WARNING: This is a long post. But it's about an important matter, so I think you can forgive me.
I am definitely getting pregnancy brain. This afternoon we had a PROGRO, and I forgot about it completely - even though I'm on the committee that organises these sessions for the staff! Sigh!
We were very privileged to have Prof Brian O'Connell as our guest speaker today. He is currently the Rector and Vice-Chancellor at UWC, but he has a very long history in education, having started out as a humble teacher. Before being appointed Rector of UWC, Brian O’Connell was Head of the Western Cape Education Department, from 1995 to October 2001. He obtained a B.A. Honours Degree in History from UNISA (with distinction), and M.A. and M.Ed Degrees from Columbia University in New York. O’Connell’s contribution to education has been acknowledged and rewarded with a Fullbright Scholarship to the United States, two British yCouncil grants and an Anglo-American Chairman’s Fund grant. So - rather a distinguished guest, actually.
His topic was based around our theme for the year, which is "Leadership in the classroom". He started by looking at why Homo sapiens has been so successful as a species. Essentially, there are 5 so-called humanising factors that have enabled us to be so (frontal cortex, development of language, development of technology, adaptive capability, and a scientific sense, if memory serves me). He then outlined the top 10 current revolutions facing humanity en masse, which are all occurring simultaneously - things like globalisation, population explosion, global warming, technology explosion, etc).
His point was that in order to cope with these 10 revolutions, humanity is going to need to think its way through them, which will rely upon us having people who are able to make use of their humanising factors - their ability to develop the necessary language to communicate effectively about the problems facing the world and to develop the technology needed to solve those problems, which requires the use of their adaptive capabilities, etc, etc. The only way to achieve all this is to have excellent education.
Thus, he established the centrality of education to the life or death of humanity as a species, but also of the planet as a whole. As I said - you really had to be there to hear the whole argument... what I'm writing here really doesn't do it justice, but as I suspect this is going to be an extremely long post, I have to try to keep it as short as I can.
Bringing this home to SA, Prof O'Connell then took us through a brief or potted history of the aftermath of 300 yrs of colonialism and 50 yrs of Apartheid on our nation, w.r.t. education in particular. Essentially, the problem was two-fold: more money being spent on the minority, and many of the majority boycotting education in protest to Apartheid. We all know this, but the picture he painted of how we got there was fascinating. It certainly opened my eyes to some things I hadn't realised. Of course, I was only born the year before the Soweto uprising, so that doesn't really surprise me.
His conclusion from this brief history tour was that the new democratic government was faced with 3 possibilities. Pour enough money into education so that the majority could be brought up to the standards of the minority (but that would mean not spending money on housing, primary health care, provision of primary services like sanitation/ electricity/ water, etc); Grow the economy dramatically (but with an entire generation having boycotted education, how would that be feasible?); Reduce the unit expenditure.
Had the government taken the strategic step of painting a picture for the nation, we might have been able to go the route of the first option. However, the ANC promised the people that they would all receive a house, electricity, water, appliances (fridges, stoves, etc) , land, etc, etc, etc. To go back on those promises would have spelt disaster.
The second option was no option, so that left the last option. The problem with this option is that it left everybody dissatisfied. It's the 1.6 rule. Let's use an analogy to explain it. Assume there are 10 children being educated. Under Apartheid, the government spent R5 on the first (white kids), R3 on the second (coloured kids), and R1 on each of the other 8 (black kids). That makes R16. Reducing unit expenditure means spreading that R16 equally between all 10 children - R1.60 each.
The first child isn't happy because you can't provide quality education to a child on just R1.60. The second child isn't happy because he fought in the Struggle, but now is getting less. The other eight children aren't happy either, because they had been promised the R5 education the first child had been getting.
So now we sit with a system where no-one is getting a decent education in South Africa. This is a problem. Why? Well, for SA to succeed, it has to deal not only with learning about what democracy is and how it operates (and that's another whole post on its own because the people living in this land have never had true democracy), but they are also faced with the 10 revolutions taking place in the world. In addition to this, we are already severely limited by the debt the Apartheid government ran up by taking loans from the national pension schemes... to the tune of R1.4 BILLION. (Trevor Manuel - we bless you for the work you have done over the past 14 years trying to repay that debt as quickly as possible!!!) AND, SA has the additional problems of TB and HIV. (I'll do a separate post on that...)
To add insult to injury, the new democratic government decided to change the curriculum. Anyone who has taught in SA will understand the debacle that Curriculum 2005 has been from a purely practical stance. e.g. No textbooks. Why? Because the politicians forgot that to teach a new curriculum you need new textbooks. (I kid you not! They simply didn't bother to budget for them.)
However, something I didn't understand about the new curriculum was explained to me today. The ANC wished to steer clear of anything that smacked of Apartheid, but with education they did the exact opposite. By changing the curriculum, they were actually sending the message that blacks, coloureds and Asians did not have the brains or the wherewithal to cope with the previous curriculum... i.e. the message they were sending was that the whites were right in thinking that the rest of the nation were inherently inferior.
OMW! Why didn't I see that before????
Instead, they should have stuck with the original curriculum (and saved themselves oodles of money that could then have been spent on raising standards in non-white schools.
But anyway, now we are sitting with a situation in which kids' literacy is amongst the worst in the world, in which education is not highly regarded, and in which we are failing to adequately prepare our youth for their future role in leading this country.
It is into this scenario that he addressed us as teachers. I have always believed that teaching is not just a job. I have always believed that what I do really matters. After today though, I see a new facet to that belief. What I do really matters, because the future of this country, and the future of the world, rests upon the quality of the education its children receive. Without a quality education, we will never develop the potential of the geniuses who will find the solutions to the revolutions currently facing us. If that doesn't happen, well, we can kiss this world goodbye.
In 50 years' time, the suburb in which I live will be under water and Table Mountain will be an island.....
...UNLESS... unless I (or my colleagues across the world) can nurture that one child who will make the scientific breakthrough that will help to not just solve the problem of climate change, but reverse it.
Education is not just central to the future of the planet. Education IS the future of the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment