PDF: Managing the Curriculum in South African Schools

Here is the transcription of the document you sent: # Managing the curriculum in South African Schools **Edited by: Marianne Coleman, Mike Graham-Jolly and David Middlewood** (2003) The Common-Wealth Secretariat ## 1: The Nature of Curriculum Michael Graham-Jolly ### Introduction There is no...

Here is the transcription of the document you sent: # Managing the curriculum in South African Schools **Edited by: Marianne Coleman, Mike Graham-Jolly and David Middlewood** (2003) The Common-Wealth Secretariat ## 1: The Nature of Curriculum Michael Graham-Jolly ### Introduction There is no single accepted definition of curriculum. Yet it is important to be clear what is meant by the term in order to understand forms of practice, such as curriculum design and development, the management of curriculum and curriculum evaluation. For this reason, many writers in the field have felt compelled to begin by asking the question “What is curriculum?". This chapter examines definitions of curriculum and analyses their underlying assumptions and implications for curriculum practice. Particular emphasis is given to interpretations of curriculum in South Africa and the extent to which these have impacted on policy and practice in the post apartheid period. ### Defining Curriculum At a general level, definitions of curriculum may be either narrow or broad In relation to what is included and what is excluded in any given statement. For example, the term is often used to refer to the formal academic programme provided by a school, as reflected in subjects on the timetable. In this sense, it might also be used to refer to a particular course of instruction or a syllabus. This narrow interpretation is one which, until recently, dominated conceptions of curriculum in South Africa. Evidence of this abounds in books, reports and official government publications during the 1970s and 1980s. In a textbook written for student teachers in colleges of education, the term curriculum is used “to describe a course of study (and) includes the whole study programme to be followed to reach a certain goal” (van Zyl and Duminy 1979, p.59). In 1981 the de Lange report on curriculum development attempted to establish “stability in respect of the meaning… of… curriculum” (HSRC 1981, pp.97-99). As such, it re-affirmed the definition of curriculum as “a course of study” or “a group of subjects which are offered in a school, course or field of study” (ibid.). In addition, it defined the curriculum of a subject as “the total content of a subject for a particular phase, course or field of study… as well as matching study guides, manuals and guidelines” (ibid.). A decade later, a discussion document entitled “A Curriculum Model for Education in South Africa” was produced as part of the former National Party’s reform initiative in education. This defined ‘a ‘broad curriculum’ as “the collection of subjects/instructional offerings, their structuring and related requirements, with which provision is made for the pursuit of an aim with a particular target group” (Committee of Heads of Education Departments 1991, p.58). This consistent following of what may be described as a technical interpretation of curriculum was sustained by claims to legitimacy through vague references to forms of international practice. For example, the de Lange report attempted to justify its definition of curriculum with the claim that: “As far as foreign countries are concerned, the term curriculum or course of study is used in its traditional sense just as in the RSA” (HSRC 1981, p.98). By the 1980s, however, the international trend was set firmly in the direction of a broader, more inclusive concept of curriculum. As early as the mid-1970s BelI and Pitt, writing for the Open University, expressed the view that: Nowadays most educationists would avoid and indeed might well be horrified by any definition of curriculum that limited it to a syllabus description or to the formal methods whereby a school prepares its pupils for examinations or for the occupational structure. (1976, p.8) This was reflected in the following description of curriculum by the former Department of Education and Science for England and Wales: The curriculum *comprises all the opportunities for learning provided by a school. It includes the formal programme of lessons in the timetable… and the climate of relationships, attitudes, styles of behaviour and the general quality of life established in the school community as a whole (1980, p.7) These examples of the different ways in which curriculum has been conceptualised emphasise the problem of definition introduced at the beginning of this chapter. Earlier still, Stenhouse (1975) observed that: We appear to be confronted by two different views of the curriculum. On the one hand the curriculum is seen as an invention) plan or prescription, an idea of what one would like to happen in schools. On the other it is seen as the existing state of affairs in schools, what does, in fact, happen. Stenhouse recognised these two views as important dimensions of the same phenomenon. Far from standing in opposition to each other, they contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of curriculum when viewed together. He also expressed the opinion that “curriculum study is concerned with the relationship between these two views of curriculum - as intention and as reality” (1975, p.2). This was acknowledge by Hawes (1979, p.110) In his work on African primary schools where he noted that “plans and purposes of schools and teachers may differ from those of ministries and the experts they employ - and may indeed be more realistic". ### Curriculum In South Africa The need to differentiate between what has come to be understood as the formal or 'official' curriculum, which is planned and documented, and that of the 'actual' curriculum is important for an understanding of curriculum in South Africa. However, the particular significance of this dimension of curriculum lies not in the broader discrepancies between central planning and what happens in individual schools, but in the actual experiences of learners. While the syllabus revision exercise of 1995 in South Africa may have established a 'common curriculum' through the provision of common syllabuses to be used in all schools, any notion of commonality is undermined by the legacy of apartheid, which has ensured the continuity of vast Inequalities between schools previously divided according to race. A simple comparison will serve to illustrate this point. A science lesson taught in a school in a rural environment with no laboratory, equipment or other resources, and by a teacher who is minimally qualified to teach the subject, is likely to provide learning experiences which are qualitatively very different to those which might be gained from a similar lesson taught in a well resourced school in a middle class suburb with the benefits of a laboratory and a well qualified teacher. A third, and equally important dimension, is the 'hidden curriculum' representing "that which is taught implicitly, rather than explicitly, by the school experience" (Schubert 1986, p.105). The emphasis here is on the values, beliefs and norms of behaviour which are communicated to learners through the process of socialisation in schools and which may be intended or unintended. The identification of a hidden curriculum has been attributed to Jackson (1968), whose study of elementary school children in the United States revealed ways in which they learn to cope with the system of crowds, praise and power in classrooms. They learn to wait for attention or to use resources, and learn “to bear with equanimity… the continued delay, denial and interruption of their personal wishes and desires” (ibid., p.18). They also learn how to adjust their behaviour in response to the reward system in classrooms and to accept the existence of unequal power relationships in schools. Schubert has drawn attention to other studies in schools and colleges which have also shown that “students learn much from the social context of classroom and corridor life. It shapes their thoughts and feelings about themselves and others and is a guiding force in their lives” (1986, p.106). An important milestone in the development of a broader understanding of curriculum in South Africa was the publication of two articles in the South African Journal of Education, one in early 1981 and the other in 1982. The first of these articles, entitled “The Curriculum in the Decade of the Eighties”, adopted a definition of curriculum as “the range of compulsory and optional activities formally planned for an individual pupil by a school” (Tunmer 1981, p.30). However, while seeking to establish a distinction between curriculum and syllabus, the author remained committed to a narrow conception of curriculum which failed to reflect the broader dimensions emerging in the international literature. This led to a comparison of subjects offered in British primary schools in 1905 with those of the final year of primary schooling in contemporary South Africa, and to the absurd conclusion that the curriculum had “remained strikingly static” (ibid., p.32). It also led to an explanation of the curriculum in South Africa in terms of a twentieth century inheritance of three centuries of experience from Europe. Tunmer’s article provoked a response from Buckland (1982) under the title of “Curriculum and Reality in South African Schools”. In dismissing Tunmer’s reified view of curriculum, Buckland extended Lawton’s (1983) earlier description of curriculum as “a selection from the culture of a society” to develop a more critical interpretation. The nature of his argument is stated clearly in the first paragraph. His [Tunmer’s] analysts illustrates the bankruptcy of an approach to curriculum which ignores the interrelationship between the organisation of knowledge and the distribution of power in society. By taking a narrow ‘philosophical stance’ and ignoring the important sociological dimensions of the curriculum process. Tunmer effectively de-politicises education and treats curriculum as if it were the product not of social, economic, political and ideological history but based on a set of universally-valid ‘realms of meaning’ or selection of ‘subjects’. (P.167) At the same time, Buckland emphasised the important distinction between curriculum as process and curriculum as product. The notion of curriculum as process rather than as product means that a curriculum cannot be picked up and examined, but must rather be viewed in historical perspective in its socio-political context. The relationship of the curriculum to the social structure of which it is both co-producer and product must be seen in terms of an ongoing dialectic. (P.168) Buckland also rejected Tunmer’s claim for the existence of a common curriculum in South Africa, by pointing to the way in which differences in the selection of the culture and the actual (or received) curriculum in South African schools provide very differences for children. In addition, he argued that the hidden curriculum is of particular importance to an understanding of the nature of curriculum in South Africa. This hidden curriculum relates to the manner in which children were prepared through the experience of schooling for life under apartheid. It was found in the particular value systems and practices in schools which were communicated implicitly or explicitly, and in manner which was intentional or unintentional. Christie (1991) has provided a broad analysis, in a popular form, of ways in which the hidden curriculum impacted on children's experiences of schooling. For example, the division of the school system according to race developed an awareness among children of rather than similarity. influences emerged from divisions determined gender, class, religion and mother tongue. In addition, and drawing on the work of Bowles and Gintis (1976), Christie has shown how the authority structures of schools and their internal organisations prepare children for life in the broader society and, in particular, the world of work. Similar messages are conveyed through the content and structure of school syllabuses, textbooks and examinations. Thus to ignore the hidden curriculum schooling in South Africa is to ignore important features of the socialisation of children under apartheid. Furthermore, despite apartheid’s legal demise, many of its legacies remain in the school system. That Buckland statement that “in the South African context concept of the hidden curriculum in crucial for meaningful analysis” (op cit., p. 168) retains relevance. Goodson (1988, p. 23) has argued that awareness of past debates is important in developing understanding of curriculum. The struggle over the definition of curriculum is matter of social and political priorities as well as intellectual discourse. The history of past curriculum conflicts needs therefore to be recovered. Otherwise our studies of schooling will leave unquestioned and unanalysed a set of inherited priorities and assumptions which should be at the heart of our intellectual understanding and practical operation of schooling. This argument may be extended to include wide variety of forms of curriculum practice. For example, understanding of the 'inherited priorities and assumptions' underlying definitions of curriculum in South Africa enables us to reflect critically on current patterns of teaching and learning, on the management of curriculum and on processes of curriculum change both inside and outside school. At the beginning of this chapter, it was suggested that understanding of nature of curriculum is necessary for conveying the meaning of forms of curriculum practice. Narrow definitions of curriculum which are limited to formal statements of intention, such as the content to be covered in syllabus or a programme of planned activities, suggest that curriculum change is limited and largely technical exercise. On the other hand, broader definitions of curriculum, which acknowledge both intended and unintended learning, and which view curriculum as a social construct, imply stronger sense of the complexity of curriculum and of processes of curriculum change. At general level, what separates these different definitions is the implied nature of the relationship of curriculum to the social context of which it is a part. Grundy (1987) has acknowledged the different ways in which curriculum is defined, and gives meaning to forms of curriculum practice by drawing distinction between 'curriculum as product', 'curriculum as practice' and 'curriculum as praxis'. description 'curriculum as product' oriented towards control of the learning environment and the learner, with emphasis on the achievement of pre-determined educational outcomes. By contrast, *curriculum practice* is "view of curriculum which centralises making deliberative judgements and acting to make meaning of the educational enterprise rather than produce certain pre-specified outcomes" (p.99). 'Curriculum as praxis' is described development of the latter, but whose "fundamental orientation is that emancipation" (loc. cit.). The particular within each of these orientations towards curriculum reflect certain principles, ideas and values which govern inquiry and determine action. they constitute foundation for the study of curriculum. In identifying these different orientations, Grundy has drawn on theoretical constructs in the social sciences examined in chapter 2. It is evident the definitions curriculum given at the beginning chapter that the prevailing conception curriculum in South Africa that of 'curriculum product Implied of this have been far reaching For example, long tradition of equating curriculum with syllabus has led to a view curriculum development as concerned solely with the selection revision content Prior to the advent of change In 1994, authoritarian nature of the state ensured that decision-making in respect was undertaken along racial and lines. In practice, this meant that curriculum development in form of periodic syllabus revision was the preserve of the four white provincial education departments within the House of Assembly. Departments of education established for non-white citizens could enhance the relevance of school syllabuses for their respective communities by adding the core syllabuses, but were not permitted to remove anything. Within what may be described as centralised system of education with differentiated administration, the management curriculum became authoritariah and top exercise. It was concerned almost exclusively with implementation and assessment. Curriculum control was vested in the nineteen education departments, which had the responsibility for ensuring its delivery. Management of the curriculum in schools was chiefly concerned the technical tasks of timetabling, the determination of teachers work monitoring and This did little creativity individual initiative in curriculum matters. enrichment and innovation were also limited were dependent the personal vision and qualities individual teachers. ### The emergence of an outcomes-based approach In the years both before and after the political changes which occurred in 1994, South Africa experienced an intensive period of policy development in education. This is dealt with more fully in chapter 3. In a recent paper, Kraak (1998, p 1) has described the current state of education and training policy as one of great *confusion and controversy*. He attributes this state of after to the emergence since the mid 1980s of "a competing policy discourses with divergent policy propositions" (ibid.). In analysis he identifies three discourse. The first discourse is that of people's education which emerged as part of the struggle against apartheid in the mid 1980s. The second is described as a 'systemic' discourse which focused structural changes in education and training was prominent from the late 1980s April 1994. The third is outcomes-based education training (OBET discourse which has had a powerful influence education policy since April 1994. The of these three policy discourse has acted as determinant curriculum the apartheid era, the outcome of which has still to be determined. Kraak describes people's education a "political movement that viewed the school classroom central site of struggle against apartheid" (1998, p. Within movement, curriculum was conceptualised as: a construction that relates to the way educational practices are organised through In the classroom wider society. (Mckay and Romm 1992, the The implied, other democratisation education socially critical curriculum to focus power and domination development critical would people goals self- and comments It was not coincidental that the replacement less political climate 1980 to of political the 1990s One contribution discourse National Education Policy Initiative which examined key areas of education training Curriculum subject twelve framework emerged from NEPI 1992 An in this the ANC Framework Training Curriculum Pedagogy and defined The curriculum is that take Ibid and content An the education Core