In this theme I tried to establish how well prepared teachers were to enact the CAPS policy document. The types of support that will be investigated in my research are in-service training workshops by subject advisors and support by management.
Graven (2002) concluded in her findings after observing teachers making sense of new curriculum and reflecting on learning processes, that teachers learn best within an in-service
70
training (INSET) programme. In-service training provide more than the usual internship, it also provides a follow-up period under personal supervision (Allen, 1940). It supports correct and effective implementation of the curriculum (Beck et al, 2000).
Traditionally, professional development, otherwise known as staff development, is referred to as in-service training (Ono & Ferreira, 2010). Villagas-Reimers (2003) categorises in-service training as the method to: disseminate information related to curriculum; up-grade teacher’s knowledge; prepare teachers to take on new roles; and certification of under-qualified or un- qualified teachers. In-service training was conducted in the form of: courses, conferences, workshops or seminars (Villagas-Reimers, 2003; Ozer, 2004). According to Wilmot (2004), the in-service course initiated by the South African government was the Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) which is offered by South African Universities. These in-service courses enabled teachers to specialise in areas of need, such as Mathematics (Wilmot, 2004).
When participants were questioned about whether they attended in-service workshops, the chorused response was:
“No.”
Participants of this study stated that they were unaware of any in-service training for teachers related to the implementation of CAPS. It seems to me that teachers are unfamiliar with the terminology “in-service training”. Participants A and D have attended the orientation workshop on CAPS, which serves as in-service training.
In my study participants A and D received additional support from workshops (in-service training) organised by the Department of Education.
Participant A:
”We have excellent support. I recently got to know certain things and I think the support is excellent in my district, Durban Central. From the subject advisor, at our moderation workshops he generally takes a half an hour slot or a one hour slot where he will do something relevant to a topic or the exams.”
Participant D:
”From the department, they are organising content workshops and they are enough. even though they are stealing a bit of our time in the
afternoons and Saturdays, but they are giving us support…enough support.”
71
Participant C received support from the Head of Department (Mathematics) at his school as well as other CAPS workshops that he attended.
Participant C:
”if anything that is challenging me, although I have been to a workshop, I just go straight to my HOD and discuss the matter. That’s where I am having a problem at, so we discuss that thing, then maybe there’ll be a solution thereafter.”
However, participant B has received no support at all from any in-service training on CAPS.
Participant B:
“If I ask for it perhaps I would. I must be honest, I haven’t….and we just so busy, there’s no time for it. We haven’t had any workshops at school per-say.”
Participants A and D have received support from their subject advisors, whilst Participant C has attended workshops, he further received sufficient support from the Head of Department at his school. Participant B has not attended any workshops, nor does she receives any support from the Head of Department at her school. The difference in the curriculum support received by all four participants indicates to me that they entered the grade 11 Mathematics classes not having similar training and knowledge of the CAPS document
Beck et al (2000), in their study of the implementation of constructivism in schools in the Northwest region of Ohio (United States of America), advocates that the school management team must be part of in-service training and workshops to equip themselves with reform process and requirements so that they can offer support to teachers for effective implementation. As a Head of Department (Mathematics) myself, I agree with Beck et al in their recommendation that the school management must be trained, because, I feel that the management of the implementation of the curriculum can constructively done if the head of the subject also knows and understands the curriculum reform in order to assist his subordinates.
Participants B had no support from workshops, nor from the school management. This lack of support can be compared to Bantwini’s (2010) findings in his study where the participants indicated that there was a lack of continuous support from the subject advisors after the once
72
off orientation workshop. This shows an inconsistency in the training and support structures offered to all grade 11 Mathematics teachers in assisting them with delivering the new curriculum. Bantwini (2010) affirms that school districts should structure continuous support for teachers to ensure that they appropriately understand the curriculum reform and what it expects of them. In this way misunderstandings of the intended curriculum can be avoided.
Teachers must be adequately equipped to construct knowledge as well as meaning of the curriculum reforms (Bantwini, 2010). Mtshali (2008) recommends that teacher development models must be improved with regular workshops. Workshop sessions that conducted beyond one week provides the opportunity for interactive learning between teachers and facilitators (Mtshali, 2008).