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 responds to concerns around high costs of higher education

2015-10-15

Dear Students

UFS responds to concerns around high costs of higher education

There is an understandable and shared concern among students in the country around the high costs of higher education. As you know, this also is a matter of deep concern on our campuses, which the University of the Free State (UFS) has made a priority in discussions with student leaders - and through new strategies to relieve the burden of costs on poor students and their families. In fact, in the past two weeks, the UFS leadership has again engaged students on the matter of fees in the future.

This is what we have done so far. We have maintained our position as one of the universities with the lowest tuition fees in the country. As you would have seen from recent newspaper reports on the cost of a degree at various institutions over the past five years, the UFS has had consistently low fees. This is not an accident; both the University Council and the executive leadership of the UFS is of one mind that we must offer a high quality education at minimum cost to all our students, despite the rising costs of operating a large multi-campus university with 30 000 students. Our commitment to you is to continue to keep those costs to students as low as possible, without compromising on the quality of education.

In addition, we took a decision earlier this year to become the first university to drop application fees for first-year students. We are proud of that achievement, since so many students fall at this first hurdle as they contemplate post-school education and training. We also waived registration fees for postgraduate students and now Research Master’s and PhD students can study tuition free under certain conditions. We raised more than R60 million from the private sector to enable talented students, who do not receive NSFAS funding, to complete their degree studies at the UFS. We set aside some of the university’s own funds to enable even more students to access finance for their studies. And we now have a special office set aside to counsel and assist students to apply for more than one scholarship to support their studies. The university does not follow a policy of maximizing exclusions. It has endeavoured and succeeded to turn around the majority of its potential deregistration cases. During 2015 we had 2 700 students at the risk of being de-registered, but our serious efforts resulted in only over 200 instances of exclusion we could not mitigate. As is the practice for the past few years, these students’ debt for 2015 has been reversed.

But, we do not only look for funds from outside to support our students. Last year we set up a Staff Fund to which ordinary members of the academic and support staff can contribute from their own, and sometimes very modest, salaries to enable Kovsie students to finish their degrees. We have volunteers who work on the No Student Hungry (NSH) Bursary Programme to raise funds for students who cannot afford a regular meal. We have an open line to rural and township schools to nominate poor students with good results for support by the Rector’s Fund, and some of those students are now in their final year of studies. And many of our staff support individual students in their homes and with their families, without being asked to do so. This is what we call the Human Project and it remains central to the way in which we deal with students.

We will of course continue to make representation to government, the private sector, and individuals to increase funding, especially for first-generation students, and for families where more than one student is at university. We will continue to take to the road to raise funds from companies and foundations to finance our students. We will expand on-campus opportunities for limited working hours for students who wish to earn some money to support their studies. As we have said often before, no student who passes all their courses or modules will be turned away simply because they do not have the funds to study.

The UFS discusses and agrees to fee increases with our students well in advance of the next academic year. None of these decisions are taken without the agreement of the student leadership and thus far these engagements, while tough, have always been done in good faith and with the students’ interests at heart.

It is important for you to know that, with the declining government subsidy, in real terms, and the expanding needs of our students, we will not be able to keep the university running without fees - even though this source of revenue comes mainly through scholarships and bursaries. We need to compensate staff, purchase new library books and renew journal subscriptions (which is very difficult given the low value of the Rand), upgrade computers and software, pay rates and taxes, purchase laboratory equipment, pay the water and electricity bills, expand internet services, upgrade campus security, and hire more academics to keep class sizes reasonably small. It is important for you to know that the university has managed to avoid increasing student fees as a result of much higher municipal rates. Our lecturers are not the highest paid in the country and financially we run a tight ship. We consistently achieve unqualified audits and we are known to be one of the universities that manage its NSFAS contributions with great efficiency. We do this because of our commitment to ensure that our students are able to enjoy a high quality of education on a stable campus where there is a deep respect for all campus citizens.

Despite all these efforts, the most important message we wish to communicate, is that the door remains open for continued discussion with student leaders as we continue to find ways of keeping university education open and accessible to all qualifying students. At the same time, the UFS leadership is involved in discussions with government about how to best manage the escalating cost of higher education for our dents.

Thank you for your support and understanding at this time and be assured, once again, of our commitment to students as a matter of priority to the university leadership.

Best regards

Prof Jonathan Jansen
Vice-Chancellor and Rector

University of the Free State
19 October 2015

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