees, many of them people with political and activist backgrounds, who generally lacked experience in government. In practice, policy proposals emerging from the new government and its hybrid bureaucracy significantly modified earlier visions. As the sketchy policy proposals, including OBE, were given substance by the new government they were encased in a technical discourse and complex regulatory structures. As De Clercq points out, the challenge facing ANGled ministries was to 'create a terrain favourable to a shift of power relations in favour of the traditionally excluded, despite various structural constraints' (1997: 135). This has proved difficult to achieve in the first term of office of the new government. The approach to reconstruction adopted by the new Ministry of Education drew a sharp distinction between policy formulation and implementation. The new constitutional dispensation vested the national Department of Education (DOE) with responsibility for developing norms and standards, frameworks and national policies for the system as a whole, while provincial departments are responsible for implementation and service delivery within these frameworks. The DOE has given a strong interpretation to its brief and has focused on developing a series of ideal-type, blueprint policy frameworks for the areas outlined in White Paper One. These policy frameworks have given almost no attention to the context of implementation and how the new vision could be put in place in the profoundly unequal school contexts that apartheid left behind. This approach has implicitly assumed that the formulation of policy can be logically separated from its implementation. In many ways, the resultant suite of policy proposals represent state-of-the-art thinking on Western schooling,drawing as they consciously do from what isjudged to be the best of international experience. However, in setting out these proposals, the national Department of Education has assumed little or no responsibility or accountability for how these policies might be delivered. Instead, as Greenstein observes, provincial departments, who play a minimal role in policy formulation, 'have to follow imperatives not of their own making and bear the budgetary brunt of these' (1997: 2). In his view, this structural disjuncture between power and accountability promises to be an ongoing source of tension in education. Moreover, though these proposals may be admirable in their sentiments and elegant in their formulation, they are generally lacking in detail and specificity. They have no clear equity or redress provisions; there is no attempt at strategic planning or analysis of points of engagement to transform what actually exists. Nor are there any realistic mechanisms for how policies may be taken through the bureaucracy and put into place in schools. Though superficially sophisticated, the new policies do not deal adequately with significant issues of implementation. As Greenstein ( 1997: 4)argues: In the absence of specific funds targeting backlogs, high repetition, dropout and failure rates caused by poorly qualified teachers, disrupted school environment, lack of learning materials, and poor physical infrastructure, the possibilities for-

SECTION

E

redistribution ... remain limited. The existing situation,in which differently endowed communities enjoy widely varying levels of provision, and are able to supplement state resources from their own pockets, has not changed. In defence of the new policy documents, it may be argued that paradigm-switching policy visions are important in displacing the social engineering of apartheid, and that they provide an enticing picture of an alternative system. However, as they stand, the DOE'S policy documents are idealistic texts in an essentially topdown policy process which is not rooted in the realities of schools or responsive to conditions on the ground. Moreover, as a number of analysts have pointed out (De Clercq, Greenstein,Jansen, Christie) the sophistication of the policies brings the unintended effect that they are likely to be of most benefit to those communities and schools that have the resources to take advantage of the opportunities they offer. For underresourced communities and schools, these policies may produce the opposite effect, acting as extra burdens rather than opportunities for improvement. This may be clearly seen in the case of Curriculum 2005.

Though the new government recognised the need to replace the content-based and often ideologically distorted curriculum of apartheid, curriculum change took second place to policies for finance, governance and organisation of schools. As one of the compromise procedures in the newly arranged bureaucracy, the ANC's pre-election curriculum proposals were merged with existing curriculum development work undertaken by the previous government. After a short-term exercise in 'cleansing' the curriculum of its most obvious errors for the start of the 1995year, frameworks for the outcomes-based Curriculum 2005 were put out in 199'7. Building on the 'essential outcomes' of the NQF, Curriculum 2005 sets out eight Learning Areas (Communication, Literacy and Languages; Human and Social Sciences; Numeracy and Mathematical Sciences; Natural and Physical Sciences; Economic and Management Sciences; Technology; Culture, Arts and Artistic Crafts; and Life Orientation). Specific outcomes have been developed for each of these, totalling sixty-six in all for the nine years of the General Education phase. Together with its outcomes approach, Curriculum 2005 favours continuous assessment with less stress on examinations for each term. Using a complex matrix of range statements, assessment criteria and performance indicators, teachers are able to construct learning programmes and prepare lessons based on outcomes. Curriculum 2005 is an important step away from the content-laden, often ideologically distorted, examinations-oriented apartheid curricula. It emphasises 'learning by doing', problemsolving, skills development and continuous assessment, and allows greater space for teacher involvement in curriculum construction. In many ways, Curriculum 2005 and the NQF represent specific South African forms of global, late-modem curriculum patterns (see Cowen, 1996; Christie, 1997;Young,

CHAPTER

I5

PAM CHRISTIE

1993;Finegold, 1993).These are geared towards flexible specialisation and the skill needs of post-Fordist production in an internationally competitive market. In cumculum policies, this has entailed the incorporation of work-related competencies into curricula,particularly in postcompulsory and adult basic education and training; modular credit accumulation with more frequent assessment; a network of pathways in a lifelong learning system; and diminishing importance of institutional base in qualifications.As argued elsewhere (Christie, 1997),it may well be possible for these global features to be worked into local forms to achieve goals of equity along with social and economic development. However, much depends on the specific forms they take and the way they are put into practice. In the case of South African schools, the particular forms of Curriculum 2005 and its implementation have been highly problematic. While the curriculum frameworks for Learning Areas were drawn up by committees on which teachers were represented, most teachers have not been actively engaged with the new curriculum. For most of them, the new curriculum is being put in place in topdown ways that strongly resemble the imposition of apartheid curricula. This is partly due to the poorly planned and over-hasty introduction of the new curriculum into schools, with teachers being insufficiently prepared for outcomes-based pedagocgy and continuous assessment. In these circumstances, the government provided emergency training and materials to ensure that all provinces could start from the same footing; however, in-service work with teachers and schools has been minimal and resources totally inadequate. The government was forced to pull back from its ambitious plans to launch the curriculum simultaneously in Grades 1, 4 and 7 in 1998. Because of lack of capacity in provinces and schools to implement major changes at such short notice, the government scaled down its plans to Grades 1 and 4, and then to Grade 1 only. A major logistical problem with the launch of the new curriculum has been the resource-strapped circumstances of the provinces. In fact, provincial report-backs for the first school term of 1998 show that up to half' of the primary schools in some provinces, including those with the most rural schools, have ignored the launch of Curriculum 2005.' Debate around Cumculum 2005 has been characterised by scathing criticism (most powerfully from Jansen, 1997) and defensive if not hostile government response. ~:urriculum2005 has been rightly accused of beingjargon ridden and inaccessible in its discourse. Its procedures for designing learning programmes are complex and sophisticated, if not obscure. Working with these principles requires wellprepared teachers, who are more likely to be found in historically white than historically black schools. C;c.rtainly, the new curriculum is not targeted at conditions in the majority of South African classrooms. Importantly, because content is backgrounded and outcomes decontextualised in this fonn of curriculum design, the new curriculum does not address crucial issues for South African schools such as racism, sexism, arid Africanisation (Greenstein, 1997; Jansen,1997). ,411 -

2

--

-

.-

-

EPU Quarterly Reportsprov~dea good account ofthe unfold~ngof Curr~culum2005 and other new educat~onpol~c~es

SECTION

E

I N S I G H T SI M , PLICATIONS

in all, asJansen points out, the changes have the greatest likelihood of success in well-resourced schools with wellqualified teachers and better-prepared students. In his words: OBE will further undermine the already weak culture of teaching and learning in South African schools by escalating the administrative burden of change at the very time that rationalisation further limits the human resource capacity for managing such change Uansen, 1997: 74).

It has become commonplacefor members of the government to admit themselves that South Africa has excellent policies but knows nothing about implementation. The danger of this common-sense generalisation is that it side-steps the question of whether or not any policies may bejudged to be 'good' when implementation issues are ignored. At the risk of oversimpllfylng,3the approach of separating policy formulation from implementation is exemplified in the rationalist tradition of policy, which views policy as a set of logically distinct activities in a cycle which progresses from problem definition, through policy formulation, adoption and implementation to evaluation and reformulation. This policy approach has been powerfully criticised and counter-posed by a contingency approach, which views policy as an inherently political activity in the 'authoritative allocation of values' (see Ball, 1990),and policy making as fluid, dynamic and essentially contestational, involving compromises, trade-offs and settlements (Ball, 1990; Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 199'7;Fulcher, 1989).A strong version of this position contends that policies are best understood in terms of practices on the ground, rather than idealist statements of intention or blueprints for action (see Samoff). The epistemological differences between these two approaches to policy are highlighted by the need to explain decades of experience that policies are seldom implemented as designed. From the rationalist perspective, the 'problem' lies with the implementers who are variously seen to be lacking in capacity or will. From the contingency perspective, the 'problem' lies in the nature of policy itself which is contested and uncertain. Within this perspective, Kemmis and Rizvi (1987: 22) state that it is necessary to recognise

. .. the ubiquity of disagreements about goals and means, the complexity of the situations in which programs are to work, the resistances which the articulation of goals and means may generate, the existence of contrary pressures among those associated with the program, and the difficulties of defining, let alone attaining, successful program outcomes. Whether from a rationalist or a contingency perspective, the neglect of implementation issues in the new education policies is a fundamental flaw which has severely compromised the capacity of these policies to deliver change. 3

For a more thorough exposition of these debates, see De Clerq, 1997.

CHAPTER

15

PAM CHRISTIE

One of the major difficulties in state-led reform initiatives is that education systems operate through many levels. As Elmore and Sykes note 'policy includes notjust the intentions of policy-makers embodied in law and regulation but the stream of actions that follow from those intentions' (1992: 118).Policies formulated at national and provincial levels pass through education bureaucracies to the complex contexts of schools. Sustaining a reform thrust through these levels is often impossible. There are many legitimate policy actors in the education policy process, and they inevitably shape policy-as-practice. It is not simply a matter of planning for policies to reach through layers of implementers; as Fullan (1991) points out, it is very difficult for policies to mandate what matters. Mandating quality of teaching and learning in classrooms cannot be done even by the best organised of policy-makers. Moreover, it is important to remember that policies always involve choices; there is nothing inevitable or necessary about them. Though policies are powerfully constrained by their circumstances, they are seldom 'the only thing that can be done', though governments often present them as such. As Beilhartz (198'7) and Yeatman (1990) point out, policy activities themselves construct the policy 'problems' to which they seem to be responses. In an insightful analysis of the early years of education restructuring, De Clercq (1997: 135-136) points out that the Ministry of Education had several policy and strategy choices available in its task of transformation: It could have built on previous ANC policy work and options of the preelection era and moved into implementation plans and strategies for action. It could have united the majority of the provincial departments around common policy priorities and plans for intervening in the education system. It could have mobilized, through wellfocused campaigns and pilot programmes, educational communities around the worst inherited problem areas. It could have worked in partnership with nongovernmental education organizations and other education interest groups to plan and evaluate how to deliver better quality services and activities to some traditionally disadvantaged communities. Above all, it could have strategized and devised programmes to change the culture and ethos, as well as build the managerial and leadership capacity, of its own state bureaucrats, especially as the latter are key implementers of any educational reform. In reality, it did very little on these fronts.

While policy innovators may understandably be defensive in the face of the strong criticisms levelled against them, particularly in relation to Curriculum 2005, their denials and countercriticisms are not the most constructive responses. As Gramsci points out in his reworkings of Machiavelli, the task of winning hegemony through intellectual and moral leadership cannot be side-stepped in the democratic state. Leadership in the democratic state requires winning the consent of those ruled, particularly those who are not enemies. It requires persistent efforts in a continuous process of working within an unstable equilibrium of power. Rather

SECTION

E

than attempting to silence critics, many of whom are not opponents of the new order, the hegemonic task for leaders is to engage with them. I would suggest that the important lessons to be learned about the policy process are that policy-makers cannot avoid responsibility for strategic engagement to implement change at the point of delivery, and that a policy approach which separates formulation from implementation and does not recognise the importance of interactive processes in implementation cannot hope to achieve the changes it envisages.

In its suite of new policies, the Ministry of Education implicitly assumes that fundamental change in schools is achievable through national policy and, in its approach to the policy-making process, it assumes that changes may be effected through ideal-type, framework visions which do not engage with the conditions of their implementation. This raises the second issue highlighted in this chapter: to what extent are schools amenable to fundamental transformation? Cuban's (1993; 1990) studies of pedagogy in the USA reach a sobering conclusion for school reformers: that there has been little fundamental change in pedagogy in the past hundred years, in spite of a wide range of policy interventions. Cuban (1990: 73) usefully distinguishes between different degrees of school change: First-order changes try to make what already exists more efficient and more effective, without disturbing the basic organizational features, without substantially altering the ways in which adults and children perform their roles ... Secondarder changes seek to alter the fundamental ways in which organizations are put together ... [and] introduce new goals, structures and roles that transform Eamiliar ways of doing things into new ways of solving persistent problems.

In Cuban's view, most school reforms in the last century have centred around firstorder rather than second-order changes. While important school reform movements have addressed more fundamental changes on a school-by-school basis (see Sizer, 1992; Darling-Hammond, 1994), these have not been taken to scale. In the context of African countries, Heneveld (1994) reaches a similar conclusion. He argues that major policy reforms to improve the quality of primary education over the past fifteen years have not managed to change teaching and learning in classrooms. He lists a wide range of interventions:changes to the number of years of schooling, to the language of instruction, to the management structure of the education system, to the availability of textbooks and in-service teacher education, to subjects taught, to school construction programmes. In his view (Heneveld, 1994: 3) : Most of the national reform efforts seem to assume that a national policy and delivery of inputs to schools will be sufficient to change what teachers do with children in

CHAPTER

1 5

classrooms. However, the impact on children of changes that ignore the internal life of schools is usually limited.

Heneveld goes on to point out that in most cases 'the results in terms of effective implementation, the classroom use of new materials, changes in teacher behaviour, and improvements in academic achievement have been disappointing' (Heneveld, 1994: 3). Extensive research on school reform illustrates the difficulties of changing what happens in classrooms through state policy (see, for example, Elmore, 1979/80, 1995, 1996; Fuhrman, 1995; Fullan, 1991; Fuller, 1991; Heneveld & Craig, 1996; Levin & Lockheed, 1993; Rondinelli Middleton & Verspoor 1990). As Fuhrman (1995: 4) argues: Policy research has long demonstrated that reform is not simply a matter of getting the policy right; influences ranging from the political, social, and economic culture to the norms and knowledge structures of educators affect teaching and learning. Part of the challenge for reformers is understanding the limits of policy as well as its comparative advantage in leveraging changes in other domains, such as organization, management and institutional and individual capacity.

Whether policy-makers approach the change agenda through systemic reform or school by school, evidence is that changes at the classroom level are hard to achieve. Reviewing school restructuring moves in the USA, Elmore (1995) concludes that changing structures such as school governance may have high symbolic value, particularly in giving an appearance of change; yet there is little evidence that these changes affect learning and teaching practices in classrooms. Despite the limitations of state reform policies, it is important to recognise what they can achieve. As Fuhrman notes, they may be important in leveraging changes in organisation and management and in institutional and individual capacity. As well as setting directions within which schools and civil society groups may act, they are able to resource these directions and actions. In Heneveld's words, national level state policy 'is a necessary but fairly blunt instrument in the improvement of educational quality' (1994: 4). The challenge is to mesh the course grain of state policy with the fine grain of daily life in schools.

In the face of implementation difficulties,Elmore (1979/80) suggests a 'backward mapping' approach, which challenges policy-makers to start at the point of implementation and work backwards, rather than starting at the point of policy formulation and working forwards to implementation. Elmore argues that the forward mapping approach commonly favoured by policy-makers mistakenly assumes that policy-makers are able to control the complex political, organisational and technical factors that affect implementation, particularly at the school level. Given the complexity of these factors, he suggests that policy-makers should isolate and work with one or two that have a decisive influence on the problem and its

SECTION E

solution. As he states, 'One begins at the point of the problem and tries to find the most parsimonious way of reaching it' (1979/80: 52). It goes without saying that the more knowledge that planners and policy-makers have of the actual conditions in schools, the more likely it is that their policies will be sensitive to them.

I would suggest that important lessons to be learned about changing schools include the following. Firstly, a wealth of experience in developed and developing countries cautions that national policies are limited in changing classroom-level practices, though they may well be important in leveraging change. Fundamental change of the nature envisaged by the suite of new policies will not be easily achieved and will require a steady engagement at the school level. The challenge for policy-makers is to start as close to the school level as possible and to identify the key points of leverage to bring about the desired changes. Though it could be argued that this approach would require personnel and resources which are in short supply, it is none the less necessary for policy-makers to be more sensitive to the need for work at this level. Policy-makers need to recognise that changing established patterns and dynamics in schools cannot simply be mandated by policy directives, and is likely to take time.

The suite of new policies designed to transform the legacy of apartheid education has been increasingly faced with resource constraints. With the fall of Eastern bloc states shortly before the demise of the apartheid state, neo-liberalism has been ascendent globally. The response of the South African government to this global context has been to move away from the more radical economic and social transformation goals of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) and to adopt an unabashedly neeliberal macroeconomic framework in its Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) policies. Supporters of GEAR have argued that these strategies are necessary if South Africa is to participate in the framework imposed by globalisation (see Chisholm, 1997). However, it is important to recognise that GEAR, like other policies, is not simply an imposition but implies political choice. The neo-liberal policies for fiscal restraint and reduced social spending proposed by GEAR have had significant implications .for education as an area of social spending. Their prevailing assumption has been that the budgetary allocation for education should not be increased, that increased spending should be based on economic growth, and that the task of education departments is to manage their resources more efficiently and effectively (see Crouch, 1998; Fataar, 1997; Chisholm, 1997). Thus, the 1997/8 education budget allocation amounted to nearly 20 % of the overall budget and, although this was an increased percentage, it represented a cut in real terms. Within the framework of GEAR, all of the provinces have struggled to keep education spending within budget limits, and have experienced budgetary crises. 288

sy.x4>.. 1.m

CHAPTER

1 5

PAM CHRISTIE

With teachers' salaries absorbing nearly 85 % of provincial budgets, provinces have struggled to continue school building programmes, to purchase stationery and textbooks, and to provide in-service teacher education to support the new curriculum. In GEAR terms, the national government's view is that the crisis is not straightforwardlyfinancial, but rather is the result of provinces' lack of capacity and mismanagement of resources. Solutions therefore lie in improving the internal efficiencies of the system, building technical capacity and developing management competence. However, the net result is that, in the short term at least, it has proved almost impossible for the provincial education departments to achieve their desired changes within existing budget allocations. Perhaps the clearest example of difficulties in managing change is to be seen in the 'rightsizing' exercise that education departments embarked on in 1996. Given that teachers' salaries have absorbed such a large part of the education budget, this was an early target for cost cutting. The government's policy for doing this was to develop norms and standards for class sizes as a means of redistributing teachers and reducing costs. The goal was to redeploy teachers to schools with greatest need, to offer voluntary severance packages to surplus teachers or those unwilling to be transferred, and to use temporary teachers to fill gaps in the short term. However, a major difficulty in managing this process has been the absence of an accurate database of teachers employed in each school, their qualifications and subject expertise. Under these circumstances,the task of right-sizingwas devolved to school level, no doubt an example of displacing conflict through decentralisation (see Weiler). This poorly planned exercise cost more than Rl billion in voluntary severance packages instead of the anticipated R6 million; it led to a drain in skills and experience as numbers of wellqualified white teachers took the opportunity to leave teaching; it led to difliculties in shedding temporary teachers; it brought conflict with teachers' unions across the political spectrum; and it profoundly unsettled many teachers and schools (see Motala,1997; Greenstein, 1997;and other EPU Quarter4 +arts). Within two years, the government acknowledged its failure and announced that it would step back from attempts to set national standards on class sizes which was arguably no solution to the problems it had defined. At the height of the crisis, the national Minister of Education stated on television that constitutionally,it was not his responsibility but the but responsibility of the provinces - arguably an indication of lack of leadership. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from this about managing change. Attempting to change a key dimension of the education system conditions of teachers' work means engagementwith complex institutionalforms in bureaucracies and schools, as well as engagement with social forces beyond these. Introducing changes such as Curriculum 2005 and at the same time changing the conditions of teachers' work has proved to be impossible. Not surprisingly, attempting to introduce a new curriculum in the context of extreme shortages of resources for curriculum materials and teacher development has also brought major difficulties,

SECTION

E

as was briefly mentioned earlier. At the same time as attempting right-sizing and introducing Curriculum 2005 with inadequate resources, the government legislated that all schools need to establish governing bodies which would have financial responsibility. And this is to say nothing of other policy directions it favours, such as the endorsement of self-managing schools and the mainstreaming of learners with special educational needs. It could safely be predicted that the majority of schools would struggle with this welter of new policy directions, seemingly uncoordinated, if not unmanaged. Again, better resourced, historically privileged schools are more likely to be able to manage new policies than historically disadvantaged, mainly black schools, and particularly the poor, rural and marginalised among them. In short, I would suggest that a lesson to be learned is that introducing a suite of policy changes needs careful management. Managing educational change involves more detailed planning and coordination, strategic engagement and political negotiation than the government had anticipated. Without this form of careful engagement, the government is unlikely to be able to meet the challenge identified by De Clercq of creating a terrain 'favourable to a shift of power relations in favour of the traditionally excluded, despite various structural constraints' (1997: 135).

This chapter has approached its analysis of OBE and Curriculum 2005 as one of a suite of policies developed by the new government to transform education. It has suggested that, in Machiavelli's terms, fundamental change is a 'dangerous' task which is difficult to achieve and win support for. The framework policy approach of the new education authorities has separated formulation from implementation, thereby weakening the chances of delivering changes. The new authorities have assumed, seemingly unproblematically, that national policies may achieve classroom-level changes without specific strategies or engagement with actual schools. The management of change, particularly in the context of fiscal restraint, has proved to be a daunting task. The net result is that in the first term of office of the new government, the profound problems of apartheid schooling have hardly been shifted, despite efforts to do so. However, in assessing the new government's progress, it is important to recognise that the fundamental transformation of the apartheid education system is unlikely to be smoothly or speedily achieved. The examples of this chapter suggest that shifting the balance of forces needs continuous interaction between vision and conditions on the ground. Social and educational transformation cannot be delivered by democratic elections and policy visions alone. They need to be won in concerted engagement with social, political and economic forces, in which the development of new policies is simply one task.

CHAPTER

1 5

PAM CHRISTIE

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball, S. 1990. Politics and Poliq Making i n Education: Explorations in Polic?,Sociology. London: Routledge. Beilhartz, P. 1987. Reading politics: social theory and social policy. Australia and N m Zealand Journal of Sociology, 23(3), 338-406. Chisholm, L. 1997. The restructuring of South African education and training in comparative context. In P Kallaway, G Kruss, A Fataar & G Donn (eds). Education. AfterApartheid: South A h c a n Education in Transition, 50-67. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Christie, P. 1997. Global trends in local contexts: A South African perspective on competence debates. Discourse: Studies i n the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 55-69. Cowen, R. 1996. Last past the post: Comparative education, modernity and perhaps postmodernity. Comfmmtive Education, 32(2), 151-170. Crouch, L. 1997. Will things or will knowledge be the basis ofSouth A f ~ c a ' sh u l o p m ~ n t ?Sonw suggestions for a puductive engagement. Occasional paper No 1. Johanneburg: Centre for Education Policy Development. Cuban, L. 1990. A fundamental puzzle of school reform. In A Lieberman (ed). Schools a5 Collaborativr Culturus: Creating the Future Now. New York: Falmer Press. Cuban, L. 1993. How Teach~rsTaught: Constancy and CIiungf. in A m i r n n Classroomv, 1890-1990. 2 ed. New York: Teacliels College Press. Schools: Schools for. Dmelofiir~ga DarlingHammond, I,. 1994. Professional Dmeloprw~~t Projession. New York: Teachers College Press. De Clercq, F. 1997. Policy intervention and power shifts: An evaluation of South Africa's education restructuring policies.,Journal of Education Policy, 12( 3 ) , 127-146. Elmore, R. 1979/XO. Backward Mapping: Implementation, research and policy decisions. Polzt~cnlScz~ntr Qzmr-tp~Ij~, 94 (4), 60 1-1 6. Elmore, R & S;)ke\ (;. 1992. C:urricl~lurnpolicy. In PWJackson (ed). H(~nci0ooko f h e a r c h on (,'umrtulum, 18.5-2 l .i New . York and Toronto: Macrnillan Publishing Compam. Elmore, R. 1995. Structul-a1reform arid educational practice. l
SECTION

E

I N S I G H TIS M,P L I C A T I O N S

Fullan, M & Stiegelbauer,S. 1991. T3.e New MeaningofEducational Change. NewYork: Teachers College Press. Fuller, B. 1991. Crowing-Up Modern: The Wistem State Builds Third-World Schools. New York & London: Routledge. Greenstein, R. 1997. New policies and the challenges of budgetary constraints. Wits EPU Quarter&Review @Education and Training, 4(4), 15June. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Education Policy Unit. Heneveld, W & Craig, H. 1996. Schools Count: World Bank meet Designs and the Quality of Primary Education in SubSaharan Afnca. Washington DC: The World Bank. Heneveld, W. 1994. Planning and Mmitming the Quality ofPrimary Education in SubSaharan Ajaca. Washington DC: The World Bank. Jansen, J. 1997. Why OBE willfail. Perspectives on Outcomes-based Education (OBE): Proceedings of a National Conference held at the University of Durban-Westsille, March. Kemmis, S & Rizvi, E. 1987. Dilemmas o f R e f m : The Participation and Equity Programme in Victarian Schools. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University. Levin, H & Lockheed, M (eds). 1993. Effective Schools in Developzng Countries. London & Washington: Falmer Press. Motala, S. 1997. From policy to implementation: Ongoing challenges and constraints. Wits EPU Quarter& Review of Education and Training, 5(1), 22 September. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Education Policy Unit. Nzimande, B. 1997. Foreword. In P Kallaway, G Kruss, A Fataar & G Donn (eds). Education after Apartheid: South Afican Education in Transition,i-iix. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Rondinelli, D, Middleton,J & Verspoor, A. 1990. PlanningEducationalRefm in Developing Countries: The Contingency Approach. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Sarnoff,J. 1996. Frameworks! South African Education and Training Policy Documents, 1994-1996. Unpublished mimeograph prepared for the Macro Education Policy Unit, University of Durban-Westsille. Sizer, T. 1992.Horace's School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Taylor, S, Rizvi, F, Lingard B & Henry M. 1997. Educational Policy and the Politics @Change. London, New York & Philadephia: The Falmer Press. Weiler, H. 1983. Legalization, expertise and participation: Strategies for compensatory legitimation in educational policy. Comparative Educational Review, 27(2), 259-277. Yeatman, A. 1990. Bureaucrats, Technocrats,Fmcrats: Essays on the ContempwyAustralian State. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Young, M. 1993.A Curriculum for the 21St Century?Towards a new basis for overcoming academic/vocational divisions. BritishJournal ofEducation Studies, 41 (3), 203-222.