Will artisan training solve the education crisis?
It will shift some of the matric focus to the crucial years just before 40% of kids actually drop out — and give them a certificate that means something
● An Achilles heel of education restructuring since the 1994 democratic transition has been the lag in public understanding of features of the changes. Familiar terms and concepts have been replaced by perplexing terminology and acronyms. This was starkly visible in the public outrage this week which incorrectly equated the introduction of a national grade 9 examination (the general education certificate, or GEC) to a large number of grade 9 learners “exiting” the system and thus abandoning further education and training opportunities.
We do not have a shared history of education systems. “Matric” persists in the public mind to signal the grade 12 exam, now the national senior certificate (NSC). The differences in the terms are loaded with meaning. The NSC signals that this qualification performs a broader function than university entrance; it is “national” and intended to be a single, inclusive grade 12 termination point; and it is “senior”, implying a hierarchy.
The importance of familiar references in understanding policy shifts was apparent recently. Many South Africans made sense of the new proposed GEC by likening it to the “junior certificate” (JC). This helped some but not all. Those with histories in the erstwhile apartheid departments for black people recalled the JC as a termination point at the end of grade 7 or 8 — but this dangerously reinforced the notion of an exit point, which the JC was for the majority. For white South Africans, the JC lapsed before living memory.
After 1994, a general education and training (GET) period from grade 1 to grade 9, and now including grade R, was introduced. Most of the GET years are in primary schools and the last two years are in secondary schools (grades 8 and 9). The South African Schools Act (1986) made education compulsory for everyone under 15 years, an age that coincides with the end of the GET phase for many learners.
The department of basic education is establishing the architecture of a more diverse curriculum for grades 10 to 12. This is to be welcomed as the three streams (academic, technical and occupational) will provide differentiated options in secondary schools and be more inclusive of interests and aptitudes.
As this is introduced across the country, learners will be able to select from these options within schools and will write the NSC in grade 12. Those that leave schools after completing grade 9 and before grade 12 to enter technical and vocational education and training colleges will write the national certificate (vocational), the vocational equivalent of the NSC.
Part of this architecture is the proposed grade 9 national examination, the GEC. Public outrage was sparked by the view that this will mean the exit of learners into an uncertain future. This view is incorrect and must be abandoned. I believe the GEC will aid young people to proceed in the education and training system. It should be welcomed as a positive development which will build on the first 10 schooling years and lead to further opportunities.
We must now move to a vigorous and urgent public debate about this huge system shift.
I believe the GEC to be important for at least four reasons:
● It will provide a benchmark for the system, and for individual schools. All learners in all schools should write the GEC, and all learners should receive the GEC with a wide range of categories of “pass” signalling performance.
● We need a more differentiated further education and training (FET) phase in schools, and the GEC will provide guidance to families and schools. Grades 10 to 12 have historically focused on a single academic track, to the exclusion of learners with different interests.
● While the greater differentiation in FET should entice learners to stay, as many as 40% of learners currently leave, completely uncertificated, before grade 12. It is urgent that this changes, but for those who do choose to leave after the age of 15, they will at least have the nationally validated GEC in hand if they subsequently return to training opportunities. This will have more currency than a school report.
● The greatest system quality benefit of the GEC will be to direct energy and resources to improving quality in grades 8 and 9. These are the most neglected years in the system, which currently focuses intensely on the high-stakes grade 12 results.
The complexities of introducing new subjects are enormous. Steady, unrushed planning that aligns the systemic components of the change is key. Higher education institutions must develop appropriate courses and recruit and train teachers. The minimum lead time for this is six years. Teachers whose current subject specialisations will decline need to be retrained. This must be quality training — not minimal “microwave” training.
We need expert critical engagement with the new and current NSC technical vocational subjects: mechanical, civil, and electrical technologies; technical maths and science; and maritime sciences, aviation studies, mining sciences and aquaponics.
A real danger is the “locking” in of learners into narrow and inflexible content that becomes outdated, rather than building core competencies as a basis for confident engagement with new content, technologies and opportunities. An out-of-date, underresourced “vocational offering” is worse than none. And, how do we ensure that “streaming” does not perpetuate social inequalities? Will streams have parity of esteem and all provide incremental opportunities? How are these streams going to be organised institutionally in different urban and rural demographies on an equitable basis? Choices must be viable.
Lastly, this is not the single solution to our urgent challenge of improving learning outcomes. An unrelenting focus on improving the quality of education means that all learners must be able to read with meaning by the age of 10, and numeracy must be prioritised. All teachers must be meaningfully supported within schools and systemically to improve teaching and learning. Informed, inclusive public debate is essential to a shared frame to improve implementation.