MAPPING THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
4.2 Mapping the presentation of findings
4.2.2. Schools node
At the schools node I aimed to answer the question: How is policy constructed and which SKAV are constituted in practice at the schools node? Presentation of the findings follows a similar pattern as outlined for the DoE node. My analysis (see Appendix D, Annexure D4, p. 193 for analysis) reveals that policy implementation involves more than the performance of a single powerful actor. Figure III below reflects the actors enrolled (resources, competing agencies, exams, frequent curricula change, stakeholders, poor training received, learners) by the teachers during implementation of policy, and the ties between the enrolled actors.
Figure III: Actors enrolled into implementation of policy at the schools node
These actors influence how implementation of policy gets performed, how policy gets constructed, the optical density of the school node and which SKAV get constituted into practice. At the schools node policy gets performed as a juggling act.
Teachers Policy: NCS
NATED
Assessment
Competing Agencies Parents
Principals, SEM,
Teaching approach Curricula content Training
Received
Exams Learners
Resources Apparatus Frequent
Curricula
104
4.2.2.1. Practice performed as a juggling act in a dynamic ecosystem
The multifaceted associations formed with the heterogeneous elements during policy implementation disclose the complexity of the schools node and the competing agencies within its actor network. Policy implementation may thus be seen as an ecosystem with competition, co-operation, frequent environmental changes and development among organisms. These agencies bombard teachers and vie for space and time during policy implementation. Teachers have no choice but to deal with these compromising entities as and when they arise. In the process, teaching is illuminated as a complex and demanding task where teachers have to develop strategies that allow them to make decisions, investigate problems and understand learners’ needs simultaneously. As a result, implementation of policy gets compromised and practice gets performed as a juggling act for space and time.
To cope with the constant daily juggling they have to endure, teachers form an investment alliance with the NSC exams, which benefits both learners and teachers as reflected below:
“It simple we structure our lessons with the exams in mind, so that our learners can excel in the exams. Also during our training session with the subject advisor he emphasised hypothesis testing and planning investigations so much that it’s a certainty in the paper. So we focus on that. We want our learners to excel in the exams, then we also look good, the principal will be happy, SEM is thrilled and feels he is responsible for the results. The end result everybody is happy and you are not bugged about your results at meeting”
Teacher 1, focus group interview (see Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
Good exam results have multiple benefits at the school node. Learners who get good NSC exam results have access to university and jobs. Teachers’ pedagogical identities are associated with best practice, when learners acquire good NSC exam results it also affects
their IQMS scores and salaries. The competing agencies at the schools node command recurring alliance formation with the NSC exams.
Practice being performed as a juggling act reflects the complex relational embeddedness of multiple agents teachers encounter during policy implementation as is visible below:
“They are oblivious of the other demands made on us. We have sport, fund raising, admin work, relief teaching, marking of assessments, collection of funds, coping with social problems of learners, we serve as counselors, welfare workers, police. They don’t see the time constrains we are faced with on a daily basis. They see the curriculum unfolding from their offices in Pretoria or Truro house with no interruptions to teaching time”
Anecdotal image 5, see Appendix D, Annexure D2, p. 215)
The meaningful language (oblivious, other demands made on us, don’t see constraints we face)) in the excerpts above show how practice is sustained as part of the ongoing reconfiguration occurring during policy implementation. Practice being performed as a juggling act shows that policy implementation does not occur in the vacuum envisaged by the DoE but in the evolving dynamics of the schools ecosystem. Therefore, the gazetted policy is not a “stable thing” to be implemented as proposed, it evolves in the school environment. As it evolves it gets (re)produced, (re)constructed in certain ways within the practice of implementation. Each construction of policy shows how teachers and material agents are reciprocally intertwined in this struggle.
4.2.2.2. Policy construction
At the school node policy is constructed in four ways viz. as experimental, mutating and estranged; as an alien invader; as a game and as a hindrance to implementation.
106
4.2.2.2.1. Construction of policy as experimental, mutating and estranged
Teachers use their lived experiences of frequent curricula change to bring to the fore the tensions and uncertainties they encounter during curriculum policy reform. These tensions and uncertainties teachers encounter leads to the construction of policy as experimental, mutating and endangered. This particular construction of policy signals the disempowerment, destabilisation, foreignness, anxieties, tension and uncertainty teachers stumble upon during policy reform and implementation. The excerpts below portray policy as being a repeated clinical trial process, as foreign or lacking familiarity with teachers, and as an abusive experiment conducted on teachers:
“We are both guinea-pigs in DoE’s experiment,we didn’t have a say in drawing up this curriculum. Now we have to implement it successfully”
Teacher 1 (focus group interview, see Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
The excerpts below clarify how teachers are “othered” by the curriculum formulation process and the power relations they encounter.
“Every time there is a new minister of education there is a new policy”
Teacher 4, (focus group interview, see Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
“I’m just so sick of all this inadequate training, re-training, deskilling, reskilling, trying to implement this curriculum only to have it changed before I get the hang of it”
Teacher 3 (focus group interview, see Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 231)
These excerpts reveal that teachers allude to power relations during the policy-making process. Furthermore, they concur with the findings of the preliminary survey (see Chapter One). These excerpts show that implementation of policy is a hierarchal “top down” process, with teachers reduced to a lower status (“guinea-pigs”). This illustrates how teachers are positioned by the DoE and subject advisors during policy
transformation. These power relations reflect the tension between those with access to resources and those without (see Chapter One, pp. 9 and 10), and also between those whose opinions are valued and those whose opinions are ignored. This finding indicates that unless these power issues are made apparent and are addressed, they will continue undermining policy implementation and SKAV development. What comes to the fore is that teacher inputs are not valued during the policy reform process.
The construction of policy as experimental, mutating and estranged makes apparent the iterative scaffolding process that occurs during the reconstruction of our education landscape (“only to have it changed before I get the hang of it”). The analysis depicts the uncertainties teachers encounter during curriculum policy reform, and illustrates that the policy-making process ignores the teachers’ experiences (“sick, reskilling, deskilling, trying”) in dealing with frequent mandatory policy changes. The frequent curricula change that teachers encounter (reskilling and de-skilling) reflects the contestation they experience from their exclusion from the policy-making process (“we don’t have a say”).
The above excerpts also highlight the anxieties about transition that teachers encounter when subjected to frequent curricula change, in terms of who they are and who they should be. Teachers are overwhelmed by the frequent changes, become disempowered, and feel uncertain about their pedagogical practice. The frequent de-skilling and reskilling leads to teacher frustration and leaves them in a state of “limbo”. They never seem to be able to meet their own expectations and are uncertain about meeting the many expectations of other actors. As a result, practice gets performed with uncertainty.
The uncertainty that teachers encounter during policy reform and the pressure from subject advisors and stakeholders’ expectations to demonstrate their competence in the implementation of policy, drives teachers to form alliances with NSC exam results as reflected below:
“We need to show that we are au fait with the content and requirement of the curriculum. One way of illustrating this is by teaching for the exams so learners
108
Teacher 2 (focus group interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
Superficial linear associations are therefore perpetuated between good NSC exam results and successful implementation of policy. These results are equated with teachers’
competence with curricula content. Therefore, the alliance formed with the NSC exam results leads to subversion of policy goals in respect of the vision for teachers and learners and curricula content, and controls SKAV development. Practice gets performed as a dress rehearsal for the NSC exams (“teach for exams”). The power the NSC exams exert over implementation of policy surfaces. Alliances are also formed with learners to achieve a positive outcome and to affirm their role in their performance. This linear relationship between good NSC exam results and best practice is perpetuated by teachers themselves at the school node. The above excerpts bring to light how teachers shape and construct their professional identity. Good NSC exam results become a credentialing agent for teachers as well. The uncertainties, conflict and tensions that teachers encounter leads to the construction of policy as an alien invader.
4.2.2.2.2. Construction of policy as an alien invader
Teachers use the various activities they engage in such as fund raising, sport, admin work, attending meeting, students’ social welfare issues elucidate the laborious process of teaching. These actors illuminate the web of socio-material actors that impact on implementation of policy and exacerbate teacher anxieties, tensions and uncertainties.
Hence policy is constructed as an alien invader. The NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy is contradicted in terms of its vision for policy implementation, its envisaged teaching approach, and the image of the teachers and learners. This construction of policy elucidates that curriculum implementation does not occur in a vacuum, and that other agencies vie with policy for space and time, as reflected in the excerpt below:
“There are many dynamics within the school situation that impact on our teaching time such as curtailment of teaching time for fund raising activities, attending to social welfare issues like house parties, drugs and alcohol abuse,
sport, observing peers’ lessons for IQMS, completing admin work, stats returns for department or district office, dealing with discipline issues on a daily basis;
therefore it’s easier to teach for the exams.”
Teacher 3 (focus group interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
“They lack an understanding of the dynamics of a school in terms of time available for teaching, on paper it seems there is enough time, but our lessons are often curtailed to complete forms, fund raise, sports, debates, attend to social welfare issues of learners, attend meetings in the evenings and weekends, often people think teaching is a 7:30 to 2:30 job, its not I barely have time for my own children, when I teach I’m forced to focus on the exam requirements only, there is no time to teach for understanding social justice issues”
Anecdotal image 4, journal entry, (Appendix D, Annexure, D2 p. 214)
These competing agencies, such as fund raising, sport, departmental stats, discipline issues, social welfare issues and IQMS create divergences in the network of policy implementation (impact on teaching time) and subvert policy goals. Teachers allude to the pressure of these competing agencies and form alliances with the NSC exam results (“teach for exams”). The alliance formed with the NSC exams is intended to reduce the severity of the conflict teachers encounter over the contestable f(actors) like time and space. Valuable teaching time gets juggled with competing entities, and implementation of policy gets performed as a juggling act. The metaphor of juggling connotes competing agencies maintained in continuous motion. The teacher is the juggler who engages in this balancing act to prevent competing agencies from collapsing onto him/her. Juggling becomes an adaptation strategy for survival and continuity in the network. The perpetual juggling results in the construction of policy as a game.
110 4.2.2.2.3. Construction of policy as a game
Teachers understanding that their pedagogical identity is constructed by the type of exam results their learners produce imply that they competently participate in the practice of connecting these two concepts during policy implementation. This leads to the construction of policy as a game. The NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy becomes invalid in respect of its philosophy, AS, teaching approach and vision for teachers and learners when policy is constructed as a game. The notion of policy as a game dismisses policy as an arbitrary exercise, for which teachers have developed manageable mechanics of play, as can be seen in the excerpts below:
“It’s a win- win situation for all of us and everybody is happy. So I do what I can with the poor training I receive, I teach for the exams”
Teacher 5 (focus group interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
“I don’t worry too much about the philosophy of the curriculum as it’s not my vision for learners, I teach for the exams, so I look good when the learners’ exam results are good”
Teacher 3 (focus group interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 231)
“We are judged by exam results, everybody expects good results so why not teach for exams? These results will go on their CAO forms for university entrance and, my IQMS rating will be high.”
Teacher 1 (focus group interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
“We are under tremendous pressure to produce good results by the subject advisor, SEM, principal and parents. We are judged by these results, if the results are good they are good managers and its like we have nothing to do with I, they are responsible for the teaching, if the results are not up to expectation we are poor teachers”
Anecdotal image 2, journal entry, (Appendix D, Annexure D2, P. 213)
The excerpts above highlight that policy implementation is reduced to a high-stakes game (“win-win situation”), with good NSC exam results being the valued prize for learners and teachers. Thus, practice gets performed as an investment game, whereby deposits are made by teachers into learners. To secure the investment, alliances are formed with the NSC exam results and learners. The alliances formed with learners serve to motivate and instill qualities and a particular image of success in learners in order to affirm them and their progress. Deposits into learners are construed as an investment that allows learners access to university.
The investment returns for teachers are that good NSC exam results get equated to best practice. The implications of this investment game are that teachers use learners’
performance in the NSC exams to validate their own success as teachers. This leads to subversion of policy goals in terms of the kind of learner emerging from the FET band.
The NSC exam results are used as a yardstick for measuring good practice, IQMS scores, the efficacies with which teachers implement policy and learners’ access to tertiary institutions. The expectations that stakeholders have of teachers in respect of exams confirms the centrality of the NSC exams at the schools node, as well as how teachers’
identities get constructed by the NSC exam results. The centrality of the NSC exam results in the construction of policy as a hindrance.
4.2.2.2.4. Construction of policy as a hindrance
Teachers use the difficult lengthy syllabus, difficult exam papers in Life Sciences and the poor training they receive to depict the barriers, challenges and impediments they encounter during policy implementation. The emergence of these actors during policy implementation results in the construction of policy as a hindrance.
The NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy is annulled in terms of its curricula content, strategy
112
depicted as an enemy to its own goals and vision for education. It shows the imposition teachers encounter in their engagement with policy, as reflected in the excerpts below:
“Other learning areas do not have lengthy content, difficult exam papers or two exam papers”
Teacher 1 (interview, Appendix D, Annexure, D6, p. 230)
“Learners have difficulty in reading and understanding the language of science, biology has its own vocabulary and language, learners find the terminology difficult to comprehend, the wording of the questions are not straight forward, learners have to deconstruct the questions many times before they can answer it.
The papers are set in English so the majority of my learners who are second language English speaker are faced with these challenges, so the exam paper set denies access to learners in Life Sciences, instead of broadening access”
Anecdotal image 3, journal entry, (Appendix D, Annexure D2, P. 213)
“Other subjects have more A’s than Life Sciences in the National Senior certificate exams, their papers are not long with difficult language”
Teacher 3 (interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 230)
“Its easy for them to stand in the front during the training session and tell us to implement the curriculum but we would rather have a practical demonstration, a show and tell of how to do it in our classroom.”
Anecdotal image 5, journal entry, (Appendix D, Annexure D2, P. 215)
“So I do what I can with the poor training I receive. I don’t worry too much about the philosophy of the curriculum as it’s not my vision for learners, I just focus on exam requirements.”
Teacher 2 (focus group interview, Appendix D, Annexure D6, p. 231)
The construction of policy as a hindrance illuminates teachers’ discontent and irritation with the mediation of policy (“tell us what to do”, “poor training”), the lengthy curricula content, difficult exam papers, and their lack of involvement in the policy formulation process. Teachers are discontent with the poor top-down professional development (“poor training I receive”) they receive during policy reform. The kind of professional development offered to teachers is not aligned with the philosophical orientation of policy, and leads to subversion of policy.
The lack of involvement of teachers in the curriculum policy-making process becomes an insurmountable barrier that inhibits them from sharing or embracing the NCS-FET Life Sciences Policy’s philosophy for education. The lack of consultation with teachers results in obligatory alliance formation with the DoE, and leads to subversion in the Policy’s vision for learners, teachers, ASs and teaching approach. Teachers are asking to be consulted about policy reform as well as the type of professional development and support they require during policy reform (“show and tell”). This means, that teacher development should be done with teachers - and not to them.
As a consequence of policy being a hindrance (“lengthy content”, “difficult exam papers”, “not my vision”), teachers form alliances with the NSC exams and teach with the specific aim of satisfying examination requirements (“focus on exam requirements”).
The alliance formed with the NSC exams exposes the ways that networks of relations are composed, and how alliances are made durable to cope with impediments. This alliance with exams invariably subverts policy in terms of its image of teachers and learners, and the development of critical thinking and problem solving in learners.
4.2.2.3. Optical density of the schools node
The optical density of the schools node is determined by the ties among the heterogeneous elements in the network created by the teachers. Ties are formed with difficult syllabi, competing agencies, reskilling and de-skilling, frequent curricula