Blog: Can a national curriculum reduce inequality? Reflections from South Africa

Photo: School children in South Africa. Photo Credit: Megan Trace/Flickr licenced under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 

Mar 2020
16/03/2020

 

 

 

Educational reforms and curriculum transformation have been a priority in South Africa to redress the injustices of Apartheid. Since the establishment of a democratic government in 1994, a number of  national curricula have been implemented to create a more equitable and homogenous education system. The latest Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS),  progressively introduced between 2012 and 2014, set out the subjects, knowledge content and the methodology of teaching and learning for primary and secondary education across the country. In doing so, the policy aims to ensure an equal knowledge base, acting as a key building block towards a well-functioning equal and inclusive educational system.

South Africa has one of the most unequal education systems in the world. The performance gap between schools serving a poor (so called quintile 1-3 schools) versus a wealthy learner population (quintile 4-5 schools) continues to widen. Results from the 2014 Annual National Assessments in Mathematics (grade 3 and 6 combined) shows how, across the country, learning outcomes continue to diverge, despite efforts to standardise learning experiences across the system.

How can we explain these continuing inequalities, and why has a national curriculum for all schools not reduced the performance gap between schools? The question is relevant for other countries with high inequalities too; a national curriculum and related assessments are at the core of student learning and thereby one of the most important levers for national governments to improve their education system.

Thanks to data generated by the  ESRC-DFID funded project: ‘Accountability, capacity and trust to improve learning outcomes in South Africa: a systems approach’ indicate that a national curriculum alone cannot improve learning outcomes in a highly heterogeneous and unequal system.

Three one-day focus group sessions with academics and practitioners working in the field of school improvement, teachers and district officials in the KwaZulu Natal province helped us understand why. These stakeholders describe how the context in which the national policy is being implemented and monitored vastly differs for poorer schools that are often located in rural remote areas, versus schools in more urban, advantaged areas. The highly regulated nature and top down control of the policy  ensures all schools are being treated on equal footing, but with very different outcomes and resulting increases in performance gaps.

Four mechanisms can explain the differences between the two groups of schools and their ability to effectively implement Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements:

  • Remoteness of schools in quintile 1-3 which makes them unattractive places to teach in and inaccessible for district support which impedes learners’ access to the curriculum and subsequent learning. Both conditions affect learning outcomes as these schools suffer from high teacher turn-over, recruitment problems and vacancies, lack of support for learning in the community, and limited access to professional development and training to deliver CAPS. This is likely a reinforcing loop as low learning outcomes will further impede morale, both of the local community and teachers, as well as the reputation of the school which will enhance the unattractiveness of the school for high quality teachers. District support might balance the decline, but is currently not targeted specifically towards schools in remote areas; instead, available (limited) capacity is allocated to schools which are relatively close to the district and/or easy accessible.
  • Curriculum reform overload. Respondents talk about the frequent changes in the curriculum which often don’t reach schools in rural areas in a timely and structured manner. Teachers access reforms at different points in time and are offered little or no district support to implement changes (due to the remoteness of the office) where some district officials also don’t agree with the changes. Schools in urban areas would on the other hand be up to speed with changes, causing the performance gap between the two groups of schools to increase over time.
  • Multigrade teaching. The remoteness of schools, particularly those in quintiles 1-3 and high teacher turn-over and vacancies leads to multigrade teaching of large classes where teachers have to cover multiple subjects and age ranges. The situation leads to high workload and absenteeism when teachers arrive late to skip periods for which they are scheduled to teach out of subject. This has a knock-on effect on student morale and attendance with impaired learning as a result.
  • Micromanagement and malicious accountability. The regulatory context of CAPS where principals and heads of department are required to monitor teachers’ implementation of the national curriculum leads to what our respondents describe as ‘micromanagement’ and ‘malicious accountability’. They explain how, when faced with lack of curriculum coverage, principals and senior staff pressurize teachers to submit ‘catch-up programmes’ where their writing of these plans reduces time for lesson planning and would cause them to try and move on covering the curriculum, even when learners don’t master content The lack of remedial support in these schools and a national progression policy which inhibits multiple repetition of grades per phase acerbates the problem.

What these findings show is that the implementation of a national curriculum on its own is likely to have very limited impact on learning practices and can even contradict or squeeze out issues of quality. What is needed is an adequate investigation of why teachers are falling behind the scheduled progress and a response which addresses these causes: support and professional development, time, skills, class size and multi-grade teaching. A national curriculum can only transform an education system, marred by high inequality when it offers sufficient support to schools in the most challenging circumstances while allowing the best schools the flexibility to teach to the highest standards.

A blog by Professor M. Ehren, A. Paterson, Asiyah Hendricks and J. Baxter.

The Impact Initiative blog posts are either from individual researchers or from major research programmes. Some of the blog posts are original source and are written by researchers and experts connected to the two research programmes jointly funded by ESRC and FCDO: the Joint Fund for Poverty Alleviation Research and the Raising Learning Outcomes in Education Systems Research Programme. Other blog posts are imported from related websites and programmes. 

The views expressed in these blogs reflect the opinions of each individual and may not represent the Institute of Development Studies, the University of Cambridge, ESRC or FCDO.

Comments:

The Impact Initiative welcomes comments.  To enable a healthy environment for discussion we reserve the rights to remove comments if they are considered abusive or disruptive. All comments are reactively moderated. This means that comments are usually only checked if a complaint is made about them.