A2 - MAMPOSTERÍA Y TABIQUES Especificaciones generales

In response to this question, all the seven (7) educators affirmed that English as a LoLT was influencing interaction in their classrooms. They indicated that their lack of ESL specialist

139

knowledge was their major undoing. They maintained that learners did not participate in the class lessons because they did not comprehend what was being taught effectively and attributed this problem to the language of learning and teaching used (English) being a barrier to learning. This view confirms findings that education and restoration of the African children, of which South Africans are inclusive, is handicapped through ambiguous language policies which emphasize colonial languages as media of instruction (Brock-Utne, 2000).

There was a unanimous position held by the Science educators interviewed that assisting linguistically deficient learners in Science education was an enormous task. The situation, as it obtained in rural secondary schools in particular was very frightening. It is very clear that in the majority of schools (if not all), ESL specialist education was inadequate. Consequently, for most of the learners, mainstream classes were the only place where the development of academic language was being addressed.

Educators’ beliefs and attitudes also surfaced many times during the interviews and proved to be very influential. A number of educators held the notion that Science subjects were too difficult for learners with language difficulties and that failure was inevitable. One could not help but ascribe the high failure rate of a majority of rural secondary school learners, to the said attitude. This corroborated Rennie’s (2003:88) view that the educator’s approach to learning also affects the frequency of learner interaction. The interviews revealed that mainstream classrooms could be harsh places for ESL learners. It is the researcher’ s opinion that the situation could have been a lot better if the educators heeded Levine’s (2001:35) simple advice of being hospitable to ESL learners.

Furthermore, all of the educators in the study supported Lee and Luykx’s (2003:22) proposal that they felt inadequately prepared to meet their ESL learners’ learning needs particularly in academically demanding subjects such as Science. The interviews confirmed Gutierrez’s (2002:157) view that secondary school educators’ main loyalty was to their subject area, with the learners’ needs a secondary concern. One of the strongest pieces of evidence produced in the study supported Bryan and Atwater’s (2002:821) finding that educators’ beliefs had a profound influence on learners’ success.

140

Lack of training in the use of English as a language of learning Science also surfaced as a reason for not being able to use English to teach Science. From the interviews conducted, the researcher got the impression that there was a dire need to have English educators retrained in the use of English as a facilitating tool to impart knowledge in the classrooms.

The educators’ gripe about their inadequate training in the use of English as a LoLT corroborates what the City Press (27th May 2007) referred to in an article entitled “New

Curriculum is Failing the Test”. According to the article, the education department wanted to

evaluate how the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) was being implemented in the foundation phase of schooling especially in the teaching of Science. City Press reported that the findings revealed that 85% of educators in the foundation phase of schools in South Africa were not trained well enough in the new curriculum and were finding it difficult to use its teaching methods in their classes.

The report further intimated that the new curriculum was to ensure that once learners “leave the foundation phase, they are expected to be equipped with above average reading, writing and counting skills. This includes knowing how to tell the time, how to count, read and write in a second language (City Press, 2007:1). The report is perceived to be damning because revelations that “educators underwent about two to four weeks of training to prepare for the curriculum, while principals were not trained at all” do not do our country’s education system any good at all.

The “Daily Sun” newspaper of the 28th

May 2007 was even more scathing in its article about the above cited report. Its article was entitled “SA Pupils can’t Read Because Teachers Lack

Proper Training”. The paper aptly put it: “Our kids can’t read, write or count well enough!

And it is all because teachers are not trained properly”. According to the “Daily Sun”, research has revealed that many educators don’t have a clue.

The researcher is of the opinion that if educators were not adequately trained as the above cited articles attest; learners would continue to struggle in the learning of complex subjects like

141

Science. It’s worth mentioning at this point that the new curriculum statement was designed to ensure a broad, high level education for all. It was meant to revolutionise teaching and learning by centering the educator’s focus on the holistic development of the learner. It was also meant to help capacitate educators with skills to enable them to provide support to learners experiencing barriers to learning. Such curriculum requirements would inevitably require intense training on the part of the educators. That is why, of late, even teacher formations like the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) have entered the fray and are begging the Department of Education to give educators proper training. Unfortunately, according to Sadtu former general secretary, Thulas Nxezi, their “pleas for proper training of teachers fall on deaf ears”. According to Nxesi, schools don’t even have facilities such as laboratories (to use in Science experiments) and libraries where learners can go and read books. ‘So how will they get quality education’, lamented Nxesi (Daily Sun, 2007:4).

“The Star” (28 September 2007) newspaper ran an article entitled ‘OBE Still Best Despite

Training Lapse” in which the former education minister Kader Asmal was said to have

admitted (while addressing a conference of the South African Society of History Teachers at the University of KwaZulu Natal) that the OBE training of educators had not been extensive enough. The article intimated that Outcomes Based Education “was rushed into South African Schools, and teachers were inadequately prepared to cope with the curriculum changes”.

Rob Sieborger, Deputy Director of the School of Education at the University of Cape Town, who was involved in the work of the committee appointed to draw up the new curriculum, puts the whole blame on the many changes which suddenly swarmed the education system after the advent of democracy. He is quoted in the abovementioned article as having asserted that “OBE

was just one of quite a number of policies and administrative decisions which influenced schools and teachers. Teachers were punch-drunk with the changes”. He went on to remark

that “if OBE had been the only change, and even if they hadn’t been well-prepared, they

(teachers) could have got over it. But put together with all the other things that have happened, it has been too much for schools to handle”.

142

It follows therefore, from the above, that the failure of the OBE methodology was exacerbated by the introduction of a whole lot of policies which were implemented at the same time without being thought through and without having the proper resources for implementation. It is the researcher’s belief that methodologies (OBE included) fail because there is always a tension between expectation and actual delivery.

It is disheartening to note that instead of addressing the issue of educator development as a matter of national concern, the education department seems to be shifting the goal posts. In an article entitled “Teacher Licensing: Putting the Cart before the Horse” (the Educators’ Voice, August 2006), Thulas Nxesi, the then General Secretary of SADTU (Now he is the Deputy

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform) (The Times, 2010:2) indicated that “the

Minister of Education is panicking”. Instead of addressing educator development, “she has turned to gimmickry and spin”.

The implication for the above statement hinged on the Minister’s solution to teacher underdevelopment, viz. licensing and expulsion of the bad apples. According to Nxesi (the Educators’ Voice, August 2006), the key to delivering quality education is quality educators; well-trained and well-motivated.

It is the researcher’s view that, as educator unions have long advocated, the remedy for underdevelopment hinges on a two pronged approach, namely, appraisal with development. We need credible procedures and instruments so that educators-and education bureaucrats for that matter-can be regularly appraised, individual weaknesses identified and then addressed through mentoring and appropriate retraining and re-skilling. Crucially, we need a national strategy for ongoing educator development and support which upgrades the educators and ultimately benefits the learners. The researcher feels that it is cheaper and easy to issue licenses than to address the underlying need for educator development. Hence the researcher submits that priorities should include:

 Talking to the profession and other stakeholders and stop relying on consultants with little experience of conditions on the ground.

143

 Reviewing the functioning of the current Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS), stop tying every development strategy to remuneration.

 De-linking development strategies from pay progression.

 Fast tracking the national debate on educator development and commit resources to a national strategy and plan. Thus, converting district offices into hubs of educator development and support.

 Providing relevant training and skills geared to the needs of the individual educators and the demands of the curriculum and the real conditions faced by educators in the schools.

Hence, the Department of Education (2000:19) states the needs in the National Strategy for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, thus:

“Programmes that can equip educators with competences to teach at all levels of the schooling

system….Programmes for educator preparation, strengthening both subject matter expertise and pedagogical mastery. An upgrading programme that focuses on both subject content knowledge and teaching skills will be introduced as a matter of urgency”.

The researcher reckons Prof Kader Asmal (former Minister of Education) was acknowledging the importance of implementing a programme for scientific professional growth in his speech at the Teacher Education colloquium when he said that “We must prepare teachers to keep pace with technology, curriculum, teaching methods and social realities, and to predict the future needs of their students and the education system” (Asmal, 2003:3).

Question 2: What proportion of Sepedi v/s English do you use in teaching Science in your