Policy and Implementation Shortcomings

During the development of the National Curriculum Statement, a separate implementation plan for IKS was not developed. Respondent 4 and 5 reported that emphasis was placed on the writers and publishers of textbooks i.e. that they would take indigenous knowledge seriously and include it in texts.

Furthermore, Respondent 4 reported that whatever implementation plans were developed tended to look much more at the physical requirements for the implementation of the curriculum, such as access to computers and so on. They thus focussed on the methodology rather than the content. He substantiated that it was likely that the focus on methodology rather than content was related to the new pedagogy of outcomes based education which is less content-focussed.

At the commencement of implementation of the National Curriculum Statement various systemic issues had emerged which impacted on the implementation of Principle 8. For example, the tight implementation timelines meant that publishers, textbook writers and education managers were under-prepared to plan adequately and intensely on to enable the system to support implementation. Respondent 5 explained that if they had been allowed sufficient space and scope, the chances are that they could have had a special programme or module in each of the teacher development

programmes to ensure that the principle of indigenous knowledge could be included.

Respondent 5 elucidated that “there is no education manager that has managed education in this context before. We have to enhance learner performance and bring in other programmes such as the culture of teaching and learning. Then we had to look at the promotion of maths, science and technology outputs of the system. Then we had to prepare for the implementation of the new curriculum. In the process of preparing for implementation of the new, there were changes in timelines. Then we had other systemic challenges and had to bring in phasing in of OBE into the FET band. That was another major challenge”. He expressed the hope that by the time the National Curriculum Statement is implemented in Grade 11 and Grade 12 which is in 2007 and 2008 respectively, the system would have stabilised in terms of the capability of Provincial and National Departments to hone in on quality issues.

Currently, according to all the respondents, there are no guidelines, frameworks or methodologies regarding how IKS should be implemented within the curriculum. Furthermore the implementation of Principle 8 to date has been quoted as being inconsistent and limited (Respondent 2) and, according to Respondent 4 the instances of implementation have been fragmented. This can be attributed to a lack of planning and coordination on the part of the relevant authorities, especially during the curriculum development phase.

Respondent 3 expressed the view that the implementation of IKS in the curriculum has not been coherent as “we are starting in the middle”. He explained that it is incorrect to depart from the premise that everyone

understands indigenous knowledge systems and is well conversant with its nuances. To him, a fundamental aspect that is missing is the involvement of experts in the field as well as the inputs of elders who are the actual holders of indigenous knowledge. It is insufficient to rely only on academics wishing to cement their reputations in the field.

However, there are pockets of interventions, mostly run by certain Universities such as the University of the North West, University of Limpopo, University of the Free State and the University of Kwazulu-Natal. Government Departments such as the Department of Science and Technology were also listed as implementers. Respondent 5 commented that currently South Africa’s institutions of higher learning are not very responsive and that the faculties of education at the Universities should be playing a very important role in the interpretation of policy and compliance. Respondent 3 however felt that good work is being done by some Universities, more than what is being done at school level, and that this must be acknowledged.

With respect to preparing teachers to implement IKS, Respondent 5 explained that currently the focus and effort made by the Provincial and National Department of Education is to orientate educators on the National Curriculum Statement. The orientation programmes are largely generic, i.e.

they are not subject specific and the competency of the educator in infusing IKS into the curriculum is not emphasised. This is clearly not in keeping with the requirements of The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa which says that “both conceptual and content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are necessary for effective teaching, together with the teacher’s willingness and ability to reflect on practice and learn from leaners’ own experience of being taught. These

attributes need to be integrated, so that teachers can confidently apply conceptual knowledge in practice” (Department of Education, 2006b:6).

In addition, curriculum-related documents, including the National Curriculum Statement, do not clearly define indigenous knowledge systems. “If you look at most of the curriculum policies, they make reference to indigenous knowledge in terms of the assessment standards and learning outcomes but what has happened from my engagement and interaction with the implementation of the curriculum, I found that there is a varied understanding of what indigenous knowledge means” (Respondent 5). He also expressed the view that it is the responsibility of curriculum developers, learning support material developers and teacher development programmes to elucidate it within the different disciplines. Therefore the success of the implementation of IKS will depend on the definition as well as how it is made relevant to the different subjects. An explicit definition outlining the parameters of indigenous knowledge not only informs what is expected of teachers, but it also inscribes the way teachers articulate understanding and meaning in their learning programmes (Samuels, 2003).

The myopia of the developers of the National Curriculum Statement is perplexing and gives further substance to the commonly held understanding in South Africa, that policy development is not coordinated, both within and between sectors. For example, The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa (Department of Education, 2006b:6) clearly states that teachers work in “extremely complex conditions, largely due to the pervasive legacies of Apartheid, but also as a result of the new policies needed to bring about change in education”. Yet, policy implementation programmes such as teacher training do not demonstrate acknowledgement of this.