Instalación

During the second wave, growing discontent with teacher education persisted, with teaching argued to be mainly focused on acquiring practical skills in interpreting and implementing the prescribed official curriculum. As the “de-professionalisation” and the “unionised identity” of teachers” grew, came the issue of the re-conceptualization of teacher identities in a postmodern period, as argued by international intellectuals (Samuel, 2012, p.25). There was an increasing continued expression of teacher unions, the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) and the South African Council for Educators (SACE), arguing collectively for the strengthened formation of the roles and responsibilities of teachers (Davids, 2009).

In 2003, the Minister of Education responded to an appeal to review the processes of the teacher education system that pointed to the increasing inequality of the qualification status of teachers through the classifications of race, geography and class. The review acknowledged the advancements of the NSE of 2000 and the imperative roles of teachers as part of the teacher education curriculum; it also highlighted the insufficiency of the new teacher supply and the idea that rural and township schools were still branded as being controlled by apartheid ideologies (Samuel, 2012). Additionally, research conducted by the ELRC and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) in 2005 revealed an immense lack of motivation and commitment to the teaching profession and the rising discontent with teacher education; this included a huge

16

percentage reflecting a demoralized position among the plethora of new policies and of the constantly shifting curriculum transformations (ELRC, 2005).

The probe into the system of teacher education ultimately took the shape of a Ministerial Commission. Subsequently, the Ministerial Committee on Teacher Education (MCTE) Report of 2005 and the ensuing government gazette in 2007, the National Integrated Strategic Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development (NISPFTED), indicated the need to understand the complexity of developing a coherent, co-ordinated system for both Initial Professional Education of Teachers (IPET) and Continuing Professional Teacher Development (CPTD). As the MCTE suggested, the drive was not to change the recently developed policies, but to ascertain barriers and to cultivate an “overarching framework” that would facilitate the implementation of policies already in place and develop a coherent teacher education system in transforming teacher education (Kruss, 2009, p.24). At that juncture, the Ministerial report on transformation in South Africa made strong calls for curriculum transformation. This included the way in which knowledge is deliberated, structured and conveyed, with the Council for Higher Education (CHE) responding that regular and on-going review of curricula be encouraged through the work of the Higher Education Qualifications Committee (HEQC), without straining universities resources and jeopardising education (CHE, 2009; DBE & DHET, 2011; DHET, 2010; DoE, 2010; Shay, 2011). Moreover, the Green Paper offered a visualization that set the foundation for constructing a solitary, coherent and co-ordinated, harmonized education system as a whole; with the hope of addressing deep-rooted and persistent historical inequalities in achieving access, equity and excellence in education; and building a more flexible, amicable and diverse education system (DHET, 2012; Lotz-sisitka, 2012).

The HEQC review of teacher education in 2009 in relation to the Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) policy document, indicated that teacher education programmes seldom meet standards in areas of programme organization, design, co-ordination.

Most programme designs focus strongly on preparing students for the present curriculum and for a career in teaching, which compromises their capacity to adapt to future curriculum change (Samuel, 2012). There is a general tendency for teacher education programmes to comply with government regulations policy requirements in a responsive, disjointed and technical way (DHET, 2010). Hence, by specifying minimum requirements and by making allowance for

17

institutional flexibility and discretion, the policy document encouraged teacher educators to become more engaged with curriculum design and policy implementation in an effort to improve quality programmes and an increased awareness in addressing the extent and depth of educational problems in South Africa (DHET, 2010). However, a release in 2010 by Council on Higher Education (CHE) and the HEQC involved in the accreditation of higher education institutions discovered that there were still a myriad of quality assurance accountabilities to be embarked on by the institutions providing teacher education. This advocated the necessity to work collaboratively with associates to arouse vigorous debates and denunciations to warrant the quality of teacher education, which is considered much more imperative than any stakeholder constituency plans (CHE, 2010; Samuel, 2012).

Further, rigorous efforts across the teacher education landscape had become apparent to depict and elaborate the direct experiences, diverse curricular thoughts and expressions that had developed in the post-apartheid period of the wide range of role-players in teacher education from the formations and partnerships of various constituencies (DBE & DHET, 2011; Samuel, 2012). Therefore, a collective rationalization across all sectors in government structures was proposed which was declared to be within the national interest. In July 2009, a national Teacher Development Summit (TDS) took place in South Africa with the following primary purpose: to highpoint and openly discuss the challenges experienced in teacher education and development within the country, since national and local policies must be focused on improving and engaging in quality teacher education (Robinson, 2015). For the first time, the summit integrated all the interested parties from the teacher education and development sectors in the country: this involved teacher unions, the national and provincial departments of education; the Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP-SETA);

the South African Council for Educators (SACE) and the Higher Education South Africa Education Deans’ Forum (HESA-EDF) (DBE & DHET, 2011; Robinson, 2015; Samuel, 2012).

Subsequently, the summit led to the development of a new, strengthened integrated national plan for teacher education and development in South Africa; the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development (NISPFTED) in South Africa 2011-2025 to develop the quality of teacher education and development, in order to improve teaching and learning in South Africa (Robinson, 2015). However, a fascinating paradox that occurred in the

18

process and structure of the declaration of the national Teacher Development Summit of 2009 was the manner in which the higher education sector, the HESA-EDF was deliberately omitted from participation from the decisions to craft the final summit declaration since they were not considered primary agents of the negotiating forum, which was in contradiction of an amalgamated interpretation of a collective partnership of all constituencies toward understanding and recognising a nationally unified strategy as the concluding resolution of the summit (Samuel, 2012).

To this point, it is important to consider how these various role-players associate, deliberate, negotiate and debate with one another in the various policy formulations leading to the post-announcement of the National Integrated Strategic Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development (NISPFTED) and Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications (MRTEQ). This becomes the focus of the following section.

1.3.2.3 The third wave: Cultivating collaboration and alliance, unity, coherence and submissions