Redressing or Patching?
We wish we could congratulate the Education Department on its decision to introduce a compulsory pre-school year to be known as grade R or Reception Year. For educationists agree that it is not merely desirable but essential to have a pre-primary school component in any education system. In keeping with the research of educationist parents in general realise that children are excitingly receptive to learning well before the age of seven. Hence if financial and logistical factors allow it, parents invariably enroll their children in nursery schools of various descriptions. An interesting piece of information is contained in the statement of the Department of Education that “it was conducting a nation-wide audit of an estimated 25000 early childhood development pre-schools, which range from shacks to private homes”.
So are we being churlish and obstructive when we are unable to commend the Department’s introduction of Grade R? Our less than congratulatory attitude is informed by our perception that Grade R is another example of running repairs to assist them moving in the wrong direction. A compulsory reception here would be laudable if it were a feature of a multi-faceted programme to transform the SA education system. However, what we witness once again is an ad hoc solution to one of a plethora of problems caused by flawed education and socio-economic policies. Many disadvantaged children cannot cope with Grade One work at present while privileged children cope easily. Will Grade R help to redress historical imbalances when the real problem is that millions of SA children come from physically and culturally deprived homes and communities into schools that are ill-equipped and under-staffed? Is there logic in introducing a compulsory pre-school year for six-year-olds after raising the school-going age from six to seven years? Surely the education department should have learnt from its unfortunate reaction to poor matric results that patchwork causes further problems! Matric classes were suspended, teachers sacked. Matric pupils affected by these draconian measures have struggled to find suitable alternative classes at adult learning centres. Some of them have been accepted with reluctance at “better” schools already battling with poor equipment and over-crowded classrooms to be further burdened with an influx of ill-prepared students from virtually dysfunctional schools. Thus the disciplinary measures taken against certain schools and teachers in order to improve matric results have caused greater instability in the education scene of certain regions that desperately need to be rescued from the morass created by the evil apartheid system. The futility of patchwork is illustrated by a bitter irony: in many cases – in KwaZulu-Natal, for example – desperate matric students are being taught by the very teachers who were dismissed because of their incompetence!
We repeat with great patience that treating the symptoms of a sick system will not restore it to health. Ad hoc solutions often do more harm than good because while the systems are being focussed on, the neglected disease spreads and produces even worse problems. What is needed is a holistic approach that systematically diagnoses and treats the causes of the disease. Such an approach would lead to a process of genuine transformation if it harnessed the experience and research of educationists who are committed to effecting fundamental changes to the education system in a socio-economic setting that is being transformed as well. All of us, especially the politicians, need to face the reality that SA is a country in which the vicious effects of the apartheid system continue to traumatise and stunt the growth of millions of people. In this period, if we are serious about eliminating the inequities of the past, huge amounts of South Africa’s considerable wealth must be used to build a system that guarantees all children access to high-quality education. A national network of effective schools must be established in order to afford every child the opportunity of developing into a caring, productive and socially-conscious citizen. But schools do not exist in a vacuum. So socio-economic policies capable of transforming the bleak environment of the disadvantaged must be synchronised with progressive education policies in order to realise the ideal of a quality system of education located in a society where citizens enjoy a life of quality, contentment and dignity.
We regret to have to say that the present government has failed to follow the admittedly difficult path to the realisation of an ideal that inspired so much sacrifice in the struggle against apartheid. Its socio-economic and education policies follow the prescriptions of big business that State intervention in the economy in favour of the poor should be kept to a minimum so that socialistic measures do not interfere with the operation of market forces. Needless to say the sharks of big business are adept at manipulating market forces in such a way that they grab the lions share of a country’s wealth thus seriously limiting the funds available for education and health services. SA has a history characterised by the ruthless exploitation of human and material resources that has produced obscene wealth for a small minority and grinding poverty for the vast majority. This dark chapter of our history has not yet ended for the majority of South Africans are still denied access to their country’s wealth in a concomitant system of deprivation children are being denied the wealth of knowledge if their parents cannot afford to buy quality education. The present government has repeatedly stated its noble-sounding determination to eradicate the injustices of the past but its policies have in fact favoured the rich and led to the entrenchment of class and “racial” privileges in society and in the education system. In the schools of the disadvantaged there has been patching rather than redressing. Thus when matric results are poor the education department attempts to raise standards by imposing drastic disciplinary measures instead of identifying the underlying causes of poor attainment levels and systematically eliminating them. Similarly, when the failure rate at Grade One level is disturbingly high, Grade R is created to solve the problem. The announcement of the introduction of Grade R has set alarm bells ringing…
Grade R is to be phased in over five years, allegedly because of financial constraints. Few financial details were given, which led to the spokespersons of various unions stressing that Grade R should play a part in the process of reform only if it were fully funded by the State. If Grade R is to be funded by parents, whether wholly or partly, the rich will once again be able to ensure through their financial power the best Reception Year for their children while the poor will continue to struggle to obtain even a moderate education for theirs. The Deputy Minister hardly allayed fears when he said that a million children a year would qualify for the new pre-school class and that funding for the poorest 40 percent of these children would be made available first. Are we being somewhat paranoid in hearing alarm bells when the Deputy Minister in giving reasons for the introduction of Grade R said: “One study by the World Bank shows that there is a correlation between early childhood development provisioning and a country’s economic development”? We have often said that the government’s education policy is determined by economic imperatives, not by a philosophy of education. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why seemingly sound educational measures become distorted or warped as soon as they are introduced, for they are grafted onto a system that is essentially barren in terms of educational values. Whereas in a system of free, compulsory education, which we have advocated for decades, sound educational ideas would naturally take root and grow within a structure designed to benefit all children. Pre-school learning would be a natural branch of a system designed to develop the human skills of the nation’s children. A system of free, compulsory education was one of the key demands of the liberatory struggle. Many of the politicians now in office eloquently expressed that demand as spokespersons of the people oppressed by the apartheid regime. The fact that these same people have been reduced from potential transformers into bungling patchers of the education system is to us an indication that they are no longer servants of the people but agents of bug business. One hopes that the government can still be persuaded to change course. It will have to institute reform programmes designed to meet the aspirations of those South Africans who voted it into office with a mandate to eradicate the suffering and humiliation inflicted upon them by the apartheid system. We hope that the government representing the South African people will in the near future formulate and implement genuine transformation mechanisms in order to uplift people who have been suffering for a long time.
In the aftermath of institutionalised apartheid the establishment of an equitable and progressive education system is admittedly an incredibly difficult task. But it is a task that must be undertaken to do justice to the human aspirations of a downtrodden people. No single person or organisation knows all the answers to the many problems along the hard road to a truly democratic system of education located in a democratic society. But we believe that a comprehensive programme sensitive to the educational and human needs of all South Africa’s people would ensure steady progress along that road.
[THE EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL, PUBLISHED BY NUPSAW EDUCATION SECTOR, NOVEMBER - JUNE 2000]
EDITOR: Mrs. HN Kies, 15 Upper Bloem Street, Cape Town, 8001
Go to MTA's HomePage - Do not pass BEGIN, Do not collect R200.
visitors since 24 August 2001.
