Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Yes, Mmusi, but all begins with reconfiguring the South African curriculum

19 January 2022 | Story Dr Bekithemba Dube | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Dr Bekithemba Dube, Senior Lecturer: School of Education Studies and Programme Head: Foundation and Intermediate Phase, University of the Free State.

Mmusi Maimane’s view on the need to increase the South African pass rate from 30% to 50% has received mixed response from various stakeholders. Among them are the teachers’ organisations, including the National Professional Teachers’ Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa) and the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu). These two organisations stated that Maimane was using the country’s education system as a “national campaign for his political ambitions” (City Press, 10 Jan 2022). In response to the teachers’ unions, Maimane noted that “Teacher unions have always rejected the idea of continuous teacher assessments. Our argument is that we need to ask better of our teachers so that they are not passing pupils at 30%. So, of course the unions are going to try and defend their position because it will reflect badly on some of their members, which is not a reflection of all their members.” The conversations between the teachers’ organisations and Mmusi Maimane indicate ambivalence about the reciprocal relations between politics and education. The conversations also highlight how political influence can either build or destroy an education system. A basic observation of moving subject pass rate from 30% to 50% (depending on how one interprets it) generates conflict rather than a collective approach to addressing the pressing curriculum issues in South Africa. This article, informed by post-colonial theories, and more particularly the concept of the third space (first space being Maimane, second space being teachers’ unions, and third space where I believe the two should operate from to reconfigure relevant curriculum in South Africa), seeks to unpack the two conversations in relation to pass/subject rate in South Africa in the international context and to zero in on an argument for the need to configure the curriculum with best practice.

Unpacking Maimane’s comments

Unpacking Maimane’s comments, he raises five issues in his argument for moving subject pass rate from 30% to 50%, namely the country’s developmental aspiration; motivated, qualified, and ambitious teachers; global economy; and finally, better pay for teachers. Summing up his observation, he notes that “education is the way out of this economic mess. The 4IR economy requires specified hard skills. Our teachers are the frontline workers in the quest for economic prosperity. We must reward good teachers. We must remove bad teachers and attract new talent”. The premise of his thinking touches on crucial elements that are pertinent for the South African child in relation to the global competitors and economic emancipation. There is a sense from his sentiment that educating a child is not only for South Africa, but that this child should be equally competitive with his or her peers in the global market. Thus, telling the world that our subject pass rate is 30% is a mockery of our education system. It brings a false sense among learners that if one gets 30% for a subject, he or she has passed the subject, but a combination of all subjects with 30% cannot make one secure university placement. Thus, the critical question to which the Department of Basic Education should respond is what the rationale is behind a 30% subject pass? What does this 30% reflect on South African education compared to international standards? What harm is there to move from a 30% to 50% pass rate? Once these questions have been answered, perhaps new conversations can emerge, and the discussions will come from an informed position.

Interestingly, the unions’ response to Maimane’s comments is premised on an inadequate explanation of what exactly is meant by 30%. The response does not address other issues raised by Maimane, such as development of the country, motivated, qualified, and ambitious, global economy, and surprisingly, the issue of salaries. However, Maimane’s sentiments are seen as coming from someone with a dying political life and using education as political oxygen for survival. What if Maimane’s comments were from someone belonging to the ANC, and not the DA or EFF – would it have gone this far? Again, why is the response targeted at his person and political affiliation rather than contextualising his argument in light of global trends of academic excellence in the quest to improve economic zones? What is the difficulty or harm in moving from 30% to 50% subject/overall pass rate? The response to these questions will be of interest in shaping educational conversations in South Africa. While the unions are entitled to their positions as representatives of teachers, it is prudent to also see the damage that a 30% subject pass rate or overall pass rate is causing to learners, such as failure to access university and compete with their international counterparts.

30% is a reflection of a failed curriculum practice

Cognisant of the foregoing, moving into the third space as suggested above is critical. This is a place where all people involved in the issue meet at a neutral space to juxtapose the trajectories of education. To begin the conversation in the third space, an acknowledgement is necessary that education is key to any development, and a compromise on this has an everlasting impact on national building. Once this is understood, the educational stakeholders can enter into honest conversations about the relevance of 30%, as none of us as parents would be happy with a 30% subject pass rate. From my angle, the 30% is a reflection of a failed curriculum practice, not only in South Africa, but in most African countries with nationalised education systems. Narrowing this to South Africa while also applicable to other African countries, is an indication that we have detained learners for 12 years, and to please learners and parents, we comfort them with a 30% subject pass rate. Third space allows us to interrogate such a practice in order to map best practices for our children, economy, and contribution to humanity through education. To me, 30% is an indication that some learners are not supposed to be doing the curriculum that is forced on them in schools. The CAPS document as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ curriculum is no longer relevant, rather a fluid and contextualised CAPS is now required. The latter speaks of a curriculum that does not seek to channel learners through one avenue, such as passing Grade 12 and going to university. There is a need for a curriculum that does not detain learners in subjects in which they have no interest or are not capable of doing. Rather, various courses – not subjects – should be introduced alongside the main curriculum practices. Critical courses, which are in short supply in South Africa, should be taught as early as Grade 7 as a course where a learner can be awarded a diploma for a critical skill of their choice. This means bringing some TVET courses to basic education, such as building, welding, civil engineering, manufacturing, entrepreneurship, software engineering, among other courses. This would allow learners to get recognised qualifications along with their Grade 12 results, cognisant that some learners with passion and good skills in some courses mentioned above may not have access to TVET colleges and universities because of a 30% subject pass rate. The foregoing requires a revamp of the education system so that after 12 years of basic education, learners have something practical to show rather than having all learners moving in one direction and getting nothing at the end of Grade 12. I am of the view that an increase from 30% to 50% is indispensable, desirable, and doable and above all, that TVET courses should be taught from Grade 7 to 12, so that learners with an interest in practical subjects have recognised courses for their livelihood, even if they do not perform very well in Grade 12.

News Archive

UFS policies want to help all students

2005-03-09

The death of Hannes van Rensburg, a first-year student from the JBM Hertzog residence, this past weekend, placed various aspects of student life in the spotlight. Dr Natie Luyt, Dean: Student Affairs at the University of the Free State (UFS), and the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the UFS explain which policies are in place to counter these practices.

At all tertiary institutions there are rules and policies to guide students and provide direction for certain behaviour and practices. The same applies to the University of the Free State (UFS).

“At the beginning of the year the UFS provides every residence committee with a manual to establish a framework for meaningful and orderly relations within and among residences on the campus,” said Dr Natie Luyt.

However, it is one thing to set rules, but it is an impossible task to enforce all aspects thereof. Policies currently in place include an alcohol policy, a policy on the induction of first years and a policy on banned practices in residence orientation.

“The alcohol policy was compiled in cooperation with students and their input was constantly asked,” said Dr Luyt. We also liaise on a continuous basis with residences and senior students to encourage the responsible use of alcohol, especially around activities like intervarsities and Rag.

In the policy, recognition is given to the right and voluntary and informed choice of every individual to use alcohol on the UFS campus in a responsible way.

Guidelines for the use of alcohol on campus include among others the following:

Only authorised points of sale will be permitted on campus. In this case it is the various league halls in most of the male residences on campus.

Alcohol will only be made available during fixed times and is not permitted in residence rooms.

All alcohol-related functions are regulated and an application for a temporary alcohol license must be obtained from the Dean: Student Affairs.

The UFS obtained a liquor license in March 2004 which must be administered by senior leagues in various residences on campus. Normal liquor license conditions and the county’s liquor laws apply. Liquor can only be sold to members of the senior league (or special guests) and also to persons over the age of 18 years. Liquor may not be used in public (outside the senior league) or on campus.

The senior leagues may only be open three nights per week and within prescribed times. No liquor could be used in any other place than the senior league halls. Senior leagues could buy liquor from club monies generated by themselves.

The right of senior leagues to serve liquor was suspended by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor the UFS, Prof Frederick Fourie, on Monday 7 March 2005 – pending an investigation of the recent events on campus.

The policy on banned practices include among others that no swearing and shouting at first-years may take place, no first-year student may be targeted individually, no senior may enter the room of a first-year student without an invitation or permission from that first-year student and no senior under the influence of alcohol may have contact with first-year students.

The induction of first-year students takes place by means of three functions, namely an information function (the introduction to the various facets and possibilities of the university system), an induction function (the first-year student becomes involved in various campus and residence activities) and a development function (the first-year student is motivated to take charge of his development potential).

No first-year induction activity may commence before the residence committee’s contracting with the senior students is not completed. This meeting is attended by the residence head and all senior students. The induction policy, residence induction policy of first-year students and first-year rules are discussed.

The senior students sign an attendance list to show that he/she was informed about the policies. A senior who does not sign, may not be involved with any induction session with first-year students.

No physical contact is allowed during the conclusion of the first-year students’ official induction period. The induction of first-year students as full members of the residence is a prestige event, presented by the residence committee. No physical or degrading activities may take place.

The Dean: Student Affairs also has a daily meeting with the primarii of all the residences during the induction period. This helps to monitor the situation and counter any problem behaviour or tendencies.

“Enforced behaviour – where a senior student forces a first-year student to do something against his/her own free wil – is not allowed. Where there is any sign of this, it is met wortel en tak uitgeroei,” said Dr Luyt.

“In any group of people – whether it is a group of students or people at a workplace – there will always be those who will break the rules or those who would like to see how far they could push it.

The SRC, the UFS management and myself are and will stay committed to make each student’s life on this campus a school of learning and an experience which would be remembered for ever,” said Dr Luyt.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept