PROBLEM STATEMENT

Following from this background section, three overarching observations are discussed below.

Importantly, these observations form the foundation for the problem that is identified and addressed through this study:

• NQF development and implementation has been contested since conceptualisation

• Stakeholders have unrealistic expectations of the NQF

• Power struggles exist and influence NQF development and implementation.

1.3.1 NQF development and implementation has been contested since conceptualisation

Firstly, contestation seems to have always formed part of NQF implementation. Since the initial conceptualisation in the early 1980s to the more recent period of uncertainty, contestations are noted:

Education and, to a less visible extent, training have been contested terrain throughout most of South Africa’s history. The roots of the NQF lie in these contestations and in the necessity for all South Africans to be able to equip themselves with the tools needed to negotiate life positively and productively (SAQA, 2000:4).

Nkomo’s (2004b:2) advice is that we should not be labouring to avoid the contestations; we should rather extract the “pearly ideas” from the contestations to give momentum to continued NQF implementation:

This is indeed the start of a new period of NQF development and implementation; a period that shows maturity that goes beyond our initial period of exhilaration and transformation – this is a time to accept that contestations are, and will most probably always be, part of NQF implementation. Instead of labouring to avoid contestations, we should

rather…manage and extract the pearly ideas from the contestations so as to give renewed momentum to an improved NQF…

A comment from Badat (2004:4) echoes a similar sentiment:

In reality there is neither an entirely neo-liberal inspired reform process and pervasive and hegemonic neo-liberalism, nor a wholly revolutionary sweeping displacement of old social structures and arrangements and dawn of an entirely new social order. Instead, there is a mixed picture and fluid situation characterised by contesting social forces with competing goals, strategies and policy agendas, by attempts to resolve profound economic and social paradoxes in differing ways, by continuities and breaks and contradictions and ambiguities in policy and practice, and by differing trajectories and trends. The post-apartheid South African social order is not yet indelibly defined and continues to be uncertain.

1.3.2 Stakeholders have unrealistic expectations of the NQF

The second common theme that emerges is concerned with the unrealistic expectations imposed on the NQF. Both McGrath’s (1997) early observation that the NQF policy “promised much” and the following comment by Jansen (2004b:95) allude to this theme:

The first reason the NQF has had minimal impact in the South African education and training system is quite simply that the NQF promised what it could never deliver in

practice. This in part has to do with the nature and complexity of practice, but it has a lot to do with the idealism and euphoria of policymaking in the years immediately preceding and following the formal installation of a democratic government in 1994. Put bluntly, we got carried away.

1.3.3 Power struggles exist and influence NQF development and implementation

A third theme that emerges from the periodical review is that of continued power struggles, posturing and political manoeuvring. The evidence is overwhelming. From most recent SAQA reports (e.g. SAQA, 2005), back to early discussion documents such as the Ways of seeing the NQF (HSRC, 1995), and even to a wide range of newspaper articles, such as the one below, all have this similar message:

So, what is all the anger and frustration about? Why have the departments of education and labour been forced to negotiate a new framework? Why is there the perception of a turf war between the two departments? Why should we be restructuring only a few years after the establishment of new structures? (Jewison, 2004:14)

Young (2005:9) agrees, and adds that it is not surprising that NQF implementation faces resistance from vested interests expressed as power relations:

NQFs are top down initiatives led by governments or government agencies and based on a set of general principles about how qualifications should be designed and what they should achieve…It follows, not surprisingly, that implementing an NQF is likely to face

considerable resistance from vested interests. These interests may be an expression of power relations (such as different roles of employers, trade unions and different sectors of

the teaching profession) or it may be that the NQF challenges the day to day practices of assessors, teachers or managers.

In view of these observations the following problem is identified, although it remains unconfirmed until sufficient supporting evidence is found, which is ultimately the reason for undertaking this study:

Power struggles are having a negative effect on the development and implementation of the South African NQF.

Two additional underlying problems and related research questions follow from the identification of this problem:

1. Unrealistic expectations of NQF stakeholders: Do stakeholders have unrealistic

expectations of what the NQF is supposed to achieve? Is stakeholders’ support for the NQF waning because the NQF is not delivering what they think it should?

2. NQF rooted in contestations: Have contestations been part of NQF development and implementation even since its conceptualisation?

This problem (as well as the additional underlying problems and research questions) is revisited throughout this thesis and forms an important focus point of the research design of the study.