So few weeks ago I was invited to talk about the Matric examination, as well as the readiness of the education system. I call it SYSTEM READINESS since most of our conversations will focus on 'whether the learners are ready', or 'whether the departments are read'. During the conversation, I was asked about this readiness, and despite me responding to this 'readiness' question (see video included), I later reflected on my response, and realised that READINESS is like a coin - it will have two sides.
For example, when we asked 'whether the learners are ready', then indirectly we need to know, or asked 'whether the teachers have prepared the learners properly to be ready'. Likewise, if we ask 'whether the education departments are ready', then we need to know, or ask 'whether those who distributed the framework of examination readiness been distributed by the subject advisors for teachers to be sufficiently prepared when walking into the classroom in preparation of learners for this matric examination'.
I therefore can continue to ask all these interrelated questions of readiness - in essence it is all about whether the education system is managed and is working AS A SYSTEM. Before we wait in anticipation for the Matric Results to be announced - do we know whether the different components/ roleplayers in the education system played their part in FULL? Are there any of our learners who are now sitting for the examination, whose teachers have not covered ALL the work they were supposed to do? The question is: Have all our teachers completed their syllabus? Not just the Matric teacher, but the earlier grade teachers? Are we sending our learners into an examination (battle), while we are not sure whether they were given everything needed to be successful (given just half or even less ammunition to survive in the battle)? Do we have the system to verify, not just based on 'hear say', but independent verification?
If we, as a country, can't answer these questions in an emphatic way (with absolute certainty), then the results of the learners are actually not THEIR RESULTS, but rather OUR EDUCATION SYSTEMS' RESULTS, whether those results are good or bad. Because, often dysfunctional results and schools are the consequence of dysfunctional mechanisms!
Sunday, 13 November 2011
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Why do we have our current Pupil-Teacher ratio?
It is with sadness that I listen to the dispute in the Eastern Cape between the Minister of Basic Education and those who are representing the 'temporary teachers' whose contracts have not been renewed. This issue has developed so far, that there is already a court pronouncement compelling the Department of Education to re-instate these teachers into their initial posts. For me, it is raising the question: Is this all about the jobs of the temporary teachers, as a means of getting a salary, or is this in aid of proper education to the learners of these schools? Well, let me try and unpack this issue:
If it was in aid of quality education for the learners, then the data is not supporting this argument. Currently the Eastern Cape province is one of the worst performing education system in the country. The increase in teachers in the province from 66 361 (with 2,13 million learners = 32.1 pupil-teacher ration) in 2000, to 66 626 (with 2.00 million learners = 30.1 pupil-teacher ratio), has not yield any improvement in learner success. The real dispute is about the 765 teacher (they have now 65 861 teachers in the system) who were not re-employed in 2011, since 2010. We have to take into account the drop in learners over the period of just more than 130 000, which should have resulted in a decrease in teachers of just over 3 400 teachers during the same period. But, lets forget about the numbers, and go back to the original point in 1994 - What was the agreement on the pupil-teacher ratio then, and why is this so different, and at what cost?
Due to our unequal distribution of resources during the apartheid era, it was impossible for the Democratic Government in 1994 to continue with the differential pupil-teacher ratios (18 in White schools, 24 in Indian schools, 28 in Coloured schools and 50 in African schools). The agreement in 1994 was a pupil-teacher ratio of 35 in secondary schools and 38 in primary schools. This decision was made based on the amount of learners that had to be accommodated in our school system, and the amount of teachers available to teach them - sounds absolutely logic. So, why has this ratio being sliding down consistently, with no real benefits to the learners? This question is crucial, since a continuation of this trend without real benefits to the learners and society, the only benefit will be that we are employing more adults in the system, and our increased budget during parliamentary announcements are just 'eaten up' by the additional adults in the system - no benefits are accruing to the learners or communities.
If we look at this graph, we can clearly see a steady increase in the employment of educators in the system, which is now standing at 420 608 in 2011. So, how is it possible that our employment rate can increase so consistently, while we have an attrition rate of between 5-6% (about 18 000 teacher), and a production rate of at best 10 000 teachers? We don't produce enough teachers to replace the those who leave the system, so where do the additional teacher at an average of 5 500 come from whom we are employing? A portion of this could be explained by the influx of teacher from neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe, but it is not the full story.
I would like to make two deductions from the above-mentioned data: Firstly, this Eastern Cape phenomena of constantly employing more teachers, or not allowing the decrease in teachers when the amount of learners is dropping, is not limited to that province alone. It is just that they were 'running out of money' (this phrase could be technically wrong!) in the Eastern Cape, unlike other provinces, and therefore having no option but to stop this process of employing more teachers than what they can afford/pay. Secondly, that this constant employment of teachers while we are not producing enough, can only be made up of unqualified teachers. And I can guarantee you that these teachers will only land up in schools serving the poorest or the poor, often called the voiceless people. These adults we are employing earn their salaries, be it under-qualified salaries, at the expense of inferior education to the learners in these schools. The previous year's teacher allocation numbers are used to ensure that 'new' adults get a job (due to the natural attrition of other teachers), without the hope of quality education to our learners. If this is the case, I can only say - shame on us!
I went to China at the end of least year, and visited the best secondary school in the country. It was in a rural area, that had 6 000 learners (1 500 per grade), and had a pupil-teacher ratio of between 50-60. Yes, the facilities were great, since people tend to invest in success, and therefore donations and gifts will stream to this school. The learners in this school know that they are expected to be the leaders of tomorrow, and they live up to it. We were escorted by grade 10 (not grade 12) learners, speaking English fluently.
So, my point is that this reduction in pupil-teacher ratio has to be looked at seriously, because the continuation of it will suffocate our education system. Lets do something about it before it dies.
If it was in aid of quality education for the learners, then the data is not supporting this argument. Currently the Eastern Cape province is one of the worst performing education system in the country. The increase in teachers in the province from 66 361 (with 2,13 million learners = 32.1 pupil-teacher ration) in 2000, to 66 626 (with 2.00 million learners = 30.1 pupil-teacher ratio), has not yield any improvement in learner success. The real dispute is about the 765 teacher (they have now 65 861 teachers in the system) who were not re-employed in 2011, since 2010. We have to take into account the drop in learners over the period of just more than 130 000, which should have resulted in a decrease in teachers of just over 3 400 teachers during the same period. But, lets forget about the numbers, and go back to the original point in 1994 - What was the agreement on the pupil-teacher ratio then, and why is this so different, and at what cost?
Due to our unequal distribution of resources during the apartheid era, it was impossible for the Democratic Government in 1994 to continue with the differential pupil-teacher ratios (18 in White schools, 24 in Indian schools, 28 in Coloured schools and 50 in African schools). The agreement in 1994 was a pupil-teacher ratio of 35 in secondary schools and 38 in primary schools. This decision was made based on the amount of learners that had to be accommodated in our school system, and the amount of teachers available to teach them - sounds absolutely logic. So, why has this ratio being sliding down consistently, with no real benefits to the learners? This question is crucial, since a continuation of this trend without real benefits to the learners and society, the only benefit will be that we are employing more adults in the system, and our increased budget during parliamentary announcements are just 'eaten up' by the additional adults in the system - no benefits are accruing to the learners or communities.
If we look at this graph, we can clearly see a steady increase in the employment of educators in the system, which is now standing at 420 608 in 2011. So, how is it possible that our employment rate can increase so consistently, while we have an attrition rate of between 5-6% (about 18 000 teacher), and a production rate of at best 10 000 teachers? We don't produce enough teachers to replace the those who leave the system, so where do the additional teacher at an average of 5 500 come from whom we are employing? A portion of this could be explained by the influx of teacher from neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe, but it is not the full story.
I would like to make two deductions from the above-mentioned data: Firstly, this Eastern Cape phenomena of constantly employing more teachers, or not allowing the decrease in teachers when the amount of learners is dropping, is not limited to that province alone. It is just that they were 'running out of money' (this phrase could be technically wrong!) in the Eastern Cape, unlike other provinces, and therefore having no option but to stop this process of employing more teachers than what they can afford/pay. Secondly, that this constant employment of teachers while we are not producing enough, can only be made up of unqualified teachers. And I can guarantee you that these teachers will only land up in schools serving the poorest or the poor, often called the voiceless people. These adults we are employing earn their salaries, be it under-qualified salaries, at the expense of inferior education to the learners in these schools. The previous year's teacher allocation numbers are used to ensure that 'new' adults get a job (due to the natural attrition of other teachers), without the hope of quality education to our learners. If this is the case, I can only say - shame on us!
I went to China at the end of least year, and visited the best secondary school in the country. It was in a rural area, that had 6 000 learners (1 500 per grade), and had a pupil-teacher ratio of between 50-60. Yes, the facilities were great, since people tend to invest in success, and therefore donations and gifts will stream to this school. The learners in this school know that they are expected to be the leaders of tomorrow, and they live up to it. We were escorted by grade 10 (not grade 12) learners, speaking English fluently.
So, my point is that this reduction in pupil-teacher ratio has to be looked at seriously, because the continuation of it will suffocate our education system. Lets do something about it before it dies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)