Antecedentes Referenciales

Since 1994, the educational sector in South Africa witnessed intense curriculum change initiatives. As a result, principals are placed under enormous pressure to keep up with the rapid rate at which changes in the curriculum have occurred and continue to occur (Mestry,

34

Moonsammy-Koopasammy & Schmidt, 2013:50). With regards to curriculum changes, principals in the study conducted by Mestry et al. (2013:56) responded by stating that:

Changes are coming at a radical manner; they are coming up with a lot of programmes at the same time. Like, 2010, they introduced the Foundations for Learning and as we are starting to adjust and be in a position to apply to correct the situation, we move to the GPLS. Now there’s CAPS…

Table 2.1 Policy Reviews (Adapted from Hoadley & Jansen, 2011:142)

YEAR POLICY REVIEWS

1994 South Africa becomes a democratic country

1995

South Africa saw a refinement in the apartheid syllabi which was free of race and gender stereotypes. A commencement of instructional programmes in schools, Report 550(2001/08) (shortened to Report 550) becomes the interim syllabus. 1995 Planning of new curriculum begins within state bureaucracy

1996 List of outcomes developed by Learning Area Committees

1997 Curriculum 2005 is piloted in certain schools across the country

1998 Curriculum 2005 introduced in Grade 1

1999 Curriculum 2005 introduced in Grade 2

2000 Curriculum 2005 continues for other grades for GET

2000 Review Committee publishes Curriculum 2005 report

2001 Curriculum 2005 is revised. Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) for

Grades R-9 is published for public comment.

2002 Revised National Curriculum Statement for Grades R-9 is released 2003 National Curriculum Statement FET Grades 10-12 is released 2003 2005 Teachers trained in new National Curriculum Statement

2005 Revised National Curriculum Statement implemented in the GET phase

2006 National Curriculum Statement implemented in the GET phase

2008

Grade 12s write new outcomes-based National Senior Certificate examination for the first time.

2009

The Department of Education appoints a Ministerial Task Team to review the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement Grades R- 12.

35

Table 2.1 tracks some of the curriculum reforms in South Africa over a twenty year period. A formidable challenge that came as a result of the establishment of the new democratic government in 1994, was the expeditious transformation of the curriculum in schools (Jansen, 2001).Principals experienced a multitude of problems and challenges with regard to policy content and implementation as a result of the introduction of Outcomes-based Education (OBE) and the introduction of Curriculum 2005 (C2005), National Curriculum Statement (NCS), Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) and more recently Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). Many researchers have argued that since the inception of OBE South African Educators and policy-makers alike have found it to be highly contentious and confusing (Spreen & Vally, 2010).Among other factors, inadequate training resulted in principals having insufficient knowledge on how to carry out the successful implementation of C2005. Mouton, Louw and Strydom (2012:12) concur that many shortcomings in C2005 proliferated as its successful implementation proved to be difficult, in addition to being expensive. The RNCS then emerged from the review of C2005 as a result of the dissent and uproar that principals and teachers experienced with the implementation of C2005. As a result of the curriculum changes mentioned above, principals had to continually change the way in which they managed the curriculum in their own schools. Hence, the need for effective curriculum facilitation through a well-designed instructional programme was much needed. The following subsections will describe some of the changes in the South African curriculum that have taken place over the years highlighting the impact such curriculum changes have on the current role of the principal as instructional leader.

2010

Decision taken by the Minister of Education to announce implementation of the recommendations made by the Ministerial Task Team’s report. Introduction of the Foundations for Learning.

2011 Submission of the National Curriculum and Assessment policy statements for all subjects listed in the National Curriculum Statement Grades R -12

2012 CAPS is implemented in Grades R - 3 and Grade 10

2013 CAPS is implemented in Grades 4 - 9 and Grade 11

36

2.4.1 Outcomes - based Education (OBE)

The Department of Education (1997:1) viewed OBE as a means to redress educational imbalances of the majority of the African population owing to historical educational disparities. The reform was based on the premise that there is a severe decline in the quality of school education and that a radical reform is required in order to improve the quality of teaching and learning in South African schools. “OBE is a learner-centred and result-oriented approach to education and training” that builds on the notion that all learners can achieve their full potential (Department of Education, 2000). Jacobs, Vakalisa and Gawe (2004: 57) viewed OBE is an approach to teaching and learning that requires a shift from teacher input through syllabi which focuses on learner outcomes. In an attempt to successfully implement OBE, principals and teachers faced a myriad of administrative burdens and many of them felt pressured and struggled to make sense of all the new terminology and jargon in the curriculum (Hoadley & Jansen, 2010:159). Chisholm (2000:3) argued that implementing a new curriculum was not always thought out, structurally piloted or well-resourced consequently placing undue strain on already overburdened principals and teachers. What is brought to light is that principals are placed in the forefront of this change in the education system and face a mammoth task of trying to come to grips with the changes, especially in relation to curriculum matters.

2.4.2 Curriculum 2005

In 1998, C2005 was introduced in Grade 1, then in 1999 in Grade 2 and later in 2000 in Grade 3. Many teachers welcomed C2005 and saw it as a political transformation which was different from apartheid education however; their pedagogical responses were ill-matched (Hoyle & Wallace, 2005). A number of critics argued that C2005 came with distinct implementation burdens and problems with the way the curriculum was structured. Seen in its totality, teachers were ill-prepared and lacked sufficient knowledge and skills to implement the new curriculum. According to Jansen (2001b), one of the reasons that could have attributed to the failure of C2005 was that it was more political in nature rather than having much pedagogical influence. Reports from the Ministerial Committee established in 2000 to review the C2005 indicated a number of shortfalls and highly criticised the curriculum. The content of the report highlighted that while many valued the principles and premise upon which OBE and Curriculum 2005 was established, its successful implementation had been hampered by a number of factors which included:

37  the curriculum failed to correlate with the assessment policy;

 teachers were ill-prepared, inadequately orientated and lacked sufficient professional training and skills;

 learning support materials were not readily available nor were they effectively utilised in the classroom;

 policy changes were on-going with limited understanding to successfully transfer into classrooms;

 lack of sufficient resources to implement and support the curriculum implementation process; and

 poor recognition of curriculum as the core business of educational institutions.

According to the Department of Education (2001: 5), Curriculum 2005 aimed at changing the facet of South African education and training, as well as to integrate education and training, promote life-long learning for all South Africans, equip all learners with knowledge, competencies and orientations needed to be successful after completion of their studies, encompass a culture of human rights, multilingualism, multiculturalism and nation building and aim at producing thinking, competent future citizens.

2.4.3 The Review process

The new Minister of Education appointed in 1999, Prof. Kader Asmal reviewed existing research on the curriculum and evaluated all public inputs to the Department of Education. The Review Committee which comprised of eleven education specialists conducted interviews with teachers, principals, departmental officials and other stakeholders to get their feedback on C2005 and OBE. The Review Committee made several recommendations based on their research and one of them was that the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) be developed in a simple language that could be easily interpreted (Department of Education, 2000b).

2.4.4 Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9

Curriculum 2005 was thus not a new curriculum but streamlined and strengthened into the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). The basic principles under which it was developed, its fundamental purpose and impetus of Curriculum 2005 was kept intact and affirmed the commitment to uphold the principles of outcomes based education (DoE, 2002: 6).

38

2.4.5 National Curriculum Statement (NCS)

The NCS applied to Grade R through to Grade 9 and clearly stated what learning outcomes and assessment standards each learner is expected to achieve by the end of each grade (DoE, 2003:6).

In many schools, principals are struggling to understand and implement changes and reforms in the curriculum into practice (DoE, 2006:16). According to Ramparsad (2001) principals struggle to carry out their role in managing the proposed curriculum changes mostly due to the lack of sufficient training, proper implementation guidelines and monitoring tools. Furthermore, from my own experience, I can attest to the fact that teachers found it a serious challenge to manage the new and old curriculum simultaneously and this often resulted in uncertainty and confusion. Apart from managing curriculum changes, principals grapple with different issues arising from dysfunctional schools, poor inherited infrastructure, under- skilled teachers and lack of resources (Bush & Heystek, 2006:65). Beckhard and Haris (in Van der Westhuizen, 2007:183) further add that with changes in the curriculum, principals are forced to revisit their school policies as well as redefine curriculum priorities and redeploy resources.

2.4.6 Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS)

On 6 July 2010, the Minister of Education, Angie Motshekga announced a new curriculum improvement process with the intention to strengthen the NCS (Maluleka in Mouton, Louw & Strydom, 2012:12). Changes in the curriculum included reducing the number of subjects for Grades 4 to 6 from eight to six, making an additional language from Grade 1 compulsory, extending contact time with learners to focus on languages, introducing fewer subject projects, scrapping common task assessments and agreeing on a single teacher file for planning (Maluleka in Mouton, Louw, & Strydom, 2012:12). The National Curriculum Statement Grades R-12 (NCS) was later amended and came into effect in January 2012. Within a short period in time, a streamlined comprehensive Curriculum and Assessment Policy document (CAPS) was developed for each subject.

Having highlighted the background to curriculum changes in South Africa over the last two decades, it becomes clear that when curriculum changes are introduced principals experience major tensions trying to balance their traditional roles with that of being solely an instructional leader. Smith, Mestry and Bambie (2013:163) concur with this view and add that rapid curriculum changes have profound implications for the role of principals and their

39

instructional leadership role (Smith, Mestry & Bambie, 2013:163). Hence, how to lead and manage schools in times of rapid curriculum change has become more important than ever before. In ensuring the provision of quality education, principals must develop strategic initiatives to effectively facilitate curriculum changes and improve learner performance. The added responsibility of facilitating frequent curriculum changes expanded the workload of principals and increased its complexity, demanding more time of the principal to engage in instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood, Louise, Anderson & Wahlstorm, 2004). Clearly, the concepts of instructional leadership have made their way to the vanguard in school leadership over the last two decades (Hallinger, 2009), and it is assumed that if principals favour instructional leadership approach in facilitating curriculum changes, then learner achievement will in turn improve.