Analysis of the educator questionnaire

The questionnaire for educators covered topics including (i) knowledge about Parliament, (ii) Parliament and active citizenship and (iii) their opinions about the LO curriculum and Parliament.

Section A suggested that the educators‟ level of knowledge, skills, values and understanding of Parliament was limited. In respect of question 1, the educators were able to identify the names of the two houses of Parliament and understood that they can influence decision-making processes.

However, they were not well informed about the differences between Parliament and Government, which was evident in their responses to questions 4 through to 6 whereby 50% of the educators gave correct responses whilst 25% gave an incorrect answer and 25% left a blank response. This may imply that there is a lack of substantial knowledge and understanding about

178

Parliament. Furthermore, it may suggest that educators are unaware of the difference between Parliament and Government within the context of the Three Arms of State which is also referred to as the separation of powers. The 'Arms of State' refers to the manner in which the country is governed and includes the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary (Parliament of RSA, 2011b). The lack of understanding of the differences amongst the Arms suggests that the educators are either not well-informed about democratic structures and processes or show apathy towards political considerations.

Section B of the questionnaire mainly dealt with aspects relating to Parliament and active citizenship. It was very interesting that none of the educators participating in this study visited Parliament prior to the data collection process. All the educators indicated in question 1 of section B that they have never visited Parliament. Questions 2 – 7 in the questionnaire indicated that none of the educators participated in any parliamentary process or activity and their main source of information about Parliament was accessed through media structures, including news on television or newspapers. In terms of community involvement, 75% of the educators did not belong to any community organisation, which is regarded as one of the key elements of active citizenship that was highlighted by Kerr and Nelson (2005) and the Council of Europe (2004).

Section B thus shows that the educators are not actively involved in parliamentary process. For example, the educators have never written a submission to Parliament nor have they petitioned Parliament. Furthermore, educators have never attended a parliamentary committee meeting or visited Parliament through parliamentary educational tours. These are some of the ways in which to participate in the processes and activities of Parliament.

In the context of this study the findings suggest that many educators in the education system may be facing similar challenges regarding knowledge, skills, values and understanding of democratic processes of democratic structures including Parliament. However, educators with this limited knowledge about Parliament are expected to teach learners about democratic processes and structures including the three spheres of government and Parliament. It was clear that despite the limited knowledge about Parliament, the educators kept themselves informed through various media platforms including newspapers, radio and following the news.

Section B of the questionnaire furthermore highlighted the challenge regarding public education  

179

programmes about the processes and activities of Parliament. It is clear that it is an enormous task to inform a large population of citizens about the processes and activities of Parliament.

However, every citizen has the right to be informed and actively participate in democratic processes. The participating educators displayed a high level of interest in acquiring knowledge about Parliament. Biographically, 75% of the participating educators had more than 15 years of teaching experience and 25% had less than 5 years teaching experience. This was very interesting in terms of the level of knowledge, skills, values and understanding of Parliament and active citizenship amongst the participants. It was evident that a similar lack of knowledge, skills, values and understanding existed amongst the participant educators regardless of years of teaching experience. I would like to reiterate the notion that these educators are expected to teach learners about democratic structures and active citizenship in a democracy. The limited knowledge and understanding about Parliament amongst LO educators poses many challenges.

These challenges included the limited extent to which learners are taught about active citizenship and democratic structures such as Parliament. The latter suggests that the lack of knowledge and understanding may have an impact on the apathy amongst citizens in general about active citizenship and democratic structures.

Section C focussed on the educators‟ opinions about the LO curriculum and active citizenship.

The educators strongly agree that it is important that children should learn about active citizenship and that the curriculum should teach children about aspects relating to active citizenship including human rights, democracy, public participation and inclusivity. It was very interesting when comparing the educators‟ responses to the questionnaire and their interview responses in that the questionnaire responses indicated that 75% of the educators agreed that the curriculum teaches learners „enough‟ about Parliament and active citizenship and that the Grade 11 learners were being effectively prepared for active citizenship whilst 25% disagreed.

Interestingly, the educator who disagreed has been teaching for more than 25 years. This raised the question about the educators‟ perception of „enough‟ in the context of preparing learners for active citizenship. However, the question arises as to what would constitute „enough‟ within the context of this study. In my opinion, „enough‟ would encompass comprehensive theory and practical application of aspects relating to active citizenship with a focus on the quality of the information and content and not quantity.

180

UNESCO (1998) provides insight on the extent to which citizenship education programmes should prepare citizens. A holistic citizenship education programme should encompass three objectives including (i) educating people in citizenship and human rights; (ii) learning to exercise one‟s judgement; and (iii) acquiring a sense of individual and community responsibility (UNESCO, 1998). Ross (2012) further adds that many in the citizenship education movement would aspire to educational processes that empowered citizens by providing the intellectual skills and the practical knowledge to individuals who will critically engage with and seek to influence the course of social events. The element that stands out for me is the teaching of citizenship and human rights education. In addition, citizens should be empowered to the extent whereby they are able to critically engage in political, social and economic contexts. This notion of critical engagement links to Paulo Freire‟s views on emancipation through critical thinking, which emphasises that citizens be educated and empowered to actively participate and contribute meaningfully to society (Freire, 1998).

Due to the quantitative nature of the questionnaire, it was thus necessary to explore certain questions in more depth. Subsequently, the focus group interview responses allowed me to obtain in-depth information on the extent to which the curriculum teaches learners about Parliament and active citizenship and how effective the LO curriculum prepares learners about active citizenship in a democracy. This is elaborated on in the discussion dealing with the analysis of focus group interviews.