South Africa’s minister of Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga has released a report from a ministerial task team that recommends a major overhaul of the history curriculum at schools. Most of the debate around the report has focused on its main recommendation – to make history compulsory in the final three years of high school from 2023.
By Linda Chisholm, Professor of Education
at University of Johannesburg
The proposal faces steep challenges. One of the most important might be the availability of enough well-trained history teachers to meet the demand. The report acknowledges this. But it underestimates what will be needed to train new teachers. Can universities and specifically education faculties deliver? The funding crisis facing South African universities is well-reported. Less well-known is how it specifically affects education faculties tasked with training teachers.
I was involved in a 2017 research paper on the training of history teachers in 20 universities and universities of technology (see footnote). What we found was that the country’s education schools weren’t in a position to produce adequate numbers of good history teachers to meet the need if history was made compulsory in Grades 10-12.
The research findings made it clear that the preparation of history teachers as well as the teaching of history is in serious need of attention.
The ability to prepare new history teachers to meet the demand for a policy like this will be hamstrung by two things: the low status of history and teacher education in general in universities; and ongoing budget cuts.
In addition, there are structural constraints in the funding model of universities and education faculties that will make it hard to bring the necessary staff on board. Without additional resources to train new teachers, the risk is that unqualified staff will be used and the quality of preparation will become poorer than it already is.
The task team’s report acknowledges that teachers will need to be trained and developed. But it doesn’t provide enough information to enable an assessment of how many teachers will be needed. Nor it is clear how many new teachers will need to be taken in by universities and trained.
The report is creating a new demand for history teachers – a long-standing resolution of policy conferences of the ruling African National Congress – but this may remain an unfunded mandate unless funding of universities, and in turn of education faculties, changes. The chances of this are slim.
Education faculties have one of the most important jobs at universities – to prepare teachers properly to ensure that the entrants from schools to other faculties are well-qualified. Yet they are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to funding and resources.
Complex formulae govern this. As the least powerful faculty in universities, it is unlikely that others, such as medicine or law or engineering, will agree to improving the formula in favour of education.
The impact of the funding regime for education – and specifically for preparing history teachers – has been dramatic. Staffing has declined dramatically over the last decade. And unsurprisingly there have been staff cuts in some of the most vulnerable areas, including history, because it’s not seen as critical to economic development. In the meantime, however, students continue to register for history.
What this means, as our 2016-17 study showed, is that staff members cut corners. Huge classes mean that it is impossible to lecture and be heard, let alone mark each and every assignment. We heard repeated accounts of how assistants who had no qualification in history were appointed to assist with marking.