Abstract
As international standards are continually publicized, countries across the globe have adapted educational policies to meet the demands of the global market, which has led to much emphasis on specific subjects and teaching methods. Although modern educational policies tend to focus on rhetoric about inclusion, systematic segregation remains in many parts of the world. In the case of South Africa, the political transition in the 1990s had tremendous impacts on educational policies. However, by studying the policies that were in effect during apartheid, it is easier to understand some of the inequalities that remain. From the 1950s to the 1980s, Bantu education was used as a tool to support the apartheid state. In the 1980s, the People’s Education Movement began as a grassroots initiative to promote equal education and the transition to democracy. While the latter was achieved, the people’s education vision was largely abandoned in exchange for policies that would allow the state to be most competitive in the global market. Just as the apartheid regime imposed Bantu education on the non-White population, this article argues that international standards are now imposing a Western model of education on South Africa. Although great strides have been made toward a more egalitarian education system, this pattern has been occurring worldwide. Through studying these policies, scholars may better understand how the legacy of apartheid continues to impact modern education systems.
Introduction
As countries are adapting educational policies to meet international standards and the demands of the global market, it is important to consider the ways in which apartheid has a continued resonance in education systems across the globe. Although equality is incorporated into the language of modern educational policies, various forms of systematic segregation remain, and many students are unable to fully participate in their own learning environment or take advantage of modern educational resources due to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, or geographic backgrounds. When considering the future of education in any given country, the history of apartheid serves as a lesson to better understand lingering educational inequalities worldwide. Due to the pressures of international testing, much focus has been placed upon subjects that will allow countries to become most competitive in the global economy, leading to less emphasis on history, culture, and other topics that promote understandings of equality.
In the remaining sections, I will provide an overview of how education was used to support the apartheid state from the 1950s to the 1980s; summarize the grassroots movement started by Black South African students to protest the Bantu education policies, initiate underground schooling, and promote the transition to democracy; explain how much of the visions for people’s education were lost during the political transition due to global economic demands placed upon the new leadership; illustrate how the adoption of outcomes-based education in South Africa was largely influenced by a global shift toward neoliberalism; and provide a summary of how globalization has influenced recent educational policies. After analyzing this evolution of the South African education system, my conclusion argues that international standards are currently imposing a Western model of education on the state, similar to the apartheid regime’s enforcement of Bantu education for non-White citizens.
Bantu education
In the 1950s, “Bantu” replaced the term “Native” because the reference to European colonization had become an embarrassment to the ruling class. Although the Eiselen Commission acknowledged the Bantu culture as existing in its own right, the use of the term also differentiated, more radically than ever before, the separation between the European and Bantu culture. By creating the illusion that moving to the homelands would be beneficial to the Bantu people, the apartheid government was able to successfully begin implementing their goals for separate development. White colonialists created a new Bantu identity to fulfill their apartheid goals. In their imagination, the Bantu must be loyal and well-trained servants, and Bantu education was designed to create this type of citizen. It was their belief that this image had to be maintained in order for the Bantu people to meet work performance standards. The ultimate goal of Bantu education was to support the state’s separate development policy, and the government believed that creating these two different schooling systems would prepare students for entering the separate “social groups” that were created under apartheid. The state had set out to achieve complete social and political segregation amongst the races, and their education system was used as a tool for achieving this.
Under apartheid, South Africa became severely polarized in terms of both class and race. Due to the influence of Hendrik Verwoerd, the Education Commission argued for the institution of Bantu education in 1953, which led to separate forms of education for Blacks and Whites. The idea was especially influential because it could be justified as a way of defending native culture, even against the external influences of White culture. The separation between the two systems was based on what the government perceived to be “Bantu culture,” allowing the Bantu “to develop along their own lines” (Davis, 1972: 2). This caused an enormous division in access to education for children and youth.
Bantu education had several goals, including de-emphasis on the training of Blacks in academic subjects, focusing instead on training for low-income jobs and skills for the service sector. The instructors would only teach students in their mother tongue initially before switching to Afrikaans. The government also selected and supervised school boards and committees to be sure that no alternative to Bantu education would be possible. While the number of Black primary schools rapidly increased, there was very little rise in the number of secondary schools to accompany these institutions. As a result, by 1970, only 9.4 percent of all Black students were in secondary schools as opposed to 36.4 percent of Whites (Pillay, 1990: 34). It seems that, rather than trying to protect a preexisting identity, the White administration was trying to create a new identity for the Bantu.
Based on the White colonialist vision of the Bantu, they instructed the educators to transform their pupils into Bantu people. This can be compared to Freire’s (1970) theory of banking education, which interprets the mind of students as a metaphor for a bank, in which instructors deposit only certain types of information. In such a system, students do not acquire the ability to actually learn for themselves, because instructors do not teach them how to think. Instead, they continually deposit information that will cause the students to formulate particular beliefs that will benefit the instructors rather than work in the best interest of the students. They do not participate in true discourse with the students, because they do not want them to challenge anything they say. They only teach them obedience and how to follow instruction, like the way in which Bantu education teaches Black South Africans to be subservient to Whites.
The outline of the Bantu Education Act (1953) was designed by the Minister of Native Affairs, which was later named the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. After assuming power, Verwoerd clearly expressed his vision for Bantu education. According to the guidelines: (1) Bantu Education was “of necessity” different from that of Europeans because it was based on different kinds of knowledge; (2) Education must prepare people for their “opportunities in life,” which for Africans was to be in the rural areas and as migrant workers; (3) Education must instill within Africans that they are not to have equal rights with whites and that their development is to be confined within their own sphere. (Davis, 1972: 14) Native education should be controlled in such a way that it should be in accord with the policy of the state … If the native of South Africa today in any kind of school in existence is being taught to expect that he will live his adult life under a policy of equal rights, he is making a big mistake … There is no place for him in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. Within his own community, however, all doors are open. For that reason it is of no avail for him to receive a training which has as its aim absorption in the European community, where he cannot be absorbed. (Paasche, 2006: 205)
In order to achieve such segregation, there was a specific emphasis on language policy. Under Bantu education, all primary standards incorporated the mother tongue as a mode of instruction by 1959, and this was also moved into the first half of high school by the late 1960s. Therefore, only the last two years of high school and university level were taught in one of the two official languages, English and Afrikaans. This leads to difficulties with students being able to communicate with anyone outside their own ethnic group and an inability to learn any languages well. “Mother tongue thus served one of the basic apartheid objectives—to educate Africans sufficiently to be of service but not a threat to whites and to break down African unity” (Davis, 1972: 42). Although it is important for indigenous groups to learn their mother tongue, most Bantu students were not given an opportunity to continue into secondary school, which significantly limited the options of those who may have wanted to move or find work outside the Bantu community, because they were never given a chance to learn an official language.
Another important part of the Bantu Education Act (1953) was to create workers that would best serve the capitalist system; the state used repressive means in their attempt to regulate and control class status based on race. For non-White students who attended school, segregation affirmed that they would be trained for either superior or subordinate positions once they reached the labor force. The separate Ministries of Education even worked to operate different schooling systems that were designed to reproduce social relations. This was illustrated by the large number of Blacks at lower levels of schooling, where they received an education that would train them to live as members of the working class.
Christie and Collins (1984) explain that bringing education under state control was part of a larger scheme to control all other areas of government and civilian life under apartheid. Although state control of education can be beneficial under a government aimed at representation, the apartheid state had different ideas for its people. The authors argue that schooling was one of the less repressive means of working toward a stable production of labor: State control over schooling meant that schooling could be used to support other state policies, and in particular the homeland or Bantustan policy. As well as serving hegemonic functions, control facilitated schooling being more specifically geared toward fulfilling the labour needs of capital in general, both in respect of skills, and of attitudes and values appropriate to capitalist social relations. (Christie and Collins, 1984: 167)
Teachers were also forced to use an explicitly biased and racist syllabus. The incident that triggered the Soweto uprising occurred when a rule was passed that half of the subjects in Soweto’s secondary schools must be taught in Afrikaans, even though none of the teachers spoke the language. On June 16, 1976, the police began shooting at unarmed students and teachers as they marched in a peaceful protest. Deadly violence broke out and continued throughout the country. Explaining the reasons for these protests, A.L. Behr states, When Bantu Education virtually took the place of Afrikaans as the reason for the demonstrators’ dissatisfaction in the course of the unrest, many described the object of the system as a premeditated effort to educate the black pupil in such a way that he would be submissive to the whites or, to put it more strongly, that he would be and remain the slave of the oppressor. (Behr, 1978: 37)
People’s education
As one of the founders of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), Steve Biko preached that the possibility for change was in the hands of the oppressed person rather than through a dramatic shift in the South African economy or the hierarchy of the political system. According to Biko’s book, I Write What I Like (1978), as “Black Consciousness develops there is a need to work out further the quest for a new humanity … What Black Consciousness seeks to do is to produce at the end of the process real Black people who do not regard themselves as appendages of white society” (Biko, 1978: 51).
Only a month after Biko died in police custody in 1977, the government banned 17 Black Consciousness organizations in an attempt to diminish the movement that had begun with the Soweto uprising over the past year. Nearly three years later, a majority of the leadership guiding the BCM had been wiped out. At the 1979 Azanian People’s Organization (AZAPO) Conference, questions were raised over whether the remaining leaders should be merging the “race consciousness” movement with “class consciousness”. They concluded that Black Consciousness should have a “positive humanism” in its content, which emphasizes its negation of “White superiority” rather than White people as a whole, and should allow Black people to be what they want to be while preparing them to participate in a movement toward a free society. Gibson (2008) discusses the shifting of Black Consciousness as it moved from an emphasis on race to class and began to critique capitalism as they recruited the working class to become members of their struggle. However, AZAPO also stated “race is a class determinant in the current South African context” (Gibson, 2008: 139).
Despite many years of struggle and outcry amongst students, parents and educators, the apartheid state failed to carry out any sufficient reforms aimed at ending the legacy of apartheid education until the late 1980s. The state’s attempt to face the education crisis through a restructuring process designed by the Human Sciences Research Council, also known as the De Lange Commission into Educational Reform, did not address the political and educational aspirations of students. To attract more attention to their specific needs, students boycotted the schools during 1984–1985. However, it was decided by the end of 1985 that students would not have the ability to bring forth any significant change within society if they were to sacrifice their education in order to fight the system of apartheid (Kruss, 1988). After much deliberation amongst members of the Soweto Parent’s Crisis Committee , and the later formation of the North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC), it was concluded that their new strategy would be a call for “People’s Education for People’s Power,” as they emphasized the need for education in the fight to end the vicious reign of apartheid (Kruss, 1988).
Just as Bantu education was designed as part of the apartheid system of government, people’s education was created as part of their struggle toward a non-racial democratic society. The resolution stated that people’s education should “equip and train all sectors of our people to participate actively and creatively in the struggle to attain People’s Power in order to establish a non-racial democratic South Africa” (Kruss, 1988: 11). As non-White people had been banned from participating in the formation of their government or any kind of civic engagement, this education system would train them to exercise their rights, express their opinions and restore their voice in society.
In 1985, the Soweto Parents Crisis Committee held a national conference to discuss the nationwide failure of the Black education system; this led to the creation of the National Education Crisis Committee, as well as the concept of “people’s education” (Kruss, 1988). The main objectives of the People’s Education Movement were centered on shifting the power from the apartheid state into the hands of the people as a whole and promoting the transition to democracy. While the apartheid government had complete control over the education system, the state was intruding on the right of Black South Africans to access quality education. On the other hand, Black people were using politics to organize their education movement. During apartheid, the state used the education system as a tool to maintain White supremacy. People’s education, however, was aimed at revealing the ways in which Black people were being brainwashed by the system, and teaching them about the advantages of a democracy. Overall, it was a political movement aimed at overthrowing the apartheid government and instituting a democracy, which would theoretically work to serve the needs of all citizens without racism or prejudice.
While instructing students on the importance of empowerment and control over their own lives, people’s education focuses on democratic values, equality, collectivity and participation. By doing so, it abandons the emphasis that was placed on capitalistic values under Bantu education. According to the resolutions, people’s education is a type of education that “eliminates capitalist norms of competition, individualism and stunted intellectual development and one that encourages collective input and active participation by all, as well as stimulating critical thinking and analysis” (Kruss, 1988: 12). Although this was their aim, the African National Congress (ANC) was accepting of the capitalist nature of the economy during the later transition to democracy.
In the March 1986 NECC Conference, Zwelakhe Sisulu provided a keynote speech in which he explained the link between education and politics, stating: Ever since 1976 the people have recognized that apartheid education cannot be separated from apartheid in general. This conference once again asserts that the entire oppressed and democratic community is concerned with education, and that we all see the necessity of ending gutter education and we all see that this is a political question affecting each and every one of us. (Kruss, 1988: 17)
The two NECC Conferences formulated many key features of people’s education. First and foremost, they concluded that it is a rejection of apartheid education, or education for domination (Kruss, 1988). People’s education assumes that education and politics are linked, which means that the struggle for a new education system cannot be separated from the struggle for an equal and democratic South Africa; for this reason, “people’s education for people’s power” is both an educational and political strategy (Kruss, 1988). While people are mobilized and organized by people’s education to work toward a democratic South Africa, they are also creating their future education system.
It is also vital that each sector of the People’s Education Movement be organized. While students, teachers and parents each build strong organizations within their own sector, they must also establish strong alliances and mutual understanding with the other groups. People’s education must be controlled by and further the interests of the people as a whole. Rather than being limited to school students, it is intended to educate and empower the entire population. Its values include cooperative work, active participation, creativity and critical thinking. Teachers, thus, must develop education practices to implement these principles. Lastly, the conference concluded that people’s education is in process, meaning that it cannot be fully achieved until apartheid is abolished. Until then, it was to be constantly changing and dynamic while following these basic guidelines.
Throughout 1986, the NECC attempted to negotiate with the Department of Education and Training (DET), arguing that control and management over the schools should be handed to the community. They explained that the authoritarian structures, content and teaching methods being employed by the DET were not being received well by the people. However, the DET refused to compromise with the NECC and even began to perceive them as a threat. In June 1986, there was a declaration of a state of emergency, and many members of the NECC were detained. The DET began implementing strict regulations on registration in the schools, and they also banned the discussion or promotion of people’s education on school property. Any institutions that did not seem to be following “normal schooling” were shut down.
In order to strengthen their movement, the NECC created a People’s Education Secretariat, which set up offices in each region to collect information that would be presented at their conference in June 1986. The secretariat set up People’s Education Commissions as well, including People’s History, English and Mathematics, which developed material for their new curricula. It was to be aimed at all races and incorporate the principles of people’s education into the syllabus. The commissions would also use these principles to create new courses, materials, workbooks and programs that would promote the values of people’s education.
The People’s English Commission is focused on the transformative role that English could play in empowering students, teachers and the community. Its goal is to assist every learner to: understand the evils of apartheid and to think and speak in non-racial, non-sexist and non-elitist ways; determine their own destinies and to free themselves of oppression; play a creative role in the achievement of a non-racial democratic South Africa; use English effectively for their own purposes; express and consider the issues and questions of their time; transform themselves into full and active members of society; and proceed with their studies. (Kruss, 1988: 26)
According to Buti Tlhagale, a Sowetan priest in the BCM, both economic exploitation and racial discrimination must be addressed in order for radical change to occur (Gibson, 2008). He stated that capitalism is only kept alive by the cheap labor performed by the Black population, and the mobilization of Black workers is the only solution. By incorporating the labor force into their struggle, Tlhagale believed that Black Consciousness could be transformed from a mindset to a powerful weapon in their struggle (Gibson, 2008). In his words, “it strikes at the very root of exploitation and alienation,” and it could be used as “an organizational power aimed at combating the violence of the state” (Gibson, 2008: 140).
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) proposes that education is the most powerful element to either perpetuating conditions of oppression or creating a means for transformation to a democratic society. He believes that every individual, no matter how submerged they have become in the “culture of silence,” has the capability to become educated and contribute to the betterment of society. During apartheid, many Black South Africans were stuck in the “culture of silence” because they did not understand that they were being oppressed. They were trapped in a “limit-situation,” because the apartheid government did not want them to understand what was really happening. According to Freire, once they overcome these limit situations, they achieve a higher level of consciousness that allows them to have meaningful interactions with the rest of society and develop a better understanding of the world.
The apartheid government used Bantu education as a political tool of oppression, which Freire describes as “banking education.” However, he also describes ways in which the oppressed can lead political revolutions through education, which allows them to understand the situations they are facing. He emphasizes the importance of making sure the oppressed understand that they are subjects in the transformation and the need for proper communication throughout the movement. However, before a revolution can occur, they must develop a solid understanding of the social structure and the way in which it is affecting them. As Freire states, “Class conflict is another concept which upsets the oppressors, since they do not wish to consider themselves an oppressive class. Unable to deny, try as they may, the existence of social classes, they preach the need for understanding and harmony between those who buy and those who are obliged to sell their labor” (Freire, 1970: 139). During apartheid, the Whites tried to make Bantu education appear as though it was working in favor of the Black people, because they did not want them to realize that they were actually creating separate social classes based on race.
He describes “cultural revolution” as a way to overcome these oppressive tendencies. In such a society, occupations are designed to overcome the culture of oppression, and everyone works together toward the transformation. As Freire states, “cultural revolution develops the practice of permanent dialogue between leaders and people, and consolidates the participation of the people in power. In this way, as both leaders and the people continue their critical activity, the revolution will more easily be able to defend itself against bureaucratic tendencies” (Freire, 1970: 139). With people’s education, the Black South Africans were attempting to create a “cultural revolution” in which everyone would have a voice, rather than just their White oppressors, and everyone would be able to use their talents and interests to contribute meaningfully to their society, rather than being controlled and trained for specific roles within a certain social class.
George Mashamba (1990) explains that people’s education was designed specifically for liberation from the subservience and domination that was being exercised by the Whites. It was not designed to achieve equality in the learning conditions or content of education available to the Whites. Instead, Mashamba believes people’s education was about the assertion of people’s power in the field of education. Equality takes on a new meaning in the context of the worldview that was created by the radical leaders of the movement toward a democratic South Africa. According to Mashamba, Eric Molobi, national coordinator of the NECC, described education as “a name we attach to a process of the planned and systematic moulding of consciousness.” (Mashamba, 1990: 61)
Although there were many benefits to people’s education in terms of its aim to overcome apartheid and promote equality, it was highly politicized by its promotion of democracy. The goals of equity were tied to the democratic movement, which largely determined curriculum. At the time, it was necessary for students to become leaders of this movement. However, the continued politicization of education took away from their ability to broaden their horizons or pursue their own interests. The educational goals were geared toward the future of the state, which caused education to be more about the promotion of democracy than the individual interests of the students. It was a struggle to bring equality to all of South Africa, and it is likely that many were forced to sacrifice their own educational interests, such as those in the scientific fields, to fight for the greater good of the people.
Outcomes-based education
Since the transition to democracy, neoliberalism has affected the role of the state, content and pedagogy in South African education. Neoliberalism in this context is understood as a U.S. response to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s; as a set of government policies justified by ideology; promoted by U.S. foreign policy, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to undertake market reforms across the economy and society. All types of governments around the world are implementing neoliberal reforms in every aspect of society, including education. The neoliberal model of educational reform is known as outcomes-based education (OBE). This section will review how major elements of neoliberalism, such as entrepreneurship, privatization, managerialism and marketization, worked their way into the South African schooling system through the implementation of OBE. The fundamental political effect of neoliberalism in South African education has been the redefinition of the role of the state with its implications for unequal access and the limitations of democratic participation in civil society, leaving the educational decision-making to private investors.
In the late 1970s, after the economic growth that occurred during World War II, the United States and its primary Western industrial allies began to experience major economic problems, and they implemented neoliberal economic and social reforms as a response to the crisis (Harvey, 2005). After the defeat of the Soviet Union, the United States also implemented a very unilateralist foreign policy that has involved expanding its interests into many other areas, such as the Middle East and Central Asia. The creation of global treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, has also led to a proverbial elimination of borders, which creates a global community in which the economic cycles of one country have an effect on all others. However, there are many who oppose the spread of neoliberalism and who believe it compromises social justice and human rights while focusing on profit maximization (Chapman, 2016; Faulk, 2013; O’Connell, 2007).
Shortly before the end of apartheid, neoliberalism began to have a very strong global influence. During the transition the ANC implemented a socioeconomic policy framework, also known as the Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP), to redress the losses experienced under apartheid. However, pressures from neoliberalism caused South Africa to move away from some of the more radical social and economic goals of the RDP. Its main agenda was to alleviate poverty and strengthen the South African economy. Instead, they adopted a very neoliberal approach to their Growth, Employment and Redistribution policies. Some argue that these strategies are vital to South Africa’s economic survival due to the impacts of globalization, but others argue that it is widening the gap between the rich and poor within their own country (Seekings and Nattrass, 2005).
Along with their new economic policies, educational policy in South Africa has also leaned toward increasing corporate profit and a decreased role of the state. Education policy has been catering to the market economy, as well as turning into a market itself. In a neoliberal system, education is privatized. Due to globalization, certain governments have been encouraged to sell their assets to the private sector. Government leaders believe continued privatization of state-owned assets will attract confidence amongst foreign investors and generate more educational supply for South Africa. However, marketization has brought its own negative effects, such as the “commodification” of education and an increased interest on profit maximization that drives attention away from unequal access and solving the educational needs of the most disadvantaged students.
“Commodification” of education is occurring because it is being taken over by commercial interests (Skinner, 1999: 126). Many policymakers are viewing education only in economic terms, which has led to an emphasis on subjects such as science, technology and commerce, while abandoning other subjects, in order to produce students who can find identifiable spots in the marketplace. The problem, however, is that the marketplace fails to provide the required jobs for millions of educated youth, leaving them with a sense of frustration and personal failure. In a neoliberal system, education becomes a new field for capital accumulation with substantial implications for education as social policy, education administration, curriculum content, and pedagogy. Marketization of education under OBE was detrimental to students and did not close the racial divide in South African education. Neoliberalism is not solving the problem of unemployment, and entrepreneurship is mostly associated with long working hours for little money.
In a privatized educational model, society controls all schools through the marketplace, rather than directly through democratic politics. Effective authority is decentralized within market settings, as each school decides what materials to teach, how to teach or how much to charge. Then students and parents decide which institutions to attend based on the cost and reputation of each school. In South Africa, this type of system seemed liberating after Black citizens had been told which schools they could attend for so many years. The state appears to be no longer getting involved in education and letting people make their own decisions, including schools districts and teachers, but instead the state’s new role is to set standards through the national curriculum, while overlooking the fact that students still are limited as to which schools they can attend, because many cannot afford the fees for schools in higher quintiles.
While public schools are controlled by society as a whole, parents and students lose their rights to control schools in a privatized system. Various organizations, individuals, nonprofit groups or corporations have the right to own any school, and control is given solely to whatever entity runs each institution. By giving owners this much power and providing parents with the right to choose, schools start turning into businesses. As a business, the schools maximize their financial interests in order to stay competitive. In South Africa, given the deficit of educational services and premium granted to having an education, education can be described as a “supplier’s market,” where individual educational firms have an important degree of monopoly power. Under these circumstances, social stakeholders, such as parents and students, have little relative power.
The increase in popularity of national qualifications frameworks has occurred simultaneously with the rise in neoliberalism over the past 20 years, turning education into a system of delivering goods and services (Allais, 2007: 67). For example, Allais argues that education has been turned into a tool for the solution of economic problems, such as unemployment. This has led to terms such as “human capital” becoming part of the mainstream educational discourse as policymakers attempt to make the curriculum relevant to economic needs. The problem is that the needs of the economy are the needs of capital accumulation and not of people interested in acquiring a well rounded education. The definition of education from a capital accumulation perspective is different from a liberation perspective. As we can see in the OBE framework, students were expected to learn skills and display knowledge that will enable them to succeed in a neoliberal economy, but the neoliberal economy does not have a place for everyone. The skills you learn may or may not be in demand. By focusing so intently on functional education, students no longer can appreciate the value of personal growth, ethics, beauty and arts. By promoting entrepreneurship and individualism, the structural weaknesses of South Africa’s educational system are explained away as regulatory failures or personality traits. The consequence was that racial and class inequalities in South Africa’s educational system continued to persist.
Entrepreneurship became one of the defining features of the new education system in South Africa through the implementation of OBE, the National Qualifications Framework and the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS). Once the ANC won the election, they knew something drastic needed to be done inside the schools for Black people to realize the opportunities that were available to them. With the high number of Black, Indian and coloured people who were unemployed, the ANC decided the best way to improve the economy would be to train them to run and create new businesses that could put more people to work. Due to the fact that not enough jobs can be created through capitalism alone, South Africa’s new government is trying to teach people how to bring themselves out of poverty through creating their own businesses and microenterprises.
The legacy of apartheid has rendered a large number of people destitute, and this emphasis on entrepreneurship is attempting to show them how they can escape the vicious cycle of poverty. In education, the idea of entrepreneurship centers on teaching students how to start their own businesses and become their own employers. Rather than being trained to work under someone else’s supervision and rules, they are taught how to create their own jobs. This has become an important feature of the new system, as entrepreneurial values such as independence, innovation and modernization can be found throughout the curriculum, and schools have become businesses that are run by educational entrepreneurs.
The primary focus of teacher training curricula for entrepreneurship education in the South African context is to be sure that students acquire entrepreneurial skills; learn about entrepreneurship in the workforce; teach students about how entrepreneurship can be tied to the economy through classroom activities such as creating an in-school business; and discover the entrepreneurial characteristics of students (Isaacs et al., 2007: 619). The result is to prove that a student is competent at performing certain skills that fulfill the needs of the economy. With this emphasis on competency in performance, the educational system expects to prepare students to engage in the power relations that comprise their neoliberal economic system.
With the transition to democracy, the government needed to discover a way to create an education system that would simultaneously allow equal opportunities for Blacks while also stimulating the economy. Entrepreneurship education was apparently their strategy for producing citizens who can contribute to growth and development in the new South African economy, as well as society at large. According to this view, the lack of entrepreneurs is one of the greatest challenges to economic development in South Africa. The ratio of entrepreneurs to workers is approximately 1 in 52, while in the majority of developing countries, the ratio is approximately 1 in 10 (Isaacs et al., 2007: 613). Several organizations, such as Junior Achievement, The Education with Enterprise Trust, and Entrepreneurship Education Initiative, worked toward the advancement of entrepreneurship in the schools before it was formally introduced to the curriculum (North, 2002: 25).
According to the RNCS, which replaced the original Statement of the National Curriculum for Grades R-9 in 2001, in addition to the goals of preparing students to become citizens who can solve problems; think critically and creatively; work well with others as a group or community; organize and manage their own activities sufficiently; become civically engaged in their local, national and global communities; discover education and job opportunities; they also have to create entrepreneurial opportunities. Along with the typical learning areas of Languages; Mathematics; Natural Sciences; Technology; Social Sciences; Arts and Culture; and Life Orientation, the RNCS offers Economic and Management Sciences (Department of Education, Republic of South Africa, 2001: 9). The outcomes section states that students should be able to demonstrate knowledge of the economic system; understand sustainable growth and development; and demonstrate managerial, financial and entrepreneurial skills (Department of Education, Republic of South Africa, 2001: 27).
In terms of pedagogy, I will argue that the ANC abandoned its visions of critical pedagogy in exchange for Freire’s concept of “Banking Education,” due to its focus on measurement, quantifiable outcomes and assessment standards. Freire’s theory of critical pedagogy works in the context of the relationship between oppressed and oppressor, and the struggle for liberation as the purpose of education. He was intolerant of indoctrination or authoritarian structures, as he emphasized a dialogical relationship between teacher and student throughout the learning process. It teaches the importance of self-organization which has been used to lead liberation struggles worldwide. Peter McLaren (2007) explains the negative effects that capitalism has had on critical pedagogy, as schools have been forced into producing human capital and educating for labor power. Such labor power has also been conditioned in schools to meet the needs of the marketplace. However, he argues that critical pedagogy can be used to transcend educational practices of labor production due to its focus on education being political, offering alternatives to capitalism and promoting open dialogue and different interpretations about the history of revolutionary movements (McLaren, 2007: 310). Critical pedagogy aims to end hierarchies of oppression and exploitation, and to teach people how to think freely and pursue their own interests and abilities. Capitalism has spread the notion that market freedom translates into democratic freedom, which has put the education system in danger and undermined opportunities to implement critical pedagogy. However, McLaren (2007) believes this remains a source of hope for teachers who struggle against oppression in their classrooms, and that educators should urgently embrace it.
By stating that students should be able to display certain skills or particular types of knowledge within a set timeframe, policymakers are preventing any type of radical change within South African pedagogy. It takes away from students being able to develop critical thinking skills, replacing this with the acquisition of skills and memorization of facts. Through forcing instructors to teach and measure only certain abilities based on the standards in the national curriculum, the government is also brainwashing teachers into believing they should obey certain norms and hold specific values, which are reflected in the outcomes their students must display. This is reflective of “Banking Education,” in which students were expected to memorize information without learning the deeper meaning behind concepts, developing the ability to create their own ideas or the power to question authority (Freire, 1970).
Only measuring certain capacities of students, the education system is using mental measurement techniques to define what type of education is “normal.” Wendy Flanagan (1992) explains how psychometry (mental testing) and the production of development as pedagogy have influenced the hierarchical structure of schooling in South Africa and prevented people’s education from coming to fruition. For example, in the 1920s and 1930s, beliefs about “innate biological differences” became part of the accepted ideology within schools throughout South Africa, and IQ testing became a common practice. According to Flanagan (1992), this led to discrimination and repression based on race, gender and socioeconomic status. The hegemony that mental testing established in the schools has remained ever since.
Flanagan (1992) explains how these practices are used to classify students into categories such as “normal,” “educationally subnormal” and “educationally gifted.” She states that such practices begin at a very young age, when children are assessed for “school readiness.” Knowing that their knowledge is constantly being tested based only on certain skills and qualifications can seriously impede the opportunity for students to become creative thinkers or explore their interests in other fields of study, such as liberal arts. However, OBE relies on these assessments to show that students have acquired all the skills to become entrepreneurs and fulfill their roles in the neoliberal economy.
She believes that introducing mental testing, the language of competency, and an emphasis on measurable performance into pedagogical discourse has led educators to believe that good management skills are equivalent to good teaching. Such practices have prevented instructors from developing their own effective methods of teaching and promoting critical thinking amongst their students. However, Flanagan (1992) argues that the introduction of a truly transformational pedagogy will require more than a rejection of the authoritarian pedagogy and “knowledge production” used under apartheid. In order to escape this type of authoritarian structure, she believes South Africans must rely on smaller innovations without the interference of bureaucratic forces. Freire (1970) would describe this idea of “knowledge production” as the “deposits” (information) that instructors make into the “bank” (students’ minds). Rather than being given the opportunity to question such ideas or authority, they are forced to accept this “knowledge” as being true. Therefore, they believe it is their duty to fulfill certain roles within society rather than trying to challenge the unjust system or going against immoral norms.
These neoliberal reforms in education began to occur in education immediately after the transition to democracy. Through emphasizing entrepreneurship in the curriculum, the new government expected citizens to begin starting businesses and microenterprises that could lessen the negative economic impacts created by apartheid. The pedagogy has focused on techniques, standards, measurement and the teaching of specialized skills rather than the critical thinking skills that were emphasized by the People’s Education Movement. Reliance on the market to close the educational gap encourages privatization and managerialism. By increasing competition, it is expected that schools will improve to attract more customers, but reality is far from the ideal market state; the blatant differences among schools based on race and class shows that neoliberalism has helped preserve educational inequality in South Africa.
Schooling 2025
After many years of debate, it has become apparent that OBE is not working. The Constitution, the South African Schools Act, and the curriculum state that all learners should have the same educational opportunities; however, this has not been the case. Many students and schools, especially in rural communities, are still struggling with access to basic services, such as water and electricity, as well as access to books and public libraries. Policymakers have accepted the need for reform, and a new curriculum is currently being tested in South African schools. “Schooling 2025” (Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa, 2011) is a long-term plan that outlines 27 goals, including outputs the government would like to achieve and how they plan to reach these. In this Delivery Agreement, signed by the President and the Minister of Basic Education, it was decided that five of these 27 goals were amongst the most important priorities for the basic education sector. Although this document points out many of the issues caused by OBE, the goals set forth in this plan strongly reflect the influence of globalization over education policy.
One of the legacies of apartheid that was carried on during OBE has been the teacher training system. Particularly in the homelands, teachers have not been prepared to implement the curriculum into their classrooms. Minister of Basic Education, Angie Motshekga, described the OBE curriculum as being weak, unrealistic and vague. She explained that it did not recognize the fact that many schools do not have access to basic resources, and teachers did not understand what was required of them. One of the five priority goals listed in the “Schooling 2025” is to “improve the professionalism, teaching skills and subject knowledge of teachers throughout their entire careers” (Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa, 2011: 107). According to the 2008 review by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it was recommended that South Africa implement an online distance education model to meet their teacher in-service training challenges. This method was also endorsed by the Government’s 2009 Medium Term Strategic Framework, which has made growing the economy and promoting social inclusion its central priority. According to the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey, in many countries, over 30 percent of teachers regularly use professional networks that are maintained largely by teachers themselves (Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa, 2011: 109).
The “Schooling 2025” places a very strong emphasis on the subjects of language, math, and science, similar to other countries. In 2008, South Africa started running its Annual National Assessment (ANA) program, which provides results in two areas: languages and mathematics. Education authorities have been working with teachers unions to work toward an assessment system that leads to improved learning. “Schooling 2025” states, “Fortunately, there are good practice cases from the rest of the world that can guide South Africa in ensuring that teacher unions and other stakeholders become co-owners of the assessment system” (Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa, 2011: 51). Under ANA, students must go through two days of testing: one for language and another for mathematics. Two of the language tests are given in the students’ home language, and another is focused on English. Younger students are also being tested now in order to help parents decide where to send their children to school.
Crain Soudien (2011) explains how school choice policies and the neoliberal governance of education in South Africa have led to the “universalization of the learning subject.” For traditionally Black schools in the homelands, the new Constitution assumes they will forget the history of their schools and adopt this White, middle class identity as schools become “equal.” As schools are given the power to adopt their own individual policies, he explains that they are also able to define their community or corporate identities. “Whereas schools in the old apartheid order very definitely took their identities from their relationship to the state (as, for example, ‘white’ schools or ‘Indian’ schools or ‘coloured’ schools), the new Act gives parents the right to define and protect ‘their’ linguistic and value-orientations” (Soudien, 2011: 330). This does not mean that schools are necessarily becoming more “equal.” Instead, he argues, they can develop their own identities independent of the state, and invoke race without having to actually name it. While Bantu policies clearly outlined the goals for non-White schools, post-apartheid educational policies illustrate their vision for universal freedom and equality across the school system while recognizing that some groups may have differing cultural values.
The new assessments include both a universal ANA and a district-wide ANA report, which lets schools know how they are performing in relation to other schools in the district, as well as in relation to provincial and national average scores. This indicates how close the district is to achieving its targets, as well as a statement from the head of the district outlining a plan for how they will achieve their goals in the coming years. Schools are provided with hard copies of these reports, and district offices pay attention to the schools that are performing poorly to ensure they have all of the materials they need. The reports are also posted on the national department websites. Although Motshekga had announced that the new curriculum would no longer be framed in terms of assessments and standards, it is clear that these still play an important role in the education system.
One of the biggest changes during the transition from education being dominated by the state to the current system has been the language policy. Under apartheid, the government wanted to prevent Black South Africans from learning English because they feared it would lead to more opportunities for them. Due to globalization, English is starting to become the dominant language throughout the world. Although only seven percent of South Africans speak English as their primary language, it is the main language used for textbooks and other learning materials across the country.
Conclusion
Although the transition to democracy came with a new Constitution that has been described as the most progressive in the world and education policies that contain language emphasizing the need for equality, the influence of neoliberalism and globalization has raised many new issues. The type of economic and educational reforms that were implemented after the transition were taken from Western countries and expected to succeed in spite of significant sociocultural and historical differences. The reforms set out by the Washington Consensus expect that all countries will experience success if they only follow a specific set of guidelines toward economic development. This does not work, and scholars are calling attention to the fact that neoliberalism has led to economic disasters and crises in several parts of the world (Birch and Mykhnenko, 2010).
The government has been attempting to compensate for the injustices of apartheid, but several downfalls come with moving toward the same type of education for all students. Although Bantu education was clearly a hierarchical form of education, the same type of education for all students may not be the best response. By integrating the Bantu community into the White community through education, some aspects of their culture could be lost. It is not uncommon for indigenous cultures to argue for the right to educate their own children. Despite the hierarchical aspects of Bantu education, it is possible that many people in their community did not wish to be integrated into White culture. Just as many nations argue that “universal human rights” are designed by the West and imposed upon other countries for hegemonic purposes (Donnelly, 2013) the Black South African communities may not have wanted the same “rights” as the Whites. Perhaps they preferred to only follow the guidelines of their individual communities and maintain their indigenous identity.
The same concept applies on a global scale, as tests like the Programme for International Student Assessment and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study assume a “one size fits all” model of education will work for all countries in the same way that it works for Western countries. Just as the state imposed Bantu education on non-White South Africans, the new international standards are now imposing a Western model of education on the state. For schools in the homelands that do not have the appropriate resources or may not wish to learn English, there is an expectation that they will meet these international standards, and the state is expected to produce these results. Although the power has shifted, and the education is now centered on a dialogue of equality, many South Africans still do not have the freedom to choose what type of education they receive.
Along with ensuring that all schools have resources and properly trained teachers, the state should also grant schools the sovereignty to educate students in the manner that is appropriate to their culture. Rather than being educated based on the needs of the state or the global market, students should be given the option to learn about several different areas of interest. Once all schools have access to functioning libraries, students should be allowed to explore different types of knowledge, and teachers should also promote personal growth. Although the new national policy outlines several key steps towards equality, the country must not overlook the lessons of its history as it works toward a more egalitarian future.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.