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.
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Are we prostituting our live for money, rather than a purpose?
I have recently facilitated a workshop for principals and deputies in the Insikazi circuit, based in Hazyview in Mpumalanga. This event was made possible through the leadership of the local circuit manager, who listened to a conversation I had in Nelspruit, and thought I can contribute to the enhancement and empowerment of his principals.
The workshop was conducted over two days, and focused on Curriculum Management by school leaders. It involved 10 sessions, with an introductory session on the 'status of education in South Africa'. This introductory session was the same one I briefly spoke about in an interview on Morning Live, one of the premier morning shows in South Africa (I included the video in my previous blog).
The conclusion to the two days deliberation was that we, as adult, can turn around the dismal state of education, by just making a choice to do things differently, and to focus more on the interest of the students rather than that of the adults. Currently, the only beneficiaries of the huge budget that is spent on education, are the adults in the system. The money is used for promotions, establishment of units and commissions, new and more senior positions at departmental level, etc. And it is all assumed that the money that is let loose at the highest level, will eventually trickle down to the learners.
As discussed with colleagues during the workshop, I posted the following question: Are we prostituting our lives for money? Are we only in the profession for the money. Obviously the money or salary that we are earning is important, but it can't be the only thing that is important! And to test this phenomena is when you are not happy to be a teacher, but you are just hanging in there for the money. You doing it for the money because of the debt, to put food on the table, etc. We end up living from the one salary to the next, with no visible impact in the lives of others, since we are only 'takers' rather than 'givers' in the overall system.
Should we have these tough conversations with ourselves?
The workshop was conducted over two days, and focused on Curriculum Management by school leaders. It involved 10 sessions, with an introductory session on the 'status of education in South Africa'. This introductory session was the same one I briefly spoke about in an interview on Morning Live, one of the premier morning shows in South Africa (I included the video in my previous blog).
The conclusion to the two days deliberation was that we, as adult, can turn around the dismal state of education, by just making a choice to do things differently, and to focus more on the interest of the students rather than that of the adults. Currently, the only beneficiaries of the huge budget that is spent on education, are the adults in the system. The money is used for promotions, establishment of units and commissions, new and more senior positions at departmental level, etc. And it is all assumed that the money that is let loose at the highest level, will eventually trickle down to the learners.
As discussed with colleagues during the workshop, I posted the following question: Are we prostituting our lives for money? Are we only in the profession for the money. Obviously the money or salary that we are earning is important, but it can't be the only thing that is important! And to test this phenomena is when you are not happy to be a teacher, but you are just hanging in there for the money. You doing it for the money because of the debt, to put food on the table, etc. We end up living from the one salary to the next, with no visible impact in the lives of others, since we are only 'takers' rather than 'givers' in the overall system.
Should we have these tough conversations with ourselves?
Its a matter of Choice
I have been caught up with two appearances on Morning Live, the most premier breakfast show in South Africa. In particular, the first interview focused on the turnaround work I do in dysfunctional and underperforming school, leading from a presentation I made at a TeachSA conference. The two slides which the television presenter was interested in were, (i) the fact that if we compare the results of our learners with that of Singapore, our best learners will be regarded as part of the worst learners in Singapore, and (ii) the fact that we have four types of schools namely high functioning schools (about 20%), underperforming schools (about 50%), dysfunctional schools (about 20%) and chaotic schools (about 10%). Learners who are attending chaotic schools will be better off by staying at home, rather than going to these schools since they will only learn 'negative' (how not to do things) things in these schools.
Despite the dismal state of affairs in relation to our education results, I concluded that we can turn around these dysfunctional and underperforming schools, if we want to. It is a matter of CHOICE! And choice is action, not thinking or contemplating. It is when you decide that you are no longer going to be happy, or do nothing about the state of affairs in education. Any rationalisation of the current state, and/or finding excuses why things are they way they are, is certainly NOT A CHOICE. It is when you start doing something - start applying your power, right or liberty to choose a different pathway, no-matter what the personal consequences will be - people will see in your action what your choice has been. And you don't need to explain it to them, your action or even no-action will indicate to them your choice.
I link you up with the interview, whoever is interested.
Despite the dismal state of affairs in relation to our education results, I concluded that we can turn around these dysfunctional and underperforming schools, if we want to. It is a matter of CHOICE! And choice is action, not thinking or contemplating. It is when you decide that you are no longer going to be happy, or do nothing about the state of affairs in education. Any rationalisation of the current state, and/or finding excuses why things are they way they are, is certainly NOT A CHOICE. It is when you start doing something - start applying your power, right or liberty to choose a different pathway, no-matter what the personal consequences will be - people will see in your action what your choice has been. And you don't need to explain it to them, your action or even no-action will indicate to them your choice.
I link you up with the interview, whoever is interested.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Awareness: Do we know what we don't know in Education? Example 1 - The need for extra Saturday and Holiday classes for Matric learners
I have been looking at these reported 'noble and committed' teachers and learners who sacrifice their Saturdays and sometimes holidays to attend extra classes. Some MECs for Education in certain provinces even plan their 'holiday classes' in advance, as early as January of a particular year. Why are we doing it, and why do we find this act to be part of the norm?
Well, maybe I need to give some background as to why I am asking this question. Most countries in the world have an average of 200 school days in a year. Some have a longer day than others, but 200 days are somehow the accepted norm as to the time needed to teach, facilitate learning, and assess learning during a particular year period. The understanding is that these days are enough, if utilised effectively and efficiently, for the average learner to master whatever is needed. Obviously, if you have 'slow learners' or those who are 'challenged', then teacher will extend their available time to ensure the success of these learners. So, why is it that South Africans find it an heroic act when our learners need more days, compared to other countries?
Maybe we can look at this from two angles. Firstly, some learners who are serious about a high level of success during examination time, might need these 'extra' time to cement their learning. But this is not why the MECs and others want them to attend these classes - it is often earmarked for those learners who are not successful. And in South Africa, it will be the majority of our learners, since only 42% of our learners who started grade 1 in 1999, ended up writing the matric examination in 2010.
So, the second reason is to give those who have not mastered their learning content, or have been failing during the year, or who are seeming to struggle with the mastering of the learning content, another opportunity of support. Well, the reality is that dysfunctional schools, and to a lesser degree, underperforming schools are only utilising between 65 to 70 days of the available 175 days for teaching and learning per year. More than 100 days are wasted in most of our schools (about 80%). So, if our learners need more time for teaching and learning because the school is not organising, managing and providing the maximum amount of time for them to learn, then the solution is not to get more Saturdays and holidays to provide them time for teaching and learning, but to fix up the non-utilisation of the 100 days. I spoke to my second year teacher training students about this issue, and it looks like most schools see this as 'normal' - that you waste 100 teaching and learning days during the year, and then try to make it up with these Saturdays and holidays - sad!
In any basic 'organisational development' thinking, if you need to have 'extra' days, then it is an indication that your planning is not done well. Therefore the need for extra days is an indication that things are not 'going or done well' somewhere in the system, and adding additional days is not fixing up the 'cause' of the problem. Because we don't see high functioning schools needing these days - and it is not that their learners are better than our learners in dysfunctional and underperforming schools. It is that they are the recipients of bad planning, bad leadership and management, and a system that cares less about them as learners.
And let me tell you that what I am sharing with you is 'no rocket science', but we need people with commitment and will to change this behaviour - don't blame the teachers because they are only doing what they are allowed to do, even if it is negative to education system as a whole.
Well, maybe I need to give some background as to why I am asking this question. Most countries in the world have an average of 200 school days in a year. Some have a longer day than others, but 200 days are somehow the accepted norm as to the time needed to teach, facilitate learning, and assess learning during a particular year period. The understanding is that these days are enough, if utilised effectively and efficiently, for the average learner to master whatever is needed. Obviously, if you have 'slow learners' or those who are 'challenged', then teacher will extend their available time to ensure the success of these learners. So, why is it that South Africans find it an heroic act when our learners need more days, compared to other countries?
Maybe we can look at this from two angles. Firstly, some learners who are serious about a high level of success during examination time, might need these 'extra' time to cement their learning. But this is not why the MECs and others want them to attend these classes - it is often earmarked for those learners who are not successful. And in South Africa, it will be the majority of our learners, since only 42% of our learners who started grade 1 in 1999, ended up writing the matric examination in 2010.
So, the second reason is to give those who have not mastered their learning content, or have been failing during the year, or who are seeming to struggle with the mastering of the learning content, another opportunity of support. Well, the reality is that dysfunctional schools, and to a lesser degree, underperforming schools are only utilising between 65 to 70 days of the available 175 days for teaching and learning per year. More than 100 days are wasted in most of our schools (about 80%). So, if our learners need more time for teaching and learning because the school is not organising, managing and providing the maximum amount of time for them to learn, then the solution is not to get more Saturdays and holidays to provide them time for teaching and learning, but to fix up the non-utilisation of the 100 days. I spoke to my second year teacher training students about this issue, and it looks like most schools see this as 'normal' - that you waste 100 teaching and learning days during the year, and then try to make it up with these Saturdays and holidays - sad!
In any basic 'organisational development' thinking, if you need to have 'extra' days, then it is an indication that your planning is not done well. Therefore the need for extra days is an indication that things are not 'going or done well' somewhere in the system, and adding additional days is not fixing up the 'cause' of the problem. Because we don't see high functioning schools needing these days - and it is not that their learners are better than our learners in dysfunctional and underperforming schools. It is that they are the recipients of bad planning, bad leadership and management, and a system that cares less about them as learners.
And let me tell you that what I am sharing with you is 'no rocket science', but we need people with commitment and will to change this behaviour - don't blame the teachers because they are only doing what they are allowed to do, even if it is negative to education system as a whole.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Awareness is a Choice, not a Right
I have been meeting up with education officials at district and circuit level for the past two weeks, and most of them asked me the same question: Why don't you train us as circuit managers (the old inspectors) to do the turn around work that you are doing? At first, I thought it was a 'short cut' for them not to get to a commitment to turn around their schools, but after deep reflection, I realised that the ability to 'be aware' and to 'see things' is actually a choice. One can go through life, deciding that you only want to see those things which are preferred or comfortable to see, and so you either not see them, or decide not to see them. A typical example from our past, was those who decided not to see the destructive influence of Apartheid on our society. Certainly, the recent events of powerplay and positioning within politics are none different than those past events - just different actors, same greed.
Lets get back to education - those who are caught up with a 'compliance' perspective, are actually denying themselves the opportunity to see what is really wrong with our schools. During a recent two days session with 110 senior leaders of schools within the Bushbuckridge area, which was hosted within Thulamahashe (take note that the GPS spelled it Thulamahaxi) circuit, a 'lightbulb' when on. It was during this workshop that I realised that the entire education system is focused on 'policy compliance', and therefore they (education officials) can't see the real problems within education. When you focus on policy compliance (ticking all the right boxes in the checklist), you are looking for policy intent, and not people outcome. That is why our education reports from different education officials contain numerous of the following phrases: "... we are making progress ...", "... we are moving in the right direction ...", "... it is not the policy that is a problem, rather than the implementation ...", etc. Evaluation and monitoring of the policy process is often not subjected to clear indicators which are quantitative in nature (meaning that one can independently judge whether they are achieved or not), but they are rather very qualitatively expressed. They are often only 'input' indicators and not 'process' nor 'output' indicators. For example, they will express the need to have a workshop/meeting, but not indicate what the results from the meeting/workshop should be. Most of our policies, if not all, are not describing the baseline situation (where we are), the processes or steps we would go through (how we need to get there), and most importantly, what are the targets, indicators, outcomes and result points (what the dream looks like) when these policies are implemented successfully.
During the second day of the mentioned workshop, one of the principals, in an honest and open way, expressed that he was under the impression that we needed to change the previous apartheid education system in a way that would have retained most of the characteristics of the past education system. In fact, he was looking for a 'Black Education' system, but just with another name. I then realised that the apartheid system has succeeded to 'imprison' our minds, and that we as Blacks, have taken on the 'masters' plan without realising it. Our perception of 'what education can be' is not based on the open possibility of the future, but rather not our 'narrow experiences of the past', let alone the vast opportunities of the now (presence).
Awareness is therefore a choice of seeing 'what is in front of you', and not 'seeing what you want to see', nor 'seeing yesterday within today'. And this is an absolute choice ... if you want it, you will get it. And it is not available for a selected few! But if you want it, you need to be open to the presence, and have to commitment yourself to deal with what will confront you, no matter how difficult and/or unacceptable the present or reality is - seeing it for what it is, and for what it could be. So, South Africans, if you want to eradicate all your dysfunctional schools within the next three to five years, it is certainly possible, but you will have to make that choice ... hopefully sooner rather than later.
Lets get back to education - those who are caught up with a 'compliance' perspective, are actually denying themselves the opportunity to see what is really wrong with our schools. During a recent two days session with 110 senior leaders of schools within the Bushbuckridge area, which was hosted within Thulamahashe (take note that the GPS spelled it Thulamahaxi) circuit, a 'lightbulb' when on. It was during this workshop that I realised that the entire education system is focused on 'policy compliance', and therefore they (education officials) can't see the real problems within education. When you focus on policy compliance (ticking all the right boxes in the checklist), you are looking for policy intent, and not people outcome. That is why our education reports from different education officials contain numerous of the following phrases: "... we are making progress ...", "... we are moving in the right direction ...", "... it is not the policy that is a problem, rather than the implementation ...", etc. Evaluation and monitoring of the policy process is often not subjected to clear indicators which are quantitative in nature (meaning that one can independently judge whether they are achieved or not), but they are rather very qualitatively expressed. They are often only 'input' indicators and not 'process' nor 'output' indicators. For example, they will express the need to have a workshop/meeting, but not indicate what the results from the meeting/workshop should be. Most of our policies, if not all, are not describing the baseline situation (where we are), the processes or steps we would go through (how we need to get there), and most importantly, what are the targets, indicators, outcomes and result points (what the dream looks like) when these policies are implemented successfully.
During the second day of the mentioned workshop, one of the principals, in an honest and open way, expressed that he was under the impression that we needed to change the previous apartheid education system in a way that would have retained most of the characteristics of the past education system. In fact, he was looking for a 'Black Education' system, but just with another name. I then realised that the apartheid system has succeeded to 'imprison' our minds, and that we as Blacks, have taken on the 'masters' plan without realising it. Our perception of 'what education can be' is not based on the open possibility of the future, but rather not our 'narrow experiences of the past', let alone the vast opportunities of the now (presence).
Awareness is therefore a choice of seeing 'what is in front of you', and not 'seeing what you want to see', nor 'seeing yesterday within today'. And this is an absolute choice ... if you want it, you will get it. And it is not available for a selected few! But if you want it, you need to be open to the presence, and have to commitment yourself to deal with what will confront you, no matter how difficult and/or unacceptable the present or reality is - seeing it for what it is, and for what it could be. So, South Africans, if you want to eradicate all your dysfunctional schools within the next three to five years, it is certainly possible, but you will have to make that choice ... hopefully sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Awareness is the first step of being concerned, but it is step Zero
My excitement about the Minister's awareness, should be seen in the light of happenings before this moment. For years, in conversations with senior people in education, they all decided 'not to see', or more appropriately, not to be concerned about what was clearly visible from the education data collected locally and in international studies - the rapid decline of our education system. The key thing about 'becoming aware' is that you can't go back to 'being unaware', since awareness is not a 'discovery by the head', but rather a 'discovery by the heart'. Most times, you can fool yourself through the act of denial when your head (mind) sees something, but this does not happen when you start seeing things 'through the eyes of your heart' - when you allow yourself to care about others (to care about more than just yourself).
Obviously, this is a dangerous experience to go through, and especially if you are in a political position where decision-making is mostly not informed by the 'right decision', but by the 'convenient decision' (sometimes called the 'strategic decision', which is just another name for a decision which is in your personal/group interest). This awakening is prevalent in the Minister's announcement on public television that her intervention team to the Eastern Cape (to turn around the dismal state of affairs in education) has been prevented by the local people to do their job. In her own words, she announced that she will have to 'remove the officials in the provincial education department who are preventing the team from doing their job'. Making such statement during a year just before some major political events is no 'convenient decision' - we have to see this decision for what it is.
So, the road of transforming our education system will need to go through all the different steps in order to achieve the required change, namely Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration and Refocusing. We dare not allow this process to be short circuit by processes that will land us up at point 'Unaware/Unconcerned', and not point Zero (Awareness). Remember, that step (0) zero of Awareness is only a decision away from be Unaware, and therefore still needs to be followed up with step 1 - Informational (this is where the recent Annual National Assessment and all other research data could be used in a productive way), step 2 - Personal (this is taking up a position to improve education, event if you have to challenge those who have been suffocating the system), step 3 - Management (putting a system in place that will gather and generate the relevant and appropriate data that will assist the improvement process), step 4 - Consequence (when you consider what will be the impact of this decision on your future and on the education system), step 5 - Collaboration (choosing the right partners and allies to ensure that this improvement process becomes a reality), step 6 - Refocusing (ensuring that we never slide back to the current state of chaos and dysfunctionality at this grand scale). These steps were taking from the work of Hall and Loucks (1979), which is called the Stages of Concern Theory. It is an important debate we need to engage in, since the current debate of "me, me" and "I want this, I am entitle to it" is slowly killing our society. And this is not the way it always have been ... NO! Think about those who were prepared to sacrifice they life, so that others can have a decent life, a better life.
Why was it important for me to list the steps above? It is for us to realise that, if the Minister decides to pursue her intention of making a difference in education, she will need our support through all the subsequent steps, and that she should know that she can rely (call) on us when needed. She must start networking beyond the narrow political, ministerial and departmental circles ... she needs a community and societal approach to this crisis.
Are you in?
Obviously, this is a dangerous experience to go through, and especially if you are in a political position where decision-making is mostly not informed by the 'right decision', but by the 'convenient decision' (sometimes called the 'strategic decision', which is just another name for a decision which is in your personal/group interest). This awakening is prevalent in the Minister's announcement on public television that her intervention team to the Eastern Cape (to turn around the dismal state of affairs in education) has been prevented by the local people to do their job. In her own words, she announced that she will have to 'remove the officials in the provincial education department who are preventing the team from doing their job'. Making such statement during a year just before some major political events is no 'convenient decision' - we have to see this decision for what it is.
So, the road of transforming our education system will need to go through all the different steps in order to achieve the required change, namely Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration and Refocusing. We dare not allow this process to be short circuit by processes that will land us up at point 'Unaware/Unconcerned', and not point Zero (Awareness). Remember, that step (0) zero of Awareness is only a decision away from be Unaware, and therefore still needs to be followed up with step 1 - Informational (this is where the recent Annual National Assessment and all other research data could be used in a productive way), step 2 - Personal (this is taking up a position to improve education, event if you have to challenge those who have been suffocating the system), step 3 - Management (putting a system in place that will gather and generate the relevant and appropriate data that will assist the improvement process), step 4 - Consequence (when you consider what will be the impact of this decision on your future and on the education system), step 5 - Collaboration (choosing the right partners and allies to ensure that this improvement process becomes a reality), step 6 - Refocusing (ensuring that we never slide back to the current state of chaos and dysfunctionality at this grand scale). These steps were taking from the work of Hall and Loucks (1979), which is called the Stages of Concern Theory. It is an important debate we need to engage in, since the current debate of "me, me" and "I want this, I am entitle to it" is slowly killing our society. And this is not the way it always have been ... NO! Think about those who were prepared to sacrifice they life, so that others can have a decent life, a better life.
Why was it important for me to list the steps above? It is for us to realise that, if the Minister decides to pursue her intention of making a difference in education, she will need our support through all the subsequent steps, and that she should know that she can rely (call) on us when needed. She must start networking beyond the narrow political, ministerial and departmental circles ... she needs a community and societal approach to this crisis.
Are you in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)