Deep Concerns about English CAPS

(Dr) Syd Gosher

English textbook author, Umalusi External Moderator for Nated 500 and part-time employee of Umalusi  in the Quality Assurance division which deals with independent schools.

I have grave concerns about certain aspects of the final draft of the FET CAPS for English Home Language.

I have perused the above document with care and wish to express severe reservations about the approach adopted to language structures and conventions.

1.         On page 8 the following, under Rationale for Teaching the Language Skills, is stated:

Language structures and conventions play an important role in understanding and producing oral and written texts and should therefore be integrated into the above-mentioned language skills.

Language teaching is thus to be integrated with the teaching of literature and writing. While this is an admirable approach, in theory it is very difficult to obtain. Only the very best teachers can teach in this fashion. Expertise and outstanding competence are required, and sadly most teachers are not at this level. This approach has been tried and proved only to work sporadically and imperfectly. Moreover language teaching has been downgraded to an approach which proclaims that it will only take place in an integrated manner, i.e. when the teacher determines that this should happen.

2.         On page 10, under Time Allocation, the following statement appears:

Language structures and use are integrated with the time allocation of the above skills.

No time is therefore allocated to language. Its place in the curriculum is clearly detailed – it does not count.

3.         On page 18, under Vocabulary development and language use, a further restriction is placed on the educator:

Knowledge of vocabulary items and language should be introduced to the learners only as they appear in real text, both prose and poetry, fiction and non-fiction.

In other words educators have no choice at all. The place of language teaching is quite pertinently restricted to incidental and integrated teaching. No other approach is permissible. The choice of the adverb, ‘only’, indicates that language teaching, per se, is confined to ‘real’ text. What this means is left to the interpretation of the educator.

4.         On page 31 the following statement is made about the content matter of language structures:

While this list of grammar items is provided teachers do not have to teach all or any of it. It is a reference list only and the needs of the class must dictate what is to be taught.

This is an educationally indefensible statement. It is clearly stated that educators now need not teach language structures at all. They have been provided with national permission to go ahead and ignore an enormously important area of language. The further categorisation of grammar as a reference list only serves further to bolster the position that language teaching should not take place at all, even though it was stated earlier that it should occur in an integrated mode.

Thus punctuation, parts of speech, clauses and sentences, spelling, correct sentence structure, etc are now consigned to the scrap heap! Teachers may consciously choose to opt out of language teaching.

I need hardly add that a mere three-quarters of a page is utilised to describe the teaching of language structures. Moreover, the list of grammar items is contained in an appendix which features at the back of the CAPS document – another indication of this area’s relegation to unimportance, and a clear message from the compilers of the document.

5.         Great emphasis has been given to writing, but this presupposes that learners have the language competence and range of vocabulary that will enable them to complete the various writing tasks set for them.  Under the current document, this will not be the case.  How will learners be able to edit their own work if they have no idea of the constitution of a grammatically correct sentence?  And how will they argue a point if they lack a sophisticated vocabulary? Moreover, what metalanguage will teachers and learners use in a discussion of the errors and problems in a passage of writing? Thus the link between grammar and writing is removed and learners will  have no framework  with which to improve their ability to write.

6.1       Page 64 outlines the format of Examination Papers 1 and 2. Language has now been excluded as an examination. What little remains is included under Paper 1: Reading and Viewing. This is a huge change and its consequences are incalculable. The conclusion to be drawn is that a huge group of learners will exit at Grade 12 level without a knowledge of how the language they have studied functions. The question must be asked: has the curriculum been dumbed down in order to ensure that a difficult section of the curriculum has been eliminated? It is debatable whether or not this question has substance, but it has certainly been raised in my presence.

6.2       The October version of the CAPS document retained the language examination, yet the February document contains the changes discussed above. Moreover, I have been told by the publishers that the document is now final and will be published on the DoE’s website in March. Thus, this vast change, which impacts dramatically upon the English HL teaching landscape, will not be submitted to public scrutiny, and the principles of transparency and honesty have been discarded. I would hate to think that this change has been sneaked in, in the hope that no-one will notice.

6.3       An analysis of the examination papers reveals the following:

6.3.1    40 marks have been allocated to Comprehension and Language use in Section A of paper 1. However, educators could well have chosen – see point 4 above – not to teach language. How then can learners be examined on something not taught?

6.3.2    A reasonable assumption to make is that the 40 marks will have 20 marks allocated to Comprehension, thus leaving 20 marks available to the examiner(s) to cover the whole of the grammar syllabus (which might or might not be taught, depending on the judgement of the teacher). How will he or she prioritise what to examine?

Moreover, the attention of the examiner(s) and educator(s) is drawn to the third bullet (techniques such as the use of font types and sizes, headings and captions, etc). This section is interesting but inconsequential and insignificant. However, it has been prioritised above every other aspect of grammar teaching to the extent that its inclusion is guaranteed. How is this justifiable?

A calculation shows that approximately 15 marks remain, i.e. after font sizes and types have been examined. Thus 5% (15 out of 300 marks) will be devoted to language teaching.

6.3.3    Clearly this is an untenable situation and is deleterious in the extreme. The wash back situation in teaching is a well-documented phenomenon. If language is not examined, then it will not be taught. Even those conscientious educators who will teach language, despite DoE proscriptions, will be affected. In essence language teaching will disappear in HL high schools, but not in schools where FAL is taught.

May I please urge you to reconsider these far-reaching changes? There is sufficient time to do so and I believe you will circumvent an enormous range of criticism on a number of grounds:

• The changes are quite simply pedagogically and educationally unsound. To discard the teaching of language structures and conventions is to do harm to learners. Learners will be disadvantaged and will emerge from the system with an impaired knowledge of English Home Language.
• I have consulted a number of English educators. To a person they are horrified.
• The accusation might well be levied that the DBE has acted in an underhand and non-transparent manner. I do not believe this is the case but nevertheless cognisance ought to be taken of this possibility. Public comment was based on the 2010 CAPS document which included Language as an examination paper. The 2011 document now contains this drastic change – surely the DBE has placed itself in a vulnerable and indefensible position?
• English FAL includes the teaching of language and also retains the Language examination. Thus learners in FAL schools will have knowledge of language structures while their counterparts in HL schools will not. The discrepancy, irony  and disjuncture are quite apparent.
• The statements on page page 31 (While this list of grammar items is provided teachers do not have to teach all or any of it. It is a reference list only and the needs of the class must dictate what is to be taught) are naïve and totally invalid, and will be held up as an example of woolly, imprecise and dangerous thinking. May I please request that it be removed and that language teaching and testing  be restored – in an integrated and contextual manner – to its rightful place.

I have been an English teacher all my life and I sincerely believe that the contemplated changes are wrong. May I urgently request that you give careful and serious attention to the matters I have raised.

ANOTHER CHANGE OF DATES OF IMPLEMENTATION?

Malcolm Venter

It was previously announced by the Minister of Basic Education that the new curriculum (the CAPSs) would be introduced in 2012. We have now learned that all that is definite at this stage is that the CAPSs for the Foundation Phase will be implemented then.  The Minister is due to make an announcement in the near future about the other phases.

At a teachers’ Conference held on 23 October, the SG for Education in the KZN, who serves on the Ministerial Project Committee, the committee revising the curriculum, gave assurances that all comments submitted by teachers and others would be taken seriously.  He did, however, indicate that they often receive conflicting comments, which causes some people to complain that the department did not listen to them.  Time will tell …

Some comments on the draft revised curriculum for languages (CAPS)

Alison Immelman

Head of English, Westering High, Port Elizabeth

And so, yet again, the higher-ups in education have had another look at the curriculum.  Of course, and quite rightly so, the political and social imperatives remain the same.  We are, after all, engaged in building a generation of young South Africans who need to be equipped to meet the dynamic challenges of our Brave New World.  I am excited to be in a position of influence, and see my role in developing a confident, capable generation of young adults as a stimulating challenge.

When I consider the Home Language document, however, if I were to summarise my concerns about the proposals, it would be thus:  Although the document outlines the transformational obligations well, it seems that in the execution, the schedule does not fulfil this mandate.  My comments are therefore classified under two sections:  my perception of where the document does not meet the requirements, and suggestions about changes that could be made in order for it to do so.

Perceived shortfalls, and other relevant comments

1) I am interested that GET phase learners are allocated an hour more in a fortnight than the FET phase. This is good in that there is a huge backlog in knowledge that needs to be caught up in Grade 8 and 9.  (I haven’t taught in a primary school, but my understanding is that there are so many assessment tasks that need to be undertaken, that teachers do not have the time to teach basic skills.  Perhaps we need to take a step back in this phase, so that children do not arrive in high school unable to read, write, listen, or indeed file their notes, sit still and concentrate!)

2) I remain deeply concerned about the amount of time and the number of marks that are allocated to writing.  I do believe that writing is a skill that should be taught and assessed. However:

The ‘frequent writing’ that is envisaged, while noble in intention, is impractical.  Although the suggestion is that teachers do not have to assess everything the children write, the reality is that ‘if it’s not for marks’, it is deemed unimportant.  So much writing is envisaged that the children are going to be drowning in writing by the end of the year.  We need to remember that the home language only one of seven subjects!

I firmly believe that quality remains more important than quantity.  I believe that the writing ‘process’ outlined in the document is the route we should be taking.  This is only possible where there is less, better writing.  Without feedback, there will be no improvement, and writing will be for writing’s sake.

I also remain convinced that an essay “exam” is counter-productive.  It may, in the short term, allow the children to improve their marks, especially with the disproportionate mark allocation to the transactional writing, but this does not make them English scholars.  Are we churning out exam candidates, or the next generation of teachers, academics, journalists, novelists etc?

N.B:  I am not saying that we should not teach and assess writing.  I am saying that it needs to be accorded its correct and constructive place in the overall scheme.

3) There is a huge discrepancy about what grammar is purported to do, and how it is dealt with in the proposed schedule.  The document states that grammar should be “presented as a set of tools rather than a set of rules”.  For Home Language users, language should be taught with a view to communicating with and understanding the real world.  There is far too much focus on an outdated ‘technicist’ approach, when we should concentrate on what language is used, and why, and how to decode language that is used by others.  With this, I offer a five-year plan which covers this kind of language.  It allows for progression and growth of understanding (something that the CAPs indicates should be done), and, above all, it has no repetition, and excludes things that have no place in a high school first-language classroom. (Such as gender.  Surely we have moved past such things?!)

In addition: There is almost no allocated time in the schedule for the myriad language aspects that it is suggested should be taught.  Almost the only skill to which time has been apportioned is summary, which, it is suggested, is to be ‘taught’ well into Grade 11.  This for 10 marks in the final exam!  Admittedly, it is an important life skill, but this should be practised in all learning areas – which would then allow it to take its proper place in the Language curriculum.  A crucial aspect, that is emotive and manipulative language, is all but overlooked.

4) Several aspects, for instance spelling rules, should be done and dusted in primary school.

5) The ‘language structures and use’ column in the year plan includes a mishmash of quite pedantic language with no sense of progression according to age and intellectual capacity.  In several instances there are completely different skills grouped together, for instance pronouns and punctuation in weeks 9 and 10 (Grade 10).  This miscellany of language (with no allocated teaching time) implies that language teaching will be ad hoc.  This method was tried and rejected, and led to a whole generation (mine!) of learners who lacked basic language skills.  Children need formally to be taught rules before they can apply them, and understand how language use reveals attitude and relationships.

6) I notice with some alarm that the literature component will comprise 3, and not 4, genres.  The children are already not reading as much as they should/used to, and at least we were able to compensate a little in the English classroom.  Mary Johnson of Westville Girls’ High in Durban, a wise woman who was my subject adviser in my early career, suggested that we should be reading more not less.  After all, ‘literature is an obvious way to develop general knowledge in an increasingly skills orientated education system.  It allows for cultural sharing, and the extension of experience.  It enlightens, it provides pleasure, and encourages an active engagement in leisure time.  Importantly, it means being alone need not mean being lonely.  Through an appreciation of the issues raised in literature, we have the opportunity to become better human beings.  Seeing the written word in print will have a positive influence on writing skills’ (This is an extract from my reading policy!)  In addition, with only 3 genres, the one that will necessarily be a casualty is film – and this in a world increasingly dominated by electronic and visual media.

7) There is a great deal of oral assessment in an unrealistic time allocation.  To hear prepared orals for a class of 30 takes at least 5 hours (more if it is to be a useful session where children can interact and ask questions).  In addition, to expect the learners to prepare an oral a month is monumentally unfair!  (Remember that English is one of seven subjects.)  Unprepared oral ability can be assessed daily when considering how children interact with each other in the classroom.  It is an undisputed fact that teenagers can talk!  On the other hand, it seems a pity that there are so few marks allocated to this aspect when it is a fundamental life skill, especially considering the number of tasks included in the assessment guidelines.

8) My body shakes and my heart quails when I consider the assessment requirements.  I am sure that the designers believe that they have taken cognisance of the previous pleas of language teachers in – on paper at least – reducing the number of tasks to 12.  In fact the number in Grades 10 – 11 is closer to 18 – and more if we consider the unrealistic demands of the exams (indicated as ‘two’ tasks)!  The following realities need to be considered:

• Each oral ‘task’ is made up of two separate assessments – i.e. 5, not 3 tasks.
• Shorter and longer transactional writing is more than ‘one’ task worth of planning, administering, writing and marking.
• The tests designated for tasks 4 and 10 comprise more than 3 tasks each.  A 70-mark language paper (including 30 marks of fairly right or wrong work) took me 10 hours to mark in a recent exam session.  An 80-mark lit exam took more like 15 hours.  Realistically the proposed test will take at least 13 hours to mark.  In addition, a 100 mark test takes 2 ½ hours to write.  We do not have this kind of time allocated to the assessment of one subject!
• Between 7 ½ and 8 ½ hours of assessment twice a year during exams is an overkill (perhaps the 8 ½ hours allocated in the middle of Grade 10 is an error?).  It needs to be borne in mind that over-testing can be as harmful as under-testing.  I would suggest that a mid-year exam for Grade 10 could be made up as follows:
  • 20 – 25 marks of comprehension (tests reading and understanding; understanding of tone and intention; various levels of question and answer).
  • 10 – 15 marks of advertising (tests reading of graphics and text; manipulative language; layout and design)
  • 10 – 15 marks of stylistic devices and errors based on cartoons (tests language of the world; political and social realities; humour)
  • 10 – 15 marks of unseen poetry (tests acquisition of poetry appreciation, rather than ability to learn and spew out what the teacher has said about set poetry)
  • 25 marks of lit essay or contextual, (with the other option being included in the second exam, as well as being taught and tested when appropriate during the year).  It is unnecessary to test 2 texts – the skills are merely duplicated then.  It still means that each text will be tested at least twice.  That’s enough!

This combination of between 75 and 95 marks (to be written in 2 – 2 ½ hours) more than tests whether the children have learnt and can apply appropriate English skills.  It also means that there is no testing for its own sake, and that teachers and learners are not put under undue pressure.

The combination of questions can become more complex through Grade 10 and 11 until the end of Grade 11 when full-scale exams could be considered in order to begin to prepare the learners for the rigours of the final matric exams.

I have used this kind of combined exam at various times over my 28 years of teaching, and I am confident that my learners become capable, sensitive young people, equipped to meet the demands of the real world.  I have had letters from Rhodes University and NMMU complimenting me and my department on the quality of the student that we send them.

The writing paper makes me despondent!  Among other reasons included elsewhere, it appears to me that it is an entirely artificial exercise, not related to any writing exercise carried out in the real world.  It seems that its main reason for inclusion is to boost the final marks.  I don’t think that we are doing anybody any favours!  I truly believe that we need to reconsider the internal assessment of writing. 10 marks for a 300-word poetry essay is too little (compare 25 marks for a 450 word literature essay!).  The question should be limited to a single thematic aspect, which could be answered in 120 – 150 words.

The suggested time allocation does not take into account the realities of the school year.  I am concerned about the idea that we can complete assessment, marking, recording and reporting in 2 weeks!

I would love to hear if I am alone in these concerns!

It was with great sadness that I learnt last week of the untimely death of Mike Merrett of Evalunet. It was Mike who designed the bannerhead for Teaching English Today and assisted with setting up the website and training me to operate it.  A knowledgeable, cheerful young man who was killed in a motor car accident on returning from volunteer firefighting work, he will be sorely missed.  Our condolences to his family and all at Evalunet. His memory will live on in our striking bannerhead.

Malcolm Venter

EDITOR

The Macmillan Dictionary Online provides interesting information about English words, including a section on ‘buzzwords’.  The latest one posted is clickjacking, which they define as ‘the malicious activity of taking control of an Internet user’s actions by making them click on hidden links’.

The new curriculum for languages includes a section on ‘neologisms’, so you might find some interesting exercises here. Or you might just be interested in reading more about word matters.  To access the information, you can send an email to the following address and subscribe to their newsletter:

The Macmillan Dictionary Online Team [elessons@service.macmillaneducation.com]

Or you can go the website for the dictionary itself for general information:

www.macmillandictionary.com

Malcolm Venter

EDITOR

(1) The creator of the following website has made her resources for teaching English available to English teachers.  It contains some super material.

Go to: www.mrs-claassen.co.za

Thanks for your generosity, Sandra Claassen!

(2) Another excellent website is the onestopenglish website presented by MacMillan:

http://www.onestopenglish.com

It contains, inter alia, the following:

Grammar and Vocab (grammar reference, teaching, lessons; vocabulary lessons; fun with grammar)

Magazine

Teach support

Skills (lesson plans on listening, writing, reading, speaking and pronunciation skills)

Young learners (teaching children, teenagers)

Phonics

Methodology

Flashcards

MacMillan Dictionary online

Blogs

Forum

To get regular update information on this site, you can subscribe to their e-newsletter (onestopenglish.newsletter@macmillan.com).

Once you have downloaded a site, don’t forget to bookmark it for future use!

PLEASE ALSO LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK OF THESE SITES, AND TELL US OF ANY OTHERS WHICH YOU HAVE FOUND USEFUL.

Dr Malcolm Venter

EDITOR : TET

We have posted some information of interest to English teachers:

(1) Call for entries for 2011 English Olympiad

(2) Advertisement for a new English (Honours) in English Education at Wits

(3) The launch of English Alive I 2010

(4) A detailed analysis of Ian McEwan’s Saturday

(5) See the following website for super resources on English teaching: www.mrs-claassen.co.za

See articles on the right to read more on

By the Editor, MALCOLM VENTER

I don’t believe that it is just bias on my part which makes me believe that the most hard-driven teachers in our schools are our language teachers.  From one point of view, they are better off because they have always had a huge marking load and were therefore not fazed, as other teachers were, by having to do Continuous Assessment (CASS); but the demands of the new curriculum have taken this to new heights.

To illustrate this, let’s look at the requirements for the Home Language in the Further Education and Training band:

• In Grades 10 and 11, a Home Language teacher has to mark, as a minimum, 16 pieces of work for each pupil per year, whereas the teachers of other subjects are required to mark between 5 and 8 pieces only, depending on the subject.
• In Grade 12, the respective figures are 14 and between 5 and 7.
• This means that, if a language teacher has five FET classes (averaging, let’s say, 35 – but could be much higher in poorer schools) – he/she has to mark about 2600 – 2800 pieces in a year, whereas another subject teacher with five FET classes would have to mark about 1010 – 1225 pieces – less than half.  Add to this the fact that language pieces are more demanding in terms of assessment, as marking them involves more than merely ticking right and wrong but rather weighing up opinions and speculations with fine nuances.

Language teachers should take stand on this:  Either persuade the authorities to reduce the number of pieces, or impress upon school management to give language teachers fewer / smaller classes and/or take into account this heavy load when allocating extra-curricular activities, examination invigilation, etc.

Stertke! to all you language teachers out there!

[Originally published in Naptosa INsight, April 2009]

Alison Immelman

HOD, Westering High School, PE

I’d like you to imagine the following: A businessperson or teacher or journalist is required to write a report or prepare a lesson.  She will be given one hour to do this task, with no access to shared ideas, dictionaries or the internet, and not even Microsoft and Bill Gates.  She will not have time to do the work in rough, certainly no time to edit, and scarcely even time to do adequate proofreading.  Oh, and by the way, she will be writing this during the graveyard session from 2 – 3 pm after doing a similar, though longer, exercise in the morning.

That is what we are demanding of our young learners since the curriculum experts, in their wisdom, reinstated the writing paper as part of the FET exam process.  And indeed, in 2 ½ hours, the learners are required to write an essay, a medium piece, and a short piece.  Bear in mind that the marks that most learners score are within a range over the three pieces – and the obvious over assessment strikes me as ‘intolerable cruelty’.

The reasons cited by Penny Vinjevold, the [former] DDG, are as follows:

• Teachers are not teaching writing.  In fact she would prefer that there was more emphasis on writing, that learners should write every day, and that it is possible to assess a piece of writing by reading the first and last paragraph.  (Would that the department would only look at the 1^st and last pages of my master portfolio!)
• That employers are not interested in employees who can talk, but only those who can write (hence the side issue of the absurd under-representation of oral work in the CASS).

Consider the following:  In KZN, English teachers have been engaged in process writing at least since 1992.  In other provinces, it has been for at least the last 6 years. My own experience is that it works.  Although the learners did admittedly write fewer pieces, they produced quality work. And essays became a pleasure to mark because the learners learnt to edit and perfect their work.  I can’t help feeling that we need to take a step back and learn to value quality over quantity.

Concern has also been expressed is that the writing is not the learners’ own work.  Here’s the news – teachers are not idiots.  And one or two control pieces can quickly establish the capacity of an individual learner.  Googling the rest provides proof of plagiarism.  And surely, we should rather be concerned with the welfare of the majority, and deal with the delinquents as they arise, rather than penalise the hardworking, law-abiding learners and teachers.

My major concern is for the learners.  My own Grade 11 daughter gets 90% for English, and she can write like a dream.  But she is so over-worked, over-assessed and over-stressed that she scarcely looks at a piece of marked work before it is consigned to her portfolio.  What kind of learning experience is that?

But I’m also concerned about myself and my fellow language teachers.  My exam marking load in June increased by some 150 pieces.  My young colleague at a Port Elizabeth school marks 3 800 pieces over a single year.  (That is 14 pieces every day over a 40-week school year – which, or course, isn’t the real picture, anyway!).  It doesn’t make me feel better to be told that I chose to be an English teacher and therefore I must accept what goes with the territory.

I beg you to consider our high school learners and their somewhat stressed teachers and support our suggestion that this exam format should be reconsidered urgently.

[Originally published in Naptosa INsight, April 2009]

Laurence Wright

Laurence Wright is Professor and Director in the Institute for the Study of English at Rhodes University. His research interests straddle South African language policy and language-in-education policy; the history of Shakespeare in South Africa and South African railway poetry. (l.wright@ru.ac.za)

11 April 2010 saw the formation of a professional association of English teachers in the Eastern Cape. The Association, which has been two years in the planning, was launched at the ‘Networking’ conference hosted by the Institute for the Study of English in Africa (ISEA) at Rhodes University (9-11 April). Sponsored by the ZENEX Foundation, the conference brought together some 150 current and past students from the Institute’s ACE (ELT) and BEd programmes, together with district managers, subject advisors, and librarians to consider current challenges to effective English teaching and how best to surmount them. This article sets out to explore the need for such an association, and to consider the possible benefits it holds for members, for education management structures in the province and, indeed, for the nation. If the Eastern Cape has taken a lead in this regard, it may be worth teachers in other provinces considering the educational gains such organizations might offer in the struggle to improve the quality of education offered to our learners.

A first point to consider is, Why provincial? Why not national? The Association grew out of small-scale research-based interventions first offered by the ISEA in the mid-nineties in cooperation with the Eastern Cape Provincial Government. These took the form of short 3-day courses, and they were astonishingly popular with teachers because they focused on professional development issues informed by sound educational theory. The teachers felt they were close to the cutting edge of educational thinking when they engaged with each other in this intellectually supportive context. They also felt able to share problems and difficulties, and explore remedies. In time these informal courses, which had to some extent acted as shock-absorbers mediating the complex transformations posed by the introduction of Curriculum 2005, developed into accredited in-service programmes, first an ACE in ELT, and later a fully-fledged BEd.

From the outset, though, the policy was to involve provincial and departmental officials both as participants and students, and sometimes as professional contributors, in these initiatives. The gains achieved through such cooperation are substantial. First, the officials themselves experience the quality and depth of what is being offered to their educators and, secondly, they understand the perspectives and debates which are beginning to transform classroom practice. For the teachers, the advantage is that they are able to articulate their frustrations and suggest improvements, especially when the course focuses on issues of management and administration.  With the National Curriculum and its ancillary policy documents as the organizing principle underlying these accredited  programmes, even though they are also informed by a broad mix of current educational thinking and experience, the effect has been to create an intellectual forum within which the professionalization and transformation of educational practice can flourish.

Finding systemic purchase

There is a very sound reason for operating in partnership with provincial education authorities. Given the ISEA’s long-standing emphasis on substantial in-school support as integral to in-service teacher education – involving classroom observation, journalling, video-critique and discussion – the establishment of healthy professional relationships at district level, and between districts and the provincial department, becomes crucial to the educational turn-around being attempted. Educational interventions need to find systemic purchase right from the outset, if they are not to remain marginal and ephemeral.

Fruitful networks of relationships normally thrive while the courses are in progress and while school visits, regional seminars and workshops are running as part of a common transformational trajectory. But come graduation, or completion (in the case of certificate courses), the bonds of friendship and intellectual cooperation which have been forged are in grave danger of atrophying, as students and departmental officials move beyond formal study unsupported, and into the embalming routines of the school year. The intellectual stimulation provided by formal tuition subsides.

This is where the establishment of a permanent forum to nurture ongoing professional development becomes critical. At the very least, such forums support the transfer of learning and research from the tertiary sector to schools. But they can do much more. They can enhance teacher morale, boost flagging energies, encourage innovative and reflective practice, and improve functional and emotional linkage between administrators and the classroom.  They are powerful contributions to the well-being of education systems.

Establishing these professional forums needs to proceed with great sensitivity.  Introducing the innovation is not something that rightly belongs with teacher education institutions, or with education departments, though they can encourage and guide the process. The successful establishment of a professional association belongs with the educators themselves, as a resource to affirm and refresh their professional culture in terms of academic substance and procedural effectiveness. Ownership of the process and membership in such an association validates teachers’ role in society and provides a rich developmental avenue which, if used to its fullest potential, can ensure the revitalization and maturation of the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential to effective teaching.

Why discipline-based?

The decision to form a disciplinary association at provincial level, rather than a non-specialist professional association, has to do with the transformative aims of such associations. The unique combination of English teachers, district officials, departmental managers, librarians and tertiary education specialists allows the focus to fall squarely on enhancing educational performance in a specific subject area. And it is common cause that English is a critical subject area, if not the critical subject area, because of the widespread dependence of other subjects on good language performance in English. An undercurrent of debate within the movement which has led to the formation of the Eastern Cape English Educators Association (ECEEA), from its inception, has been the wisdom of broadening the scope of the association to cover language education as a whole, and not just English. There is much to be said for efforts to harmonize the very different conceptions of language education current among teachers of English, Afrikaans and Xhosa language. The tentative short courses offered by ISEA more than fifteen years ago were, even in those days, facilitated in Afrikaans, English, Sotho and Xhosa, with core modules delivered in English. Staff members became very familiar with the divergent approaches to language and literature teaching characteristic of teachers who had been trained under apartheid in English, Afrikaans, or African languages. These differences still prevail today, seemingly because there is small prospect of radical and widespread re-education for these teachers having the priority it should in national thinking. On purely pragmatic grounds, therefore, it was decided to concentrate on the English subject area, while offering every support to educators in other languages. It has already been proposed to the incoming Provincial Council that the biennial conferences to be hosted by the Association should be open to all language teachers. So membership in the Association will be growing on two fronts: first, membership in the Association is open to all English teachers; secondly there is the possibility of teachers of other languages joining. In fact, the Association is open to all those willing to abide by its constitution whatever language they teach, with the intention that, down the line, the scope of the Association may broaden to cover the full field of language education. Once again, the guideline followed in conceptualizing the Association has been to put in place something that will make a positive and sustainable difference in Eastern Cape classrooms. ECEEA is not a political organization and it has not come into being to fluff the professional self-esteem of teachers apart from their role in the classroom. It is wholly dedicated to improving the quality of the educational outcomes in the English language classroom and also, by implication, those other subject areas which rely upon appropriate English competence in their learners.

Other provinces?

If the rationale presented in this short article is cogent, one implication might be that other provinces should consider following suit. The route to the eventual launch of a provincial association is arduous and probably lengthy if it is to be successful. But the potential gains, which have been outlined above, are substantial. It would not be an exaggeration to urge that successful educational transformation cannot omit this important activity, because there is no substitute available. Large national organizations, which concentrate on lofty conferences attended by thousands of educators are not aiming at the same effect. They have their place. But educational renovation comes from the hard work of committed professionals working in classrooms, supporting each other intellectually and emotionally, and from the efforts of those ancillary professionals who can in turn support them in intelligent and reliable ways. This is the arena of activity a thriving discipline-based provincial association aims to address, because this is the arena which makes education happen.

A colleague, Dr Eva Yerende, Visiting Senior Fellow in the ISEA, drew my attention to a list of practical suggestions for creating an English association published recently in the English Teaching Forum (48.1,2010). The list was compiled by English teachers planning a Senegalese association. Here are some of the suggestions, adapted slightly to speak to local conditions (and I offer them in hope!):

• Start small
• Set objectives that can be reached
• Reach out to new colleagues – get them involved!
• Find resource persons, such as senior or retired professionals
• Set up district and local branches
• Encourage local plans and initiatives
• Make activities visible to all by publishing a newsletter
• Cooperate with provincial education authorities, in partnerships where possible
• Establish good working relations with teacher education institutions
• Make professional development the main objective so that teachers know they get something worthwhile from the association
• Encourage professional networking, including social interaction, at all levels within the province.