Chapter Nine

Open Learning and the Systems of GET and FET

 Introduction 

The first two chapters of this report have outlined ways of thinking about open learning. They have fleshed out these concepts in practical ways that educational practitioners can apply, to consider the implications of open learning in their own contexts. This has then been followed by wide-ranging analyses of various issues in GET and FET, analyses that are supported by more detailed documentation provided in the appendices to this report. In this final chapter, we seek to bring these elements together in a summary analysis. This analysis will draw out the most important problems and issues that we believe emerge from this research. It will where appropriate, be accompanied by recommendations for action that we believe are suggested by the research itself. 

The approach we have taken in formulating recommendations has, as the title of this chapter suggests, focused strongly on examining the systems underpinning GET and FET. We believe that this is consistent with the interpretations of open learning presented in chapter one. As importantly, throughout this research process, for reasons that will become apparent, we have been very concerned that this policy research might compound the very problems it sought to solve, by adding further complexity to an already complex policy environment. The desire to avoid this mistake constitutes a major driving force behind the recommendations presented in this chapter.

 Policy, complexity and open learning 

The brief of this research exercise has been to explore the policy environment of GET and FET from an open learning perspective, exploring its impact on implementation and making concrete proposals on strategies to further open learning in those sectors. Given what we have discovered and discussions we have held on this theme during the research itself, we believe it is important to start with a general theme, which guides the remainder of the observations and proposals made.

South Africa is at a critical moment of reviewing the progress it has made as a fledgling democracy, seeking to consolidate its gains and extend these by analysing where intention has been misguided or has not been matched by the practicalities of implementation. This applies particularly to the education system, which is widely acknowledged as a central pillar of any effort to ensure the country’s economic competitiveness and its capacity to deliver on promises of redressing historical imbalances and creating a better life for all. This helps to explain why the education sector has been the focus of so many intensive policy processes over the past five years. 

Nevertheless, despite significant achievements in creating a new policy environment, we believe that this intensive attention and activity has not necessarily all had its desired effect. The country’s educational policy processes have been the location of some of the most creative ideas internationally, ideas that have been drawn from extensive research and from detailed discussion and debate involving a wide range of interests. Unfortunately, though, it has to be added that – in sum – these good ideas have created a policy environment that is weighing down effective, large-scale delivery of high quality education because it has become far too complicated for a system the size of South African education and has created unrealistic demands in terms of speed of delivery. 

Various features of the South African educational landscape have exacerbated this problem, and continue to do so in a range of sectors. Below we describe some of the most relevant.

 The policy framework 

Attempting to Solve All Problems Simultaneously

Developing countries share at least one common problem; there are more urgent social problems to solve than there are time or resources to solve them. Faced with so many urgent problems, it becomes very difficult – some would argue almost impossible – to establish priorities, as focusing on one course of action over another often involves taking decisions that may be construed as ignoring fundamental human rights or even – at its most extreme – leading to loss of life (through poverty, disease, unemployment, and other core social problems). This makes it increasingly tempting to want to solve all problems together, as prioritization simply forces decisions that are too difficult to take. Educational policy reflects this dilemma. In a very short space of time, South Africans have sought to develop policy solutions to almost every conceivable educational problem. Unfortunately, though, we have also discovered that the resources simply do not exist to solve all these problems, with the result that a scarce resource base has been stretched over an impossibly diverse range of implementation processes. 

This has at least three consequences:

1.   It heightens awareness of problems amongst educational practitioners, leaving them feeling increasingly concerned about the scale of educational problems and increasingly powerless to solve any of these problems. This occurs not only because educational policy raises awareness about specific problems, but also because it places responsibility on these practitioners for implementing policy. Thus, policy commitments are not only commitments on the part of government, but also set the direction for all members of the system for which the policy is intended. The burden simply becomes too great for people to bear. Thus, even those fully committed to educational change and provision of high quality education lose focus and the will to continue the good work they are doing.

2.   It spreads resources; human and financial across many problem-solving exercises, with the result that very few problems ever actually get solved in a sustainable way. Because people are working frantically to solve so many problems and implement so many new systems, success is very rarely achieved. Not only does this lead to massive loss of productivity, as these efforts and activities are spread so wide that they very seldom lead to results, it also fosters disillusionment amongst those who perceive there to be no progress.

3.   It erodes opportunities for professional development. A feature of the South African educational sector is that a small number of skilled people are responsible for the bulk of work in that sector, most of whom are working unusually long hours simply to deal with their workload. This workload proliferates as policy seeks to tackle more and more educational problems. As policy proliferates, the opportunities available for these skilled people to support the professional development of others, which, in whatever form and structure such professional development takes place, remains the only way to build the capacity of other people and the country as a whole, is eroded. This is a very dangerous self-reinforcing cycle, as well as a major threat to meaningful affirmative action aimed at redressing racial inequities in the country.

Attempting to Accommodate all Perspectives

This feature is significantly more complicated, precisely because it is regarded as such a crucial principle of democracy. Indeed, the successes that South Africa has achieved, both generally and specifically in education, can, at least in part, be attributed to a culture of inclusivity that emerged during policy debates. Unfortunately, though, this principle appears to have been taken to extremes at times, forcing problematic compromises in policy implementation. It needs to be stressed here that this comment should not be interpreted as meaning that consultation and inclusivity are no longer important in decision-making; without them, educational implementation will only become increasingly difficult. We are, however, suggesting that it is critical to ensure that such consultation is: (a) focused on consulting with people directly affected by policy, rather than those with the power and resources to influence processes the most effectively and (b) does not lead to the incorporation of a mish-mash of tangential ideas that forces a loss of policy focus. From this perspective, it may be argued that the problem with inclusivity in policy-making has not been the principle of consultation itself, but the fact that ideas generated during consultation have not always been shaped into a coherent vision underlying the policy instrument itself. This is not a general problem, as much policy presents very coherent visions for change. It is, however, a problem that we believe exists to a certain extent in policy governing further education and training, and we have therefore picked up on this problem in more detail in a later section.

Policy as the Response to Educational Problems

A third feature has contributed to the policy landscape we described above, and that is a tendency, when identifying an educational problem of any kind, to want to develop a policy solution to it. Obviously, this leads to proliferation of policy instruments. As importantly, many of these policy instruments are developed with only the problem they seek to solve in mind, thus leading to the danger that they might create tensions with existing policy positions. This has become a particular issue in the area of schooling, which is now split across two policy implementation areas, GET and FET. The result has been a sense of confusion about the relative status of different policy pronouncements pertaining to these different areas and how these pronouncements affect a sector undergoing rapid transformation.

More importantly, though, they leave the problem identified unsolved, as policy only sets a framework for solving problems, it does not solve the problems in itself. Here, we are not intending to suggest that all policy falls into this category; indeed, much of South Africa’s educational policy has been a critical element of educational transformation. We do, however, believe that (a) there is, in some circles, a mistaken belief that policy actually solves problems and (b) some policy delves into operational issues, for which practical solutions, rather than policy pronouncements would be more appropriate. 

In summary, then, we believe that South Africa’s policy implementation environment is caught in a self-reinforcing cycle that looks something as follows

It is important to stress that the above diagram is not intended to describe the only possible systemic cycle for policy development, it simply outlines current cycles. This is important because we are not suggesting that policy is problematic per se, only when it contributes to the above self-reinforcing cycle. In South Africa, this has emerged in large part not because the policy framework itself is problematic, but rather because the timeframes for its implementation – set in acknowledgement of the urgency of the problems it seeks to resolve – have created impossible demands on the system and its human resources.

Policy Implementation

South African GET and FET are faced with an additional problem related to policy implementation. South Africans have grown extraordinarily accustomed to heavy-handed regulation as a norm for policy implementation, a legacy of a society run as a police state for many years. Unfortunately, though, while the police state has been dismantled, the underlying social desire to regulate all aspects of life has proven harder to abandon. This becomes clear if one attempts to take a bird’s-eye view of educational policy. While each individual policy instrument appears reasonable in its own right, their sum is a highly complex, detailed set of regulations that seeks to cover almost every aspect and detail of educational implementation. While there is no evidence that any individual piece of policy has sought to become controlling in this way, it is becoming clear that the complete framework reflects an attempt to ensure quality by controlling every aspect of educational implementation. 

This problem has been massively exacerbated by the agencies responsible for implementation of policy, which are still very much driven by this mindset of excessive regulation. The result of this has been totally unexpected proliferation of administrative bureaucracy that significantly burdens educational practitioners at several levels throughout the system. Thus, while the policy framework itself reflects many changes from that which governed apartheid education, its implementation is still very reminiscent of apartheid education systems. This has stifled individual innovation and creativity, as well as perpetuating a mindset in which individuals assume little or no responsibility for their own actions, instead holding ‘higher authorities’ accountable for problems in the system. The current policy implementation environment still encourages this culture of non-accountability, precisely because it seeks to provide detailed regulation of almost every aspect of educational implementation, rather than a simple regulatory framework that focuses on ensuring accountability in only a few critical areas of implementation. We regard this as essential not because we believe that all responsibility should be decentralized, but rather because we believe that, when central agencies seek to control all aspects of educational provision, the systems of accountability will become too complicated to monitor effectively. Hence, we are proposing reducing the number of areas in which this accountability to central authorities is expected, so that these areas can be effectively monitored and improved. 

It is important to stress that, in making these comments, we do not intend to advocate decentralization of authority. There are critical roles for central agencies to play in ensuring quality of educational provision. We are, however, suggesting that the number of areas and elements of educational provision that need to be centrally regulated is far fewer than those currently being regulated. Attempts to regulate too many aspects of educational implementation make it impossible to regulate anything effectively, as resource constraints and the complexity of detailed regulatory frameworks will derail such efforts. We do believe that regulation is important, but are arguing that there need to be only a few, simple and clear indicators of quality that ensure accountability. They should focus on fewer aspects of quality, and ensure that they are met. Implementation of such regulatory frameworks should remain the responsibility of central government agencies. 

Further, it is important to differentiate between regulation and support. Regulations set rules that people must follow or face legal action of some kind, while support creates no such obligations. In discussions on curriculum below, we propose much more detailed support – in the form of resources and content – for educators and educational providers. This should not be confused with a detailed regulatory framework, as it creates no expectations that people must use the content or resources. It aims simply to create an increasingly supportive educational environment.

Why is this relevant to Open Learning?

What does any of the above analysis have to do with open learning? In our opinion, everything. We have been consistently concerned throughout this research exercise – as have many of the people with whom we have spoken – that open learning may simply become another ‘sophisticated’ educational layer or controlling regulatory framework to South African policy implementation, adding further strain to an already overly complicated policy environment. We have noted similar trends with concern around the implementation of outcomes-based education (where the ever-growing diversity of concepts and high-level educational ideas has made policy unintelligible to the average educator). This was a key reason why we chose the interpretation of open learning presented in chapter one, seeing the concept as a lens through which we could analyse and improve provision of education and its underlying systems. From this perspective, the above analysis yields the following critical observations.

Too many educational policy structures

A key consequence of the above-described policy landscape has been proliferation of policy implementation structures. By this, we refer to agencies or units that have been established with the specific intention of giving practical weight to a policy position. Possibly the most central policy implementation structures in South African GET and FET are those related to the National Qualifications Framework and to the Skills Levy, such as the South African Qualifications Authority, National Standards Bodies, Education and Training Quality Assurers, Standards Generating Bodies, and Sector Education and Training Authorities.[1] There are, however, many others, at both national and provincial level, some of which have been established since 1994, others of which are a legacy of the apartheid education system. 

The problem, simply stated, is that there are too many policy implementation structures in South African education and training, both in terms of the conceptual and bureaucratic complexity that each adds to the system and in terms of the resource requirements of implementing each successfully. Most policy implementation structures, when viewed on their own, have well considered rationales and reasons underlying their establishment. Taken together, however, they are placing too great a strain on the systems they are intended to serve. South Africa simply cannot afford to have such a major percentage of its available human resource involved in establishing and administering policy frameworks, given that this moves people away from the day-to-day implementation of education itself. 

Further, the system as a whole is simply not prepared for the level of complexity demanded by many of these policy frameworks. Many of these systems are based on highly complex educational concepts, difficult enough to implement in a single programme or institution let alone an entire national system. Further, South Africa has drawn strongly on systems being put in place in developed countries, where the conceptual complexity embedded in policy implementation systems has evolved over many years in systems that have had the benefit of reasonably lengthy political and social stability. Although most of these concepts make educational sense, their conversion into national policy implementation systems over only a few years does not. Again, its impact is to overburden the limited resources in that system. 

Hard as it may be to do, therefore, we believe it is necessary to take hard political decisions to slow down – or even halt – certain policy implementation processes, as they are creating unprecedented demands on the country’s educational systems, demands which simply cannot be met by the education system. The reader will note that we have avoided any intimation thus far of which policy structures should be viewed as higher or lower priority, which should be maintained and which either frozen or dismantled. This is not because we do not have opinions of the priorities, but because they will have to be established through political processes and specific critical review processes (such as the one currently being undertaken for Curriculum 2005). It would be unhelpful to preempt these processes by suggesting which policy structures should be dismantled to create additional space for successful implementation of those that remain. At this point, we believe the following recommendation suffices:

Recommendation One  

At a high level, decisions have to be taken to halt or significantly slow the pace of certain policy implementation processes, with a view to giving the education system additional space to solve a small number of fundamental problems thoroughly and sustainably. This decision-making process will have to include decisions to dismantle – or temporarily freeze – identified policy implementation structures to create more distinctly phased implementation of policy frameworks. 

Implications for Opening Learning

Implementing this recommendation successfully will force prioritization of problems, as well as requiring understanding of which problems need to be solved before other changes can be sustainably implemented. The recommendation will open learning by ensuring that progress is made on solving a fewer number of fundamental problems, until which time it will not be possible to integrate greater openness into educational systems

t is worth noting that the Tirisano Plan provides a first step in this regard. It does, however, suffer from two weaknesses:

1.   It has not unequivocally stopped certain processes in favour of those established as priorities. Thus, these other processes continue to absorb scarce time and money.

2.   It has provided no sense of realistic deadlines or different phases that would allow people to focus on a few strategies, knowing that the timeframe for implementing other strategies is delayed. For example, in the area of literacy, the deadlines proposed are patently unrealistic.

Thus, a practical way of implementing the above recommendation would be to release a more detailed version of the plan, which specifies much more detailed and realistic timeframes.

Too Many Regulations

A key principle of open learning is flexibility. It is becoming increasingly important as educational systems are becoming expected to serve an ever-growing diversity of needs and target groups of learners. The more complex policies and procedures are made, the less flexible they become and the less flexibility they allow in the operations of people governed by those policies and procedures. There is also a serious risk that, by creating regulatory frameworks that are too complicated to be administered effectively, one opens the door to serious subversion of the system, as rapid growth in ‘fly-by-night’ education has demonstrated. From an open learning perspective, the simpler policy and regulatory frameworks are, the better, both in terms of flexibility and quality assurance.

South African policy seeks to regulate far too many aspects of education – particularly with a view to ensuring quality. This regulatory framework is becoming highly constrictive, and is also significantly too complicated to be administered effectively, particularly given the country’s human resource constraints. While the intention of most of this regulatory framework has been to improve quality, it is instead opening huge spaces for poor quality educational practices because regulatory frameworks are too complex to be administered effectively. For this reason, our second recommendation is as follows

Recommendation Two

At a high level, decisions have to be taken to massively simplify regulation of education, so that it can focus on ensuring that a few basic aspects of education are implemented effectively and accountably. These decisions should involve focusing attention first on ensuring that money allocated to different educational functions is spent on those functions, rather than on cross-subsidizing other practices. Once accountability in this area has been significantly improved, it will become possible to add other regulatory layers that focus on building quality.[2] 

Implications for Opening Learning

Successful implementation of this recommendation will: Ensure that a few basic elements of quality can be effectively regulated, rather than having many detailed elements of quality poorly regulated; and

•      Devolve responsibility for a range of operational decisions, thus introducing greater flexibility into the management of education, as well as encouragement for people at different levels to accept greater responsibility for the overall performance of the education and training system.

These recommendations form the foundation of our open learning analysis of GET and FET. They are very broad and, critics might argue, devoid of sufficient detail. As we have pointed out, this has been intentional, because they will necessarily involve hard decisions that many people (particularly those who have built up power bases around different aspects of policy implementation) will find difficult to accept. Thus, their successful implementation will require skilful political manoeuvring, and we believe more specific recommendations at this stage would only further complicate this process. Nevertheless, with this broad framework in place, we now turn our attention to more specific aspects of the GET and FET systems.

Fundamental Problems

The above descriptions possibly appear somewhat vague, particularly in terms of their lack of specificity about which fundamental problems require resolution first. For this reason, we begin by identifying three broad problems that we consider to be fundamental to effective implementation of GET and FET in South Africa. These do not focus on identifying policy implementation structures that might be frozen or dismantled, as we have pointed out, we believe this is a decision requiring political input before being taken  but they do help in identifying short- to medium-term priorities. They are: ineffective communication, inadequate management, and illiteracy.

Ineffective Communication

Free flow of information is a cornerstone of any successful democracy. It is also essential to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of any system, particularly systems of the scale of those responsible for GET and FET in South Africa. The best policy documents in the world have no value if they are not understood and their visions shared by those responsible for their implementation. In this regard, sharing information from the centre to local implementation sites is not sufficient. Cheap, speedy mechanisms for communication, problem-sharing, and discussion are fundamental to building shared understanding and ownership of policy visions. Educational transformation becomes almost impossible if two-way communication is not reliable and speedy, if people at different levels in the system feel excluded from the flow of information or unable to contribute to or question it. It will be thwarted at every turn if people at these different levels then use the information they receive as a strategy for consolidating their own little educational empires. 

Regretfully, these problems are pervasive in South African GET and FET. Many institutions do not receive basic communication from provincial or national departments, nor are they in a position to engage in dialogue when they do receive circulars. Our research in Mpumalanga (see appendix six) shows, if nothing else, a system in which communication is becoming dysfunctional, reflected most clearly in the disempowered sense with which schools constantly blamed the Department of Education for their problems (whether this was justified or not). In presentations of this research, it has become clear that the problems described in that research are illustrative of the system throughout the country, rather than unique to the area in which research was conducted. Likewise, in discussions with Gauteng district officials, a major concern about the requirement to register schools as FET institutions was raised repeatedly, although it has become clear that there is, in fact, no such requirement. A response of one person deeply involved in developing FET policy to this was that these people ‘need to do their jobs, by reading the policy document’. This anecdote illustrates miscommunication on different levels surrounding FET policy. Such miscommunication and lack of understanding has also been rife around Curriculum 2005. 

Possibly most worrying is problems around communication at national and provincial levels. There are two notable trends in this regard. First, many bureaucrats, themselves confused by the bewildering array of new terms and concepts pervading current policy, have projected this confusion onto those constituencies they are meant to be serving. Thus, when real understanding of the underlying educational meaning of these terms is absent, people revert to literal definitions of different terms, using these to ‘explain’ policy to those with whom they engage. This problem is widespread, and severely retarding effective educational implementation.    

Second, when communication systems are not working effectively and allowing free flow of information, the possibility of people using information as a strategy for maintaining ‘territorial’ power bases is massively increased. Many people in positions of power deliberately use information as a strategy for maintaining a perceived power base. Obviously, this problem is neither limited to education nor to South Africa. However, territorialism of function, both within the Department of Education (national and provincial) and between the Department of Education and other government departments remains a major impediment to effective implementation. Current power struggles existing in education between directorates, between national and provincial competencies, and between the Department of Education and other government departments are negatively affecting development and attainment of a common vision and purpose. We are not intending here to suggest that this problem is recent. On the contrary, territorialism was a key feature of educational structures governing apartheid education. However, unfortunately little progress has been made in the last five years towards solving this problem, which has now become deeply entrenched within the new educational system. Such territorialism becomes much harder to sustain where communication systems allow free two-way flow of information.  

At the same time as current communication systems are not efficient enough, they are also very expensive, relying as they do on physical circulation of large quantities of paper, much of which never reaches its intended destination. For example, anecdotal reports of government circulars piling up in district offices are too widespread to be regarded as aberrations within an otherwise efficiently running system. Worse, these paper-based systems rely heavily on the goodwill of a massive human chain for communication between the centre and local sites of activity to work effectively. When taken in combination with problems of territorialism, this spells disaster for effective communication. For these reasons, we present the following recommendations regarding communication.   

Recommendation Three

Establishment and maintenance of cheap, reliable systems of communication should be identified as a primary priority for the Ministry of Education. Measurable goals should be established to ensure that progress is made quickly in this regard, with clear rewards and penalties for not achieving agreed goals. These could focus on many areas, including the following:

•        Strategic investments in use of e-mail should be made to facilitate communication. Already, many key players in South African education have access to e-mail facilities, so these investments should not be limited to widening infrastructure. They could include distribution of regular, open subscription e-mail newsletters targeting different themes (as well as active recruitment of e-mail addresses to be added to these lists, as even South Africans with e-mail addresses are not yet particularly proactive in searching out information). They could also include establishment of chat forums to explain and discuss key policy positions. They should, however, also incorporate strategic investments in new information technology infrastructure, as well as negotiations with telecommunications providers (Telkom and cellular providers) to widen access to e-mail facilities. These latter investments and negotiations could be undertaken in partnership with the Department of Communication. More detailed ideas are contained in The Feasibility of Establishing a Dedicated Educational Broadcasting Service in South Africa, a policy research document on technological convergence recently completed for the Departments of Education and Communication.

•        Key policy documents should be re-written in simple language, and these accessible versions widely disseminated, physically and electronically. This has already happened in some areas – although some documents of this kind (particularly on Curriculum 2005) end up being as confusing as the original policy. This could start with a short, three- to four-page document highlighting the most important aspects of FET policy (see recommendation eleven). Critically, this work needs to include dissemination of accessible resources in languages other than English, particularly with a view to meeting the communication needs of people outside major urban centres.

•        Strategies to simplify school communication should be considered. This should incorporate re-thinking the relationships of learners and of teachers to the education system. Do they have to engage with the system through an institution (like a school) via a circuit to a district to a province to the national Department? Direct affiliation with a province might be a more efficient and flexible organizing structure.

Implications for Opening Learning

Building communication capability is fundamental to opening any system, and is particularly critical to opening learning systems. Flexibility and innovation require free-flowing ideas and information to work successfully. Successful implementation of this recommendation will:

•      Make poor quality practices become significantly harder to perpetuate, as they will exist in an environment where educators, learners, and other participants of educational systems are constantly exposed to new ideas;

•      Ensure that efforts to open learning start by tackling legacy systems, seeking to open these up, rather than aiming to building parallel ‘open systems’ that operate alongside mainstream systems.

 Inadequate management and administration 

Problems in management and administration of education in South Africa are well documented (see appendix nine for more detail), and hence do not require major additional commentary. In education, this starts at the top, with the principal or rector, senior management, and governing bodies of an institution. If these levels of management are not functioning effectively, this significantly complicates the challenge of providing high quality education. Stories abound of teachers who have received training in new educational approaches, only to find them confounded by short-sighted principals at their school, who demand a return to traditional classroom practice. In such examples, there is a strong case to be made for restructuring and improving senior management – and building mechanisms to ensure its accountability, both upwards and to its employee – before pouring large quantities of funding into training of middle- and lower level employees in an educational system. 

In a parallel research process being driven by the Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development on FET, we have had opportunities to visit a range of kinds of FET institutions, including many technical colleges. In these case studies, it has again become clear that effective management is a prerequisite for an effectively functioning institution. This is not to suggest that effective management is a sufficient condition for successful educational provision. As we note in that research, another factor affecting educational effectiveness in technical colleges is the type of college they are registered as, which affects their levels of autonomy in decision-making (although we are aware that the legislation creating these distinctions is being changed). Nevertheless, we do believe that – in terms of chronology – many interventions aimed at improving educational implementation will be wasted until management problems and weaknesses are solved. 

There are strong links between management and administration, but the two should not be confused. Effective management does not necessarily lead to efficient administration, particularly if that management is working in an environment that demands a range of unnecessary and laborious administrative functions to be undertaken to fulfil the requirements of central bureaucracies. Management at local levels – such as schools or technical colleges – can also be supported by strategic investments focusing on streamlining and simplifying administration. For example, establishment of a widespread information technology network could provide the following applications to schools:[3]

1.   A simplified timetabling package, which will enable schools to prepare timetables for the year. This application should enable schools to plan the year in terms of available teachers, subjects (learning areas), available classrooms, and student cohorts. It can significantly reduce the time required to prepare timetables, while ensuring that schools have timetables ready by the beginning of the school year.[4]

2.   Simple student and teacher record-keeping systems (linked to the timetabling system). This should enable schools to track student progress by keeping records of their personal information, marks, learning pathways (subjects taken), and progress through grades. Importantly, this could also be used to replace manual admissions processes currently run by schools, which is one major reason for delays in the production of timetables in many places. It could also be used to produce regular reports for distribution to parents. This system should also be used to keep basic information about teachers at schools, including basic personal information, qualifications and teacher upgrading pathways, subject specializations and levels of specialization, and other relevant information.

3.   A basic accounting package, which will enable schools to track income and expenses in the school. This package can also be used to require schools to account for how they are spending the money received from them by government. Standard accounting systems are too complex for most schools to operate effectively, as few schools have administration personnel qualified in even basic book keeping, so simplified software applications would be necessary.

4.   A basic resource administration package. This can help provide information on basic resources (textbooks, audio-visual equipment, furniture, and so on) for decision-making and planning by school governors, teachers, parents, and students. This would help to ensure more effective use and maintenance of basic school resources, and could be linked to the basic accounting package to facilitate this.[5]

5.   Possibly most importantly, a network supporting applications such as those described above would created a basic platform for massively increased use of information technologies to support education more directly. It would put in place a network that could be used for widespread dissemination of resources (see section on Curriculum below) and sharing of knowledge and experiences, aimed first at educators but – in the long term – at learners themselves. 

Because data from this system will be stored on network servers around the country, it will be possible to turn this system into a national data warehouse for schools.[6] This can enable the system to perform a range of functions over and above those micro-level functions described above. For example, it will become much easier to determine which schools do or do not have timetables ready by the beginning of the school year, either locally, provincially, or nationally. Likewise, it will be possible to require schools to submit accounts, which can then be easily checked at provincial level. In addition, surveys such as the School Register of Needs, which are both expensive and soon out of date, can be replaced by automatic queries run on the national data warehouse. An additional spin-off benefit of this would be that it would facilitate gathering of information on learners that will be required by SAQA for its National Learner Records Database (NLRD). According to Samuel Isaacs, Executive Officer of SAQA, a major problem for the NLRD will be the gathering of accurate information from schools, particularly primary schools. Such a system provides a potential long-term solution to this problem, although obviously the implementation of the NLRD will be up and running before it can be implemented. 

Using these kinds of functions, it will be easier to target problem areas in the system and focus efforts on getting these functioning effectively. For example, schools that do not log on to the system or are not providing basic information to the system can be targeted for professional development support, disciplinary action, or other corrective measures. When such problems become manifest across an entire district or province, it will be possible to start isolating other possible causes for administrative and management problems. 

The above descriptions are not limited to schools, although we have used schools as the illustrative example. Similar types of systems could be developed for the entire FET system, as well as to support ABET. This would also reduce the relative costs of development, as hybrid applications could be developed for use in different sectors, thus maximizing the investment made. Of course, we are aware that this type of investment cannot be made in a short time, as resources are scarce. Nevertheless, there is significant evidence that many investments that could lead to implementation of such administrative systems are already being made in South Africa, with the support of the private sector and funding agencies. Thus, the most important first step will be for government to commit itself to the broad vision outlined in The Feasibility of Establishing a Dedicated Educational Broadcasting Service in South Africa, as this will focus those investments and also encourage other players to make similar investments. More detail on these proposals is contained in that report, but a summary of the vision is provided in appendix fourteen.

Recommendation Four

Establishment and maintenance of effective management and administrative systems should be identified as a primary priority for the Ministry of Education. Measurable goals should be established to ensure that progress is made quickly in this regard, with clear rewards and penalties for not achieving agreed goals. These could focus on many areas, including the following:

  Identifying those agencies – government and non-government – that are currently involved in interventions to build management capacity at educational institutions such as schools and technical colleges. Once this has been done, strategies to increase the impact of their work, by diverting funding away from lower priority activities, should be developed and implemented.

•      Reconsidering the way in which educators and department officials are recognized and rewarded for good performance. New criteria and mechanisms should be developed to recognize and reward excellence of teachers and officials. This process should be linked to establishment of performance management systems, merit-based salary scales, and accountability built into job descriptions.

•      Establishing national commitment to the vision contained in The Feasibility of Establishing a Dedicated Educational Broadcasting Service in South Africa, with a view to focusing future investments made across the education system in ICTs.

•      Making strategic investments in professional development of educational managers across the GET and FET systems. These should seek to move away from the traditional model of short workshops towards more sustained support (even if the number of managers who can be reached is reduced), as the former strategy tends to lead to high costs and low impact.

•      Breaking down territorialism within the Department of Education should be targeted as a key requirement of effective educational implementation. This could be achieved through the establishment of measurable goals for different units and branches within Departments (national and provincial) demonstrating progress in breaking down this unhealthy phenomenon. These goals should include demonstrable progress on inter-departmental and inter-directorate cooperation. 

Implications for Opening Learning

Building management and administrative capacity is fundamental to opening any system, and is particularly critical to opening learning systems. Cost-effective, quality operations are very difficult to implement and practically impossible to sustain where management and administration are weak. Successful implementation of this recommendation will: Significantly improve efficiency of resource usage by ensuring accountability in the way in which resources are used. This will lead to more cost-effective educational provision across GET and FET and;          

•      Lead to improvements in quality by creating space for educational innovation and flexibility. Where management is weak and administration cumbersome or dysfunctional, the possibilities of improving educational quality are usually seriously curtailed.

•      Ensure that efforts to open learning start by tackling legacy systems, seeking to open these up, rather than aiming to building parallel ‘open systems’ that operate alongside mainstream systems.

 Illiteracy 

In many ways, illiteracy is the most fundamental barrier to structured learning, because all large-scale education systems rely heavily on reading, writing, and numeracy beyond very basic levels of education. The problems of illiteracy in South Africa are well documented, and have been discussed as part of our analysis of ABET in chapter three and in our discussions on rural education in chapter six. For this reason, we do not intend to dwell at length on the extent of the problem. 

It is, however, important to stress that problems of illiteracy are not – as many people erroneously assume – the problems of adults alone. As our work on rural education demonstrates, serious problems with educational delivery in rural schools (and some urban and peri-urban schools) means that new generations of illiterate adults are working their way through the schooling system currently. Thus, any efforts to eradicate illiteracy have to take account of these problems of educational delivery and seek to solve them. For this reason, we believe the problem of illiteracy is inextricably related to the two other fundamental problems outlined above. 

On a more positive note, the Minister of Education, in the Tirisano Plan, has made explicit commitments to tackling illiteracy. Furthermore, work has already begun on planning the concept of literacy campaigns aimed at solving this problem. For the interest of readers, a draft concept paper has been attached to this document in appendix thirteen. Thus, our recommendation in this area relates to work already underway.   

Recommendation Five

The work of the newly-formed Literacy Agency should be fully supported by all elements of society and government. The Agency needs to be allowed to operate with freedom from the bureaucratic constraints of the Department of Education, particularly with reference to its capacity to raise its own funding (obviously while ensuring that mechanisms to ensure accountability are put in place). The draft concept paper of a literacy campaign developed with input from a range of players should form the foundation of efforts to eradicate illiteracy. The campaign itself will have to take very seriously the requirement of providing literacy in home languages. It will also have to place a special focus on ensuring that the current enrolment of students in the school system do not leave that system illiterate. 

Implications for Opening Learning

Solving problems of illiteracy is fundamental to opening learning. Until learners become literate, lifelong learning will be a concept of very limited value, while most educational systems will remain inaccessible to learners.

 Open Learning and Distance Education 

Open Schooling

In the previous chapter, we presented a detailed discussion about open learning and distance education. That chapter began by exploring the concept of an open school, coming to the conclusion that such an option did not really make sense in the South African context. For that reason, we believe that the following recommendation is worth making at this point.   

Recommendation Six

An Open School does not constitute a viable or desirable policy intervention in South African schooling. Efforts should rather be made to integrate the best and most relevant practices emerging from such interventions around the world into the mainstream GET and FET systems in South Africa. 

Implications for Opening Learning

This is important from an open learning perspective because it prevents implementation of structures that perpetuate outdated distinctions between distance and contact education. It creates a planning framework from which planners can draw on the full range of educational experiences to improve educational implementation. Thus, this recommendation is crucial to building flexibility across all GET and FET systems. It also ensures that any new efforts to open learning tackle legacy educational systems.

Learning from Distance Education and Resource-Based Learning

Chapter eight attempted to outline some of the challenges facing educational providers across GET and FET as they seek to integrate resource-based learning and distance education methods into their educational programmes, a trend which was already gathered momentum across the GET and FET sectors. These are not simply issues for consideration by individual institutions. We believe that discussion also further illustrates the importance – in a changing educational environment – of establishing national systems that have the flexibility to accommodate this change. This provides further support to the policy recommendation we made earlier concerning Open Schools. Removing artificial distinctions between distance and contact education practice can help to simplify the national policy framework, while leading to the type of flexibility that supports ongoing adaptation and improvement of educational practices at all educational providers (including schools). 

As a second step, we believe it is important to examine a range of national policy implementation frameworks to establish the extent to which they support or impede the kinds of systemic changes at institutional level that we have described in this section. For example, educational providers’ management information systems are a critical part of administration. Part of the change implied above includes investigation of every level of data structure, to ensure that these systems do not embed anachronistic assumptions about contact or distance education into the organization’s operations. Possibly the most obvious assumption – although it is only one of many – would be that students study full-time, enrolling in February or March and writing examinations in May and June and/or October and November. Once assumptions such as these are embedded, they become very difficult to extract from these management information systems. Consequently, it will be crucial for institutions to investigate the relationships between data sets in management information systems to ensure that these rigidities are removed where they are unhelpful. 

However, almost all management information systems at individual educational providers have, unsurprisingly, been set up to supply data required at national level. Given the legacy of artificial categorizations like ‘distance’ and ‘contact’ and the historical focus of GET and FET education systems on full-time, contact education offered in year-based programmes, it is entirely conceivable that national statistical requirements perpetuate the existence of inflexible institutional management information systems, thus constraining change. Therefore, we believe that it is essential to work systematically through and adapt these statistical requirements to ensure that they do not unnecessarily constrain educational innovation and growth in new areas, thus preventing the type of work described in the previous paragraph. 

In addition, national and provincial education structures have a vested interest in helping educational providers to work systematically through these problems, as systemic inefficiencies constrain the capacity of the system to produce what it has been set up to produce. Unfortunately, though, the human resources required to implement effective re-design of institutional administrative systems are few and far between, and also generally struggling to cope with the volume of workload already facing them. We believe it is worth exploring the possibility of making small strategic investments in building the capacity of those managers and administrators tasked with implementing systems changes at organizational level, and supporting them in their work (thus building on recommendation four above). This would signal an important shift away from policy implementation that seeks to regulate and control what people are allowed to do towards support for moving in strategic important directions, a shift that is critical in the current education environment. Describing the exact nature of this investment falls outside of the scope of this study, but we believe that, with the right team of people, it need not take more than a month to establish the scale of such investments and where best to make them. 

Recommendation Seven

In an effort to encourage the development of increasingly flexible educational provision, we believe it is necessary to do the following:

•      Work systematically through every national policy implementation framework  starting with the systems of gathering national data on GET and FET to remove unnecessary inflexibilities that may be constraining the growth and development of innovative educational strategies and more flexible institutional systems. The time frame for completing this work in its entirety could be set at five years.

•      Develop a plan of action to make small strategic investments in increasing the capacity of GET and FET providers – including schools – to re-design their administrative and logistical systems to accommodate increasing levels of flexibility in educational provision where appropriate. A team tasked to develop such a plan could conceivably complete such a plan in one month, given that further research on needs would not be required.

 Implications for Opening Learning

Successful implementation of this recommendation will:

•      Significantly increase flexibility of educational systems in the GET and FET sectors, opening space for individual providers to increase the flexibility of their educational provision to accommodate a wider range of learners with different learning needs and contexts.

•      Focus expenditure on rebuilding legacy systems, to ensure that the large quantities of resources used in those systems is deployed more efficiently. This will have a positive effect on cost-effectiveness of educational provision in GET and FET, particularly if these changes can be carried through to the schooling sector, where the majority of public expenditure takes place.

 GET and FET curriculum 

Introduction

Much has been written about curriculum in South Africa, particularly in the school sector where Curriculum 2005 has generated some controversy. Problems of curriculum are, however, equally important across the entire GET and FET system, with many of the agencies set up to support implementation of the NQF and the Skills Levy playing roles in the development of curriculum. The most notable successes in this regard have tended to be in areas where industry/commerce requirements set very clear parameters around the articulation of curriculum frameworks, and much progress has been made in such areas with the development of qualifications and unit standards. In the area of GET-level schooling, however, curriculum development has been more problematic, leading finally to the establishment of a Curriculum Review Committee, which is due to complete its work in May 2000. There is also a process entitled Review and Modernization of Curriculum (RAMS) currently underway in the FET schooling area. 

This report never had any intention of duplicating the work of this committee, as this would amount to unnecessary duplication. We are, however, firmly of the opinion that curriculum structures are a crucial building block of educational systems and thus require critical examination as part of efforts to open learning. In this spirit, SAIDE has made separate submissions to the Curriculum Review Committee (which, for the interest of readers, are attached in appendix twelve). Below, we identify a few general recommendations emerging from this submission. These recommendations are important primarily because they give a flavour of the kinds of critical approaches that need to taken to curriculum frameworks on an ongoing basis in the interests of opening learning. A detailed rationale for these recommendations is provided in appendix twelve.   

Recommendation Eight

Ongoing improvements to the country’s GET and FET curriculum frameworks are a cornerstone of opening learning, and thus ongoing strategic investments should be made in analysing curriculum from an open learning perspective. In this phase of curriculum review and improvement, we believe the following issues, amongst others, require attention. They could be regarded as items to be used in establishing priorities in these areas. They are include below as examples of the kind of ongoing curriculum review that we consider to be important, rather than constituting a blueprint for curriculum reform.

•      Simplification of Curriculum 2005 policy,

•      Clarification of the meaning of fundamental, core, and elective learning when applied to GET and FET and in particular articulation of these between ABET, Curriculum 2005, and FET curriculum frameworks.

•      Urgent promulgation of high quality exit level performance indicators as well as assessment strategies in at least the fundamental learning areas of literacy (communication) and numeracy (mathematics) NQF level 1 and 4 exit points (at GETC and FETC levels).[7] Such indicators have been developed (although not yet declared as policy), but they should be carefully assessed to ensure that they are not simply further elaborations of outcomes rather than exit-level performance indicators (which describe assessable levels of performance). Conceptual consistency in exit level performance indicators across different learning areas also needs to be ensured.

•      Development and implementation of nationally administered benchmark assessment of learners at GETC and FETC levels in the fundamental learning areas of literacy (communication) and numeracy (mathematics). With this in place, we believe locally or provincially moderated assessment in other learning areas or in elective and core learning areas will be more flexibly implemented.

•      Modularization and mapping of learning in the FET band and possibly also the senior GET phase to allow for elective learning modules (or short courses) to be phased in, as a sustainable process of curriculum review, modernization and change.

•      Re-emphasis of the importance of appropriate content and supply of suitable learning materials developed by teams of experts

Implications for Opening Learning

The quality and practical potential for implementation of curriculum frameworks are cornerstones of an effective education system. Successful implementation of this recommendation will contribute to opening learning by improving the quality of GET and FET systems, opening the possibility for more flexible entry and exit requirements. It retains the aspects of the current curriculum systems, while opening the possibility of incremental change and growing flexibility in core and elective learning. It will also simplify the curriculum policy framework, thus making it more effective and easier to implement. In this regard, this recommendation links to recommendation seven, and will have similar implications for opening learning.

 Generating and disseminating curriculum resources 

One of the ideas incorporated in recommendation seven justifies additional discussion, particularly because it has been raised so consistently in consultation we have undertaken with various people during the course of this research. This is re-emphasis of the importance of appropriate content and supply of suitable learning materials developed by teams of experts. Recent research conducted by the National Institute for Curriculum Research and Development has examined the role of learning support materials in Curriculum 2005 and made similar observations.[8] Three specific consequences of this lack of emphasis are worth raising in this regard:

•      There are many organizations – government, commercial, and non-profit – involved in the business of developing curriculum content and resources, but South Africa’s education systems remain plagued by problems of inaccessibility to resources.

•      Many curriculum development processes  in having established a completely artificial dichotomy between ‘outcomes-based’ and ‘content-based’ education – have taken a militant stand against any incorporation of content into curriculum frameworks, relying instead on a highly idealistic notion that educators will generate their own content.

•      Educators throughout GET and FET systems are faced with daunting tasks of interpreting and designing learning programmes for their learners, highly sophisticated tasks for which they are generally ill-prepared and that they undertake with little or no meaningful support.

In the absence of being able to fulfil these requirements adequately, educators are severely compromised and easily grow disillusioned with their work. The ultimate casualties of these problems, therefore, are learners themselves, suggesting that these problems close off opportunities for meaningful learning. Below, therefore, we discuss ways in which this situation can be reversed.  

 Strategies to develop and distribute curriculum resources 

The problems described above have two root causes. The first – and most obvious – is that another unhealthy dichotomy has emerged, this time between content-based and outcomes-based education. This is not implicit in policy itself, but rather in its interpretation by the many administrators, bureaucrats, and educators responsible for implementing policy. Most worrying, many senior people responsible for implementation of curriculum appear to have taken strong stands on the importance of not providing content to educators as part of the curriculum framework. In this regard, therefore, we are not suggesting that policy positions pose any particular problem, but we do believe that these policy positions are not being backed up by provision of sufficient guidance and support to educators responsible for teaching the curriculum. This problem is particularly pervasive in the schooling sector. Instead, teachers are expected to be able to perform exceptionally high-level educational functions as part of their day-to-day running of classrooms. The burden is too great, and thus strategies to provide different kinds of support are an urgent priority. 

It appears that a major cause of the above problems is lack of effective, enabling coordination of activities aimed at providing such support to educators and learners. Many structures have been set up to coordinate aspects of curriculum development, but these are either at the wrong level to be able to make a large impact or have become centres of power struggle. For this reason, we believe that new, coordinated strategies to develop and distribute curriculum resources are essential to opening learning, because, unless emphasis is placed again on the importance of content and resources within an outcomes-based education framework, individual educators will rapidly lose the capacity to make these – the lifeblood of any education system – available to learners. 

In consultation processes, many people suggested that we propose the establishment of an institute for course development and support for course implementation, which could perform this coordinating role. Most people seemed to feel that this could be a national structure that operates in distinct regions or provinces via regional hubs, but that it should be resourced nationally. In this regard, ‘coordination’ refers not to a logistical or administrative function, but rather to a proactive process of ensuring that progress is made on key curriculum-related goals. Any structures tasked with responsibility for such coordination should be freed from rigid, bureaucratic, and hierarchical systems to allow them to engineer the development of flexible, devolved but networked, ‘flat’ management systems – throughout the entire system – driven by defined tasks and outcomes.  

A central coordinating structure (which, for want of a better name we have named a Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency) would take responsibility for functions such as the following:

•    Gathering and distributing appropriate information and resources. Importantly, this should not be information about curriculum frameworks. Rather, it should focus exclusively on making available content and resources that educators can use in their engagement with learners. These resources need to be organized and managed in such a way that they can be made easily accessible to all people who might be expected to use it, with particular consideration given to people from marginalized communities. This does not imply that the Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency would necessarily produce curriculum resources itself. A major focus of its work would be coordinating existing work, and making the resulting resources accessible of a massive scale.

•    Identifying areas requiring further research and, where appropriate, commissioning or undertaking relevant research and resource development projects. As part of this, it should strive to ensure that ongoing evaluation of local initiatives takes place.

•    Ensuring that maximum use is made of resources, particularly by establishing networks which could minimize duplication of efforts at a local level. Such networks should, however, be developed primarily at various levels through partnerships between various initiatives, and the national structure should limit its role to promoting and facilitating this cooperation.

One group suggested that the work of this central structure be based on five key operational principles: coordination; collaboration; communication; community; and co-responsibility. 

It has been very interesting to note that this type of function represents, in different ways, the strategic direction of many structures internationally that were initially established as Open Schools. Many national open schools are finding themselves called on increasingly to provide curriculum resources to the education system as a whole, rather than just to distance education students. We believe this provides further justification for recommendation six above. More importantly, though, it suggests clearly that the notion of national functions of this nature is in line with international practice, even in countries like New Zealand, on which much of South Africa’s approach to the NQF is modeled. Thus, experience suggests that structures of this nature are not contradictory to outcomes-based education, but rather a critical element of their successful implementation. This experience, some of which is documented in appendices one to four provides useful background information that could usefully inform the establishment of a Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency in South Africa. 

It has been beyond the scope of this research exercise to make specific proposals on the nature of such a structure. We are aware that many structures within the national Department of Education have been established to perform related functions, so it would clearly be important to ensure that duplication is avoided. As we have indicated, though, it is essential that this entity is provided the operational space together with the mandate, to be able to undertake its role effectively. Key to this will be establishment of partnerships with those organizations already playing an active role in trying to fill new curriculum frameworks with meaningful, relevant content and resources. These include provincial structures such as the Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development, parastatals such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation, relevant NGOs (including recently closed NGOs, which had developed many high quality resources prior to closure), publishers, and other private sectors organizations (such as the Learning Channel and Shoma Foundation). If a coordinating structure simply has the power to establish meaningful partnerships, this will make a major contribution to reversing the worrying trends outlined above.[9]   

Recommendation Nine

In re-emphasizing the importance of appropriate content and supply of suitable learning materials at GET and FET level, government should take practical measures to break down an unhealthy dichotomy that has been established between content-based and outcomes-based education. This should be done through establishment of a national Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency. The mission of this agency should be to implement strategies to provide educators in GET and FET the content and content they require to bring developing curriculum frameworks alive form an educational perspective. Its work should not be prescriptive, but should focus on providing support to educators and – over time – an increasing range of choices for them as they seek to implement learning programmes. The Agency should have the following features

• It should be provided operational freedom from the Department of Education, to allow it the space to negotiate a wide range of partnerships and working agreements. To ensure accountability, it should be required to submit three-year rolling plans every year to the Ministry and Department of Education, which include detailed projected outputs that can be used to measure its progress in key areas.

• It should be funded nationally, but should establish regional hubs to ensure that it focuses on providing extensive support to provincial departments of education. It should actively seek a range of income streams in addition to government funding, including: advertising revenue; sale of resources; regional agreements with other SADC governments; sponsorship; and money from funding agencies.

• Its work should be based on establishing partnerships with a range of key agencies, in government, parastatal, commercial, and non-profit sectors.

• It should focus on ensuring that curriculum resources recognize, enhance and support indigenous cultural values and educational principles. Thus, the Agency should have funds available to support development of curriculum content and resources to redress imbalances in the content that currently permeates GET and FET education systems.

•  It should focus on ensuring that resources are made available in various languages, to accommodate the different learning requirements of South Africa’s learners. In the first instance, this work should focus on literacy resources (working with the Literacy Agency) and foundation phase resources.

 Implications for Opening Learning

Without content and resources, curriculum frameworks set impossible demands on educators in GET and FET systems. By ensuring that these are made available and that – over time – a range of choices of content and resources is made available to educators and learners, successful implementation of this recommendation will ensure that one of the most significant barriers to learning is removed.

 Roles for information technology 

A central curriculum coordination structure for GET and FET has, we believe, tremendous potential in helping to resolve several of the problems discussed throughout this document. Importantly, we believe that it is critical from the perspective of opening learning, a belief that is validated by the move of many Open Schools; the origins of which are inextricably linked to open learning towards providing this type of service to educational systems around the world. There are some additional statements worth making in this regard, which pertain to roles for information technologies in supporting the development and distribution of curriculum resources. In brief, we believe that there is value in designing and developing electronic databases that can facilitate storage and retrieval of curriculum resources for a range of users, as well as making it easier to distribute these resources (either electronically or in print). 

Rapid digitization of information and consequent ease of its dissemination is creating an important shift in emphasis regarding its value. Historically, information has been regarded as a product, which people were happy to purchase, to the financial benefit of those social structures that controlled and profited from its production and dissemination. While certain types of information will continue to retain value in this traditional way, the vast bulk of information, once it has been developed or collated, now rapidly loses value. Printed catalogues of information become redundant almost as soon as they are printed because this information changes so quickly. Cheaper and easier reproduction and communication of information very quickly erode the strategic and economic advantages emanating from having produced that information. Access to multiple sources of information via the Internet is making it harder to identify the source of new ideas, while the rapidity with which new information can be circulated reduces the time for which it can be regarded as ‘new’. 

These changes make it essential to find ways to use information quickly in as many different ways as possible before it loses its value. These need to focus on re-using information in different ways without generating significant additional cost. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to establish effective information systems, which can allow for quick and easy sharing and manipulation of information once it has been developed or gathered. It is also advisable from this perspective to invest slightly more energy in gathering and compiling information (which would focus on making it as generically applicable as possible), with a view to increasing its versatility and the strategies that can be used to disseminate it. Although this creates some additional costs initially, these can easily be amortized across the range of options that then become possible for communicating this information or using it to support a diverse range of educational opportunities. In this way, the resources used to generate information can be used much more effectively. 

Possibly most importantly, it becomes essential to develop effective strategies for storing information in ways that allow it to be very easily manipulated for future purposes. If information about educational curriculum, resources, courses, and programmes is stored effectively, it then becomes easily available for future applications. In this way, curriculum research and development can build on growing knowledge bases, rather than repeating basic work already conducted. This can maximize the value of money spent on course design and development or educational research. It can then also, where appropriate be easily made available via the World Wide Web for access by all people in the GET and FET system, thus contributing usefully to developing an effective educational resource and research base in the country. This has the potential spin-off of developing the country’s international reputation as a producer – and not just a consumer - of information. Of course, in instances where security of information is important, it is easily possible to restrict access to it by adding a range of security strategies. 

Another point emerging from the above discussions is that increasingly value lies not in possessing information, but rather in developing the skills and capacity to manipulate it effectively for new applications, which will be a critical function for the Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency. There is added benefit to creating electronic interfaces that enable users to engage with certain types of information themselves with little or no intervention by other people. For example, if web interfaces are added to such data warehousing systems, it becomes possible for educators and learners to select their own search criteria and extract relevant resources and information very quickly and at no additional cost. This simple search level adds tremendous strength to the information storage systems, and is very cost-effective, because changes made to databases can be reflected automatically via  web interface. 

For all the above to work effectively in the context of South African GET and FET, though, it becomes necessary to invest financial and human resources in:

•      Establishing the types and combinations of information needed to support teaching and learning environments, target learners, and strategies for making this information accessible to all learners;

•      Developing appropriate conceptual frameworks for new computer-based information systems; and

•      Designing electronic database architectures that can be used to organize, store, and allow for multiple uses of curriculum-related information.

For this reason, we make the following additional recommendation concerning the Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency.   

Recommendation Ten

A Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency should make strategic investments in online curriculum management systems. These will capture detailed information on curricula for GET and FET educators and learners, allowing for easy printout of or online access to all relevant curriculum materials, statements of outcome, assessment strategies and criteria, descriptions of learner support strategies, and all other pertinent curriculum information. It will also contain integrated feedback mechanisms, thus leading to systematized quality assurance strategies and real-time improvement of curricula frameworks. 

Implications for Opening Learning

As we stated in recommendation nine, without content and resources, curriculum frameworks set impossible demands on educators in GET and FET systems. By using information and communication technologies to ensure that these are made available and that – over time – a range of choices of content and resources is made available to educators and learners, successful implementation of this recommendation will ensure that one of the most significant barriers to learning is removed.

 Further education and training 

Establishing a Vision

Further education and training (FET) is an area of special interest in many regards, not least because the systems for delivery of FET are less well developed than many others. It also presents particular problems because it clusters together so many disparate sectors of educational delivery: schooling, technical colleges, workplace-based training and learnerships, as well as many other less formal types of educational provision. 

This research exercise, taken in combination with work undertaken for the Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development, has revealed that there is considerable confusion surrounding implementation of FET. This is so even in cases where policy appears to be reasonably unequivocal. For example, we discovered much misunderstanding regarding the role of schools as FET institutions, many people believing, for example, that secondary schools will need to register as FET institutions although there is no policy evidence to support this concern. 

Another concern that emerged was a sense that FET implementation is focusing too strongly on technical colleges at the expense of schools. There is some indication that these problems have – at least in part – been caused by efforts to centralize implementation of FET, which has split responsibility for schooling into two areas, GET and FET. The most obvious example of this is the latest restructuring of the national Department of Education, where this has recently been formalized. 

A linked concern revolves around implementation of the skills levy. There is a growing number of statements to the effect that, given the bureaucratic complexity surrounding reimbursement of skills levies, all but the biggest of companies will treat the levy as an additional tax, as the costs of recovering levies will exceed the levy itself. Although it may exist, we did not find any evidence of policy calculations that demonstrated how small- and medium-level enterprises would be able to justify these additional investments. 

We believe that these kinds of concerns – and we discovered several similar issues during our work – raise some difficult questions about FET implementation. First, though, we do believe that is worth noting that none of these relates to the concept of having a band on the NQF called FET. As an NQF band, there is a readily identifiable logic to FET, and there are no intrinsic problems with clustering many forms and sectors of educational provision within this band. 

Nevertheless – in part, at least, because of its newness as an area, we believe that FET suffers most from many of the problems outlined at the beginning of this document, and is, therefore, most urgently in need of speedy implementation of recommendations one to three. There is, however, a first step worth taking, which is articulated in recommendation eleven below. This emerges from an effort to locate a common underlying thread running through the unique problems facing FET implementation. We believe that this thread is the absence of a clear, simple vision for the field of FET. This problem has been exacerbated by the speed with which FET policy was developed, which reduced time available for developing this common vision and also forced greater reliance on existing sources of information (most notably higher education and international FET policies). While these sources unquestionably contain valuable and relevant ideas and lessons, they do not provide a clear vision for FET in South Africa. It is difficult to identify clearly what special vision has been crafted from these sources for FET in South Africa. Although we convinced that the underlying vision is there, we feel that it needs to be brought out in unequivocal, simple terms for the benefit of all involved in the FET sector. 

It should be noted that the type of vision statement we are proposing is not the same as the document prepared by the Department of Education entitled National Strategy for Further Education and Training 1999-2001. While this document is very useful, it does not focus exclusively on articulating only a concrete vision and is significantly longer than the type of pamphlet we have described. We believe it is critical that an even shorter vision statement is distributed en masse.   

Recommendation Eleven

Develop an official government pamphlet – not exceeding four pages articulating in simple terms the vision of government (as reflected in both Department of Education and Labour policy) for the FET field, with a particular focus on how this vision links to social development. This vision should seek to strip away the confusing jargon surrounding many of the new structures surrounding FET implementation, and provide people in the many linked sectors comprising FET a clear understanding of how what they are doing fits into that vision. The resulting pamphlet should be circulated widely to FET practitioners in South Africa, using both electronic and print resources (not government gazettes) to support the exercise. This should be seen as a straightforward compilation exercise, requiring an implementation timeframe of no longer than three months. 

Implications for Opening Learning

Successful implementation of this recommendation will ensure that FET practitioners are equipped with a clear and simple vision that helps them understand how their work links to broader developments in the field. As we have noted in several instance above, simplicity is a key to flexibility, and hence critical from an open learning perspective. In addition, this simple vision should also allow people to focus their work, instead of spending large quantities of that time trying to comprehend a bewildering policy environment, hence leading to greater productivity and ultimately greater cost-effectiveness.

Organizing Implementation and Revising Timeframes

Our second recommendation in the field of FET links directly to the previous discussion. As we pointed out above, one of the unique challenges facing FET is that it clusters so many different educational sectors. Implementation plans do not currently reflect this complexity sufficiently, nor have they gone far enough in establishing clarity within that complexity. We believe that, flowing from implementation of recommendation eleven, there should be clearer, separate plans developed for each of these different sectors. This should start with the development of individual, FET-specific plans for schooling, technical colleges, and workplace-based training. The Departments of Education and Labour should jointly develop these plans, to ensure that success is achieved in breaking down unhealthy territorialism that is currently entrenched in these different FET fields. Each plan should reflect how it links with the others, but they should not be conflated into a single plan at this stage. Critically, as part of this work, unrealistic timeframes (such as those for registration of FET institutions) should be reworked to allow slower, more systematic development of the FET field over five to ten years. This work should be seen as a practical way of moving forward in the FET field on implementation of recommendations one and two.   

Recommendation Twelve

Clear, separate plans should be developed for each of the different sectors comprising FET. This should start with the development of individual, FET-specific plans for schooling, technical colleges, and workplace-based training. The Departments of Education and Labour should jointly develop these plans. Each plan should reflect how it links with the others, but they should not be conflated into a single plan at this stage. As part of this work, unrealistic timeframes should be reworked to allow slower, more systematic development of the FET field over five to ten years. This work should be seen as a practical way of moving forward in the FET field on implementation of recommendations one and two. 

Implications for Opening Learning

The implications of this recommendation are identical to those for recommendation eleven.

Research into Learnerships

As part of this work and related research being conducted by the Gauteng Institute for Curriculum Development, we have done extensive primary research on learnerships (see appendix seven). This research has revealed that learnerships are a potentially important addition to the range of teaching and learning strategies available to FET education providers. We fully support the pilot work being undertaken to test the viability of different educational models pertaining to learnerships. We hope that the research compiled into appendix seven is viewed as a contribution to building knowledge of the requirements for implementing successful learnerships. 

Emerging from this research, however, are two related points that we believe are important. These relate to the cost of running learnerships. These have been integrated into recommendation thirteen.

Recommendation Thirteen

Research should urgently be undertaken into the costs of running learnerships, as well as the success rates of learnerships in leading to longer-term employment opportunities. This research should seek to identify strategies for enhancing the cost-effectiveness of learnerships so that their educational potential can be realized on the scale envisaged by much FET policy. Linked to this research, it will be critical to explore strategies for companies – and particularly smaller companies – being able to claim funding back from the Skills Levy for learnership-related activity. 

Implications for Opening Learning

Successful implementation of this recommendation will contribute to opening learning by:

•            Further developing understanding of cost-effective educational options;

•            Fostering greater flexibility in teaching and learning strategies; and

•            Encouraging involvement of a wider range of players in provision of education.

Education and Development

In our research – and particularly our research on rural education – we have identified the importance of establishing links between education and social development as critical to the success of education systems. At one level, this is a banal observation, as notwithstanding differing interpretations of ‘development’,  the importance of such links is self-evident. At another level, however, it is clear from all of the above discussions that often there are discrepancies between the structures of educational systems and the developmental needs of a society. It is for this reason that we have left this section until last, as we believe it only becomes possible to give meaning to recommendations about links between education and development in the context of practical ideas and proposals such as those presented above.  

We believe, therefore, that decisions taken concerning implementation of all of the recommendations contained in this report should be shaped by clear national development agendas (which have already been set for South Africa in many different fora). The research we have undertaken into rural education (see chapter six) provides one example of how this help to set clearer priorities. Critical to the success of this work will be establishment of a range of inter-governmental partnerships, although it will be equally important to ensure that such partnerships are established in a way that fosters progress rather than proliferation of bureaucratic procedure and fruitless meetings. In determining partnership priorities, it will be important to identify opportunities for development to which education can contribute (for example, Spatial Development Initiatives). We believe it is also important to establish clearer links between developmental needs and well-defined geographical areas, as this organizing framework provides a useful strategy for considering developmental requirements. In this regard, provincial departments will have critical roles to play.   

Recommendation Fourteen

The development agenda must shape all the processes and mechanisms for education. If there is no clear articulation and shared development agenda, then the relevant section of national and provincial government must work together to establish the agenda. This approach should underpin implementation of all the other recommendations contained in this report. For example, shared development agendas should:  

Inform which policy implementation processes to freeze or slow down;

•      Provide clear sets of priorities in resolving problems of communication, management and administration, and illiteracy;

•      Underpin the establishment of goals of targets for government education departments, as well as any other educational structures (such as the Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency);

•      Guide the establishment of inter-departmental partnerships; and

•      Form the basis of statements of vision for the FET system.  

Implications for Opening Learning

Successful implementation of this recommendation is critical to ensuring the education and the systems maintained to provide it are contextually relevant. This is a crucial component of open learning.

 Conclusion 

This report has attempted to reflect on open learning in GET and FET. This task has taken us on a fascinating journey, in many ways substantially different from what we had envisaged. The resulting recommendations demonstrate clearly the value of undertaking critical policy research of this nature, as there was no way in which we could have imagined that this would be our final output. Nevertheless, we remain convinced that, if South Africa is to make the best possible progress in its continuing efforts to open meaningful learning opportunities for all of the country’s learners, then the ideas presented above constitute the most effective – and, ultimately, the quickest  strategies for achieving those goals. 

As we have mentioned above, unfortunately, adopting this strategic direction is, in many ways, also the most difficult, as it contains an implicit recognition that there are no ‘quick-fix’ solutions to the many pressures impacting on GET and FET. It acknowledges that the process of transformation is going to require major planning, design, financial restructuring, political strength, and hard work. This will be intensified by the continual need to develop short-term ‘fire-fighting’ strategies to deal with urgent problems, while ensuring that these are harnessed towards a longer-term vision of creating much more flexible and open educational opportunities. Nevertheless, we remain convinced that future is bright, that there is a solid platform on which the country can now build in furthering these goals, and – above all else – that everything we have proposed above is eminently achievable. We hope this report has made a constructive contribution to creating an even better policy environment for GET and FET in South Africa.

 Footnotes 

[1] As a simple illustration, many people now refer to one or more of these structures by their acronym only. If we had, written the above sentence in such a way, we would have referred to the NQF, SAQA, NSBs, ETQAs, SGBs, and SETAs, a combination daunting enough to unnerve the most seasoned of educators.

[2] We have avoided specific examples where we believe such simplification could take place, although we believe there are several areas that emerge as obvious candidates. We have deliberately avoided such detail, because we are aware that implementing this recommendation will be a politically sensitive process, and believe that this process would only make that political process more difficult by raising levels of defensiveness in certain areas of educational implementation before political consensus on here to simplify regulation has been reached.

[3] All of the ideas contained below are based on actual packages that have already been developed and, in many cases, tested in schools with no or little computer literacy skills.

[4] The following demonstrates the kinds of productivity gains that a system such as this can achieve very quickly. The Deved Trust, a non-governmental organization working with schools in Alexandra township in Johannesburg, estimates that manual construction of a high school timetable takes approximately three weeks anywhere in the world, and will occupy more than one person for much of that time. It asserts that, if this process can happen before schools close at the end of the year, little teaching time is lost. If it happens after the start of the school year, and, for many schools worst affected, in the middle of a fluctuating school enrolment and an uncertain staff complement, at least twenty person days per school are lost in planning and re-planning before even building the timetable. Often, the whole staff is caught up in the pressure and wrangling about teaching loads. However, if teachers only know what they finally will be teaching, in late February or early March, up to six weeks of teaching time per teacher are lost or seriously compromised. (Timetables delayed until April are a fairly common feature through schools in South Africa.)

If one assumes that this problem affects 6,000 schools, which have an average of ten teachers each (we have kept the average low on the assumption that many of these will be small rural schools), then 1,800,000 teaching days are lost. Adding the time taken to prepare timetables (assuming that 24,000 out of 30,000 schools compile timetables manually, and that it would take no more than one person day to prepare the timetable electronically[2]), increases this to 2,256,000 person days. If an average teacher’s salary is R5000 per month (including benefits), this translates into a daily cost of R275 (assuming a 215-day working year). Based on this, the single problem of timetables not being developed efficiently (leaving aside the opportunity costs of not having students learning in classrooms and a range of other related social costs) currently costs the system R620,400,000. Seen in this context, the costs of rolling out such a system become significantly more affordable.

[5] This system could, over time, be integrated with systems making resources outside a school more accessible. The resources available to a school might include in-service training, Famsa, Lifeline, the Welfare department various museums and libraries and technical orientation centres, NGO organizations, community groupings like healers and farming cooperatives, and businesses that can help to link the world with what goes on in the classroom. These resources can be used more effectively when several schools access them in tabloid fashion. This can be achieved through the timetable by allocating days, or portion of days in the learning block or specifically into the Annual calendar using public holidays or special days and the print generated as learning resources.

[6] Of course, some schools already run their own computerized systems. In these instances, it would not be necessary to require them to keep duplicate records. Rather, import applications can easily be developed to allow regular transfer of administrative data into the central administrative system. Such submissions should be required of schools - to ensure that the national system is as comprehensive as possible.

[7] Performance indicators and the related assessment strategy are critical to determining the consequences of the reality that some learners may ‘fail’ to achieve outcomes within a realistic time. In our view, clear articulation of performance indicators, related assessment strategies, and appropriate assessment criteria is critical to both demonstrating the principles of outcomes-based education and developing a thorough system for recognition of prior learning at appropriate points in the GET and FET curriculum frameworks.

[8] See Czerniewicz, L, Murray, S & Probyn, M. (2000) Learning Support Materials (LSMS) and Curriculum 2005 (C2005): A Research Paper on the Role and of Learning Support Materials in Curriculum 2005 for the National Institute for Curriculum Research and Development, Pretoria: NICRD.

[9] In The Feasibility of Establishing a Dedicated Educational Broadcasting Service in South Africa, detailed proposals were made on the establishment of an Educational Multimedia Unit, which could take responsibility for developing and distributing multimedia resources. We believe that the ideas contained in that proposal could be harnessed in the establishment of the Curriculum Resource Coordination Agency. An executive summary of that report is contained in appendix fourteen, which includes proposed organizational maps for the Educational Multimedia Unit.