Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TEACHERS’ ROLES
IN THE INSTITUTIONAL WORK OF CURRICULUM REFORMS:
COMPARING CASES FROM BOTSWANA AND SOUTH AFRICA
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Nii Antiaye Addy
March 2012
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/gp954fp4477
© 2012 by Nii Antiaye Addy. All Rights Reserved.
Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
ii
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Martin Carnoy, Primary Adviser
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Prudence Carter
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Walter Powell
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
W Scott
Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.
Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education
This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file inUniversity Archives.
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
Motivation for Study. Worldwide, teachers are often blamed for failures in
curriculum reforms. Yet, do teachers actually shape reforms, or are teachers instead
shaped by reforms? How may teachers’ roles in shaping or being shaped by reform
processes vary from one education system to the next? These questions motivate my
comparison of teachers’ roles in cases of curriculum reforms in Botswana and South
Africa, adjacent middle-income southern African countries with divergent histories and
educational outcomes.
Although Botswana and South Africa have initiated a number of curriculum
reforms, exemplified by processes that began almost simultaneously in the early 2000s,
students from Botswana typically have had higher test scores than their South African
counterparts. Divergences in the educational outcomes of the two countries point to
differences in their socio-political histories, and raise questions about differences in their
respective curriculum reform processes. My study specifically focuses on the roles of
teachers in the reforms of the respective countries.
Approach. This study began during my participation in a Spencer Foundation
funded study of teaching quality in Botswana and South Africa’s North-West Province
(NWP) in 2009 (see Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming). I present an organization studies
perspective that builds upon prior political and sociological perspectives. I conceptualize
curriculum reforms in SSA as processes, or sequences of “individual and collective
events, actions, and activities unfolding over time in context” (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 338),
with teachers being among other groups of actors that play roles. Within the framework
provided by institutional theory on institutional processes (Scott, 2001, p. 93), I
conceptualize curriculum reforms as multi-level policy-practice processes, which emerge
from specific histories and occur in socio-political contexts that may differ from one
country to another (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 114). I situate my study among process
studies, which are more concerned with “a series of occurrences of events rather than a
set of relations among variables” (Mohr, 1982, p. 54), and do not attempt to locate
“singular causes” for outcomes (Abell, 2004, p. 296).
v
I address the following research questions:
1. How were societal processes within the respective socio-political contexts of
Botswana and South Africa related to curriculum reform and teacher policies that
emerged by the mid-1990s?
2. How did the organizational structures concerned with teachers’ roles in the
curriculum reforms of the 2000s emerge on either side of the Botswana-South
Africa border, and what were the similarities and differences in teachers’ non-
teaching roles and the time they spent teaching within their respective inter-
organizational structures during the 2009 school year?
3. How did differences in the primary mathematics curricula of Botswana and South
Africa emerge, despite teachers’ involvement in both processes in the early
2000s?
I draw upon my analyses of documents, interviews of policymakers and teachers,
teacher surveys, assessments, and classroom data and present findings from three
perspectives. Although the cases studied of reform processes do not allow for making
grand causal claims, they emphasize history in showing how Botswana and South Africa
teachers’ teaching and non-teaching roles in the 2000s either benefitted from or were
constrained by policies, organizational structures, and curricula that they had partly
contributed to creating in prior periods in their respective socio-political contexts.
Findings. First, at the societal level (Chapter 4), teachers engaged in reforms as
members of society involved in societal reform processes spanning decades, out of which
emerged education policies within their specific socio-political contexts. I compare the
societal reform processes in Botswana and South Africa over the 20th century, until the
mid-1990s, out of which emerged policies on curriculum formulation, teacher training
and support, and curriculum implementation. Whereas Botswana’s state-led development
processes after the 1970s specified policies on teacher training and curriculum
development, South Africa’s authoritative apartheid system repressed its teachers, who
became politicized. South African teachers’ political resistance contributed to
overcoming apartheid, after which there emerged a policy focus on engaging in
participatory curriculum development processes in opposition to exclusionary apartheid
era processes. However, in the post-apartheid context where teachers were now
vi
“empowered,” there was limited policy specification on how to engage in teacher
training.
Second, at the organizational field level (Chapter 5), teachers were inhabitants of
multiple organizations in curriculum policy-practice (CPP) fields, made up of schools,
government agencies, teacher training institutes, and teacher unions and professional
organizations (at national, provincial/regional, and district levels), through which they
participated in teaching and non-teaching activities, such as curriculum development and
providing curriculum support over multiple years. I compare CPP fields in Botswana and
South Africa since the 1990s, with a focus on 6th grade mathematics teachers who were
teaching along the Botswana-South Africa border, in Botswana’s Southern Region and
South Africa’s North-West Province (NWP) during the 2009 academic year. In both
contexts, teachers reported that they found aspects of their respective curricula to be
“vague,” making it challenging to implement the curricula as intended. Additionally, they
found the curricula to be too “loaded,” given their already heavy non-teaching workloads.
Teachers reported that non-teaching activities such as participating in school department
and committee meetings and workshops took them out of class often. Such activities were
associated with their actual number of lessons covered in the school year – curriculum
coverage – being less than expected. However, in the post-apartheid South African
context where post-apartheid policies from the 1990s emphasized socio-political
curriculum aims of democratizing curriculum as well as participatory curriculum
development processes, NWP teachers’ reports indicated that they were engaging in more
expansive non-teaching activities, such as participating in union meetings, and they had
relatively less curriculum coverage than their Botswana counterparts. The gaps between
the intended curriculum and implemented curriculum were bigger in the NWP than
across the border, in Botswana’s Southern Region.
Third, at the group level (Chapter 6), teachers were members of groups –
curriculum formulation committees – made up of functionally diverse committee
members, who spent several months developing curriculum materials that were then used
in schools. I find that despite teachers “participating” in curriculum formulation
committees in both Botswana and South Africa in the early 2000s, there were
divergences in the formulation processes and the respective 6th grade mathematics
vii
curricula that emerged and were being used in the adjacent countries during the 2009
school year. A larger, more functionally diverse committee in Botswana included
practicing primary school teachers in a more in-depth, albeit slower curriculum
formulation process. Teachers and teacher trainers drew from their past experiences and
negotiated with other future-oriented, policy-focused committee members to specify a
relatively highly structured curriculum, with a relatively smaller scope, to address
teachers’ workload concerns. South Africa’s smaller committee included one practicing
secondary school teacher, but no primary school teachers, in a curriculum formulation
process that had shorter timelines, which informants indicated was partly due to political
pressure. In the South African context, faster-paced formulation processes were
associated with the committee’s “borrowing” of foreign curricula, and relatively limited
feedback from practicing primary school teachers for adapting and finalizing the
curriculum produced. A more ambitious curriculum with a relatively bigger scope and
less structure emerged in South Africa, as compared with Botswana. Botswana’s
curriculum was associated with smaller policy-practice gaps among sampled teachers
from the Southern Region, relative to the case of teachers from South Africa’s NWP.
Theoretical Contributions. My perspectives on teachers’ roles in multi-level,
multi-phased processes of curriculum reforms contribute to the emerging literature on
institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2011), which is defined
as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining
and disrupting institutions.” Using such a framework, I find that teachers are neither
completely “trapped by institutional arrangements” of policies, nor are they
“hypermuscular institutional entrepreneurs” whose agency in shaping reforms knows no
bounds (Lawrence et al., 2009, p. 1). Rather, teachers in Botswana and South Africa
engage in, and are the products of complex processes of creating or disrupting curricular
systems at societal, organizational field, and group levels.
Teaching practices are enabled or constrained by the policies, organizational
structures, and curricula developed over time within the socio-political contexts that
teachers inhabit. Teachers play multiple roles, including in schools and unions. For
example, teachers were “street level bureaucrats” (Lipsky, 1980), who provided their
practical teaching expertise from curriculum implementation, as they worked on teams
viii
with consultants and government officials in processes of curriculum formulation and
support. In South Africa, teachers were what I call street level politicians, as their past
experiences had focused on street level politics, and they were concerned with socio-
political aims of disrupting apartheid’s structures through democratized processes.
Although the cases studied do not allow for making grand causal claims, they
indicate that allowing for time to incorporate practicing teachers’ past experiences as
input for planning curriculum reforms ultimately results in curricula that have relatively
greater specificity and a more realistic scope, making them more likely to be
implemented as specified in policies. My findings have application beyond education, in
other domains where input from diverse groups of stakeholders – especially
implementers – is needed for attempting institutional change.
Policy Implications. A number of policy implications arise from my study. First,
practicing teachers’ perspectives on how to engage in reforms should be placed at the
heart of curriculum reform efforts. The cases analyzed, especially that of Botswana, show
how practicing teachers provide expertise that informs reforms over time, beyond the
socio-political benefits of teacher “buy-in” or “ownership.” During curriculum
formulation, practicing teachers help to strike a balance between curriculum over-
specificity and vagueness. Practicing teachers provide a more realistic sense of
educational contexts, the resources and time needed, and the processes for successfully
providing curriculum support, and for implementing reforms.
Second, curriculum reforms are oriented towards a desired future, but individuals
planning reforms should draw upon knowledge of past reform experiences to identify the
contributions and limitations faced by each group of stakeholders, and specify the roles
of the respective stakeholders during reform processes. Policymakers should pay
attention to stakeholders’ specific expertise from their past experiences during multiple
phases of reforms (formulation, support, and implementation); stakeholders must be
given some guidance on how they should provide input on reforms. Providing some
specificity on reform procedures from past experiences, engaging in phased reform
processes to build experience among stakeholders involved, and making provisions for
piloting new curricula are examples of recommended strategies.
ix
Third, timeframes for reform processes and attainment of outcomes should be
specified based on prior experiences, and conceptualized for various stakeholders at the
multiple levels where reforms occur: as processes of society (spanning decades),
organizational fields (over multiple years), and groups (over several months). Reform
timeframes may vary from one context to another, and policymakers should plan reforms
at each level, making estimations based on information from the past about how long
prior reform efforts took. Policymakers should also make projections about the future,
considering a country’s specific context. Strategies should also take into consideration the
incentives and timeframes of stakeholders. For example, reform planners must address
the short-term temporal orientation of teachers, politicians, and donors by developing
short-term, intermediate goals (i) that can build teachers’ confidence and expertise over
time; (ii) for which politicians can claim credit during election cycles; (iii) and that take
into consideration donors’ different temporal logics and funding cycles, while
communicating how intermediate processes and targets lead to achieving long-term
institutional change goals.
It takes time to create institutions. As observed from my study, addressing the
problem of short timelines is particularly important for improving teaching and learning
in SSA.
• Short timelines do not allow for engaging in participatory processes and
developing well-thought out policies to address the challenges that an education
system in a particular context faces.
• Short timelines do not allow for adequately developing and providing teacher
training and curriculum support that is sorely needed.
• Short timelines do not allow for teachers to teach and cover their curricula
adequately.
Ultimately, to improve teaching and learning in SSA, policymakers must pay
greater attention to developing strategies that adequately consider timelines, drawing
from prior experiences within their given contexts. Otherwise, SSA’s learners,
particularly the most disadvantaged, will continue to be shortchanged by the education
systems that are ostensibly to improve their wellbeing in the long-term.
x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am thankful for everyone who supported me on this journey and made this
dissertation possible. I recognizing that the list of those I wish to thank may be longer
than the dissertation. I gratefully mention a few by name.
I wish to acknowledge the support provided by a Stanford Graduate Fellowship, a
School of Education Dissertation Support Grant, a Center on Philanthropy and Civil
Society Grant, as well as the Spencer Foundation, which funded a study from which my
dissertation emerged.
I am indebted to the teachers, students, administrators, officials, and others in
Botswana and South Africa who welcomed me and shared their stories to inform this
study. Special thanks to the Acquah, Larkai, and le Roux families for their warm
hospitality. To them all I say thanks very much - ke a leboga thata!
I extend my heartfelt thanks to my dissertation committee and other advisors:
Martin Carnoy, for believing in my abilities – sometimes even more than I did – from the
first day we met. I am especially grateful for his guidance over the years as my principal
advisor, and for his help in organizing thoughts in ways that made me realize answers to
questions that were being posed. Martin’s hard work and amazing intellect will continue
to be a model for me. Prudence Carter, for inspiring me even before I began this journey.
Prudence’s thoughtful questions, feedback, and encouragement helped me to think
through the “how” of this process. Walter (Woody) Powell, for posing tough questions
that motivated me to be a more critical organization studies scholar. Being able to learn
directly from Woody has been a dream come true for me. W. Richard (Dick) Scott,
whose ideas gave me a “home” and provided the intellectual clarity that I needed to work
on this dissertation. Discussions with Dick provided me with more “Eureka” experiences
than I had imagined possible. Deb Meyerson, whose guidance for my intellectual and
professional development has been exceptional. Deb’s ability to listen, anticipate what
help I needed, understand me and every student of hers, and give voice to our thoughts
always had me in awe, and motivates me as I work with other scholars.
xi
I am also grateful for the guidance and wisdom of many other wonderful Stanford
faculty and staff, including David Abernathy, Joel Samoff, Jennifer Adams, Anthony
Antonio, Arnetha Ball, Hilda Borko, Brian Brown, Larry Cuban, David Labaree, Susanna
Loeb, Dan McFarland, Aki Murata, Christine Min Wotipka, Francisco Ramirez, Hans
Weiler, Frank Flynn, Hayagreeva Rao, Jesper Sørensen, Jeanne Su, and Malini Doering.
Thanks to research collaborators in Botswana, South Africa, and the US,
including Bagele Chilisa, Tenjiwe Major, Lillian Zahra Mokgosi, Kolentino Mpeta,
Nnunu Tsheko, Richard Tabulawa, Linda Chisholm, Fabian Arends, Hlengani Baloyi,
Cheryl Reeves, Ingrid Sapire, Jesse Foster, Margaret Irving, and Alejandra Sorto.
I also wish to thank faculty and staff at McGill University, including Franque
Grimard, Phil Oxhorn, Iain Blair, Sherryl Ramsahai, Ratna Ghosh, Katy Fallon, Al
Jaeger, Paola Perez-Aleman, Ruthanne Huising, Sandra Cha, Heather Vough, Robert
David, and others at the Institute for the Study of International Development (ISID), for
hosting me and providing intellectual support and professional guidance for part of the
journey.
I say thanks to many friends and colleagues: Rand, Abhijit, Alice, Annette,
Anthony, Ato, Bjorn, Brenda, Bronwen, Carrie, Cathy, Dijana, Eliane, Elise, Gabe,
Ionah, Jakeya, Jon, Julie, Kathy, Katyn, Kenny, Kwabena, Loly, Megan, Mike, Naa,
Namita, Nii, Prashant, Priya, Pumsaran, Stephan, Steve, Sue, Tamer, Tara, Tayo, Tristan,
Tushar, Ushana, Vasya, Zaza, among others, for their intellectual and moral support,
constructive criticism and feedback, encouragement, and friendship.
Most of all I am grateful for my family, especially Naa, Kpanie, Prince and
Korkor; as well as Anani and Rose-Ann; Charles and Clarissa; Chris and Doris; Mike and
Anna; Victor and Velma; all my uncles, aunts and cousins, for being everything to me,
and for enduring much during this journey. Thanks for your love, for your prayers, for
sharing in my tears and my laughter.
Ultimately, I thank Ataa Naa Nyongmo for supporting me through everyone’s
help, for the completion of this journey, and for new beginnings.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. x LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xvi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xviii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1. The Problem of Teachers and Curriculum Reform Failure ......................................... 1 1.2. Study Background ........................................................................................................ 6
1.2.1. Comparing the contexts of Botswana and South Africa ....................................... 8 1.2.2. Comparing cases of reforms from Botswana and South Africa ........................... 9
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 14 2.1. Existing Models of Curriculum Reforms ................................................................... 14
2.2. Re-conceptualizing Reforms: Three Curriculum Policy-Practice Field Phases ........ 17 2.2.1. Roles of organizational and individual level actors ............................................ 19 2.2.2. Institutional logics: Curriculum reform priorities ............................................... 20 2.2.3. Field governance arrangements .......................................................................... 24
2.2.3.1. Societal level: Exclusionary versus Participatory normative governance ... 25 2.2.3.2. Field level: Unified versus Fragmented inter-organizational regulative structures ................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.3.3. Group level: Extent of role formalization for diverse stakeholders ............. 27
2.3. Research Questions .................................................................................................... 28 2.4. Proposed Model of Teachers’ Roles in Reform Processes ........................................ 28
2.4.1. Multiple levels of structures for reform processes .............................................. 29 2.4.2. Temporality of reforms ....................................................................................... 30 2.4.3. Teachers’ roles and Embedded Agency .............................................................. 30 2.4.4. Complexity and non-linearity of reform processes ............................................. 31 2.4.5. Links between multiple levels of processes and outcomes ................................. 32 2.4.6. A proposed process model .................................................................................. 32
2.4.6.1. Society level ................................................................................................. 34 2.4.6.2. Curriculum Policy-Practice field level ......................................................... 35 2.4.6.3. Group level ................................................................................................... 36 2.4.6.4. Outcome of curriculum reform .................................................................... 36 2.4.6.5. The cases of Botswana and South Africa .................................................... 37
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN, DATA, ANALYTIC APPROACHES, AND LIMITATIONS . 39
3.1. Case Studies of Reform Processes ............................................................................. 39 3.1.1. Multiple, comparative case study perspectives ................................................... 40 3.1.2. Process research .................................................................................................. 41
3.2. Data Collection and Management .............................................................................. 43
xiii
3.2.1. Documents .......................................................................................................... 44 3.2.2. Interviews ............................................................................................................ 46
3.2.2.1. Semi-structured interview informants .......................................................... 47 3.2.2.2. Unstructured interview informants and discussions .................................... 48
3.2.3. Teacher surveys, mathematics assessments, and classroom data ....................... 49 3.3. Analytic Approaches .................................................................................................. 51
3.3.1. Societal perspective: Policies on curriculum development and teachers ............ 53 3.3.2. Field perspective: Inter-organizational structures and teachers’ roles ................ 54 3.3.3. Group perspective: Curriculum statements and teachers’ formulation roles ...... 55
3.4. Methodological Considerations and Limitations ....................................................... 55 3.4.1. Reliability ............................................................................................................ 56 3.4.2. Validity ............................................................................................................... 56 3.4.3. Generalizability ................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4. SOCIETAL PROCESSES AND EMERGING POLICIES ....................... 58
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 58 4.2. Theoretical Framework and Questions ...................................................................... 59
4.3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 61 4.4. Findings ..................................................................................................................... 62
4.4.1. Period 1 (pre 1930s): Logics of control - colonization ....................................... 66 4.4.1.1. Global – European control over Africa ........................................................ 66 4.4.1.2. Local – Colonization of the Tswana-speaking peoples ............................... 67
4.4.2. Period 2 (1930s-mid 1970s): Competition between control and empowerment 68 4.4.2.1. Global – State-led modernization ................................................................ 68 4.4.2.2. Local – Independence for Botswana versus Apartheid in South Africa ...... 69
4.4.3. Period 3 (1970s-mid 1990s): Capacity building and resistance as empowerment....................................................................................................................................... 72
4.4.3.1. Global – Neo-liberalism and democratization as empowerment ................. 72 4.4.3.2. Local – Divergent empowerment approaches in Botswana and South Africa................................................................................................................................... 72
4.4.4. Teacher and curriculum policies that emerged by the 1990s .............................. 76 4.4.4.1. Botswana’s focus: Teacher training and curriculum development .............. 77 4.4.4.2. South Africa’s focus: Democratization of education processes .................. 79
4.5. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 82 4.5.1. Botswana’s multi-pronged approach and long-term policy orientation ............. 82 4.5.2. South Africa’s focus on democratization of processes in the short-term ........... 83
4.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 85
CHAPTER 5. CURRICULUM POLICY PRACTICE FIELD PROCESSES ................ 87 5.1. Introduction: Teachers’ Multiple Roles in Curriculum Reforms ............................... 87
5.2. Theoretical Considerations and Research Questions ................................................. 92 5.3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 95
xiv
5.4. Findings ..................................................................................................................... 99 5.4.1. Botswana: Creation of a partially unified bureaucracy (1970s-2000s) .............. 99
5.4.1.1. Organizations and processes: Long-term creation (1970s-1990s) ............. 102 5.4.1.2. Outcome: Partially unified structures (2000s) ........................................... 110
5.4.2. South Africa: Deinstitutionalization of Apartheid (1970s-2000s) .................... 116 5.4.2.1. Organizations and processes: Urgency in disrupting apartheid (1970s-2000s)................................................................................................................................. 118 5.4.2.2. Outcome: Fragmented inter-organizational structures (2000s) ................. 127
5.4.3. Comparing Teachers along the Botswana-South Africa Border (2009) ........... 135 5.4.3.1. Actors: Teachers inhabiting organizational fields in two different contexts................................................................................................................................. 138 5.4.3.2. Logics: Similarities and differences in teachers’ curriculum reform priorities................................................................................................................................. 144 5.4.3.3. Processes and outcomes: Curriculum policy, practice, and gaps ............... 150
5.5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 163 5.5.1. Long-term institutional creation in Botswana ................................................... 164 5.5.2. Long-term institutional disruption and limited creation in South Africa ......... 166
5.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 168
CHAPTER 6. CURRICULUM FORMULATION PROCESSES ................................. 171 6.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 171
6.2. Research Questions and Theoretical Considerations ............................................... 174 6.2.1. Questions about Institutional Work at the group level ..................................... 176 6.2.2. Functional diversity in groups .......................................................................... 177
6.2.2.1. Potential cost of functional diversity: Conflict .......................................... 178 6.2.2.2. Potential benefit of functional diversity: Access to information ............... 179
6.2.3. Group processes as contingent on time pressure from the environment .......... 180
6.3. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 181 6.4. Findings ................................................................................................................... 183
6.4.1. Differences in outcomes: Two elements of curriculum organization ............... 184 6.4.1.1. Curriculum scope: Number of sub-topics in curriculum documents ......... 184 6.4.1.2. Aims-Content organization: Structure of curriculum documents .............. 186
6.4.2. Divergent structures, actors, and processes ...................................................... 190 6.4.2.1. Structures: Policies, motivations, and reform priorities in the early 2000s 192 6.4.2.2. Structures: Curriculum formulation organizational structures .................. 197 6.4.2.3. Actors: Composition of curriculum committees ........................................ 201 6.4.2.4. Processes: Selecting committee processes ................................................. 204 6.4.2.5. Processes: Reacting to “shocks” of time pressures and workloads ........... 206 6.4.2.6. Processes: “Translating” curriculum policy and practice during group work................................................................................................................................. 209 6.4.2.7. Processes: Finalizing curricula as “bricolage” ........................................... 214 6.4.2.8. Processes: Planning implementation .......................................................... 217
6.5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 219 6.5.2. Institutional Creation in Botswana .................................................................... 219
xv
6.5.2. Institutional Disruption and Creation in South Africa ...................................... 221 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 223
CHAPTER 7. REFORM PROCESSES AS INSTITUTIONAL WORK .................... 224 7.1. Theoretical contributions: Curriculum studies and institutional theory .................. 225
7.1.1. Curriculum reforms as multi-level, multi-phase processes ............................... 226 7.1.2. Curriculum reform as institutional work ........................................................... 230
7.1.2.1. Societal perspective: Working as members of society .............................. 232 7.1.2.2. Organizational field perspective: Working as organizations’ members .... 233 7.1.2.3. Group perspective: Working as curriculum formulation committee members................................................................................................................................. 238
7.2. Policy implications ................................................................................................... 240 7.2.1. Prioritizing practicing teachers’ considerations ................................................ 240 7.2.2. Paying attention to past reform experiences and current practices ................... 242
7.2.2.1. Drawing from past experiences to specify guidelines on procedures ........ 242 7.2.2.2. Developing curricula in phased processes to build experience ................. 243 7.2.2.3. Learning from piloting new curricula, for adapting and diffusing lessons 243
7.2.3. Conceptualizing timelines for multi-level, multi-phase reform processes ....... 244 7.3. Study limitations and suggested future research ...................................................... 247
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol ...................................................................................... 250 Appendix 2: Curriculum Priority Survey Instrument ..................................................... 254
Appendix 3: Ranking of Committee Members ............................................................... 256 Appendix 4: Illustrative Quotes from Text ..................................................................... 257
Appendix 5: Summary Teacher Survey .......................................................................... 258 Appendix 6: Estimates of Activities and Number of Recorded Lessons ........................ 261
Appendix 7: Botswana and South Africa 6th Grade Mathematics Topics ...................... 263 Appendix 8: Detailed Timeline of Curriculum Formulation Events .............................. 265
References ....................................................................................................................... 266
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - 1. Key indicators for Botswana and South Africa ............................................... 9!Table 1 - 2. SACMEQ: Mathematics and Reading scores, grade 6, by country, 2002 and
2007........................................................................................................................... 11!Table 1 - 3. SACMEQ: Background variables on students, school resources, and access,
by country, 2007 ....................................................................................................... 12!
Table 2 - 1. Summary of curriculum reform priorities ..................................................... 21!Table 2 - 2. Types of governance, logics, and cases ......................................................... 25!Table 2 - 3. Types of inter-organizational structures and cases ........................................ 26!Table 2 - 4. Teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms from three perspectives .................... 33!
Table 3 - 1. Sources of data for three analytical perspectives .......................................... 44!Table 3 - 2. Examples of documents sourced ................................................................... 45!Table 3 - 3. Semi-structured interview informants ........................................................... 48!Table 3 - 4. Unstructured interview informants ................................................................ 48!Table 3 - 5. Interpretive framework template and examples for processual analysis ....... 53!
Table 4 - 1. Summary of approaches for societal perspective .......................................... 62!Table 4 - 2. Historical global and local events .................................................................. 63!Table 4 - 3. Botswana and South Africa: Education reform policies by mid-1990s ........ 66!
Table 5 - 1. Summary of approach for organizational field perspective .......................... 96!Table 5 - 2. Interpretive framework for analysis of CPP field processes ......................... 97!Table 5 - 3. Types of inter-organizational structures and cases ........................................ 98!Table 5 - 4. Botswana: Focus of key education reform projects, 1981-1995 ................. 103!Table 5 - 5. Botswana: Curriculum Material Development Teams (MDT) during late
1980s ....................................................................................................................... 105!Table 5 - 6. Botswana: Timeline for Education Center (EC) creation ............................ 108!Table 5 - 7. South Africa: Number of schools, students and teachers as of 2009 .......... 130!Table 5 - 8. South Africa: Union membership, 2001 ...................................................... 134!Table 5 - 9. Policy-relevant time periods for teacher cohorts ......................................... 137!Table 5 - 10. Botswana: Sample teacher union membership by cohort .......................... 142!Table 5 - 11. NWP: Union meetings as activity taking teachers out of class, by cohort 143!Table 5 - 12. Botswana and NWP: Teachers’ perspectives on mathematics curriculum
socio-political aims ................................................................................................. 146!Table 5 - 13. Botswana and NWP: Teachers’ quotes about curriculum reform priorities
................................................................................................................................. 148!Table 5 - 14. Botswana and NWP: Teachers’ ranking of curriculum reform priorities . 149!Table 5 - 15. NWP: Profiles of teacher characteristics and number of lessons given .... 162!
xvii
Table 6 - 1. Multiple curriculum reform priorities as potential sources of conflict ........ 179!Table 6 - 2. Summary of approach for curriculum committee perspective .................... 182!Table 6 - 3. Interpretive framework for analysis of curriculum formulation processes . 183!Table 6 - 4. Scope of Botswana and South Africa mathematics curricula ..................... 185!Table 6 - 5. Primary mathematics curriculum formulation committees of early 2000s . 192!Table 6 - 6. Botswana and South Africa: Motivations and reform priorities ................. 193!Table 6 - 7. Botswana and South Africa: Curriculum formulation structures ................ 197!Table 6 - 8. Botswana and South Africa: Curriculum committee composition .............. 201!Table 6 - 9. Botswana: Brief profiles, upper primary mathematics subject panel members
................................................................................................................................. 202!Table 6 - 10. South Africa: Brief profiles, mathematics working group members ........ 203!Table 6 - 11. Botswana and South Africa: Committees’ initial processes ...................... 205!Table 6 - 12. Botswana and South Africa: Curriculum formulation timelines ............... 207!Table 6 - 13. Botswana and South Africa: “Translating” during group work processes 210!Table 6 - 14. Botswana and South Africa: Finalizing curriculum documents ................ 215!Table 6 - 15. Botswana and South Africa: Planning curriculum implementation .......... 217!
Table 7 - 1. Summary of curriculum reform priorities ................................................... 229!Table 7 - 2. Types of agency and forms of institutional work ........................................ 231!Table 7 - 3. Types of inter-organizational structures and cases ...................................... 234!Table 7 - 4. Three levels of reform processes, outcomes, and timeframes ..................... 245!Table 7 - 5. Questions about institutional creation ......................................................... 248!
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - 1. Map of Botswana and South Africa shared border ........................................ 7!
Figure 2 - 1. Implicit concepts of policy-practice gap due to implementation problem ... 16!Figure 2 - 2. Multiple levels of reform ............................................................................. 29!Figure 2 - 3. Iterative processes of institutional work ...................................................... 33!Figure 2 - 4. A unified curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field model ............................. 34!Figure 2 - 5. A fragmented curriculum policy-practice (CPP) model .............................. 38!
Figure 4 - 1. Focus on societal level reform processes ..................................................... 59!Figure 4 - 2. Iterative processes of institutional work at the societal level ....................... 60!Figure 4 - 3. ANC Reconstruction and Development Program ........................................ 80!Figure 4 - 4. Botswana’s iterative processes of institutional creation at the societal level82!Figure 4 - 5. Summary timeline for creation and disruption of apartheid education ........ 84!Figure 4 - 6. South Africa’s iterative processes of institutional disruption at the societal
level ........................................................................................................................... 85!
Figure 5 - 1. CPP field inter-organizational structures emerging from institutional work 93!Figure 5 - 2. Focus on CPP processes and emergence of gaps ......................................... 94!Figure 5 - 3. Botswana: Summary timeline for processes of creating CPP structures ... 100!Figure 5 - 4. Botswana: Timeline for development of curriculum development
bureaucracy ............................................................................................................. 106!Figure 5 - 5. Botswana: Curriculum policy-practice (CPP) organizational chart ........... 111!Figure 5 - 6. Botswana: Number of primary and secondary Teachers, 1996-2009 ........ 114!Figure 5 - 7. South Africa: Summary timeline for apartheid disruption processes ........ 116!Figure 5 - 8. South Africa: Graduates from colleges of education, higher education, 1994-
2006......................................................................................................................... 127!Figure 5 - 9. South Africa: Curriculum policy-practice (CPP) organizational chart ...... 129!Figure 5 - 10. NWP: Number of schools and teachers, 2000-2009 ................................ 133!Figure 5 - 11. Botswana and NWP: Sampled teachers’ cohorts ..................................... 141!Figure 5 - 12. NWP: Activities that takes teacher out of class most often ..................... 153!Figure 5 - 13. Botswana and NWP: Single activity that takes teacher out of class most
often ........................................................................................................................ 154!Figure 5 - 14. Botswana and NWP: Number of lessons, by activity that takes teacher out
of class most often .................................................................................................. 155!Figure 5 - 15. Botswana and NWP: Number of lessons, by teacher cohort ................... 158!Figure 5 - 16. Botswana and NWP: Mathematics test score, by teacher cohort ............. 161!Figure 5 - 17. Botswana: Partially unified curriculum structures emerging from iterative
institutional creation processes ............................................................................... 165!Figure 5 - 18. South Africa: Fragmented CPP field inter-organizational structures
emerging from institutional disruption and limited creation processes .................. 167!
xix
Figure 6 - 1. A focus on curriculum formulation within a CPP field ............................. 175!Figure 6 - 2. Curricula emerging from curriculum formulation processes ..................... 176!Figure 6 - 3. Excerpt from Botswana 6th grade mathematics curriculum statement:
Numbers and Operations ......................................................................................... 186!Figure 6 - 4. Excerpt from Botswana 6th grade mathematics curriculum statement:
Problem Solving ..................................................................................................... 187!Figure 6 - 5. Excerpt from South Africa 6th grade mathematics curriculum statement:
Numbers, Operations and relationships .................................................................. 188!Figure 6 - 6. Summary of curriculum excerpt examples ................................................ 189!Figure 6 - 7. Timeline for mathematics curriculum formulation processes in Botswana
and South Africa in the early 2000s ........................................................................ 191!Figure 6 - 8. Excerpts from Botswana’s 1993 upper primary curriculum statement ...... 195!Figure 6 - 9. Botswana: Curricula emerging from institutional creation processes ........ 220!Figure 6 - 10. South Africa: Curricula emerging from institutional disruption and creation
processes in partially unified curriculum development structure ........................... 222!
Figure 7 - 1. A curriculum policy-practice (CPP) process model ................................... 227!Figure 7 - 2. Botswana’s relatively unified curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field ...... 235!Figure 7 - 3. South Africa’s relatively fragmented curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field
................................................................................................................................. 237!
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Problem of Teachers and Curriculum Reform Failure
Worldwide, teachers are often blamed for failures in curriculum reforms. Yet, do
teachers actually shape reforms, or are teachers instead shaped by reforms? How may
teachers’ roles in shaping or being shaped by reform processes vary from one education
system to the next? These questions motivate my comparison of teachers’ roles in cases
of curriculum reforms in Botswana and South Africa, adjacent middle-income southern
African countries with divergent histories and educational outcomes.
Although Botswana and South Africa have initiated a number of curriculum
reforms, exemplified by processes that began almost simultaneously in the early 2000s,
students from Botswana typically have had higher test scores than their South African
counterparts. For example, in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Survey (TIMSS), eighth graders in Botswana scored 100 points higher (one standard
deviation) in mathematics than those in South Africa (Reddy, 2006). Botswana students
also score higher in regional reading and mathematics tests given by the Southern and
Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) in 2002 and
2007. Divergences in the educational outcomes of the two countries raise questions about
differences in their respective curriculum reform processes.
My study specifically focuses on the roles of teachers in the reforms of the
respective countries, given questions about how teachers may shape, or be shaped by
education change processes worldwide. Historically, teachers have constituted the largest
proportion of education budgets worldwide, and understanding their roles in reforms is
particularly important. As I explore the roles of teachers in reforms attempted in the
1990s and 2000s, I contrast the histories of Botswana and South Africa over the past few
decades.
Reforms in Botswana and South Africa exemplify change attempts in sub-Saharan
Africa (SSA), where billions of dollars have been invested in institutional changes that
2
seem to have failed. Specifically, curriculum reforms have been emphasized by
policymakers seeking transformations in a region that is attempting to catch up with the
rest of the world (Alderruccio, 2010, p. 728; Meyer and Nagel, 1989). SSA’s curriculum
reform failures are not isolated, though, as misalignments persist worldwide between
curriculum policies and teachers’ classroom practices, despite widespread reform efforts.
Such misalignments have been characterized as policy-practice gaps (Elmore &
McLaughlin, 1988). Experiences have shown that trying to completely close such gaps
may be futile, since policies are inevitably adapted during implementation (Ball, 1990;
Bernstein, 2004).
However, given the central role that policies play worldwide in bringing about
desired changes in practices, curriculum policy-practice gaps continue to receive much
attention from researchers, policymakers, and society as a whole. Particularly in SSA, the
imperative to reduce gaps between education policies and practices is most urgent now,
even as cycles of reforms have resulted in increased cynicism, demoralization, and donor
fatigue (World Bank, 2008). Some countries in the region have smaller curriculum
policy-practice gaps than others with similar policy goals, and such variation provides an
opportunity for better understanding how successful reforms occur. Questions arise about
how to learn from relative successes in the region to turn around the pattern of failures,
even as further curriculum reforms are attempted.
In different parts of SSA, teachers’ roles in curriculum reform processes may be
related to the sizes of policy-practice gaps and student outcomes that emerge. Differences
in the education outcomes of Botswana and South Africa provide an opportunity for
exploring teachers’ roles in different contexts. My study seeks to understand how
differences in the curriculum reform processes and outcomes of Botswana and South
Africa may be related to differences in teachers’ roles in their divergent national
contexts. Such an endeavor turns out to be rather complicated. Even in other regions of
the world, the answers to questions about teachers’ roles are not clear. While there may
be agreement that teachers are “the key to change” in shaping educational reforms and
outcomes worldwide (Kilpatrick, 2009), how they do so is still debated.
Two main sets of perspectives emerge from the literature reviewed, reflecting
structure versus agency debates in the social sciences (see, for example, Battilana &
3
D’Aunno, 2009 for a summary). One set of perspectives overemphasizes the agency of
human actors by explaining policy-practice gaps as arising from differences between the
desires of policymakers and teachers. Focusing on policy, political theorists characterize
curricula as political tools that are used to legitimize the state (Weiler, 1988; 1990), with
limited attention to the roles of other agents of the state, including teachers, and how their
roles may vary from one context to another (Welmond, 1999). Curriculum practice-based
accounts argue that teachers are “curriculum makers” who choose to enact the curriculum
that they think best addresses the needs of their students; teachers also resist “top down”
policies that they perceive as not fitting their realities (Tabulawa, 1997). Such accounts
do not address differences that may arise from divergence in structures that may constrain
teachers’ agency from one context to another.
From another set of perspectives, policy-practice gaps arise because of the
overpowering role of structure in inhibiting reforms. For example, drawing from
institutional theory, world society theorists (Meyer et al. 1997) employ sociological
approaches to characterize the global homogenization of formal curricula, which may be
decoupled from teachers’ practices. There is little attention to how the roles of teachers in
varied contexts may result in different extents of decoupling between policy and practice.
Economics-based accounts also highlight the role of structure by arguing that in
developing country contexts, inadequate teacher capacity, among other factors like poor
resources, contributes to implementation “failure” (Gallie, 2007).
Dichotomies in existing perspectives are also reflected in debates focusing on
either policy (structure) or practice (agency) in explaining policy-practice gaps. Many
studies of curriculum reform assume policies as a “given” and focus on teachers’
curriculum implementation, without addressing the complexity of teachers’ roles in
policymaking. Focusing on implementation may conceal the different factors shaping
policy-processes, which in turn map how the goals of a society get translated into
policies, into the activities of educational organizations, and into the practices of
individual education professionals, such as teachers, who are then implicated by student
achievement outcomes (Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988, p. 6; Gallie, 2007, pp. 13-14, 26).
Questions remain about how teachers may shape, or be shaped during multiple phases of
reform processes in different contexts.
4
My organization studies perspectives differ from prior perspectives, and bridge
them by conceptualizing curriculum reforms in SSA as processes, or sequences of
“individual and collective events, actions, and activities unfolding over time in context”
(Pettigrew, 1997, p. 338), with teachers being among other groups of actors that play
roles. Within the framework provided by institutional theory on institutional processes
(Scott, 2001, p. 93), I conceptualize curriculum reforms as multi-level policy-practice
processes, which emerge from specific histories and occur in socio-political contexts that
may differ from one country to another (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 114). I situate my
study among process studies, which are more concerned with “a series of occurrences of
events rather than a set of relations among variables” (Mohr, 1982, p. 54), and do not
attempt to locate “singular causes” for outcomes (Abell, 2004, p. 296).
My study emphasizes history in showing how Botswana and South Africa
teachers’ teaching and non-teaching roles in the 2000s were shaped by policies,
organizational structures, and curricula that they had partly contributed to creating in
prior periods. Teachers in both countries had multiple roles, (i) as members of society
who influenced education policies over decades; (ii) as members of multiple
organizations, including schools, as well as government agencies, teacher training
institutes, teacher unions and professional associations (at national, provincial/regional,
and district levels), through which they participated in activities such as teaching and
providing curriculum support over multiple years; and (iii) as members of national
curriculum formulation teams over periods spanning months, during which they
developed curriculum materials that were then used in schools. In both countries, the
non-teaching responsibilities of teachers competed for the time they spent teaching
during the school year, with implications for the success or failure of reforms.
I employ a comparative case study approach that highlights variation in
educational processes and outcomes in SSA contexts. Multi-level comparative studies of
other parts of the world indicate that even within a given region, some countries’ histories
and social contexts are more likely to engender successful educational processes and
outcomes. For example, a multi-level study of Latin American countries by Carnoy et al.
(2007) highlighted the differences in the contexts, school practices, and learning
outcomes of Brazil, Chile and Cuba. Similarly, variation in reform processes and
5
outcomes in SSA countries likely depend on factors that are operating at societal,
organizational, and group levels. Leyendecker’s (2008) study of reforms in SSA noted
that understanding and addressing micro-level problems with curriculum formulation is a
prerequisite to solving curriculum implementation failure. Yet, multi-level comparative
studies of variation in SSA’s reform processes are lacking, and my study attempts to
address such deficiencies.
For exploring how different reform outcomes emerge, Botswana and South Africa
are good cases for comparison as they represent “polar types” (Pettigrew, 1990, p. 275),
despite both being middle-income SSA countries. Although both Botswana and South
Africa experienced decades of British colonial rule, their paths diverged in the mid-20th
century, including their divergent reform processes and outcomes. After independence in
1966, Botswana’s teachers were among stakeholders who shaped, and were shaped by
policies that developed teacher training and a unified curriculum development
organizational structure from the late 1970s to the 2000s. Across Botswana’s border,
South Africa’s teachers engaged in anti-apartheid resistance during the same period, out
of which emerged policies emphasizing participatory curriculum development processes.
In that setting, organizational actors such as teacher unions became key players, with
teachers having non-teaching roles in such organizations.
My perspective on teachers’ roles in curriculum reform processes contributes to
the emerging literature on institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et
al., 2011), which is defined as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations
aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions.” Institutional work research is
applied to organization studies (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008), specifically, to institutional
theory (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009), thereby developing relational perspectives in the
social sciences (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Emirbayer, 1997), and building on Giddens’
(1976; 1979; 1984) theory of structuration and Bourdieu’s (1977; 1984) theory of
practice. Building upon such knowledge, I highlight how individual teachers engage in
institutional work as members of societies, organizations, and groups, with the purpose of
transforming their education systems. Using such a framework, I address structure versus
agency debates by characterizing teachers as neither completely “trapped by institutional
arrangements” of reforms, nor as “hypermuscular institutional entrepreneurs” whose
6
agency in shaping reforms knows no bounds (Lawrence et al., 2009, p. 1). Rather,
teachers in Botswana and South Africa exhibit “embedded agency,” as they shaped
reform processes, and in turn were shaped by reforms, albeit differently in the two
countries.
By adopting a process perspective on curriculum reforms I address concerns
about the limited knowledge on education processes in developing countries
(Leyendecker, 2008; Wolhuter, 2008), and provide insights for policymaking. A number
of education researchers have suggested developing more complete conceptualizations of
reform processes – from policymaking to implementation – to inform educational change
strategies based on a better understanding of stakeholders’ roles (Dalin, 1994; Fullan,
1991; Kennedy, 1996). Yet, a recent review of international comparative education
literature by Foster, Samoff, and Addy (2012, in press) found that there is still very
limited research about curriculum and related processes in the “black box” of schools and
educational organizations. My study sheds some light on such processes to inform policy
at the societal, organizational field, and group levels.
This dissertation proceeds in 7 chapters. In the remainder of this first chapter, I
present the study background, and profiles of Botswana and South Africa. Chapter 2
outlines my theoretical framework and research questions concerning reforms and
teachers’ roles from three perspectives: (i) societal, (ii) organizational field, and (iii)
curriculum formulation committees. In chapter 3, I present my data sources and my
methodology. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 respectively present my empirical perspectives from
the three perspectives. In Chapter 7, I conclude by discussing the findings within the
framework of how teachers engage in the institutional work of curriculum reforms over
time. The final chapter also summarizes the theoretical contributions of the study, policy
implications for teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms and educational outcomes in SSA,
limitations of this study, and research questions that arise.
1.2. Study Background
This study began during my participation in a “natural experiment” (Knight and
Sabot, 1990), which compares practices and outcomes of otherwise similar populations.
7
The natural experiment compares educational practices and outcomes of mainly Tswana-
speaking sixth grade mathematics teachers and students living along the Botswana-South
Africa border: in Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s North-West Province
(NWP), and was conducted in 2009 with funding by the Spencer Foundation (see Carnoy
et al., 2012 forthcoming). My dissertation draws upon data collected from one hundred
and twenty (120) sampled teachers that live along the Botswana-South Africa border
(N=58 from Botswana’s Southern Region and N=62 from South Africa’s NWP). The
teachers are similar in terms of their characteristics such as ethnicity and language.
However, by “chance” they are embedded in two different education systems, on either
side of a shared border. Figure 1 - 1 shows a map of the two countries, including the town
of Lobatse (highlighted as A), which lies on the shared border, close to Gaborone, the
capital of Botswana, and Mafikeng, in South Africa’s NWP.
Figure 1 - 1. Map of Botswana and South Africa shared border
Source: Google maps
8
Thus, differences between the educational practices and outcomes of the sampled
schools on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border could be attributed to the
respective systems that teachers and students inhabit. Botswana and South Africa each
have a national curriculum, and this paper addresses the central question of teachers’
roles in curriculum reforms by comparing the respective countries’ curriculum systems,
from which emerged the 6th grade mathematics curricula that were being implemented in
the border schools during the 2009 academic year.
Focusing on sixth grade mathematics reduces the confounding effects of language
on processes and outcomes across different contexts, but is also especially relevant in its
own right, given the importance of the subject and the dearth of comprehensive
curriculum policy-practice studies at the elementary and middle school levels (Remillard
et al., 2009). Mathematics is suitable for comparative studies of curriculum reforms
because there are fewer difficulties drawing comparisons across countries. For the study
along the Botswana-South Africa border, language was “held constant” by focusing on
the mainly Tswana-speaking populations (Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming). Hence, the
challenges that would arise from comparing educational processes and outcomes in either
country with, say, Portuguese-speaking Mozambique are avoided.
1.2.1. Comparing the contexts of Botswana and South Africa
The feature of populations with shared languages and cultures embedded in two
different countries is common worldwide, and provides opportunities to explore the
effects of varied national contexts on educational and organizational systems, processes
and outcomes. Despite a shared language related to a shared history until colonial
divisions in the early 20th century, and some similarities in socioeconomic environment,
the populations on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border are embedded in
different policy contexts, shaped by distinctive histories, politics and organizational
cultures since the mid-20th century. On the one hand, the Tswana speakers in Botswana
comprise the dominant ethnic group in a country that gained independence in 1966, and
has been a stable democracy since. The 4 districts from which teachers were sampled as
9
part of the Carnoy et al. (2012) study are among 9 districts in Botswana. On the other
hand, despite parts of the NWP having been an “independent” Tswana homeland since
the 1960s, its population has experienced the segregation and political tensions that
characterized the entire South Africa under apartheid. The 4 districts from teachers were
sampled constitute the NWP, which is one of the country’s 9 provinces. Table 1 - 1
shows key socio-political and economic indicators for the two countries.
Table 1 - 1. Key indicators for Botswana and South Africa Indicator Botswana South Africa Population 2 million 49 million (North-West Province
population is 3.5 million) Language Groups 2001 Census: Tswana (78.2%),
Kalanga (7.9%), Sekgalagadi (2.8%), English (2.1%), Other (8.6%)
2001 Census: Tswana (8.2%), Zulu (23.8%), Afrikaans (17.6%), Sepedi (9.4%), English (8.2%)
Race/Ethnic Groups Blacks (93%), Whites (7%) Blacks (79%), Whites (9.6%), Colored (8.9%), Indian/Asian (2.5%)
Administrative Regions 9 districts: Central, Ghanzi, Kgalagadi, Kgatleng, Kweneng, Northeast, Northwest (Chobe & Ngamiland), Southeast, and Southern; 5 town councils: Francistown, Gaborone, Jwaneng, Lobatse, and Selebi-Pikwe
9 provinces: North-West, Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng (includes the cities of Johannesburg and Pretoria), KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Western Cape
Male-female ratio (15-64 years)
1.01 1.02
Urban Population 60% (2008) 61% (2008) GDP per capita (PPP) $13,900 (2008) $10,100 (2008) Education Expenditure 8.7% of GDP (2007) 5.4% of GDP (2006) Sources: CIA Factbook; Government of Botswana; Republic of South Africa
1.2.2. Comparing cases of reforms from Botswana and South Africa
The differences in socio-political contexts of Botswana and South Africa
notwithstanding, the populations on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border have
been embedded in nation-states that have some important similarities in socioeconomic
standing and educational policies. Botswana and South Africa are middle-income,
English-speaking members of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC).
Both countries are members of the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for
Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ), which also includes Kenya, Lesotho,
10
Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zanzibar and Zimbabwe.
Like other SACMEQ countries, education has been at the center of the
development strategies of both Botswana and South Africa, and their human resource
challenges have further entrenched the role of education in national policies. For
example, in both countries education is promoted as a vehicle for addressing HIV/AIDS,
which has severely affected both societies. Addressing HIV/AIDS is among multiple
aims that curriculum policies have sought to achieve.
Both countries have similarly attempted major education reforms to realize socio-
political, academic, and economic aims, but with varied outcomes, as in other parts of
SSA. Previously, during the late 1970s and 1980s, reforms were attempted almost
simultaneously in Botswana and within the region now known as the North-West
Province, which was then an “independent” black homeland called Bophuthatswana
(Chisholm, 2012). In Chapter 4 I discuss reforms from the historical societal level, as
precursors to curriculum reforms that emerged almost simultaneously in both countries in
the early 2000s. The reforms of the 2000s are the focus of my study in Chapter 5 and
Chapter 6.
My study’s comparative design is motivated by differences in the outcomes of the
two countries’ reforms. Despite similarly initiating reforms in the early 2000s, students
from Botswana typically have had better educational outcomes than their South African
counterparts, as indicated by higher test scores on international tests. For example,
Botswana students scored 100 points higher in mathematics (one standard deviation) and
120 points higher in science than South African students on the 2003 TIMSS, which
tested 8th graders (Reddy, 2006). Additionally, Botswana student have higher
achievement in the SACMEQ II and III, which tested 6th graders in Mathematics and
Reading in 2002 and 2002 respectively. Table 1 - 2 below summarizes the 2002 and 2007
SACMEQ scores, including Botswana and South Africa.
11
Table 1 - 2. SACMEQ: Mathematics and Reading scores, grade 6, by country, 2002 and 2007 Average Mathematics Score Average Reading Score
Country 2002 2007 2002 2007 Mauritius 585 623 536 574
Mozambique 530 484 517 476 Swaziland 517 541 530 549 Botswana 513 520 521 535
South Africa 486 495 492 495 Namibia 431 471 449 497 Malawi 431 447 429 434
Source: UNESCO, International Institute of Educational Planning (2005). SACMEQ II database, and International Institute of Educational Planning (IIEP). IIEP Newsletter, Vol 28, No. 3 (September-December, 2010), p. 4.
A number of factors potentially affect students’ achievement outcomes among the
countries listed above, which comparative studies such as mine must account for. Table 1
- 3 summarizes 2007 measures of socioeconomic, schooling, and policy variables for the
SACMEQ countries listed above, highlighting the similarities and differences between
Botswana and South Africa, as compared with other SACMEQ countries that participated
in the tests. Among the countries listed, Botswana and South Africa respectively have the
highest and third highest GDP/capita in terms of their 2005 purchasing power
equivalents, and their students’ SES are among the highest. Additionally, the two
countries have the highest per student spending on primary education, being middle-
income countries. The primary school enrollment rates for the two countries are also
similar.
However, the two countries diverge on policy related measures, such as the
provision of curriculum documents. Botswana’s percentage of pupils with textbooks
(80%) is double that for South Africa (43%). Botswana’s class sizes are smaller than in
South Africa. Additionally, although there are similarities in the percentage of students
who reached the final grade in primary school in 2007, Botswana’s completion rate of
99% is higher than South Africa’s rate of 86%.
12
Table 1 - 3. SACMEQ: Background variables on students, school resources, and access, by country, 2007
Cou
ntry
2007
G
DP/
Cap
ita
(200
5 PP
P $)
SES*
Per
stud
ent
spen
ding
on
prim
ary
2007
GE
R 2
007
NE
R 2
007
Pupi
l: T
each
er
(P:T
) rat
io 2
007
% p
upils
with
m
athe
mat
ics
text
book
200
1*
2007
% c
ohor
t re
achi
ng fi
nal
grad
e pr
imar
y
2007
Pri
mar
y co
mpl
etio
n ra
te
Mauritius 10,987 625 1,154 98 92 21.5 96 98 91 Mozambique 741 440 108 110 75 64.1 58 44 46 Swaziland 4,507 520 734 108 83 32.4 77 74 72 Botswana 12,600 540 1,590 110 87 25.4 80 87 99 South Africa 9,366 550 1,356 105 87 31.0 43 86 86 Namibia 5,848 475 994 113 90 29.9 52 76 81 Malawi 697 435 70 113 85 72.2a 59 36 54
Source: All variables marked with an asterisk are derived from the SACMEQ II database, all other variables are from the World Bank. GER means gross enrolment rate (all students including repeaters as a percent of the age group) and NER means net enrolment rate (students net of repeaters as a percent of the age group). Note: a. Datum for 2002.
The variables noted above do not address questions about how differences in
teachers’ roles during the respective curriculum reforms of Botswana and South Africa
may be related to divergences in educational processes and outcomes. However, the
variables provide suggestive information about the challenges teachers may face in
curriculum implementation. For example, greater provision of textbooks and smaller
class sizes in Botswana suggests that teachers are in a better position to engage students
in more depth to carry out classroom work that the curriculum specifies, relative to South
Africa. In Chapter 5, my comparisons of teachers’ roles takes into account the
socioeconomic, schooling, and policy variables that are noted here, in addition to data on
teachers’ specific roles in curriculum policy and practice.
My process analysis highlights the relatively faster pace of reforms in South
Africa, relative to Botswana, and the implications for teacher participation. After
Botswana’s independence in 1966, relative stability and continuity have characterized
education policies and practices at the basic education level (i.e. elementary/primary and
middle/junior secondary school). Botswana’s first major education policy, the 1977
National Policy on Education (NPE), was adopted 11 years after independence, followed
by the 1994 Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE) 17 years later. South Africa’s
13
post-apartheid reforms since 1994 have occurred within the context of addressing
decades of apartheid era inequalities as quickly as possible. Within the two different
contexts, I find similarities and differences in teachers’ roles.
It should be noted that my comparative study highlights relative differences
between the cases from Botswana and South Africa. Hence, care should be taken in
interpreting findings that I discuss. For example, Botswana students’ scores are relatively
better than their South African counterparts, but both countries overall score lower than
average on international tests such as the TIMSS. Similarly, my comparisons of teachers’
roles in the two countries’ curriculum reforms highlight relative differences. In the next
chapter I elaborate on the conceptual framework and questions posed.
14
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In this chapter, I elaborate on the theoretical frameworks that my study builds
upon from curriculum studies and the institutional literature, for characterizing how
teachers shape, and are shaped by curriculum reform processes across the socio-political
contexts of Botswana and South Africa. Two theoretical considerations are of note. First,
I assume ideas from institutional theory about how a given set of problems or solutions
may be perceived differently in different temporal and spatial contexts (Ocasio, 1995;
Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 113-114). I posit that in adjacent countries with divergent
histories, the extent of attention paid to different aspects of curriculum problems varied,
such that the reform processes adopted and the emergent outcomes diverged. Second, the
role of teachers in curriculum reform is conceptualized as institutional work, involving
“the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and
disrupting institutions” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 215). Individual teachers engage
in institutional work as members of various organizations, including schools, teacher
training institutes, government agencies (at national, provincial, and district levels),
teacher unions and professional associations, with the purpose of transforming their
education systems.
The rest of this conceptual chapter proceeds in four sections. First, I summarize
existing models of curriculum reforms reviewed. Second, I present my
reconceptualization of curriculum reforms from an organizational process perspective,
after which I summarize the research questions that emerged. I then elaborate on my
proposed curriculum reform model.
2.1. Existing Models of Curriculum Reforms
My study contributes to, but provides a contrasting perspective from the
international comparative education literature that presents an International Educational
Development (IED) field (Chabbott, 2003) with “striking” similarities between
15
educational systems, in what is termed an isomorphic world society (Meyer et al. 1997).
Some emerging education reform studies have highlighted the need to study variation in
the educational contexts, processes and outcomes of SSA countries (Leyendecker, 2008).
This paper responds to such studies by contributing further knowledge about the
relationships between teachers’ roles in educational change efforts across socio-political
contexts in SSA, and the implications for success or failure of reforms.
My research questions emerge from examining two sets of existing curriculum
reform models that suggest that teachers’ non-implementation of policies is the reason for
the gap between curriculum policy and teachers’ classroom practices, whether human
agency or structure is emphasized (see Figure 2 - 1 below). First, according to models
exemplified by the political Compensatory Legitimacy framework (Weiler, 1990; 1988),
at the national level, politicians are agents of the state who play a central policymaking
role. To enhance the state’s legitimacy politicians adopt reforms (Jansen, 2002a; 2002b),
often “borrowing” from other countries (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). For example, politicians’
socio-political goals such as “democratization” and achieving “equitable” outcomes are
elevated in education policies and related “symbolic” processes that do not bring about
changes in practice (Ball, 1990; 1994; 1998; Bertram, 2008, p. 15; Fataar, 2006; Fuller,
1991; Jansen, 1993; Tabulawa, 2003, p. 15). Teachers are to be partners of the state, yet
their roles are “negotiated” (Welmond, 1999), or worse, they may sometimes be excluded
from policymaking (Bertram, 2008, p. 4, 6; Jansen, 2002a). Yet, teachers may be cast in
the role of powerful “curriculum makers” (Remillard et al., 2009), who ultimately
determine reform failure or success, as they respectively resist the formal curriculum and
enact their own intended curricula in classrooms if they have low reform “buy-in”
(Jansen, 1993; Tabulawa, 1997), or they implement the curriculum as desired when they
have “ownership,” from having played a role in its development (Gallie, 2007, p. 54;
McLaughlin & Mitra, 2001).
Second, in sociological models inspired by Meyer et al. (1997), structure is
emphasized as globalized policymakers (e.g. academics and consultants in international
organizations) are embedded in a World Society (see Figure 2 - 1 below), and are
“technical experts” with central roles in the “rational-technical” process of policymaking
(Tabulawa, 2003, p. 18). Worldwide, such experts diffuse curriculum reforms to reach
16
academic, economic, and socio-political targets, such as those specified in the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Within such reform models, teachers
are to execute “loyalty through their directives” (De Clercq, 2002, p. 90), as “receivers”
of curriculum, or “learning facilitators” who try to be “faithful implementers” (Remillard
et al., 2009, p. 172), even while their expertise may be overlooked during reform
attempts (Sidiropoulos, 2008, p. 23; Tabulawa, 1997; 1998, p. 249). Such models
emphasize decoupling of policy and classroom practices, as countries fail to reach policy
targets.
Reasons for reform failure are drawn from the above models and cited as
empirical evidence of teachers’ roles in curriculum non-implementation, even beyond
SSA. Reasons cited include teachers’ pedagogic beliefs and practices that are divergent
from the goals of policymakers (McLaughlin, 1991; 1998), and inadequate teacher
capacity (e.g. low quality of people entering teaching, poor teacher training, etc.)
(Bertram, 2008, p. 3, 18; Reeves, 1999). In SSA, another reason for reform failure is lack
of resources, such as textbooks and teaching aids, and large class sizes (Chisholm et al.,
2000).
Figure 2 - 1. Implicit concepts of policy-practice gap due to implementation problem
More recently, poor curriculum design has been cited for reform failure
(Leyendecker, 2008; Sidiropoulos, 2008), highlighting a range of policymaking issues
that have received limited attention. Although the reasons for curriculum failure that
17
draw from the political and sociological models discussed above acknowledge teachers as
key stakeholders during curriculum implementation, they have underdeveloped concepts
of, and provide limited empirical evidence about teachers’ roles in curriculum
formulation and administration, and possible linkages with teaching.
I use organizational lenses to provide a new perspective related to recent findings
about failures extending beyond curriculum implementation, such as poorly designed
national curricula in SSA. Given the perceived importance of teachers in reforms, I focus
on teachers’ roles in reforms overall, and in curriculum formulation processes in
particular. The following pertinent question arises: What roles do teachers play in
curriculum reform processes in SSA, even beyond teaching?
Building upon the existing models described earlier, my study focuses on how
teachers’ teaching and non-teaching roles vary in the different socio-political contexts of
Botswana and South Africa. A new set of conceptualizations was needed to explore the
central issue of teachers’ roles in reforms, and I elaborate in the sections that follow.
2.2. Re-conceptualizing Reforms: Three Curriculum Policy-Practice Field Phases
To conceptualize teachers’ roles beyond teaching, in multiple organizations
concerned with reforms, such as teacher unions and other teachers’ associations, I draw
on the concept of organizational fields (DiMaggio, 1991; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;
Scott, 2008b; Scott and Meyer, 1991; Scott et al., 2000). The concept of organizational
fields provides an ideal framework that has been used for analyzing educational systems
(Scott, 2001, p. 84). An organizational field is defined by DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p.
148) as comprising:
[Those] organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products.
For this study, I use Hoffman’s (1999, p. 352) extension of the DiMaggio and
Powell definition to include the development of organizational fields around central
18
issues or disputes, such as curriculum reform. The organizational and individual actors
that are concerned with teachers’ involvement in curriculum policy and practice
constitute what I call Curriculum Policy-Practice (CPP) organizational fields. In CPP
fields, collectives of organizations are formed around the issue of teachers and
curriculum policy and practice.
I characterize CPP fields using a process perspective, with field activities
categorized into three phases, namely:
(i) Curriculum formulation, a process that includes the development of
curriculum materials, such as curriculum statements, teacher guides, and
implementation plans;
(ii) Curriculum support, which includes processes of administration and teacher
training; and
(iii) Curriculum implementation, which includes teaching as well as non-teaching
activities, such as student assessment, participation in school meetings, and
sporting and cultural events, for realizing non-academic curriculum aims.
The three CPP phases correspond to Elmore & McLaughlin’s (1988, p. 6) three
education reform levels of policy, administration, and practice. With my process
conceptualization, I use “support” and “implementation” to differentiate between
teachers’ roles in different types of organizations.
As organizational fields, the phases of CPP fields are characterized by the actors
(organizations and individuals) that have roles in field processes; institutional logics of
the actors; and governance arrangements that guide action in the field (Scott et al.,
2000). Each field’s attributes are products of the temporal and spatial contexts within
which its organizations and individuals are embedded (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 114).
In turn, each field constrains and enables the composition and processes of its participants
(Campbell, 2004; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott and
Meyer, 1983; 1991). Few studies characterize organizational fields, despite earlier calls to
do so (Scott, 2001; 2008).
19
2.2.1. Roles of organizational and individual level actors
The organizational and individual actors embedded in a field vary, ranging from
resource suppliers to consumers. Recognizing that curriculum reform actors exist at
several levels that have been the subject of analysis, including at the global field level
(Chabbott, 2003), this paper focuses on actors in organizational fields embedded in
adjacent countries. Within the CPP fields of Botswana and South Africa, the direct
suppliers of resources for curriculum production are national government agencies that
develop reform policies and specify funding and regulations (Weiler, 1988; 1990).
Schools and teachers are respectively among the organizational and individual actors who
“consume” curriculum, as they are to implement policies that are operationalized in
curriculum documents, such as curriculum statements, teacher guides, and textbooks.
Hoffmann and Ventresca (2002, p. 25) further specify another set of actors in
organizational fields: intermediaries, who mediate between suppliers and consumers, as
well as between actors in various fields. In the three-pashed conceptualization of CPP
fields, organizations such as district offices, teacher training institutions, and teachers’
organizations serve as intermediaries by providing curriculum support, to link curriculum
formulation and implementation.
Despite the distinctions made between suppliers, consumers, and intermediaries,
representatives from the diverse set of organizational actors in a field may play multiple
roles. Teachers, who “consume” curricula during implementation in schools may also
have roles in various organizations concerned with curriculum formulation and support.
For example, teachers may be involved in “supplying” curricula by serving on curriculum
formulation committees, or they may be members of “intermediary” organizations that
provide support for reforms. The extent to which teachers play multiple roles may be
shaped by prevalent ideas about reforms in the socio-political contexts within which they
are embedded.
20
2.2.2. Institutional logics: Curriculum reform priorities
I conceptualize ideas about curricular problems and reform solutions by drawing
on the concept of institutional logics. Institutional logics are the practices and symbolic
constructions that provide guidelines for individuals and organizations within an
organizational field, about how they are to carry out their work (Friedland & Alford,
1991, p. 248; Scott, 2001, p. 139). In a study of curriculum reform implementation in
California, Cynthia Coburn (2001, p. 12) specified logics as the ideas and approaches
that form an organizing principle for teachers’ actions. Beyond curriculum
implementation, and more broadly in curriculum reforms, institutional logics specify
valued curriculum goals, as well as how to achieve those goals. Conceptualizing CPP
fields allows for analyzing institutional logics that are related not only to teachers’
curriculum reform implementation aims, but also to their goals when formulating and
providing support for reforms.
Institutional logics are embodied in the actors of a field. Institutional frameworks
especially stress the importance of normative and cultural-cognitive influences on
professionals’ organizational decisions and actions (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
Teachers exemplify such professionals, as members of an occupation who seek to “define
the conditions and methods of their work … to establish a cognitive base and legitimation
for their occupational autonomy.”
As there are diverse organizational and individual actors in CPP fields, in
curriculum reform, a number of logics may potentially shape field governance structures
and processes, and in turn, shape CPP outcomes. To specify a framework for
comparisons, the paper maps curriculum theory with existing reform models by
conceptualizing curriculum differently from the dichotomized “intended” versus
“enacted” concepts of curriculum (see Leyendecker, 2008). I draw upon a framework
from Walker (1990) to specify three fundamental curriculum elements – or curriculum
reform priorities – that receive varying degrees of attention during reforms: (i) aims, (ii)
content, and (iii) organization. Table 2 - 1 summarizes the three curriculum reform
priorities and their components.
21
Table 2 - 1. Summary of curriculum reform priorities Priority Description Aims: Why reform
Academic Provide academic (mathematics) skills Economic/Individual Potential
Enable each individual to realize his or her full potential in a career path
Socio-political Address societal needs by preparing each individual for roles as citizens
Content: What to reform Subjects & Topics What subjects should be reformed (6th grade mathematics) Language What language to use in the mathematics curriculum (English)
Organization: How to reform Content-Aims Organization
How given mathematics topics and language should be organized in curriculum documents to address given curriculum aims (e.g. structure and language of the curriculum in relating content and aims)
Scope How many mathematics sub/topics, and how many aims should be included in the curriculum (related to the breadth/depth of teaching)
Schedule How sub/topics, and curriculum aims should be allocated to specific time schedules in a day, week, term, or year
Sequence/Pacing How sub/topics should be ordered and presented over time Implementation Design How to deliver the curriculum, including planning the resources and support
to be provided for implementation (e.g. planning for training, administrative activities, etc.)
Evaluation How to evaluate teaching and learning (e.g. continuous assessment, criterion/norm-referenced testing)
Sources: Adapted from Walker (1990); Botswana and South Africa document reviews and interviews
Curriculum aims refer to the motivations for reform: Why reform. Curriculum
aims may be academic, economic, and socio-political, aligning with goals that
sociological, economic, and political models of reforms respectively highlight (Meyer et
al., 1997; Weiler, 1988; 1990). The three aims are also related to the other conceptions of
curriculum: education involves development of academic and related capabilities for
realizing economic and socio-political goals of society (Goodland, 2004; van den Akker,
2003), with teachers being key stakeholders in realizing such goals.
Curriculum content refers to the subject area and topics to be covered: What to
reform. Content is often highlighted in debates about educational convergence or
divergence and the diffusion of curriculum forms and topics, such as mathematics and
literacy (Benavot, 2011), science, (Drori, Meyer, Ramirez, & Schofer. E, 2003), art and
physical education (Kamens & Yun-Kyung, 1992), and human rights (Ramirez, Suarez,
& Meyer, 2007; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Additionally, I include the language used in
presenting curriculum as an aspect of its content. For this study, curriculum content is the
22
same across the contexts being studied (i.e.“held constant”) as I focus on the 6th grade
mathematics curricula of Botswana and South Africa, which are both in English.
Curriculum organization is the specification of how to reform. Six aspects of
curriculum organization include (a) Content-Aims Organization: how curriculum content
should be organized to address given curriculum aims (e.g. structure and language of
curriculum documents in relating content and aims); (b) schedule: the allocation of
content and aims over time; (c) scope: the number of topics and sub-topics and aims,
which is related to the breadth and depth of teaching; (d) sequence/pacing: the ordering
and presentation of topics over time; (e) implementation design: the plan for overall
curriculum delivery; and (f) evaluation of teaching and learning to ascertain whether
curriculum aims are being realized.
Where diverse actors bring multiple perspectives to institutional processes, there
may be competition between institutional logics, and institutional change is more likely
(Scott, 2008a; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). For reforms that bring about change, the
multiple curriculum reform priorities – aims, content, and organization – should be
addressed in each of the three CPP phases that are outlined in this study. For example,
curriculum statements and implementation plans that are developed during the
formulation phase should address curriculum aims, content and organization, for
successfully providing support for, and implementing reforms. At the curriculum support
phase, teachers must be trained on the aims of reforms, subject content, and organization,
including guidance on how to deliver the curriculum. During the implementation phase,
teachers then address the three curriculum priorities in their classroom practices, as they
attempt to achieve academic, economic, and socio-political aims by delivering subject
content, guided by curriculum organization structures. Specifically, curriculum
documents, such as syllabi and teacher manuals provide guidance on how curriculum
aims and content should interact in lessons, the scope, the schedule, sequence and pacing
of lesson presentation, resources to be used in delivery, and how teaching and learning
are to be evaluated.
However, curriculum aims are particularly evident in Outcomes Based Education
(OBE), which focuses on specifying the desired outcomes of education, rather than the
content or organization. OBE has been adopted in several parts of Africa, including
23
Botswana and South Africa, and this study highlights divergence in emphasis placed on
different reform aims in the socio-political contexts of the two countries studied.
While my study explores all reform priorities, I highlight curriculum organization
in developing a curriculum reform model. Debates about reform failure often focus on
pedagogy related to curriculum aims, and assessments related to content (Cuban, 2006).
However, Walker (1990) suggests that curriculum organization most directly affects
practice, and it is often underspecified in reforms (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008),
potentially resulting in policy-practice gaps that may vary from one education system to
another.
I propose that where teachers play central roles in curriculum reforms, curriculum
organization is more likely to be specified in greater detail, bringing about the diversity in
logics that facilitates successful reform. The curriculum policy-practice literature
reviewed provided some insights for making such a proposition, though none specifically
addressed the questions this paper poses about teachers roles in curriculum formulation in
SSA. For example, outside SSA, Remillard et al. (2009) described a U.S. case study of
Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP) formulation, in which some policymakers were
frustrated by teachers’ focus on “trivial” details of implementation, rather than the bigger
picture goals. Although that observation was not the focus of that study, it suggests that
policymakers in that context were more concerned with big picture curriculum aims,
whereas teachers focused more on the details of implementation, which I conceptualize
as part of curriculum organization. The greater level of attention that teachers bring to
specifying curriculum organization provides the increased diversity in logics that
facilitates change.
I focus on teachers’ roles in formulating, providing support for, and implementing
formal curriculum statements of “prescriptive intent” (Kogan, 1975, p. 55). As a subset
of curriculum documents and materials, which are “the specific print materials with
which teachers and students have physical contact,” curriculum statements shape
implementation. The three previously specified elements of curriculum constitute the
“larger program to which the physical materials belong” (Remillard et al., 2009, p. xvii),
and are the key objects that reforms attempt to change.
24
Also, curriculum documents represent the ideas of the various actors who
participate in curriculum formulation. According to Ball (1990, p. 3) curricula are “the
operational statements of values” that decision-makers desire from classroom practices.
Curriculum statements in particular specify the aims, content, and organization of a
curriculum program. It is from these that other curriculum materials are developed,
including teacher guides and textbooks. As policy documents, curriculum statements “are
pivotal for setting the tone, conditions and framework for reform, for providing support
and pressure, and for role modeling” (World Bank, 2008, p. 68). However, curriculum
documents do not exist in a vacuum, but within particular governance structures.
Drawing from ideas about how a given set of problems or solutions may be
perceived differently in one socio-political context relative to another (Ocasio, 1995;
Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 113), one expects that in two countries with different
histories, the extent of attention paid to curriculum aims, content and organization vary in
reforms across the countries. In other words, the degree of attention paid to each of the
curriculum reform priorities may differ, along with the governance arrangements and the
practices that emerge. In Botswana, where a centralized bureaucracy emerged by the
early 1990s, I hypothesized that curriculum organization is of relatively greater priority.
In a relatively more racially diverse and politicized South Africa that emerged from
apartheid in the early 1990s, preliminary analysis suggested that relatively more attention
was paid to socio-political curriculum aims.
2.2.3. Field governance arrangements
Each organizational field is characterized by governance systems, or
“arrangements which support the regularized control – whether by regimes created by
mutual agreement, by legitimate hierarchical authority or by non-legitimate coercive
means – of the actions of one set of actors by another” (Scott, Mendel, & Pollack, 1996;
cited in Scott, 2001). Actors in each field employ combinations of normative and
regulatory controls over activities (Scott, 2008b). The normative and regulatory
governance arrangements of curriculum reform are nested within cultural-cognitive lens
that this paper’s institutional perspective assumes (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 261), in that
25
controls exercised in curriculum reform are motivated by the view that they are the “best
practices” for achieving academic, economic, and socio-political aims. For this study,
conceptualizations found to be salient for characterizing teachers’ roles included: (i)
normative controls at the societal level, (ii) regulative controls at the inter-organizational
level, and (iii) both normative and regulative controls at the group level.
2.2.3.1. Societal level: Exclusionary versus Participatory normative governance
Normative governance is exercised at global and local levels, and in this study it
is highlighted in societal processes that led to the emergence of education policies in
Botswana and South Africa by the 1990s (Chapter 4). International organizations,
professional subject matter associations (e.g. mathematics associations), and teacher
unions normatively govern curriculum reform activities as they respectively promote
international standards, expert knowledge, or codes of conduct related to curriculum.
Two types of governance were found to be salient in my analysis of curriculum
reform priorities or logics from one setting to another (Table 2 - 2). On the one hand,
exclusionary governance norms existed under pre-independence Botswana and in
apartheid South Africa, where there were tensions between segregated groups, with
teacher organizations in opposition to the apartheid government, and engaging in political
strikes. Exclusionary norms were associated with logics of control that were
operationalized in authoritarian curriculum policies and provision of inferior education to
marginalized groups.
Table 2 - 2. Types of governance, logics, and cases Type of governance (Logic) Case exclusionary (control) authoritarian curriculum policies and practices participatory (empowerment) democratized curriculum policies and practices
On the other hand, the norms of governance in a field may be participatory,
encouraging diverse constituents to provide input on curricular matters (e.g. in the
adoption of learner centered education), as was the case in Botswana and post-apartheid
South Africa in the 1990s and 2000s. Participatory norms were associated with logics of
26
empowerment, which were operationalized in policies for democratizing curriculum,
particularly for achieving socio-political curriculum reform aims.
2.2.3.2. Field level: Unified versus Fragmented inter-organizational regulative
structures
At the organizational field level, the extent of formalization and fragmentation of
inter-organizational structures during field structuration processes (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983, p. 148; Scott, 2008b, p. 190) were found to be salient for this study (Chapter 5).
Organizational fields may vary in their formal structuring, which is the “extent to which
an organization is surrounded by formally organized interests, sovereigns, and
constituency groups, as opposed to environments made up of less formally organized
groups, communities, or associations” (Meyer, Scott, & Strang, 1987, p. 187-188). In
fields with formalized curriculum development organizations, the regulative structures
may be centralized in a national government agency or decentralized, between national
and local administrations, and other organizational actors, such as teachers’
organizations.
Meyer et al. (1987, p. 187) distinguish between unified and fragmented
governance structures, providing an alternative conceptualization that addresses the
blurred lines between centralized and decentralized systems (Meyer, Scott, Strang, &
Creighton, 1988, p. 166). Fragmentation is “the number and distribution of organizations
or social actors a focal organization is dependent upon.” In a unified or unfragmented
environment, organizations are buffered from direct external forces, as in the case of an
organizational subunit in a centralized structure (e.g. as was found in the case of
Botswana’s curriculum development department) (Table 2 - 3), and coherent outcomes
emerge from such unified structures.
Table 2 - 3. Types of inter-organizational structures and cases Type of structure Case unified organizational subunit in centralized curriculum development structure fragmented quasi-independent organizations with conflicting, uncoordinated curriculum demands
27
At the other end of the spectrum, an organization within a fragmented governance
system is “dependent upon and penetrated by multiple, quasi-independent organizations
and social actors, each presenting possibly conflicting, and at best uncoordinated, sets of
demands and pressures.” In such fragmented fields, the boundaries between interacting
organizations are relatively permeable (Evans, 1997; Scott, 1986), and incoherent
outcomes may emerge from them. For example, in a relatively highly fragmented CPP
field, multiple, incoherent demands are made on teachers’ time by their participation in
various organizations, at the cost of the time spent teaching. The outcome of multiple
demands made on teachers in fragmented fields is that larger policy-practice gaps
outcomes may emerge.
2.2.3.3. Group level: Extent of role formalization for diverse stakeholders
The governance of individual actors’ roles in reform activities may vary along
various dimensions, two of which were relevant for this study. First, from a normative
standpoint, groups embedded in a society may value diversity in perspectives, and may
also value particular stakeholders’ perspectives to different extents (Page, 2007). In
curriculum reform, the perspectives of teachers may be highly valued or discounted,
relative to other stakeholders. Second, individual stakeholders’ roles also vary in their
formalization, defined as “the extent to which roles and relationships are specified
independently of the personal characteristics of the occupants of positions” (Scott, 2003,
p. 265). There is formalization to “the extent that the rules governing behavior are
precisely and explicitly formulated and to the extent that roles and role relations are
prescribed independently of the personal attributes and relations of individuals occupying
positions in the structure” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 29).
As I show in Chapter 6, while curriculum committees in both Botswana and South
Africa valued the diversity of perspectives provided by different stakeholder
representatives during the 2000s, there was divergence in the extent to which teachers’
roles were formalized on committees. In Botswana, the composition of curriculum
formulation committees and the roles of teachers in committee processes had been
formally specified in a Curriculum Development Procedures Manual by the early 1990s.
28
In South Africa, as of the early 2000s, roles were less formalized than the case in
Botswana. For example, the roles of stakeholder representatives, including teachers were
not specified, and emerged during formulation processes.
2.3. Research Questions
I specify three research questions that emerge from the theoretical frameworks
that I use at three levels. Formally stated, the questions are as follows:
1. How were societal processes within the respective socio-political contexts of
Botswana and South Africa related to curriculum reform and teacher policies that
emerged by the mid-1990s?
2. How did the organizational structures concerned with teachers’ roles in the
curriculum reforms of the 2000s emerge on either side of the Botswana-South
Africa border, and what were the similarities and differences in teachers’ non-
teaching roles and the time they spent teaching within their respective inter-
organizational structures during the 2009 school year?
3. How did differences in the primary mathematics curricula of Botswana and South
Africa emerge, despite teachers’ involvement in both processes in the early
2000s?
2.4. Proposed Model of Teachers’ Roles in Reform Processes
Building on the institutional theory foundation, I propose an institutional work
model, in which the concepts discussed above are integrated. Specifically, the model
presents teachers’ roles in multi-level curriculum reform processes as temporally
embedded (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009), such that divergent outcomes emerge over time
from the complex interactions of structure and agency in different institutional contexts
(Ocasio, 1995; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). I use Pettigrew’s (1997, p. 340) processual
framework, which has five guiding assumptions elaborated below.
29
2.4.1. Multiple levels of structures for reform processes
Reforms, as social processes, are embedded in multiple levels of structures (or
contexts), which produce and are produced by them. For this study, I specify three levels
at which I address my respective research questions. Within the socio-political contexts
that I compare, reforms occur over time at three structural levels (Figure 2 - 2): (i)
societal, (ii) organization field, and (iii) group, out of which curriculum policy-practice
gaps emerge as outcomes.
Figure 2 - 2. Multiple levels of reform
In a given socio-political context, first, societal needs set into motion societal
processes that produce policies, including those concerned with education. Second, the
education policies within the socio-political environment of a country in turn provide the
context for organizational field level processes, out of which organizational structures
emerge. Third, within the organizational structures produced, teachers engage with other
stakeholders in curriculum reform processes at the group level. The curriculum
documents that are produced from curriculum formulation committees exemplify the
outcomes of such group level processes.
outcome: success (small policy-practice gaps) / failure (large policy-practice gaps)
(ii) curriculum policy-practice field structures & agency: teachers’ multiple roles in (iii) groups within various
organizations
(i) societal-level structures & agency: policies & practices
30
2.4.2. Temporality of reforms
At each structural level, processes are temporally connected, in that past, present,
and future curriculum reforms are related to each other. Worldwide, at the societal level,
perceived failures of past reform efforts have motivated reform processes in the present,
which in turn may motivate future reform efforts. Additionally, at the organizational field
level, events related to any of the three CPP field-level phases in the past may affect
present and future reform efforts for other phases. For example, exclusionary curriculum
formulation efforts during apartheid were blamed for the poor curriculum support and
implementation that the majority of South Africa’s population experienced for decades
(ANC, 1994a), and were directly referenced as motivation for participatory reform
processes in the 1990s. Further, at the group level, the vagueness of curriculum
statements that were produced by South Africa’s curriculum committees in the 1990s was
cited for making revisions in the 2000s (Chisholm et al., 2000).
2.4.3. Teachers’ roles and Embedded Agency
During reform processes, there are interactions between structures and human
agency. Teachers are among “agents” that are embedded in specific historical or socio-
political contexts, and they may have multiple curriculum reform roles, which are shaped
by different levels of structures: education policies, the organizational structures that
emerge from the policies, as well as the curricula that emerge from the policies and
organizational structures. Highlighting agency, Welmond (1999) outlines two types of
“doing” by teachers: (i) teaching and preparing students for exams, as efficient teachers in
schools (teaching role); or (ii) providing multiple services beyond teaching, as dedicated
teachers who are to serve the community (non-teaching role).
The two types of teacher roles are respectively associated with the time that
teachers spend teaching – or providing students with opportunity to learn (OTL) – versus
engaging in non-teaching activities. Such non-teaching activities include participating in
professional development (to enhance their roles in curriculum formulation, support, and
31
implementation), and engaging in bureaucratic work (i.e. administrative activities such as
participating in national, provincial, district, or school level committee meetings, and
completing student continuous assessment evaluations and other administrative
paperwork) or socio-political work (i.e. attending union meetings and responsibilities
related to community/local politics).
In each historic period and socio-political context, there are tensions between
developing and enacting teachers’ teaching and non-teaching roles within the societal,
organizational field, and curriculum structures of a country. In iterative processes, the
success or failure of curriculum outcomes may also motivate further attempts to reform
teachers’ roles through changes in policies, organizational structures, or curricula.
2.4.4. Complexity and non-linearity of reform processes
The links between the multiple levels of structures, reform events that occur, and
teachers’ roles emerge over time, in a complex manner that linear explanations are
unable to explain. In the socio-political context of each country, the policies,
organizational structures, curricula, and the roles of teachers emerge from prior
processes, and these links are understood in holistic historical analyses. Teachers in an
education system were students in an earlier era, when they were educated under policies,
organizational structures, and curricula that may have been shaped by the interaction of
previous global and local forces.
In the different socio-political contexts of countries, teachers’ roles in the various
organizations involved in curriculum reforms emerge from the particular history of the
country, given that such roles are produced from the unique interaction of various factors.
Whereas linear explanations assume that two teachers who have taught for the same
period of time have the same “years of teaching experience,” a non-linear explanation
assumes that the teachers’ experiences in their specific spatial and temporal contexts
involve complex interactions of structure and agency that must be factored into any
“experience” measures. For example, “10 years of experience” for a teacher in non-white
schools spanning the disruptive apartheid and post-apartheid periods in South Africa may
32
not be comparable for an otherwise similar teacher in white schools, or one who taught
for that same period in the relatively stable contexts across the border, in Botswana.
2.4.5. Links between multiple levels of processes and outcomes
At three structural levels that I study, reform processes are linked to outcomes,
namely policies, organizational structures, and curricula. Societal processes are linked to
education policies that emerge; organizational field processes are linked to the
organizational structures that emerge; and curriculum formulation committees’ processes
are linked to the curriculum documents that emerge. Within different socio-political
contexts, teachers’ non-teaching roles are linked to differences in outcomes at each of the
three levels mentioned, and in turn are related to the opportunity to learn that teachers
provide students, and the achievement outcomes that emerge. Given the finite amount of
time that teachers have, when they spend a greater proportion of time on non-teaching
activities, they have less time to spend teaching and completing the curriculum for
attaining academic aims of reforms.
However, academic outcomes are but one of the possible aims of reforms. Other
aims are economic and socio-political. Whereas academic outcomes are more frequently
measured over the short term in assessments, economic and socio-political outcomes
emerge over the long-term, and should be the focus of further education research. My
process study particularly highlights how teachers’ roles in reforms emerge as outcomes
of historical reform processes, which in turn shape contemporary reforms.
2.4.6. A proposed process model
My proposed institutional work model conceptualizes curriculum reforms as
processes that occur at societal, organizational field, and curriculum formulation
committee levels, with teachers and other actors, including government officials, making
decisions based on past experiences at each level, in addition to their projections of future
goals (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009). Table 2 - 4 summarizes three perspectives that I
33
present from each of these levels, which respectively highlight societal processes that
occur over decades to produce education policies (Chapter 4); structuration processes that
occur over years, and determine the constellation of organizations in which teachers
participate during curriculum reforms (Chapter 5); and curriculum formulation committee
(group) processes that occur over months, out of which emerge curricula (Chapter 6).
Table 2 - 4. Teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms from three perspectives Perspective/Level Structures Processes Outcomes Society (Chapter 4) Global and local socio-
political context Societal Policies
Organizational field (Chapter 5) Policies Structuration Inter-organizational structures
Groups: curriculum formulation committee (Chapter 6)
Inter-organizational structures
Group Curricula
Figure 2 - 3 illustrates the institutional work processes. Policies emerge from the
interactions of socio-political experiences within particular socio-political contexts; inter-
organizational structures emerge from interactions of policies adopted and actors’ past
organizational experiences; and in turn, curricula emerge from the interactions of actors’
past curricular practices (e.g. teaching, working on curriculum formulation committees,
and administrative curriculum planning teams) and their inter-organizational structures.
Figure 2 - 3. Iterative processes of institutional work
Figure 2 - 4 below represents my proposed integrated CPP model, indicating CPP
processes at the societal, organizational field, and group levels. In each case, at each of
three levels there are interactions between the respective structures and teachers’ agency
structure: (1) socio-political context (2) adopted policies (3) policies, inter-org. structures outcome:
(1) policies adopted (2) inter-org. structures (3) curriculum documents
process: institutional work
agency: (1) socio-political experiences (2) organizational experiences (3) past curricular practices
34
during reform processes, out of which outcomes respectively emerge. The model below
illustrates a unified CPP field in which there are strong, or coherent links between
structure and agency at each level and each phase of curriculum reforms over time
(indicated by solid lines and arrows).
Figure 2 - 4. A unified curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field model
2.4.6.1. Society level
The model locates teachers in society. Within each country’s socio-political
context, reform processes occur at the societal level, and education policies emerge over
time from the actions of social actors, including teachers. Teachers in both Botswana and
South Africa were involved in changing exclusionary policies to make them more
participatory. However, whereas Botswana developed policies focused on both increasing
teacher capacity and engaging in participatory curriculum development, South Africa’s
Outcome: Success (small policy-practice gaps)
A: Curriculum Formulation
(Group)
C: Implementation (e.g. Teaching, non-teaching
work)
B: Support (e.g. Teacher
Training)
evaluations, consultations, observations (inner arrows, time t-1)
curriculum statement/syllabus, teacher guide, time t+1
implementation plan, time t+1
resources, time t+1
Curriculum Policy-Practice Field
Society
35
policies focused primarily on participatory reforms for deinstitutionalizing exclusionary
apartheid era policies, with secondary attention to teacher education.
2.4.6.2. Curriculum Policy-Practice field level
The model specifies the curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field organizational
structures involved in three phases of CPP processes – formulation (A); support,
including administration and teacher training (B); and implementation (C). Policies
emerging from society-level processes provide the structure from which the CPP field
emerges (as shown by the arrow from Society to the CPP field), including the inter-
organizational structures of the field. Within the CPP field, information flowing from
organizational actors (including teachers’ organizations) link each phase of the
processes: curriculum formulation, support, and implementation.
Within the field, prior experiences with curriculum implementation, support, and
formulation may inform curriculum reforms. This dissertation highlights the links
between curriculum formulation and the other phases, given that despite the impact of
curriculum formulation on support and implementation, there is little knowledge about
formulation processes in SSA (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008). I characterize the
organizational actors, and the roles that teachers and other individual actors (e.g. teacher
trainers and government officials) play in reform processes.
At any given time (t) within a CPP field, experiences from curriculum
implementation and support in the past period (t-1) are to inform curriculum formulation
committee members as they develop curricula (indicated by the inner arrows, from phase
B and C respectively towards A), for achieving future-oriented curricular goals. The
curricula are codified in curriculum materials, such as curriculum statements or syllabi,
and implementation plans that the curriculum committees develop.
Subsequently, in period t+1 (indicated by outer arrows), the curriculum materials
then shape curriculum implementation directly, as curriculum materials enter the
classroom (outer arrow from phase A towards phase C), as well as indirectly, via the
curriculum support phase that includes the pre- and in-service training of teachers and
36
provision of administrative support for teachers implementing the curriculum in
classrooms (outer arrows from phase A towards phase B, and then towards phase C).
2.4.6.3. Group level
Individuals’ actions are realized in groups. Teachers, as members of civil society
or organizations within each of the three CPP phases specified above, act as members of
groups. During my study, teachers’ activities in curriculum formulation committees
(Phase A), as well as members of groups in schools (Phase C) were highlighted, and are
my focus. Policies and organizational structures that emerged from societal and field
level processes respectively provide structure for teachers’ work in groups.
2.4.6.4. Outcome of curriculum reform
Third, the model specifies the outcome of the institutional work of curriculum
reform, as indicated by the extent to which curriculum aims are achieved. Educational
outcomes emerge from CPP field processes (shown by the arrow from the CPP field
towards the outcome rectangle). My model assumes that policy goals are not achieved
entirely. Thus, within each socio-political context, the individual actors, including
teachers, policymakers and other members of society, may perceive the outcomes as
successes where policy goals are mostly achieved, resulting in small policy-practice gaps,
or as failures where policy goals are mostly not achieved, resulting in large policy-
practice gaps. Frustration occurs when teachers and other actors at social, organizational,
and group levels perceive that desired policy goals are mostly not achieved, and they may
call for further reforms. Thus, the arrow from the outcome rectangle to the CPP field
indicates that the outcome of reforms may also subsequently shape the field, including
the groups embedded within each CPP phase, as well as society (indicated by arrow from
field to society).
37
2.4.6.5. The cases of Botswana and South Africa
From the process viewpoint, divergences in reform outcomes (i.e. the size of
policy-practice gaps) emerge from the different ways in which structure and agency
interact in different socio-political contexts, with different types of structures – policies,
organizational structures, and curricula respectively emerging. Here, I depict two extreme
possibilities: unified versus fragmented structures that may emerge during reforms.
However, in reality, cases may lie somewhere along a continuum, and partially unified
structures may possibly emerge.
As shown previously in Figure 2 - 4 above, the CPP field in say, Country 1, may
have unified inter-organizational structures, such that the three policy-practice phases
interactively inform each other (illustrated by the solid lines between the phases), and are
transformed coherently during a reform. For example, practicing teachers’ evaluations,
consultations, and observations inform curriculum formulation, which in turn generates
curriculum statements, teacher guides, and implementation plans that address curriculum
aims, content, and organization. There is coherency in the processes of curriculum
formulation, and in building teacher capacity and support, and teaching practices are
consistent with curricular policy specifications. I find that Botswana’s CPP field lies
closer to such a model, relative to that of South Africa.
On the other extreme end, the CPP field in Country 2 may be fragmented (Figure
2 - 5). The links between the curriculum policy-practice phases are incoherent, or weak
(indicated by broken lines and arrows), as curriculum formulation is informed less
coherently by the structures, and prior implementation and teacher training or support
practices and experiences, resulting in curricula with greater decoupling from the other
phases, overall resulting in bigger policy-practice gaps. As I discuss in my findings later,
South Africa’s case lies closer to this model.
38
Figure 2 - 5. A fragmented curriculum policy-practice (CPP) model
Outcome: Failure (large policy-practice gaps)
A: Curriculum Formulation
(Group)
C: Implementation (e.g. Teaching, non-teaching
work)
B: Support (e.g. Teacher
Training)
evaluations, consultations, observations (inner arrows, time t-1)
curriculum statement/syllabus, teacher guide, time t+1
implementation plan, time t+1
resources, time t+1
Curriculum Policy-Practice Field
Society
39
CHAPTER 3. DESIGN, DATA, ANALYTIC APPROACHES, AND
LIMITATIONS
This chapter describes the motivations for my study design, and outlines my
research methodology. My research goal was to examine teachers’ roles in curriculum
reform processes, hence my use of processual analysis (Pettigrew, 1997). Additionally,
as the processes studied in Botswana and South Africa had already begun, and the
relevant behaviors of actors could not be manipulated in their respective contexts, I used
a case study approach (Yin, 2003, p. 7). Another important feature of my study is its
employment of a “natural experiment” design, drawing from my participation in a
Spencer Foundation-funded comparing cases of mainly Tswana-speaking 6th grade
mathematics teachers who are embedded by chance in two different education systems,
from the Botswana-South Africa border region, in Botswana’s Southern Region and
South Africa’s North-West Province (Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
The chapter proceeds in four parts. I present (i) the study design I employed, (ii)
the types of data collected, (iii) the analytic approaches used, and (iv) methodological
considerations for addressing limitations of the study.
3.1. Case Studies of Reform Processes
Developing multi-level case studies of reform processes in Botswana and South
Africa was appropriate for comparing teachers’ roles during curriculum reforms, given
observed factors that I hypothesized to be linked with the respective countries’
curriculum reforms and divergent educational outcomes. My case study approach to
comparing reforms is distinguished from case histories in that, beyond merely presenting
histories, I combine deduction and induction as I analyze patterns across cases of reform
processes, and highlight underlying mechanisms that shape the patterns (Pettigrew, 1997,
p. 339).
40
My comparisons allowed for generating theories about teachers’ roles in
curriculum reform processes across socio-political contexts. Despite being adjacent,
middle-income SSA countries, there are distinct socio-political differences between the
two countries. Botswana’s 20th century history and relatively small, homogenous
population is in stark contrast with the apartheid experiences of South Africa’s large,
diverse population. I elaborate on my process approach and the multi-level case studies of
how teachers in the two countries are embedded within societies, organizational
structures, and groups that emerged from divergent sequences of historical events.
3.1.1. Multiple, comparative case study perspectives
My research approach exemplifies two-case holistic comparison case studies
(Yin, 2003, p. 42, 47), which present contrasting processes and results of curriculum
reforms in Botswana and South Africa for predictable reasons. Botswana’s student
achievement is higher than that of South Africa, specifically in mathematics, and my
initial literature review and preliminary data analysis suggested qualitative differences
between the mathematics curricula and characteristics of teachers from the two countries
that warranted further study about teachers’ roles in shaping reforms.
My review of documents and preliminary interviews indicated that teachers
participated in multiple phases of curriculum reforms in both countries, including
formulation (as curriculum committee members), support (as students of teacher training
institutions and as administrators), and implementation (as teachers in classrooms).
However, the relatively more politicized context of South Africa that had emerged during
and after apartheid suggested that reform processes were more politicized than in
Botswana, such that there would be differences in teachers’ roles, the curriculum
materials that emerged, and how they were operationalized in practice.
I use a multi-level comparative case design approach (Yin, 2009, p. 60), and
present cases comparing teachers’ curriculum reform roles in the two countries, from
three perspectives:
41
i. The historical societal processes that occurred in the socio-political contexts of
Botswana and South Africa in the 20th century, out of which emerged the
respective countries’ education policies by the mid-1990s;
ii. The curriculum policy-practice field structuration processes (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983, p. 148; Scott, 2008b, p. 190) of Botswana and South Africa in the 1970s
through the 2000s, out of which emerged the respective inter-organizational
structures within which were embedded the mainly Tswana-speaking 6th grade
mathematics teachers who were sampled along the two countries’ shared border
in 2009; and
iii. The curriculum formulation processes that occurred in the respective countries in
the early 2000s, out of which emerged the respective 6th grade mathematics
curricula that teachers who were sampled along the two countries’ shared border
were using in 2009.
3.1.2. Process research
I count my study among process research studies, which a number of
organizational scholars have noted to be lacking, despite being needed for understanding
the complex processes that occur in organizations (Scott, 2001). My study focuses on
how curriculum reform processes occur, while providing conceptual understanding of the
events (Chia & Langley, 2004), particularly about teachers’ roles in the processes.
Two analytic strategies are worthy of note. First, for analyzing teachers’ roles in
reform processes within the divergent historical socio-political contexts of Botswana and
South Africa, I employ a narrative approach (Abell, 2004; Pettigrew, 1985; 1990; Bates
et al., 1998). Narratives have been found useful for analyzing phenomena contained
within a small number of case studies in which social and organizational processes and
outcomes are “transparently observable” (Pettigrew, 1990). In such an approach, analysis
consists of summarizing a number of processes, which are presented in the form of short
histories of change events in chronological order, as well as indication of the observable
outcomes of the processes. Narrative analysis has been used in studies of organizational
processes in sectors such as health (e.g. McKee and Pettigrew, 1988), and higher
42
education (e.g. Tiplic, 2008), drawing upon documents, interviews, and observations as
sources of data. My analysis of teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms consists of
narratives of reform processes in the contexts of Botswana and South Africa, and the
observable outcomes – policies, organizational structures, and curricula respectively –
that emerge in each case.
Second, I use a temporal bracketing (Langley, 1999), a strategy that examines the
sequences of related events that occur in each case. Temporal bracketing allows for
deconstructing the chronological data for each site of analysis into discrete time periods,
which are the units of analysis that can be compared (Denis et al., 2001). Using such a
strategy allows for a closer look at the mechanisms related to each phase of the processes,
and also makes it possible to examine how context affects the processes. My study of
teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms in Botswana and South Africa draws from multiple
phases of historical curriculum reform events, spanning the periods of the 20th century at
the societal level, from the 1970s through the 2000s at the organizational field level, and
from 2001-2003 at the group level.
Adopting a process approach also implies that my study involved “cycles of
deduction and induction” (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 343). The core deductive driver of my
study was a desire to understand how different outcomes emerged from variation in
teachers’ roles in curriculum reform processes over time, across the different socio-
political contexts of SSA countries. With the core driver specified, I then engaged in a
more open-ended process of inducing from the data collected. My overall cycle of
deduction and induction included specifying the questions and themes driving my study,
collecting preliminary data from study sites, recognizing and writing about initial
patterns, such as the differences in the focus, pacing, and outcomes of the respective
countries’ reforms, disconfirming and verifying my initial hypotheses about teachers’
roles in the processes, elaborating on my hypotheses, collecting additional data,
comparing multiple levels of cases for additional pattern recognition, and further
analyzing and refining the questions and themes I set out to address.
43
Out of the cycles of deduction and induction, I constructed cases about teachers’
roles from three perspectives: at societal, organizational field, and group [curriculum
committee]) levels. Next, I discuss my multiple, comparative case study design.
3.2. Data Collection and Management
I engaged in iterative processes of data collection and analyses from mid-2009
through early 2011, and conducted three field visits to Botswana and South Africa in
June-July 2009, October-December 2009, and September-November 2010. I triangulated
between multiples data sources, drawing from the following:
i. Historical documents and contemporary curriculum documents, which established
the chronology of events, key individuals, transition points, and outcomes of the
processes I was studying (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 344);
ii. Interviews of individuals who participated in curriculum reforms in either country
(e.g. teachers, pre- and in-service teacher trainers, government officials,
academics, community activists, etc.), conducted during field visits, as well as
obtained electronically and telephonically (Yin, 2003, p. 8); and
iii. Administrator and teacher surveys, assessments, and student workbook data from
schools involved in the Spencer Foundation-funded study of teaching quality and
6th grade students’ mathematics outcomes that was conducted in 2009 (see Carnoy
et al., 2012 forthcoming).
This data, which is presented in further detail below, informed the three
comparative perspectives on teachers’ curriculum reform roles in societies, organizational
fields, and curriculum committees, as shown in Table 3 - 1. Whereas documents and
interviews were the primary source of data for the three perspectives, teacher data from
the Botswana-South Africa border regions served primarily to inform the organizational
field perspective.
44
Table 3 - 1. Sources of data for three analytical perspectives Data Type Societal Organizational field Curriculum committee Documents P P P Interviews P P P Surveys, assessments, classroom data S P S Note: P=Primary source of data; S=Secondary source of data
I developed protocol for facilitating the repetition of the research steps (Yin,
2003, p. 68), to ensure reliability in data collection and analysis (see Appendix 1, 2, and
3). My initial protocol and database development was informed by prior fieldwork in
Southern Africa and other SSA countries. After my initial fieldwork in June-July 2009
and preliminary data analysis, I used the information I had gathered to update my
protocol, and finalized them after obtaining feedback from other Stanford University
researchers who had experience with protocol development and curriculum reform. I did
further testing and refinement of protocol by interviewing individuals who had been
involved with curriculum reforms in the countries studied, including individuals who had
been members of curriculum committees, albeit at the secondary school level, as well as
teachers who were not included in the study sample. What follows is a description of the
data.
3.2.1. Documents
I sourced two main categories of documents, because they captured information
about which organizations and individuals were involved in curriculum reform related
events that had occurred in the past, the motivations for events, how events unfolded, and
the outcomes that emerged. First, historical documents provided information about the
socio-political and educational contexts of the countries from the beginning of the 20th
century, through the 2000s, how reform policies, organizational structures, and curricula
emerged, and the roles of teachers in reforms. The documents I reviewed included policy
papers, project and evaluation reports, academic journal articles, Ph.D. dissertations,
organizational documents, and news articles.
45
Second, I collected and reviewed curriculum documents, including curriculum
statements and teachers’ guides that provided information about curriculum reform aims,
content, and organization. Some curriculum documents also included information about
the policies, events, and individuals involved in their creation. Table 3 - 2 presents
examples of the over 100 documents sourced.
Table 3 - 2. Examples of documents sourced
Type of data Botswana South Africa Global policy documents • The Jomtien Declaration - World Declaration on Education for
All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs (UNESCO, 1990) • Dakar Framework for Action. Education for All: Meeting Our
Collective Commitments (UNESCO, 2000) Country reports and statistics • World Bank, UNESCO reports Historical accounts • Education and Development
in Pre-Colonial and Colonial Botswana to 1965 (Q.N. Parsons, 1983)
• The Road to Democracy in South Africa (South African Democracy Education Trust, 2004)
Policy documentation on overall development
• Education sections of National Development Plans
• ANC Reconstruction and Development Program (1994b)
Education policy documentation (white papers on education, committee, consultancy, review reports)
• National Policy on Education (NPE, 1977)
• Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE, 1994)
• ANC Policy Framework for Education and Training (ANC, 1994a);
• White Paper on Education and Training (ANC, 1995)
Archived project reports and meeting minutes
• Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP); Basic Education Consolidation (BEC) minutes and reports
• Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) minutes
• Partnership to Transform South African Education (USAID, 2009)
Curriculum formulation and implementation planning and strategy documents
• Curriculum Development Procedures Manual;
• Guidelines for Subject Panels (Colleges of Education)
• Terms of Reference for Streamlining C2005
• Revised National Curriculum Statement Briefs
Blueprints, curriculum draft documents
• Curriculum Blueprint: Ten Year Basic Education
• Draft Working Group reports, feedback comments
Curriculum statements, syllabi, teacher guides
• 2005 Upper Primary (5-7) Mathematics Syllabus;
• Standard 6 Teacher Guide • 1993 Upper Primary (5-7)
Mathematics Syllabus;
• Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9: Mathematics) (2002);
• Teacher’s Guide for the Development of Learning Programmes (2003)
Curriculum implementation evaluations and reviews
• 2005 Standard 4 & 5 Formative Evaluation Report
• Reviews of Implementation of Curriculum 2005 & Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS)
46
3.2.2. Interviews
Whereas documents provided recorded information about reforms, I interviewed a
range of informants, including teachers and government officials, for further insights
about the motivations of the people whose actions were captured in written documents, as
well as information beyond what was recorded. For example, interviews captured
information on how individuals felt about their roles in reform processes, and about other
actors. In line with the process research approach I was using, in my interviews I
collected data on informants’ personal histories, as context; their roles in the reform
processes as: members of society, in the organizations they belonged to, and on
curriculum committees; and their viewpoints and practices related to the outcomes that
emerged from each perspective (see Appendix 1, 2, and 3 for interview protocol).
A “snowball” approach yielded the sample of informants interviewed on
curriculum reforms in Botswana and South Africa. Individuals involved in the curriculum
policy-practice fields of Botswana and South Africa (particularly on mathematics
curriculum committees) were identified and selected from references and documents
reviewed, and contacts that were established during initial field trips. Among those I
interviewed were Botswana’s current Deputy Permanent Secretary (DPS, Regional
Operations), who had been one of a group of teachers that joined the Ministry of
Education in the 1980s after being invited to participate in curriculum development
processes (see Chapter 4). In South Africa, a notable informant was the Minister for
Basic Education as of 2010, who had been a teacher and an anti-apartheid activist. In
addition to providing historical information about reforms, she also shared insights about
possible directions of curriculum reforms.
There were 47 semi-structured interviews (20 in Botswana, 27 in South Africa),
26 unstructured interviews (9 in Botswana, 17 in South Africa), and several informal
conversations with informants to ascertain data validity, given the value of such informal
interactions from my previous research experiences in SSA and suggestions by
researchers familiar with the Botswana and South Africa contexts.1 Interviews were
1 For example, in two studies I previously conducted in other SSA countries (one in West Africa and another in southern Africa), informal conversations raised questions about data that had been collected
47
conducted in-person, telephonically, and electronically. In-person interviews were
conducted during field trips to Botswana and South Africa, during visits to schools,
education offices (national, provincial, and district), teacher training institutions
(colleges, universities, and teacher education centers), social gatherings, and homes of
informants. For semi-structured interviews, the use of consistent interview protocol
controlled for external variance. Semi-structured interviews with teachers and curriculum
committee members averaged about 90 minutes, whereas unstructured interviews with
other informants lasted from 30 minutes, up to just over 2 hours per session.
Interviews were transcribed and organized into text documents to facilitate
analysis. Twenty-seven (27) of the semi-structured interviews were fully transcribed,
including all interviews conducted during a first round of data collection in mid-2009,
and all interviews with mathematics curriculum formulation committee members from
the respective countries. After my preliminary analysis of the transcripts, I conducted
follow-up interviews in some cases, as themes emerged that I explored further. Follow-up
interviews were partially transcribed. I elaborate on the informants for the different types
of interviews.
3.2.2.1. Semi-structured interview informants
Out of 47 semi-structured interviews (Table 3 - 3), 31 were with curriculum
committee members and education officials who were directly involved in curriculum
reform processes from the 1980s to 2011. In Botswana, the sample of informants
included 7 members of the 13-member Mathematics Subject Panel (MSP) that formulated
the National Mathematics Curriculum for Upper Primary (Grade 5-7) from 2001-2003.2
In South Africa, informants included 4 out of 6 individuals on the Mathematics Working
Group for the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS), Kindergarten through
Grade 9.
prior to my respective studies (neither case was in Botswana, South Africa, nor Ghana, my country of origin). In the more serious case, an informant indicated that there was one set of data provided to “funders” and another set of “real data” that was subsequently provided to me. 2 A number of the upper primary committee members interviewed had also been involved in the lower primary (Grade 1-4) mathematics curriculum formulation.
48
Table 3 - 3. Semi-structured interview informants Informants Botswana South Africa Mathematics Curriculum Committee Members (2000-2003)
7 4
Other Curriculum Committee 3 8 National Education Officials 4 5 Southern
Botswana North-West Province
Teachers 5 6 Teacher Trainers 1 4 Total 20 27
Of the remaining 16 informants, 11 were teachers who were implementing the
countries’ respective curricula in Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s North-
West Province during the 2009 academic year (5 in Botswana and 6 in South Africa).
Five interviews of teacher trainers included one in Botswana and four in South Africa. It
should be noted that the list of people interviewed as curriculum committee members
included additional teacher trainers (three each in Botswana and South Africa).
3.2.2.2. Unstructured interview informants and discussions
Unstructured interviews with other informants mostly provided contextual
information about the reforms (e.g. timelines of events) and socio-political contexts of the
countries. Table 3 - 4 below summarizes the categories of informants, including 9 in
Botswana, and 17 in South Africa.
Table 3 - 4. Unstructured interview informants Informants Botswana South Africa School teachers/administrators 3 8 Teacher trainers 1 2 Union representatives 1* 2 Education Researchers 4 5 Total 9 17 Note: * Interview conducted by other researcher
I also benefitted from discussions with curriculum experts in both countries. In
Botswana I participated in discussions at the Department of Primary Education (DPE) at
the University of Botswana. In South Africa I participated in seminars, including the
49
Foundations for Learning Workshop at the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC),
as well as a curriculum development workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand
(Wits).
Additionally, having conducted a number of studies in SSA, it has been my
experience that informal meetings and conversations in such settings often complement
formal data collection. Hence, in addition to interviews, informal meetings and
conversations were conducted with informants noted above where possible, as well as
other academics, community activists, politicians, and government officials, in person,
and telephonically. Notes made from my informal conversations were also analyzed.
3.2.3. Teacher surveys, mathematics assessments, and classroom data
Very little of the international education research draws on process data, such as
what goes on in schools, and teachers’ views on educational processes they engage in
(Foster et al., 2012; Wolhuter, 2008). In addressing such limitations of prior studies, the
primary sources of information for my sketch of the curriculum policy-practice fields in
Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s North-West Province were (i) teacher
and administrator surveys; (ii) teacher mathematics assessments (from a 24 item, multi-
part mathematics assessment administered to teachers); and (iii) classroom data.
The survey, assessment, and classroom data were collected as part of a Spencer
Foundation-funded study conducted in 2009. The teacher sample I used includes 120
individuals (58 teachers from 58 schools in Botswana and 62 teachers from 60 schools in
South Africa) who were implementing their respective country’s 6th grade mathematics
curriculum in Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s North-West Province
during the 2009 academic year. A fuller description of all the sampling and data
collection is available from Carnoy et al. (2012).
Teachers and administrators surveyed were drawn from low-income schools in
districts within 50 kilometers of the Botswana-South Africa border. In Botswana, the
school sampling base was 107 schools from four districts (Gaborone, South East,
Southern and Kgatleng districts), with 60 schools sampled, using a weighted simple
stratified random sampling methodology. Fifty-eight (58) schools finally agreed to
50
participate. In South Africa, a two level stratified random sampling methodology was
applied to public schools with Grade 6 learners in the Mahikeng (formerly Mafikeng) and
Ramotshere Moiloa local municipalities. Urban schools were oversampled to correspond
to the sample on the Botswana side of the border. The sampling frame was made up of
155 schools, and the final sample was made of 60 schools.
Teacher data that I employed include the following:
i. Context and teacher characteristics
o Demographic characteristics (i.e. age and gender);
o Education (level of education, teacher training institution attended);
o Historical experience (i.e. year first initially qualified as a teacher);
o Teacher union membership; and
o Views about curriculum (i.e. curriculum reform priorities);
ii. Non-teaching roles in processes
o Teacher self-report of activities that take them out of class;
o Administrator report of activities that cause teacher absenteeism;
iii. Outcome
o Curriculum content exposure – the number of daily lessons that teachers
gave students, measured from students’ workbooks. Data was collected
from a sample of the three “best” students’ workbooks in each teacher’s
class, to obtain a more accurate picture of content coverage.
The above were supplemented by other data. Information from documents and
interviews previously described were the primary source of data for characterizing the
history and overall attributes of the curriculum policy-practice fields in Botswana and
South Africa. Other data include school and classroom context data, including size,
location, and students’ social background data, as well as school and classroom practices
and mathematics teaching quality assessment (from analysis of video-taping of teachers’
lessons).
51
3.3. Analytic Approaches
Pettigrew’s (1997) processual approach guided my iterative analysis of theory and
the data. My multi-level approach was similar to those of other process studies (e.g.
Denis et al., 2001; Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998; Tiplic, 2008). For multiple case study
perspectives, I compared curriculum reform events from my data, using analytical
process categories from existing literature. I then integrated categories, and developed
theory that informed my overall model on teachers’ roles in curriculum reform processes.
Qualitative documents and interview data were manually coded and analyzed iteratively
using frameworks that I discuss below. I compared means from quantitative teacher
survey, assessment, and classroom data from sampled schools on either side of the
Botswana and South Africa border to establish what differences existed between the
characteristics of teachers who had emerged from reform processes in the respective
countries, and their related educational practices and outcomes during the 2009 academic
year.3
Based on the literature I reviewed prior to conducting fieldwork, my initial goal
was to determine whether the extent that teachers implemented learner-centered
curriculum reforms depended on how much they were involved in curriculum
policymaking. I initially hypothesized that whereas Botswana’s teachers played
peripheral policymaking roles in the country’s centralized system (e.g. see Maruatona,
1994; Tabulawa, 1998, p. 251), South Africa’s teachers played central roles in the post-
apartheid participatory reforms, although their impact on outcomes must have been
minimal, given their low capacity and the symbolic nature of the reform processes (e.g.
see Jansen, 2002a; 2002b).
However, my preliminary analysis of the first round of data collected in mid-2009
led to refinement of my formal research questions and initial hypotheses. I found that
although teachers were involved in the processes in both countries, differences in their
roles emerged at multiple levels. I then elaborated questions and hypotheses in the three
perspectives that I adopted: teachers have complex roles in curriculum reforms, as
3 I also conducted regression analysis of the quantitative data in exploring alternative explanations that are summarized in my empirical findings.
52
members of society, as participants in organizations within organizational fields, and as
curriculum formulation committee members in the specific contexts that they inhabit.
Findings from my initial analysis guided my subsequent analysis of the data.
For each of three perspectives, qualitative data analysis involved identifying
categories for comparisons, identifying empirical patterns, coding, and developing an
interpretive framework (Locke, 2001; Tiplic, 2008, p. 98). Consistent with other process
studies that analyze emergent “archetypes,” or organizational structures and the ideas,
beliefs and values underpinning them (Greenwood and Hinings, 1993), my interviews
and initial document analysis indicated categories at the three levels studied.
For further specifying categories for my analysis, I drew upon conceptions of
reform policies and processes (Gallie, 2007, pp. 12, 73; Hodgkinson, 1983), the
organizational structure typologies from Meyer, Scott, Strang, & Creighton, 1988), and
Walker’s (1990) curriculum framework, drawing from multiple data sources (Hinings et
al., 1996). I then identified empirical patterns – the structures and actors, as well as
processes and outcomes – by applying organizations frameworks and using Langley’s
(1999) temporal bracketing strategy to delimit my study, focusing on comparing cases of
reform processes from two adjacent countries over specific time periods.
My coding processes followed methods outlined in Saldana (2009, p. 77) and
Strauss & Corbin (1998). Based on categories I had initially identified, I iteratively coded
text from documents, transcribed interviews, and memos, using (i) descriptive and
process coding approaches to develop my understanding of the empirical patterns from
my cases; (ii) axial coding approaches to establish links between the structures, actors,
processes, and outcomes; and (iii) theoretical coding approaches for developing theory.
Consistent with Tiplic’s (2008, p. 103) interpretive approach for studying organizational
change processes, I analyzed coded data based on a framework that used first-order
categories as the “facts” obtained from my data collection, second-order themes as the
“theories” to organize and explain the facts, which I then aggregated in specifying my
model (Table 3 - 5). For example, coded data about teachers’ engaging in strikes during
anti-apartheid societal processes were first-order facts about teachers’ fights for
democracy, which represented the second-order theme of teachers attacking the
legitimacy or taken-for-grantedness of authoritarian governance, an aspect of disruptive
53
institutional work. In my findings, I include some quotes that are representative of “facts”
presented by three or more informants as evidence to support arguments about the forms
of institutional work done.
Table 3 - 5. Interpretive framework template and examples for processual analysis Examples of process codes
Examples of first-order categories
Examples of second-order themes
Aggregate dimensions: Type of institutional work done from each perspective
engaging in strikes Fighting for democracy Attacking the legitimacy or taken-for-grantedness of an institution
Work done during societal processes developing non-
authoritarian policies Democratizing education
initiating projects Developing curriculum formulation/teacher training projects
Establishing institutional mechanisms
Work done during organizational field processes
creating manuals Formalizing roles reading documents Working on tasks
individually/sub-groups “Translating” information during group work
Work done during group processes
fighting, deliberating Developing drafts
Below, I briefly discuss analysis from each of my three perspectives, which
highlighted patterns of similarity and divergence in teachers’ curriculum reform roles
from the Botswana and South Africa cases. Details of my analysis are provided in
Chapters 4, 5 and 6.
3.3.1. Societal perspective: Policies on curriculum development and teachers
As I present in Chapter 4, the socio-political contexts (structure) of Botswana and
South Africa respectively provided the settings for societal processes in the 20th century,
out of which emerged the respective countries’ education policies (outcomes), which
subsequently framed curriculum reforms in the 2000s. My initial document reviews and
interviews indicated two policy categories or types that I focused on analyzing. In the
respective countries, policies were adopted on (i) developing curriculum materials, and
(ii) building capacity for curriculum support, for example through teacher training and
capacity-building for administrators. My final analysis showed how empirical societal
processes were focused on two forms of institutional work in Botswana and South Africa
in the 20th century: disrupting authoritarian, exclusionary curricular systems, and
54
creating democratized education systems. Policies on curriculum development and
teacher training emerged out of the institutional work done in the respective countries by
the 1990s.
3.3.2. Field perspective: Inter-organizational structures and teachers’ roles
From a second perspective (Chapter 5), in the respective countries, policies
concerned with curriculum reforms provided the structure within which organizational
field processes occurred over the 1970s-2000s, and out of which emerged inter-
organizational structures (outcomes) that governed curricular practices, including
teachers’ related teaching and non-teaching roles in the 2000s. My document review and
interviews of teachers and policymakers indicated that during reforms, teachers were
“overloaded” with work, including non-teaching activities, which appeared to be more
expansive when multiple organizations were involved in reform processes. Teachers’
non-teaching roles included their participation in curriculum formulation and support,
through activities such as teacher training workshops, administrative tasks and meetings,
and union meetings.
Differences in curriculum policy-practice gaps – lessons that teachers were
covering versus what was expected – on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border
in 2009 led me to focus on how expansive were teachers’ non-teaching roles within the
respective curriculum inter-organizational structures that had emerged from their
respective organizational field processes. Two types of curriculum reform organizational
structures, or archetypes (Greenwood and Hinings, 1993) from existing literature were
found to be salient – fragmented and unified (Meyer, Scott, Strang, & Creighton, 1988, p.
166). A third archetype emerged from the data: partially unified structures that are not
fragmented, but are also not unified, exemplified by cases where multiple organizations
with somewhat different priorities are governed under a centralized system, guided by
coherent policies.
The set of organizations at each of the three phases of curriculum policy-practice
processes (formulation, support, and implementation) were characterized according to the
three types. My analysis of documents, interviews, and survey data on teachers’ histories
55
showed how, despite efforts at disrupting apartheid’s segregated structures, a relatively
fragmented field emerged in South Africa by the 2000s, and was associated with sampled
teachers’ relatively more expansive non-teaching roles, and less time spent teaching, as
compared with sampled teachers who had emerged from the partially unified inter-
organizational structures that were created over time in Botswana.
3.3.3. Group perspective: Curriculum statements and teachers’ formulation
roles
From a third perspective, curricula emerged from the processes of curriculum
formulation committees within the policy contexts and organizational structures of
Botswana and South Africa (Chapter 6). My initial analysis of documents and interview
responses from both countries indicated that teachers had difficulties in implementing
“vague” and “overloaded” curricula, leading me to focus on analyzing differences in the
curriculum materials of the respective countries, and their curriculum formulation
processes. I developed process codes for describing the curriculum formulation events for
my comparative analysis of teachers’ and other actors’ roles in the curriculum
formulation processes within the respective structures (policies and organizational
structures) of the two countries. Additionally, I conducted comparative analysis of the
outcomes: the scope (i.e. number of sub-topics) and structure (i.e. layout and language) of
coded curriculum documents that emerged from the respective countries’ processes.
3.4. Methodological Considerations and Limitations
A number of strategies help to address potential limitations of this study, based on
standards applicable to interpretative process studies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Pettigrew,
1997). Such limitations include the extent to which findings are reliable and valid, as
well as the extent to which findings from the specific cases are generalizable or useful for
understanding similar processes in other situations.
56
3.4.1. Reliability
I developed protocol for facilitating the repetition of research steps to enhance
reliability in data collection and analysis (Yin, 2003, p. 68). I also provide detailed
description of the research approaches used to address reliability concerns. For
addressing potential concerns with data consistency, I searched for disconfirming
evidence and rival accounts and explanations from multiple data sources (Patton, 1999).
For example, once my review of documents indicated that rushed timelines was a
potential factor that constrained processes in the cases studied, my protocol sought
information from informants about how time, as well as other factors, such financial
resources impacted their processes. My iterative processes of document reviews and
interviews highlighted time constraints as a key factor differentiating the cases, rather
than factors such as financial resources.
3.4.2. Validity
Also, different strategies were used for a number of validity concerns (Maxwell,
1996). For this retrospective study, using multiple sources of evidence (triangulation
among multiple data sources and informants), recording interviews, and making
comparisons of teachers’ curriculum reform roles from the three perspectives used
(society, organizational field, group) helped address issues of data accuracy and construct
validity (Yin, 2003, p. 34). For enhancing interpretive validity, such that descriptions of
reforms correspond as closely as possible to the accounts of those experiencing them I
had key informants review aspects of the cases. Additionally, I benefitted from the
perspective of an insider-outsider in SSA (Adler & Adler, 1994), especially when
engaging in informal conversations about curriculum reforms. Having lived for about two
decades in a lower-income SSA country, Ghana, and having been a teacher there during
reforms in the 1990s allowed for exchanges in which informants asked me about my
experiences and shared theirs, framed as lessons we could learn from each other.
57
Approaches to enhancing theoretical validity included choosing cases from Botswana and
South Africa, which vary greatly, and taking into consideration rival explanations for
divergences in teachers’ curriculum reform roles, processes, and outcomes in the
respective countries. For example, in comparing teachers’ non-teaching roles in the
divergent socio-political contexts of Botswana and South Africa, I accounted for
differences in teachers’ mathematics knowledge in the two contexts.
3.4.3. Generalizability
The objective of my case studies was to contextualize actions and processes
(Snow & Anderson, 1991), as opposed to providing statistical generalizations. Thus, my
strategies for addressing the generalizability or external validity of claims differ from
what may be used in a positivistic study. My “two-case” study approach enhances the
generalizability of claims made about teachers’ curriculum policy-practice roles, as
compared with using one case study. I solicited feedback and interpretations from peers
and colleagues, including those familiar with the contexts studied, as well as others
whose divergent perspectives alerted me to themes and patterns that I may have
overlooked. For example, whereas informants that I interviewed in Botswana and South
Africa were mostly aware of only their particular reforms in their respective countries
and provided me with “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973), research colleagues in other
contexts, such as Stanford suggested broader applications and interpretations of data
based on their knowledge of reforms from other parts of the world. Discussions with
other curriculum reform researchers highlighted the nonlinearity of curriculum reform
processes in other parts of the world (see, for example Fogo, 2010), which limit the
extent to which such process studies may be generalized, given the multiple ways in
which various factors interact in different temporal and spatial contexts.
58
CHAPTER 4. SOCIETAL PROCESSES AND EMERGING POLICIES
4.1. Introduction
In this chapter, I compare the socio-political and educational histories of
Botswana and South Africa during the 20th century and relate them to the policies on
curricula and teachers that emerged in the respective countries by the 1990s. The chapter
sets the stage for my comparative analyses of teachers’ roles in curriculum policy-
practice (CPP) processes in the two countries, specifically within the organizational
structures that emerged by the 2000s (Chapter 5); and as members of curriculum
committees that created the 6th grade mathematics curricula that were being used in the
respective countries by 2009 (Chapter 6). I conducted the study during my participation
in a “natural experiment” that compares practices and outcomes of mainly Tswana-
speaking 6th grade mathematics teachers and students living along the Botswana-South
Africa border: in Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s North-West Province
(NWP) (see Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
This chapter is motivated by my desire to understand how the curriculum and
teacher policies that framed reforms emerged, and the policy contexts of the CPP fields
within which the Botswana and NWP teachers were embedded. Given the central
assumption of my process study, that history matters (Pettigrew, 1997), I trace
differences in reform processes and outcomes in Botswana and South Africa to the
histories of the adjacent countries. I highlight how understanding teachers’ historical role
in their specific societal reform processes informs institutional change attempts in SSA.
The rest of the chapter proceeds in five parts. In the next part, I present the
theoretical framework and questions that I ask. Second, I present the data analyzed from
Botswana and South Africa. Third, I present the societal level logics and processes, as
well as policies that emerged. I then discuss the processes and policies in the context of
institutional work, after which I present my conclusion.
59
4.2. Theoretical Framework and Questions
Within the framework provided by institutional theory on institutional processes
(Scott, 2001, p. 93), I conceptualize curriculum reforms as multi-level policy-practice
processes, which emerge from specific histories and occur in socio-political contexts that
may differ from one country to another (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 114). From a
societal perspective, I assume ideas from institutional theory about how a given set of
problems or solutions – conceptualized as institutional logics – may be perceived
differently in different temporal and spatial contexts (Ocasio, 1995; Thornton & Ocasio,
2008, p. 113-114).
This chapter focuses on societal level processes and the policies that emerge in a
given socio-political context (Figure 4 - 1). In each country, the CPP field structures that
emerge from policies adopted provide the context within which curriculum formulation,
support, and implementation occur, resulting in small or big policy-practice gaps, and
sometimes motivating further reforms (see Chapter 2).
With Pettigrew’s (1997) processual assumptions underlying my dissertation
study, I adopt an institutional work perspective (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence
outcome: success (small policy-practice gaps) / failure (large policy-practice gaps)
curriculum policy-practice field structures & agency
societal-level structures & agency: policies & practices
Figure 4 - 1. Focus on societal level reform processes
60
et al., 2011). Teachers’ roles on societal processes constitute institutional work (Figure 4
- 2). I found two forms of institutional work to be salient, based on the framework
provided by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48). Policies may be focused on
institutional disruption, characterized by “attacking the legitimacy or taken-for-
grantedness of an institution,” “undermining institutional mechanisms,” “failing to enact
an institutional practice,” and “institutional forgetting.” Policies may also be focused on
institutional creation, characterized by “inventing”, “creating proto-institutions,”
“establishing institutional mechanisms,” “advocating diffusion,” “improvising,” and
“modifying.” Whereas there were similarities in the societal processes that occurred in
pre-independence Botswana and South Africa, there were divergences in the forms of
institutional work after the mid-20th century, which I present in my findings below.
Figure 4 - 2. Iterative processes of institutional work at the societal level
In adjacent countries with divergent histories of societal processes, potentially,
there were differences in the “work” done by members of society, and in the focus of
policies adopted for addressing curricular problems in each CPP field. Additionally, from
my analysis of historical data, the temporal orientation of policies emerged as being
salient, as they varied from a faster-paced orientation (i.e. shorter-term focus), to a
slower-paced orientation (i.e. longer-term focus). For example, whereas faster-paced
(shorter-term) development of curriculum materials may be the focus in one setting,
slower-paced (longer-term) development of teacher training may be the focus in another
structure: socio-political contexts
(e.g. normative controls) outcome: policies adopted
societal process: institutional work
agency: socio-political
experiences
61
setting, and some combination of such approaches may be employed in yet another
setting.
Specifically, I am interested in the historical processes out of which the policies
governing the curricular systems of Botswana and South Africa emerged by the 1990s. I
address the following question: How were societal processes within the respective socio-
political contexts of Botswana and South Africa related to curriculum reform and teacher
policies that emerged by the mid-1990s? Drawing upon the concept of institutional
logics in institutional theory (see Chapter 2), the question is further broken down into
two, specified as follows:
1. What were the respective global and local logics governing societal processes in
Botswana and South Africa through the 20th century?
2. What curriculum reform and teacher policies emerged by the mid-1990s?
4.3. Methodology
To answer the questions, my data sources were historical documents, policy
documents and interviews. Table 4 - 1 summarizes my approach. Historical and
descriptive analysis of data on the structures and processes in Botswana highlighted how
logics of control were expressed in colonization and racial segregation, whereas logics of
empowerment were expressed in democratization, state-led development, and grassroots
political resistance. Analysis of policy documents and interviews highlighted specific foci
in the respective countries, such as increasing teacher capacity, and promoting
participatory curriculum development. Further, analysis of policies’ temporal orientation
highlighted either long-term or short-term policy orientation. See Appendix 4 for
illustrative quotes from text analyzed.
62
Table 4 - 1. Summary of approaches for societal perspective Question Data Themes Analytic
Approach 1. Structures & Processes: Logics governing societal processes in Botswana and South Africa through the 20th century
• Historical Documents (e.g. project reports, meeting minutes)
• Interviews
• Logics of Control (colonization, segregation)
• Logics of Empowerment (democratization, state-led development, grassroots political resistance)
• Historical/ descriptive analysis
2. Outcomes: Curriculum reform and teacher policies that emerged by the mid-1990s
• Policy Documents
• Interviews
• Policy focus on teacher training and capacity building (e.g. “The goal is to create a pool of experienced professionals”) and/or participatory curriculum development (e.g. “committed to a fully participatory process of curriculum development”)
• Faster-paced/longer-term policy orientation (e.g. “education has a long gestation period”) vs. slower-paced/shorter-term policy orientation (e.g. “[education change] as soon as possible …”)
• Descriptive analysis
4.4. Findings
Summary. I organize my findings into four sections. With a historical perspective
underlying my study, three sections of the chapter discuss the logics of governance that
have shaped the current education systems of Botswana and South Africa over three
specific periods: (i) before the 1930s, (ii) 1930s to mid-1970s, and (iii) mid-1970s to mid-
1990s. For each period, I present a global perspective, and then turn to the respective
local settings of Botswana and South Africa for the same time period. A fourth section
then presents the teacher and curriculum reform policies and structures that emerged in
the two countries by the mid-1990s. Table 4 - 2 below summarizes key global and local
events over the three periods discussed in this chapter.
63
Table 4 - 2. Historical global and local events Period Global Botswana South Africa/Bophuthatswana/North-
West Province (NWP) Period 1: Logics of control - colonization Pre 1930s
• Scramble for Africa in 1880s
• Traditional/communal (vocational) education • Missionary education introduced • Colonization of Tswana states • Bechuanaland Protectorate (now Botswana) declared, 1885 • Union of South Africa, 1910
Period 2: Competition between logics of control and empowerment 1930s - 1950s
• World War II, Cold War • State-led governance
structures & projects (e.g. World Bank, Marshall Plan)
• Tswana resistance against incorporation into South Africa or Rhodesia
• Contestations between the Tswana and other groups
• Apartheid formalized, 1948 • Bantu Education for blacks, 1953
1960s – mid 1970s
• Independence & Civil Rights Movements
• Botswana independence, 1966
• South Africa Republic, 1961 • Further apartheid control of
education (1963 Colored Persons' Education Act; 1965 Indian Education Act)
• Bophuthatswana (or Bop, parts of area now NWP) black homeland, 1961; Nominal “self-rule,” 1972
Period 3: Divergent logics of empowerment Late 1970s - 1980s
• Political pluralism & resistance
o Neoliberalism, Washington Consensus, diffusion of ideas on political pluralism for development (see Tabulawa, 2003)
o Global anti-apartheid Movement
• State-led, participatory capacity building (National Policy On Education, NPE, with focus on “democracy, development, self-reliance, unity”, 1977)
• Focus on: (i) teacher training & (ii) curriculum development, through state-led “partnerships” such as GoB-USAID projects: Primary Education Improvement Program (PEIP) & Junior Secondary Education Improvement Project (JSEIP)
Bop: • “Independence” 1977 • Curriculum reforms through
Primary Education Upgrade Program (PEUP), 1979; PEUP ends after attempted to coup to topple “puppet” government, 1988
Rest of South Africa: • Political defiance, instability (e.g.
Soweto Uprising, 1976), ejection of school inspectors
• People's Education (inspired by work of Paulo Freire) presented as alternative to “oppressive” apartheid education (Vally, 2007)
• International organizations provide anti-apartheid support (e.g. USAID begins education support to community groups, 1986)
Mid 1990s
• World Conference on Education for All (WCEFA) (UNESCO, 1990)
• Education reforms (e.g. USAID funded curriculum reform efforts)
• Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE), focus on skills development for economy, 1994
• Apartheid falls, Bop integrated into South Africa, 1994
• Multiple ANC education policies (e.g. White Paper on Education and Training, 1995), focus on socio-political integration & inclusivity, skills development for economy
64
In the first period (before the 1930s: section 4.4.1), the regions that are now part
of Botswana and South Africa experienced a particular logic of control – colonization –
as was the case elsewhere in SSA and other parts of the world. Colonial boundary lines
cut across ethnic groups such as the Tswana, who live on either side of the Botswana-
South Africa border, and are the population studied in comparative case studies that I
present in the chapter that follows (chapter 5). The populations experienced colonialism
through various practices, including education.
In the second period (1930s to mid-1970s: section 4.4.2), globally there was
competition between logics of control and empowerment, as state-led initiatives like the
Marshall Plan were launched to assist Europe recover from the Great Depression and
World War II, while SSA’s anti-colonial movements wrestled political power from
weakened colonial masters. Botswana’s trajectory became aligned with global processes
of self-rule that led to its own independence in 1966. With the discovery of diamonds in
1967, the country of less than two million, mostly Tswana-speakers embarked on state-
led development, including in its education sector. Across the border, South Africa
headed in a different direction, as a repressive government institutionalized racial
segregation under a system of apartheid in 1948, beginning a process that continued for
decades. Apartheid’s segregated governance and education was particularly characterized
by an inferior Bantu education for blacks, with curriculum as a tool to achieve the
segregationist economic and socio-political aims of the apartheid state. Another means of
resisting the participation of non-whites in governance was through indirect control, by
granting “self-governance” to separate black homelands, such as Bophuthatswana, now
in the North-West Province (NWP), where teachers were sampled in 2009 for making
comparisons with Botswana’s Southern Region teachers.
During a third period (mid-1970s-mid 1990s: section 4.4.3) global ideas evolved
from a focus on employing logics of control in centralized planning, to democratization
for development, which exemplified logics of empowerment. In the relatively politically
stable Botswana, a 1977 National Policy on Education (NPE) was developed with
economic and socio-political democratization goals that were to be realized through
reforming the basic education system. Just across the border, South Africa’s education
65
sector became “ground zero” for political resistance. For example the imposition of
curriculum language policies by the apartheid state let to bloody student riots, including
the famous 1976 Soweto Uprising that has been characterized as a major catalyst for the
global anti-apartheid movement. Meanwhile, “independent” Bophuthatswana began
curriculum reforms – called the Primary Education Upgrade Program – in the late 1970s
to reflect a liberal, modern statehood, but reforms were cut short in the late 1980s as
political resistance in the wider South Africa permeated and threatened the state. As
global pressures (such as economic sanctions) aligned with local resistance in that period,
formalized apartheid fell apart. Previously segregated governance and education systems
were integrated through the mid-1990s, culminating in the election of Nelson Mandela in
South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994. Bophuthatswana was integrated into
one of South Africa’s 9 provinces, the North-West Province (NWP).
The fourth section of this chapter (4.4.4) highlights the respective educational
policies that emerged by the mid-1990s in Botswana and South Africa, given their
divergent histories. In Botswana, a policy promoting multi-pronged approaches to
educational change was adopted, and its focus included the building of education
ministry bureaucrats’ and teachers’ capacities, and the institutionalization of curriculum
reform processes through the 1990s. In 1994, that GoB bureaucracy adopted a Revised
National Policy on Education (RNPE) with stakeholder input. The policy led to the
mathematics curriculum reforms that were implemented in the 2000s (see Chapter 5 and
Chapter 6).
In South Africa, a White Paper on Education and Training was adopted in 1995
with the goals of addressing apartheid-era inequities. There, a decentralized approach
emerged, with diverse groups of global and local actors having been involved in attempts
to disrupt the apartheid state’s education policies. For example, whereas a global actor
like USAID partnered with the state in Botswana, in South Africa, relationships were
forged between local NGOs and USAID. With the fall of apartheid, the 1996 South
Africa Schools Act (SASA) and 1996 National Education Policy Act (NEPA) became the
foundations of the education system, repealing segregation and formalizing the grassroots
participatory processes that had toppled the apartheid state (Republic of South Africa,
1996a; 1996b). The labor movement, including teacher unions that had become
66
politically organized to fight apartheid and had emerged victorious, were “partners” in
the government in the process of integrating a historically segregated society. A key
integration focus was on reforming the curriculum that had been a primary tool of
apartheid-era segregation. Table 4 - 3 summarizes the policies of the two countries.
Table 4 - 3. Botswana and South Africa: Education reform policies by mid-1990s Policies Botswana South Africa Focus • Curriculum development
• Teacher and administrator capacity building
• Curriculum development • Democratization of formerly racially exclusionary
processes and structures, including teacher training Temporal Orientation (time frames referenced)
• Relatively slower-paced orientation/longer-term focus
• Relatively faster-paced orientation/shorter-term focus (i.e. urgent need to “move away” from Apartheid)
4.4.1. Period 1 (pre 1930s): Logics of control - colonization
4.4.1.1. Global – European control over Africa
The period from the late 19th century until the 1930s marked a period when
European countries exercised formal control over many African states. A number of
events over the period shaped the national boundaries and structures of today’s modern
African states, including the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, in which a group of
foreign ministers from Europe and the United States met and laid “ground rules” for
competing for resources in different regions of Africa. Populations that had historically
similar ethno-linguistic backgrounds became embedded in colonial masters’ governance
systems. The influence of colonization was experienced through political governance,
trade, as well as through education, as missionaries established schools in the regions.
The period was marked by contestations among and between various European and
African groups over land and resources, sometimes with the formation of varied and fluid
alliances. During the latter 19th century and the early 20th century, the British Empire
expanded its control over its colonies, including the region where the modern day stats of
Botswana and South Africa are located.
67
4.4.1.2. Local – Colonization of the Tswana-speaking peoples
Although the regions of present day southern Botswana and northwestern South
Africa are embedded in separate modern day states, they have shared political and
educational histories, and their incorporation into different states was partly by chance, as
was the case elsewhere in SSA (see Comaroff & Comaroff, 1991). By the 19th century, a
number of Tswana-speaking states occupied the regions of present day Botswana and
South Africa (Parsons, 2000). Education in the region was mainly vocational, and was
provided through traditional family and community structures. Through apprenticeships
and practices such as puberty rites, children learned skills that were to enable them
function as individuals, and as members of society.
Historians date the early to mid-19th century as the beginning of missionary
education in southern Africa, which replaced the traditional forms of education described
over time. One famous missionary school in the region was Tigerkloof, near Kuruman,
whose students included sons of local chiefs from present-day southern Botswana and
South Africa’s North-West Province (Chisholm, 2012). In another account, a renowned
historian on southern Africa, Neil Parsons (1983) notes that David Livingstone and
Batswana assistant teachers set up one of the first Christian schools at Kolobeng in 1847
(about 30km from what is the present capital of Botswana, Gaborone). At the time, the
curriculum was Christian scriptures, with the New Testament having been translated in
Setswana by 1840, and the entire Holy Bible (Bibela e e Boitshepo in the Setswana
language) translated 17 years later, by 1857. However, in 1852, Boers from the Transvaal
(in what is today South Africa) destroyed Livingstone’s mission station. The destruction
marked one account of contestations among the Tswana states, the British, and Boers at
various times, linking the populations that inhabit the present day border areas of
Botswana and South Africa.
The interaction of global and local economic and political interests eventually led
to the Tswana groups being incorporated into different modern states. After the scramble
for Africa, the Germans held on to South West Africa (now Namibia), and threatened to
cut across the Kalahari Desert and territories inhabited by the Tswana to join with the
68
independent Boer state of Transvaal (now in South Africa). In response, the British used
their missionary and trade connections with their Tswana allies to proclaim the territory
as its protectorate, allowing Cecil Rhodes’ British South African Company (BSAC) to
build a railroad corridor through the Tswana settlements, linking the south to the north,
and facilitating British expansion in the Zambezi and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). The
protectorate was eventually divided into two, with the southern part, the area around
Mafeking (now Mafikeng, close to the capital of South Africa’s North-West Province),
becoming British Bechuanaland. It was later incorporated into the Cape Colony, and
subsequently into South Africa. The British intended to hand over the northern territory,
called the Bechuanaland Protectorate either to Rhodesia or to the Union of South Africa
after 1910. Indeed, from 1895 until 1964 the protectorate, including the region now in
Botswana, was administered from Mafeking (Mafikeng). However, changing times led to
a different course of action, with divergent trajectories for the Tswana states in the
region, as I present in my account of a second period.
4.4.2. Period 2 (1930s-mid 1970s): Competition between control and empowerment
4.4.2.1. Global – State-led modernization
After the end of World War II, as anti-colonial movements emerged and
European countries’ control over colonies diminished, a number of organizational
structures were established to assist with Europe’s reconstruction. Emphasis was on state-
led planning for development and modernization, illustrative of Keynesian models of the
time. Whereas global bodies like the United Nations and development agencies like the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (the World Bank) were permanent institutions that were established, other
specialized initiatives also emerged. Particularly, the Marshall Plan was formulated in the
post-war period with the key input of U.S. State Department officials and their European
counterparts.
69
One of the key agencies established to coordinate the work of the Marshall Plan
was the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA). The ECA was succeeded by the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID),4 which, as I present later,
exemplified global organizational actors that played key roles in the education systems in
the countries studied, particularly in Botswana where it partnered with the state, versus in
South Africa where it adopted relationships with NGOs. By the early 1950s, Europe’s
economies had prospered beyond pre-war levels, with attributions made in part to the
Marshall Plan (Eichengreen, 2008). Although the Marshall Plan came to an “unexpected”
end in 1952 due to political opposition within the US (OECD, 1996), its models of US
foreign aid were employed in various parts of the world, including in SSA, where major
socio-political changes took place after World War Two.
4.4.2.2. Local – Independence for Botswana versus Apartheid in South Africa
Botswana. The “poor and peripheral” British Bechuanaland Protectorate was one
of the SSA countries that gained its independence during the period (Parsons, 2000), on
September 30, 1966, after Tswana leaders had successfully resisted their incorporation
into apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia during the 1940s and 1950s. A Tswana royal
called Seretse Khama became the first elected leader of Botswana, on the ticket of the
Botswana Democratic Party (BDP). Khama exemplified the global and local linkages that
would shape Botswana’s history, as he had been educated at South Africa’s Fort Hare
University (where Nelson Mandela also first enrolled for his university education) and
had studied in Europe before returning to his homeland to emerge as a leader in the
independence movement.
At independence, expectations for Botswana’s economic development were low,
as the country had benefitted little from British rule (Halpern, 1965; Mokgosi, 2009, p.
4). Its economy was poor, and like other sectors of the economy, the education system
virtually had to be developed “from scratch.”
4 The other key coordinating agency established was the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (later called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD).
70
However, fortunes improved with the combination of the discovery of diamonds
in 1967, and a system of planning that was credited with Botswana avoiding the
“resource curse” that plagued other SSA countries. Botswana began a system of
formulating National Development Plans (NDPs), in a period when centrally planned
economies of the Soviet Union and its allies were competing for influence against
Western countries, which themselves had also been engaged in state-led economic
development for post-war Europe. In Botswana, the first NDP covered the period from
1968-1973, and later development policies were formulated in the context of a multi-
party democracy with elections held every five years. The BDP, which won elections at
independence has remained the dominant political party, with about three other parties in
opposition. Unlike cases of other SSA countries that suffered from political instability,
Botswana’s stable democratic government continuously planned NDPs that covered five-
to six-year periods, and the country became one of the fastest growing economies in the
world by the 1980s (Kann, 1988, p. 2; Taylor, 1998, p. 122).
South Africa. South Africa’s history of segregation during the period was
markedly different from that of Botswana. The country’s history has been subject to
contestation even among the black and mixed race African, Afrikaner, Asian, and British
groups that engaged in numerous wars and political struggles through the 20th century.
The official apartheid era (1948-1994) was preceded by earlier segregation. During the
period from the early 1900s, blacks were confined to reserves, which were largely
unsuitable for agricultural production (Chisholm, 2012).
Despite disagreements about South Africa’s complex history, what is less
contested is the formalization of segregated, authoritarian governance by the late 1940s.
World War II had seen internal divisions among various groups, including among whites,
with anti-racists in conflict with those who supported the Nazis against the influence of
the Allies. The segregationists emerged to formalize apartheid in 1948, shaping
schooling, teacher training and support, organizing of educational professional groups,
politics, and administration for decades.
The formalization of segregationist education policies spanned decades. The
Eiselen Commission was appointed in 1948 to formulate a system of education for black
71
Africans, taking into consideration their “past and present” (Study Commission on U.S.
Policy toward Southern Africa, p. 118). Five years after the appointment of the Eiselen
Commission, the provision of inferior education to the black majority was formalized in
the Bantu Education Act in 1953, a year before formal segregation was abolished in US
schools. About a decade later, the apartheid state’s control over the education systems for
coloreds and Indians – which were superior to black education, but inferior to that for
whites – was formalized in the 1963 Colored Persons’ Education Act and 1965 Indian
Education Act respectively.
Under apartheid there were as many as 18 racially and geographically segregated
education departments under different administrations. With segregation often brutally
enforced, political and social instability grew as the government attempted to stamp its
authority, resulting in protest marches, strikes and fatal riots, such as when state police
killed black protestors in what became known as the Sharpeville Massacre on 21 March,
1960.
The region currently known as the North-West Province represents the
complexity of segregation during the apartheid era. In 1961, as the apartheid government
declared South Africa a republic, parts of the region became a black homeland called
Bophuthatswana (meaning, gathering of the Tswana people). Bophuthatswana, or Bop,
was one of six separated homelands, or Bantustans. In 1972 the scattered regions of
Bophuthatswana gained nominal “self-rule” as part of the apartheid government’s efforts
to legitimize separation between blacks and whites (SADET, 2004, p. 782). Led by
Tswana Chief Lucas Mangope, its capital was Mmabatho, near Mafikeng (the former
capital of the Bechuanaland Protectorate). Bophuthatswana was economically and
politically dependent on the apartheid government, and was perceived as a “puppet state”
that was largely not internationally recognized. The basis of nationhood was Tswana
ethnicity, which was emphasized despite the presence of non-Tswana speakers in the
region (Chisholm, 2012). A mark of its legitimacy was in having its own education
system, which was the setting for curriculum reforms from the mid-1970s, a period to
which I now turn.
72
4.4.3. Period 3 (1970s-mid 1990s): Capacity building and resistance as
empowerment
4.4.3.1. Global – Neo-liberalism and democratization as empowerment
The 1970s saw a global economic crisis and socio-political unrest in SSA, where
the high expectations of government-led development at independence had dissipated.
Neo-liberal ideas were on the rise, and the nation-state was perceived as an actor that
should play a reduced role. By the 1980s, the “Washington Consensus” was emerging
about democratization and free markets as solutions to economic development failures.
4.4.3.2. Local – Divergent empowerment approaches in Botswana and South Africa
During the period, approaches to empowerment were different in Botswana and
South Africa, given their divergent paths by the 1970s. Whereas the Botswana
government engaged in state-led capacity building, empowerment in South Africa was
marked by grassroots political resistance against the apartheid state.
Capacity building as empowerment in Botswana. Over the period, education
reforms became a focus point as Botswana sought to build the capacity of its citizens to
sustain the country’s economic growth. Under the framework of the fourth and fifth
National Development Plans (1976-81 and 1979-85), a 1976 Review of the National
Commission of Education (RNCE) produced the National Policy on Education (NPE), or
the Kagisano Report. The NPE was adopted to promote national ideals of democracy,
development, self-reliance and unity.
To realize the NPE goals at the basic education level (i.e. primary and junior
secondary school), local and global actors collaborated in the 1980s and 1990s to initiate
a number of system-wide education projects. Three key drivers of educational change
were (a) capacity building in government agencies; (b) strengthening of teacher training;
and (c) the institutionalization of curriculum development processes over time. Notably,
73
the Government of Botswana (GoB) and USAID established a number of distinct projects
to focus on NPE goals. At the basic education level, two key projects projects were:
1. The Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP) from 1981-1991: The
PEIP’s main purpose was to increase teacher-training capacity at the
University of Botswana and teacher training colleges. Originally scheduled to
run from 1981 to 1986, the program was extended to include a focus on
curriculum development.
2. Junior Secondary Education Improvement Project (JSEIP) from 1985-1991:
JSEIP had three foci for the junior secondary school level (Boe et al., 1990, p.
2), namely (a) curriculum and instructional materials development, (b) teacher
training, and (c) education systems planning, management, and supervision
for implementation of revised curricula.
The projects themselves arose out of negotiations between the Government of
Botswana (GoB) and USAID. As noted in a 1988 USAID initiated JSEIP mid project
evaluation report (LBI, 1988, p. 5) there were tensions between reform priorities of
USAID’s project implementers (Florida State University), which was focused on
curriculum development, and a multi-pronged approach that the GoB desired. The report
quotes the MOE Deputy Permanent Secretary at the time, and characterizes the logics of
the GoB during its negotiations about JSEIP goals:
[GoB] saw all three components [curriculum development, teacher training, and administrator capacity building] as inter-linking. We couldn’t do [curriculum] materials development without strengthening our management capacity. And the training of teachers – both in-service and pre-service – is part and parcel of the whole thing … I still believe you cannot develop curriculum in isolation. I have seen curriculum projects collapsing – beautiful materials being prepared but preparation of teachers was lacking. The administration side was lacking. That is why they are all linked in this project.
GoB’s position on adopting a multi-pronged approach became firmer over time,
with negotiations becoming deadlocked over the issue at some point, before agreement
was reached and the project proceeded.
As I discuss in Chapter 5, the PEIP and JSEIP led to the establishment of a
Department of Primary Education (DPE) at the University of Botswana, and also
74
institutionalized curriculum development processes at the Department of Curriculum
Development and Evaluation (CD&E) of the Ministry of Education (MOE).
The NPE reforms also included smaller scale curricular innovations that were
supported by donors such as the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries (Meyer et
al., 1993). One such innovation was a structured literacy program, Breakthrough to
Setswana, which was a version of a British Council program promoting reading and
writing in African languages (Chisholm, 2012). Before presenting further details of the
teacher and curriculum structures that emerged from the NPE by the mid-1990s, I turn
across the border to markedly different processes in South Africa during the 1970s
through mid-1990s.
Political resistance as empowerment in South Africa. Political organization
was the means by which logics of empowerment emerged in South Africa. Around the
same time that Botswana’s government was developing the NPE, South Africa’s
education sector was “ground zero” for political resistance against the apartheid
government’s repression. In the Soweto Uprising of 1976, black youth were killed when
state police attempted to quell riots opposing the Afrikaans Medium Decree, which
mandated black schools to use Afrikaans as the language of instruction for a number of
subjects, including Mathematics. Images of injured and dead students galvanized the anti-
apartheid movement both locally, and beyond South Africa’s borders.
As the apartheid government continued in its bid to legitimize separate racial
groupings, Bophuthatswana was granted “independence” in 1977 (SADET, 2004, p.
782), and embarked on curriculum reforms. The reforms were part of Bophuthatswana’s
leader, Mangope’s use of economic and educational ventures in attempts to gain
international recognition for the homeland as a “non-racial haven.” During this period,
the University of Bophuthatswana was built (now part of North-West University), as
were schools and teacher training colleges in the region. Also, a commission of inquiry
into education was established, which recommended improvements to early childhood
and primary education.
Based on the committee’s Popagano Report (Republic of Bophuthatswana, 1978),
liberal white South Africans and black teachers in local schools, universities, teacher
education colleges, and anti-apartheid NGOs in urban centers worked together in
75
developing a Primary Education Upgrade Program (PEUP), around the same time that
the PEIP was independently underway in Botswana. As in Botswana, local and foreign
actors funded the PEUP, including the South African Department of Foreign Affairs and
government departments, private sector donations, and the British Council (Chisholm,
2012; Graaff, 1992). School fees and local sources also funded the program, which
promoted learner-centeredness and the use of teaching aids, mostly for learning in the
local Setswana language. Despite Mangope’s attempts, Bophuthatswana did not gain
formal recognition as an independent, legitimate state in global bodies such as the UN,
but continued to be viewed as a puppet of the apartheid regime.
In the late 1980s, Bophuthatswana’s curriculum reforms ended as resistance
against apartheid mounted and the “independent” black homeland experienced political
turmoil. In 1988, anti-apartheid leaders who opposed Mangope attempted to overthrow
his government, but were thwarted by the apartheid government. A weakened Mangope
abruptly ended liberal democratic reforms, and formal support for projects such as the
PEUP ended.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, diverse members of society, including
teachers mounted political resistance to undermine apartheid era governance structures. A
movement of grassroots political resistance through education had emerged as People’s
Education by the end of the 1980s, drawing from global actors and logics that fit the
country’ conditions at the time (Vally, 2007, p. 41). The movement drew inspiration from
the ideas of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, one of a number of books that
were banned by the apartheid government. A diverse group of educational, student, and
community organizations constituted a National Education Crisis Committee (NECC),
which coordinated resistance to apartheid education. The NECC (later, the National
Education Coordination Committee) initiated a National Education Policy Initiative
(Harley & Wedekind, 2004, p. 196; NEPI, 1993) to develop plans for a post-apartheid
curriculum, focusing on “non-racism, non-sexism, democracy, equality, and redress.”
Among the global organizational actors that entered the system in the 1980s and
1990s was the USAID. USAID began operations in South Africa in 1986, after the US
Congress overruled Ronald Reagan’s veto and decided to support the anti-apartheid
movement. As in Botswana, USAID’s focus was on the education sector, which was
76
viewed as the foundation for economic development (USAID, 2009). However, unlike
USAID’s approach in Botswana where it partnered directly with the government,
operations in South Africa were done through engaging Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs). Additionally, exiled South Africans living in SSA countries and
other parts of the world engaged with each other and anti-apartheid activists at home,
sometimes through secret “cells” to avoid the apartheid intelligence apparatus.
As the local and global logics of empowerment aligned against the apartheid
government, its structures crumbled, including those of satellite states like
Bophuthatswana, and a politically integrated South Africa emerged. In Bophuthatswana,
the process of integration involved further political contestations between three groups:
(i) those who wanted to become a part of post-apartheid South Africa, (ii) Chief Mangope
and his allies who wanted to maintain the homeland’s “independence,” and (iii) Afrikaner
right-wingers who wanted white rule. In March 1994 another coup was attempted after
Mangope chose to align with Afrikaner right-wingers rather than engage in negotiations
to be incorporated into a democratic South Africa (Beck, 2000, p. 188). After a period of
labor strikes by teachers, nurses, and other groups, Mangope’s government collapsed.
Eventually, Bophuthatswana was incorporated into South Africa that year, which also
marked the internationally acclaimed first democratic elections. The elections were
preceded by processes of integrating previously segregated educational and
organizational structures in the country. In the next section I analyze the contexts within
which curriculum reform processes occurred in Botswana and South Africa in the 1990s
and 2000s (see Chapter 5 and Chapter 6) by comparing the policies on curriculum
reforms and teachers that emerged in the respective countries out of the historic processes
up to the 1990s.
4.4.4. Teacher and curriculum policies that emerged by the 1990s
SSA’s Reforms. In the 1990s, various educational reforms were adopted in SSA
ostensibly to achieve economic and socio-political aims that emerged from the 1990
World Conference on Education for All (WCEFA), where governmental and non-
77
governmental representatives from countries across the globe developed a policy
framework for education. Increasing access to education for all citizens has become one
of stated goals of education reforms in the region, as governments try to meet WCEFA
commitments of empowering marginalized groups through education.
4.4.4.1. Botswana’s focus: Teacher training and curriculum development
Botswana’s teacher and curriculum policies of the 1990s were undertaken in
response to global factors, as well as historical events and processes. The RNPE built
upon the 1977 NPE reforms, as the experiences with projects such as the PEIP and JSEIP
formed the basis for the review and development of the policy. Under the NPE
framework, the pool of teachers trained at the diploma level and curriculum development
and support personnel were expanded (Chapter 5). The RNPE was developed after a 13-
month period of review from 1992-93, within the framework of Botswana’s 7th NDP
(1991-1997), and partly motivated by the 1990 World Conference on Education for All
(WCEFA) and other global forums. The review resulted in the publication of a Report of
the National Commission on Education (RNCE) in 1993, and the adoption of the 1994
RNPE. The RNPE sought to develop teachers as agents for curriculum formulation and
support, beyond teaching in classrooms:
The goal [for the overall development of teachers] is to create a pool of experienced professionals for leadership in the various areas such as examinations work, curriculum development, and as resource persons for [professional development] workshops and seminars (Republic of Botswana, 1994).
The RNPE adopted a multi-pronged approach to education reforms, and was also
characterized by a long-term orientation, given past experiences with PEIP and JSEIP. In
its introduction, the policy document notes the following (p. 2):
Characteristically, education has a long gestation period and its effectiveness is optimized when long-term changes in the population structure, the economy and employment opportunities are taken into account (Republic of Botswana, 1994).
78
In other temporal references, the RNPE notes limitations in the country’s ability
to meet some policy goals in the short run, “given the scale of Government commitment
for other areas of support” (p. 7). The policy document however notes that such education
policies that were not being addressed in the short term, including policies on pre-primary
education, would be specified in subsequent processes to address “long run” goals noted
in National Development Plans (for the period 1991-97).
The education system in the 1990s and 2000s. The RNPE formed the basis of
further system-wide reforms, including upper primary (grades 5-7) curriculum reforms
that began in the late 1990s through the 2000s (Republic of Botswana, 1994). In addition
to consolidating the work on capacity building and curriculum development, a key aspect
of the reform was to move away from foreign to local assessments. A National
Examinations Council was set up, marking a move away from the Cambridge Overseas
School Certificate (COSC) assessments that had been inherited.
As of 2009, the organizational structures of Botswana’s basic education system
rested on the principles of the 1977 NPE and the 1994 RNPE. First, the establishment of
the Department of Primary Education (DPE) provided one of the pioneering departments
when UB became Botswana’s first autonomous higher education institution in 1982. In
August 1982, the DPE began offering two in-service teacher-training programs: a one-
year Diploma and a four-year Bachelor of Education (BEd) degree in Primary Education.
Within the RNPE’s framework, basic education in the country consists of 7 years
primary, and 3 years junior secondary school. Senior secondary school lasts for 2 years.
The RNPE also formed one of the foundations for Botswana’s Vision 2016, which had
the goal of developing Botswana into a “21st Century economy.”
Overall, building on the NPE era, the RNPE era from the mid-1990s has
characterized by (i) a diversified focus on teacher capacity building, development of an
education bureaucracy, and curriculum development; and (ii) a relatively long-term
orientation. Projects such as the PEIP and JSEIP were mechanisms for implementing the
NPE, and served to create a centralized educational bureaucracy in Botswana (Chapter 5),
out of which the RNPE emerged. In the section that follows, I present the teacher and
curriculum policies that emerged in South Africa around the same time period.
79
4.4.4.2. South Africa’s focus: Democratization of education processes
South Africa’s curriculum and teacher policies in the 1990s have been focused on
urgently de-institutionalizing apartheid-era policies through engaging in transparent
democratic policy processes and integrating previously segregated structures, including
curriculum. As political negotiations proceeded for a transition to democracy, a diverse
group of South Africans, including exiles, engaged in deliberations about transforming
the education system along with other sectors of society. The apartheid era educational
“system of systems” composed of 18 racially and geographically segregated education
departments, became unified into one national department and 9 provincial departments
(Sayed, 2004). Under the old system, black teachers were trained using a 3-year
curriculum in lower-quality colleges (the equivalent of vocational schools), and white
primary and secondary teachers had four years of college or university training. Even in
Bophuthatswana, where the PEUP curricular innovations took place, black teachers had
little training beyond their own inferior primary or secondary schooling (Chisholm, 2012;
Malao, 1983; Schlemmer, 1982). Additionally, the curriculum in black secondary school
systems were limited to subjects such as history and religious studies, and mathematics
and science were underdeveloped (Sayed, 2002, p. 382), so that blacks had few options
for further education beyond “teaching or preaching” (Sayed, 2004, p. 248). The end of
apartheid marked a chance to address such inequities.
Democratization of curriculum processes. Policies emphasized that post-
apartheid curriculum reforms were to employ democratic processes to promote equity,
and allow flexibility in teaching according to the needs of the local contexts, in contrast
to the “overly prescriptive” apartheid-era curricula. A number of policy papers, including
the ANC Policy Framework for Education and Training (ANC, 1994a) and the ANC
Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) (ANC, 1994b) emphasized the need for
participatory curriculum processes. Figure 4 - 3 below illustrates the prominence of
democratization of educational processes and curriculum reform in the ANC’s overall
development policy approach, captured in the RDP statement on education.
80
Figure 4 - 3. ANC Reconstruction and Development Program Developing our human resources Structures will be set up at all levels to involve parents, teachers, students, trade unions, employers and non-governmental educational organisations in decision making and the implementation of our human resource development plan. Education and Training The RDP proposes one education and training system that provides equal opportunities to all, irrespective of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, where people live, or what their opinions and beliefs are. Curriculums will prepare students at all levels for the challenges of reconstruction and development. Curriculums will break with the past, where black people, especially women, were educated to fulfill traditional, subservient roles and will empower them to take their place as equals in society. As soon as possible there will be 10 years of free and compulsory education for all children. By the year 2000 no class should have more than 40 pupils in it.
The above logics were reflected in the first post-apartheid White Paper on
Education and Training (DoE, 1995), also highlights the democratization of curriculum
processes. The White Paper served as the foundation for the country’s current education
system, and its content provides insights into the current nature of South Africa’s
education system. The opening lines under the curriculum development section of the
White Paper read as follows:
The advent of democracy in South Africa has made it both possible and imperative to undertake an overhaul of the learning programmes in the nation's schools and colleges. The Ministry of Education is committed to a fully participatory process of curriculum development and trialling, in which the teaching profession, teacher educators, subject advisors and other learning practitioners play a leading role, along with academic subject specialists and researchers. The process must be open and transparent, with proposals and critique being requested from any persons or bodies with interests in the learning process and learning outcomes … The Ministry recognises that it is important to set up rapid processes for the production of new curriculum frameworks and core curricula … All curriculum change is a lengthy process, but strategic points of entry will be found so that a progressive transformation will take place on a phased basis
Leaving teacher education to be addressed democratically. The 1995 White
Paper left the issue of teacher training to be addressed “democratically” through
decentralized structures. Article 41 stated that the Ministry of Education “requires
appropriate advice on all aspects of teacher education policy.” Teacher education was
reconfigured from being governed by the 18 racially segregated departments, and the
redesign of teacher education programs was left to provincial departments, universities
and technical institutions (Article 42).
81
The education system in the 1990s and 2000s. The historical processes have
served as the foundation of the teacher and curriculum landscape in South Africa through
the 2000s. Under the post-apartheid constitution that highlights a vision of equality in de-
segregated South Africa, the majority population that were severely under-educated and
repressed is now engaged in education governance, exemplified by a democratization of
curriculum reform processes.
Teachers are among a diverse group of “stakeholders” who are to contribute to the
new South Africa. Building on the 1995 White Paper and various policy frameworks and
consultations, the South African Schools Act (SASA) and National Education Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1996 respectively repealed segregated education and required that
consultations be held with a wide variety of bodies including the “organised teaching
profession” before determining education policy (Republic of South Africa, 1996b).
Thus, teacher unions emerged as partners in government, unlike the case during
apartheid. For example each of the teacher unions has two representatives employed in
the Department of Education to collaborate with government regarding curriculum and its
implementation (Govender, 2004, p. 267).
Taking a historical perspective allows one to better understand the processes by
which South Africa’s contemporary education system emerged. In the democratic era the
country’s education system been characterized by a sense of urgency break away from
apartheid era policies as quickly as possible, with a focus on democratized curriculum
reform processes, and the inclusion of previously excluded groups, such as teachers’
organizations.
In the section that follows, I conclude with a discussion about how the cases
provide empirical evidence of institutional work from a societal perspective. My
discussion sets the stage for the chapters that follow, in which policies provide the
structures within which the evolving roles of teachers are elaborated in curriculum reform
fields (Chapter 5), as well as on curriculum formulation committees (Chapter 6).
82
4.5. Discussion
The processes out of which educational policies in Botswana and South Africa
emerged by the 1990s are empirical cases of institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby,
2006, p. 215). Two forms of institutional work were highlighted in the two countries’
temporally embedded societal processes: institutional creation and institutional
disruption (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009, p. 47). The cases show that whereas Botswana’s
institutional creation processes adopted a multi-pronged approach for addressing
curriculum formulation, support, and organization priorities over the long term, South
Africa’s institutional disruption processes were focused on short-term goals of
democratizing what had hitherto been an exclusionary, authoritarian curricular system
under apartheid.
4.5.1. Botswana’s multi-pronged approach and long-term policy orientation
After decades of colonization, Botswana society engaged in state-led institutional
creation, as it has attempted to develop its education system by adopting multi-focused
policies with long-term orientation (Figure 4 - 4). Over decades, Botswana’s policies
have been developed through negotiations between local and foreign actors, and have
addressed teacher training and curriculum development, reflecting the multiple
curriculum reform priorities in multi-phased processes of reform.
Figure 4 - 4. Botswana’s iterative processes of institutional creation at the societal level
structure: socio-political stability
outcome: multi-focused policies with
long-term orientation
societal process: institutional
creation agency: democratic practices
83
Relative stability and continuity have characterized education practices and the
policies that emerged at the basic education level (i.e. elementary/primary and
middle/junior secondary school). Botswana’s first major education policy, the 1977
National Policy on Education (NPE), was adopted 11 years after independence, followed
by the 1994 Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE) 17 years later. The RNPE
goals were reemphasized in another policy document, Vision 2016, which was developed
in 1997, in anticipation of Botswana’s 50th independence anniversary.
4.5.2. South Africa’s focus on democratization of processes in the short-term
South Africa’s diverse society has been engaging in multiple attempts at
institutional disruption of apartheid, exemplified by short-term participatory curriculum
formulation efforts, although post-apartheid institutional creation, such as longer-term
teacher development was not well specified in its mid-1990s policies. The urgency of
post-apartheid policies of the 1990s contrast with the decades-long processes out of
which apartheid structures were developed, and subsequently deinstitutionalized (Figure
4 - 5).
84
Figure 4 - 5. Summary timeline for creation and disruption of apartheid education
Particularly from the 1940s, the institution of apartheid was built over decades by
creating exclusionary structures and practices, including an authoritarian education
system for the non-white majority. The 1960s-1970s were periods of contestations
between apartheid proponents and opponents. Over the 1980s and 1990s South Africa’s
institutional work processes of disrupting apartheid involved a diverse set of actors,
including teachers who sometimes engaged in strikes in political defiance, a case of
failing to enact institutionalized practices (i.e. teachers choosing to not teach), from the
institutional work perspective. Choosing to do away with exclusionary apartheid policies
and replacing them with participatory policies in the mid-1990s is a case of institutional
forgetting.
85
Figure 4 - 6. South Africa’s iterative processes of institutional disruption at the societal level
4.6. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have explored the processes that shaped the education systems of
Botswana and South Africa by the mid-1990s from a societal perspective. My overall
objective was to understand the processes out of which emerged policies on curriculum
and teachers in the respective countries. South Africa has more recently, since the 1990s,
focused on participatory processes, particularly for curriculum development, in reaction
to its apartheid past.
In both Botswana and South Africa, policymakers continue attempts to improve
education systems, as in other parts of SSA. However, promises of benefits from
democratization appear elusive as a number of reforms have “failed” and led to further
reforms. Particularly in post-apartheid South Africa, observers note that a sense of
urgency to symbolically de-institutionalize segregationist and authoritarian apartheid
policies is paradoxically related to failure to change (Jansen & Christie, 1999), given the
structural inequalities that persist, and which require sustained, multi-faceted foci and
efforts over time. Some degree of cynicism has emerged and threatens advances made.
Both countries, particularly South Africa, must show positive results from
institutional change efforts to address cynicism. History provides some answers about
how to create enduring institutions. As inimical to South African society as apartheid
structure: socio-political instability (apartheid versus anti-apartheid structures)
outcome: policies focused
on urgently democratizing
society
societal process: disruption of
apartheid agency:
exclusionary practices
86
was, lessons can be learned from the long-term orientation of that institution, as well as
the anti-apartheid efforts that democratized the country.
History provides a better understanding of the socio-political contexts within
which policy changes are being attempted by groups of organizations or groups of people
working within organizations. In Chapters 5 and 6, I build upon this societal perspective
by presenting organizational field and group perspectives that further specify the
institutional work of teachers, and the multiple roles they play in organizations that are
engaged in reforms over time. I elaborate on the roles of teachers and their organizations
in Botswana’s decades-long combination of teacher training development and curriculum
development, and South Africa’s participatory curriculum development efforts, and
analyze such roles drawing upon data obtained from informants at the national level in
the respective countries, and from teachers sampled along the Botswana-South Africa
border.
87
CHAPTER 5. CURRICULUM POLICY PRACTICE FIELD PROCESSES
5.1. Introduction: Teachers’ Multiple Roles in Curriculum Reforms
Curriculum reforms are often adopted with academic aims of improving student
achievement, as well as economic aims of development. However reforms also have
socio-political aims, such as the democratization of education processes. In Sub-Saharan
Africa (SSA), the adoption of learner-centered curricula at the basic education level (i.e.
elementary and junior secondary) exemplifies such democratization efforts, in which
teachers are to help design, facilitate, and evaluate hands-on learning with students’
active participation. Democratization efforts also encourage greater teacher participation
in decision-making and governance of reforms, in non-teaching roles that are to endow
them with “ownership” of the curricula that they are to implement (Gallie, 2007;
McLaughlin & Mitra, 2001). As part of their non-teaching roles, teachers participate in
curriculum formulation, district and school administration, and in the activities of unions
and teacher associations, and other education organizations engaged in curriculum
reforms. In addition, reforms are often accompanied by professional development
workshops that sometimes take teachers out of class to prepare them for changes in their
teaching and non-teaching roles.
In spite of the potential benefits of participatory curriculum reform processes,
expanding teachers’ non-teaching roles in the multiple organizations above may leave
them less time for completing their curricula, with adverse effects for student
achievement. Less time spent teaching – or providing students with the opportunity to
learn (OTL) – seems to be associated with lower student achievement outcomes (Abadzi,
2007a; 2007b; 2009; Chisholm et al., 2005; McDonnell, 1995). Thus, efforts that increase
teachers’ non-teaching roles in various organizations without adequate consideration for
their workloads may worsen student achievement if they result in teachers spending less
time in productive teaching. Hence, it matters how teacher participation occurs in
participatory reforms, and my study provides a better understanding of how teacher
participation occurs.
88
In SSA, little is known about how teachers’ non-teaching roles in multiple
organizations interact with their teaching during reform processes in the region’s diverse
education systems, and the curricular outcomes that emerge. Despite similarities in the
academic aims of reforms and teachers’ related teaching roles, non-teaching roles are
likely to vary across SSA countries that have different socio-political curriculum reform
aims. In a country where multiple ethnic and political groups are participating in reforms
and expecting equity in educational outcomes, the extent of coordination, information
sharing, and accountability systems that should be put in place to govern educational
organizations are likely to differ from another country where relatively more
homogenous groups are participating in reforms. Teachers’ roles likely vary in such
different contexts, and such variation yields insights, as my study shows.
I compare teachers’ curriculum reform roles in Botswana and South Africa, given
their divergent socio-political histories and policies that had emerged by the 1990s,
despite their shared history until the early 20th century (see Chapter 4). Among adjacent
SSA countries with similar income levels, the social and political differences between
Botswana and South Africa are particularly striking. Both southern African countries
have middle-income status, and are similarly tackling problems such as HIV/AIDS.
However, Botswana’s population of two million people who mostly speak the same
language (seTswana) contrasts sharply with South Africa’s 49 million, multi-racial,
multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic population, which is attempting to address decades of
formal segregation that was preceded by inter-ethnic and inter-racial conflicts. Even on
either side of the two countries’ shared border (Botswana’s Southern Region and South
Africa’s North-West Province), among the Tswana, who are of the same language and
culture, one might expect socio-political differences, given the divergent 20th century
histories of the countries within which they are embedded. Differences in teachers’ roles
in the two settings reflect such wider historical socio-political differences.
Curriculum reform processes and outcomes in such divergent policy contexts are
likely to differ. Despite similarly embarking on curriculum reforms that began almost
simultaneously in the 2000s, Botswana and South Africa have relatively divergent
educational outcomes. For example, in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Survey (TIMSS), although students from both countries did poorly overall,
89
middle school students (8th graders) in Botswana scored 100 points higher in mathematics
(one standard deviation) than those in South Africa (Reddy, 2006). Such divergences
raise questions about differences in their respective reform processes, and I particularly
explore how differences in reform practices and outcomes emerge from differences in
organizational structures and teachers’ roles in the divergent policy contexts of the two
countries.
I ask the following question: In Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s
North-West Province, how did the organizational structures concerned with teachers’
roles in the curriculum reforms of the 2000s emerge, and what were the similarities and
differences in teachers’ non-teaching roles and the time they spent teaching within those
structures during the 2009 school year? In addressing the question, I focus on teachers’
activities that compete with teaching time within curriculum reform organizational
structures, as policy-relevant factors that can be addressed during ongoing curriculum
reforms in SSA and elsewhere. Also, while I recognize that not all the time spent in class
is used effectively, I leave that issue to be addressed by others (see Carnoy et al., 2012
forthcoming).
Prior studies focus on teachers as members of schools, which have been
conceptualized as organizations where future workers gain skills (Banks, 1976;
Musgrave, 1968; Shipman, 1975). In schools, teachers’ teaching efforts contribute to the
success or failure of achieving the academic aims of reforms. For example, economic
perspectives conceptualize teachers as human resources among schooling inputs. In SSA,
poor teacher knowledge, among other factors like inadequate teaching materials, is
associated with poor student achievement (Chisholm et al., 2000; Reeves, 1999).
Employing sociological approaches, world society theorists (Meyer et al. 1997)
characterize teaching practices as decoupled from globally homogenized formal
curricula, with little attention to how teachers engage in such decoupling processes.
Political perspectives present teachers as political actors. Teachers who feel that
policymakers are imposing reforms on them are said to have low reform “buy-in,” and
may implement reforms differently from what is specified in formal policies (Gallie,
2007; Jansen, 1993). A greater amount of decoupling between curriculum coverage
90
specified in formal policies and such teachers’ actual curriculum coverage might also be
reflected in poor student achievement.
I take a different, organization studies perspective, situated among process studies
(Pettigrew, 1997), which are mostly concerned with “a series of occurrences of events
rather than a set of relations among variables” (Mohr, 1982, p. 54). Curriculum reforms
are institutional work processes that involve “the purposive action of individuals and
organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (Lawrence &
Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2009; 2011). Out of such institutional work,
organizational structures and individuals’ roles emerge from distinctive education policy
histories, with teachers potentially playing several roles as members of multiple
organizations that are concerned with curriculum policy and practice in their particular
socio-political contexts. My process study of reforms accounts for other perspectives.
Limiting comparisons to the two middle-income southern African countries of Botswana
and South Africa partly accounts for economic perspectives. Additionally, sociological
and political perspectives are accounted for by contrasting the two countries’ adoption of
globally diffused curriculum reforms, given their divergent 20th century histories of
developing schooling inputs (i.e. curriculum materials and human resources) and political
organizations, including teacher unions.
I draw on multiple sources of data to provide empirical evidence of how multi-
year reform processes, teachers’ roles within emergent organizational structures, and
curriculum outcomes that ultimately emerged differed in the divergent socio-political
contexts of the two countries. In addition to reviewing documents, conducting interviews
of policymakers, administrators and teachers, and several informal conversations and
observations, I use survey and classroom data from 6th grade mathematics teachers
sampled in 2009 on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border, from Botswana’s
Southern Region and South Africa’s North-West Province (NWP). Such a natural
experiment approach takes advantage of the fact that the border region teachers are of the
same language and culture, except for being embedded by chance in different education
systems, with different histories.
91
After independence in 1966, Botswana’s teachers were products of stable, state-
led processes of institutional creation that included the standardization of teacher training
and teachers’ roles in curriculum processes, particularly from the late 1970s. In the
centrally governed organizational structures that emerged by the 1990s and 2000s,
districts and schools functioned as subordinate units of a national Ministry of Education
(MoE) bureaucracy, which oversees curriculum formulation, support and implementation
in coordination with other organizational actors, including the University of Botswana.
With accountability measures put in place, teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms occurred
through their direct participation in schools within districts.
In contrast, South Africa’s teachers’ had relatively expansive roles that included
their participation in politically powerful unions, in addition to their teaching roles.
There, teachers’ expansive roles were parts of efforts to deinstitutionalize decades of
apartheid policies and structures that had formalized the exclusion of the majority non-
white population from education policymaking and administration, and provided them
with inferior schooling and teacher training. By the end of the 1990s, teachers’
organizations, especially unions had become politically powerful after having played a
role in successful political resistance against the apartheid government. The post-
apartheid government sought to make curriculum processes more participatory, while
“moving away” from the authoritarian structures of apartheid to give teachers greater
autonomy. Teachers’ organizations gained formal representation in decentralized
curriculum decision-making structures. As I argue, South African teachers’ participation
in such organizations’ activities is related to their relatively more expansive non-teaching
roles.
Tensions between perspectives on structures governing education, and teachers’
agency in their teaching and non-teaching roles can be situated among structure-agency
debates in the social sciences. Institutional work research is applied to organization
studies (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983; Crozier & Friedberg, 1980; Emirbayer & Johnson,
2008), specifically, to institutional theory (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009, p. 34), thereby
developing relational perspectives in the social sciences (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998;
Emirbayer, 1997), and building on Giddens’ (1976; 1979; 1984) theory of structuration
and Bourdieu’s (1977; 1984) theory of practice. The empirical cases from Botswana and
92
South Africa provide institutional work models of how structures, provided by policies,
interact with organizational actors’ and individual teachers’ agency during participatory
reform processes, and the organizational structures and curricular practice outcomes that
emerge in different SSA socio-political contexts.
The rest of the chapter proceeds in five parts. First, I summarize my theoretical
considerations and research questions. Second, I briefly present the data from Botswana
and South Africa that I analyzed. Third, I elaborate on the respective countries’ divergent
curriculum reform processes from the 1970s to the 1990s and the organizational
structures that emerged by the 2000s. Further, I highlight the roles of teachers sampled
from either side of the two countries’ shared border, and differences in their curriculum
coverage during the 2009 school year. I then discuss findings in the context of
institutional work, after which I present my conclusions.
5.2. Theoretical Considerations and Research Questions
For my study, teachers are conceptualized as members of multiple organizations
that are concerned with curriculum policy and practice (Chapter 2). The constellations of
organizations constitute organizational fields (DiMaggio, 1991; DiMaggio and Powell,
1983; Scott, 2008b; Scott and Meyer, 1991; Scott et al., 2000), or specifically, curriculum
policy-practice (CPP) fields. CPP field organizations include schools, as well as
government agencies, teacher-training institutions, teacher unions and professional
associations (at national, provincial, and district levels). From the organization studies
perspective, the comparative cases provide empirical evidence of teachers’ multifaceted
roles as inhabitants of organizations (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006), embedded in
organizational fields.
Using Pettigrew’s (1997, p. 340) multi-level processual framework, organizations
within each country are embedded in the structure provided by policies and past
experiences, and engage in reform processes that shape another form of structure:
organizational fields, or specifically in this case, CPP fields where reforms occur. I
conceptualize reforms in each CPP field as institutional work processes (Lawrence &
Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2009; 2011), during which structure and agency interact,
93
with teachers shaping, and being shaped during the creation or disruption of education
systems’ inter-organizational structures (Figure 5 - 1). My data analysis led me to focus
on two types of agency exercised within CPP fields: “projective” and “iterative”
(Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009, pp. 46-47; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, pp. 975, 984). CPP
field organizational and individual actors may exhibit projective agency as they enact
future-oriented education policies in creating organizational structures during reform
processes, motivated by their “hopes, fears, and desires for the future” (Battilana &
D’Aunno, 2009, p. 47). Iterative agency is oriented towards the past, and is exercised as
organizational and individual actors in CPP fields reactivate their past organizational
experiences during reform processes, out of which field structures emerge. Subsequently,
policies and practices are then shaped within the inter-organizational structures that had
emerged.
CPP fields may be structured differently in different socio-political contexts, to
address curricular problems, which may be perceived differently in the respective
institutional environments (Ocasio, 1995; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). CPP field structures
may be fragmented, where there are extensive multi-organizational structures with
various stakeholder organizations involved in reforms. On the other end of a spectrum, a
CPP field may be unified under a centralized structure (Meyer, Scott, & Strang, 1987, p.
187-188; Meyer, Scott, Strang, & Creighton, 1988, p. 166).
structure: policies
outcome: inter-
organizational structures
process: institutional work
agency: organizational
experiences
Figure 5 - 1. CPP field inter-organizational structures emerging from institutional work
94
Where failures in education systems are perceived to have arisen from lack of
teacher involvement during past field practices, as was the case particularly in South
Africa (see Chapter 4), greater teacher involvement may be sought in CPP field inter-
organizational structures that are developed. In addition to their teaching roles in CPP
fields, teachers’ may take on non-teaching roles in multiple organizations during the three
phases of curriculum reforms, namely curriculum formulation, support, and
implementation.
However, teachers’ multiple roles in the various organizations within a CPP field
– particularly in a fragmented field – may be associated with greater tension between the
times that they spend teaching, versus engaging in non-teaching activities. Such non-
teaching work includes participating in professional development, and engaging in
bureaucratic work (i.e. administrative activities such as attending local/school
department and committee meetings, and completion of administrative paperwork) or
socio-political work (i.e. attending union meetings, responsibilities related to local
politics, or community/domestic responsibilities). In contexts where substitute teachers
may be rare, expansive non-teaching roles in fragmented fields may leave relatively less
time for the completion of curricula, resulting in bigger policy-practice gaps, with actual
curriculum coverage being less than in a case where teachers are focused on teaching
(Figure 5 - 2).
outcome: success (small policy-practice gaps) / failure (large policy-practice gaps)
curriculum policy-practice field structures & agency: teachers multiple roles in various organizations
societal-level structures & agency: policies & practices
Figure 5 - 2. Focus on CPP processes and emergence of gaps
95
Thus, CPP outcomes emerge out of field-level processes and teachers’ practices
that depend upon the past, as well as visions of the future. I ask two empirical questions,
which are further specified in sub-questions drawing upon the cases from Botswana and
South Africa:
1. In Botswana and South Africa, how did the inter-organizational structures
concerned with teachers’ roles in the curriculum reforms of the 2000s emerge?
a. What were the organizations concerned with curriculum and teachers
roles in the respective fields?
b. What were the organizations’ processes during the 1970s-1990s?
c. What were the inter-organizational structures that emerged from the
organizations’ processes in the respective fields by the 2000s?
2. In the shared border area of Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s
North-West Province, what were the similarities and differences in teachers’ non-
teaching roles and the time they spent teaching within their respective inter-
organizational structures during the 2009 school year?
d. What were the characteristics of teachers embedded within the respective
fields?
e. What were the curriculum reform priorities of teachers embedded within
the respective fields?
f. What were the relationships between teachers’ activities and reform
outcomes, specifically, curriculum policy-practice gaps?
5.3. Methodology
This chapter draws from documents, interviews of curriculum policymakers and
teachers, teacher surveys and mathematics tests, and classroom data. I analyzed
documents and interviews to characterize the CPP field in the respective countries,
overall, whereas I use teacher and classroom data to characterize teachers from
96
Botswana’s Southern Region and NWP who inhabit the respective fields. Table 5 - 1
summarizes the approaches used for answering each of the questions I posed above.
Table 5 - 1. Summary of approach for organizational field perspective Question Data Themes/Categories Analytic Method a. Organizational actors
• Documents • Interviews
• Government agencies (national, regional, district)
• Schools • Teacher training institutions • Teachers’ organizations
(unions, professional associations)
• Descriptive
b. Field processes in 1970s-1990s
• Documents • Interviews
• Creating institutions • Disrupting institutions
• Processual • Comparison of
timelines c. Inter-organizational structures emerging by 2000s
• Documents • Interviews
• Unified • Partially unified • Fragmented
• Descriptive
d. Teachers’ characteristics
• Surveys • Interviews • Documents
• Demographics • Extent of union membership
• Tables of descriptors • Comparisons of survey
means e. Logics: Curriculum reform priorities
• Surveys • Interviews
• Aims (i.e. academic, economic, socio-political)
• Content (i.e. mathematics) • Organization (e.g. curriculum
scope)
• Comparisons of survey means
• Counts/rankings from interviews
• Descriptive f. Relationships between teachers’ roles and policy-practice gaps
• Surveys • Classroom data
(e.g. student workbooks)
• Interviews
• Teaching • Non-teaching activities • Difference between number of
lessons expected to covered during school year vs. actual coverage
• Tables of descriptors • Comparisons of survey
means
Table 5 - 2 summarizes the framework that emerged from my iterative analysis of
the data on CPP field processes, guided by Pettigrew’s (1997) processual approaches.
The typologies of institutional work developed by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48)
were found to be a useful framework for analyzing the “iterative” and “projective”
agency of the respective CPP field organizations. Two types of institutional work were
found to be salient from the data. First, institutional creation is characterized by
projective agency in “inventing”, “creating proto-institutions,” “establishing institutional
mechanisms,” and “advocating diffusion,” as well as iterative agency, in “improvising”
and “modifying.” Second, institutional disruption is characterized by projective agency in
“attacking the legitimacy or taken-for-grantedness of an institution” and “undermining
97
institutional mechanisms,” as well as iterative agency, in “failing to enact an institutional
practice” and “institutional forgetting.” There were both similarities and divergences in
the types of institutional work during CPP field processes in the cases of Botswana and
South Africa, which I present in my findings below.
Table 5 - 2. Interpretive framework for analysis of CPP field processes Examples of process codes
Examples of first-order categories
Examples of second-order themes
Aggregate dimension
establishing departments, teacher training colleges
Creating agencies/organizations
Inventing/Creating proto-institutions
Institutional creation during CPP field processes
training, creating professionals
Building capacity
adopting curriculum development projects
Establishing curricular projects
Establishing institutional mechanisms
developing manuals Formalizing processes & roles
expanding departments, teacher training colleges
Expanding agencies/organizations
Advocating diffusion
following procedures Standardizing processes seconding teachers to curriculum teams
Co-opting teachers Improvising
rushing through projects Facing time pressures testing, piloting Evaluating processes Modifying upgrading teacher training Changing processes unifying segregated organizations
Consolidating organizations
Attacking the legitimacy or taken-for-grantedness of an institution
Institutional disruption during CPP field processes
ejecting school inspectors Avoiding accountability Undermining institutional mechanisms
engaging in participatory curriculum formulation
Failing to enact authoritarian processes
Failing to enact an institutional practice
sanitizing curriculum Changing curriculum Institutional forgetting
Beyond the dichotomous characterization of CPP field inter-organizational
structures as unified or fragmented, my data analysis indicated that institutional work
processes also result in the emergence of partially unified structures (Table 5 - 3). Such
structures are exemplified by cases where multiple quasi-independent organizations with
somewhat different priorities are governed under a centralized system, guided by
coherent policies.
98
Table 5 - 3. Types of inter-organizational structures and cases Type of structure Case unified organizational subunit in centralized structure fragmented quasi-independent organizations with conflicting, uncoordinated curriculum demands partially unified quasi-independent organizations governed under centralized structure, coherent policy
Additionally, I analyzed surveys, classroom data, and interviews on the
relationships between teachers’ teaching and non-teaching roles within their respective
CPP field structures, and curriculum policy-practice gaps. The greater the extent of field
fragmentation, the more expansive teachers’ non-teaching roles are likely to be, as they
may be expected to meet incoherent demands from multiple organizations. Thus,
curriculum policy-practice gaps may be bigger in such fragmented fields.
Analysis of mathematics teaching in Botswana’s Southern Region and NWP
found curriculum policy-practice gaps, specifically in curriculum content exposure,
which was operationalized as the number of lessons that sampled teachers gave to
students during the school year (for further details see Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
Curriculum content exposure refers to the overall amount of time students spent engaged
in doing mathematics (Carroll, 1963; Floden, 2003; Lee, 1982; Porter & Smithson, 2001;
Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978; Schmidt et al., 2001; Wang, 1998). Gaps in the intended
number of lessons estimated from the curriculum and actual lessons measured from
student workbooks indicate teachers were offering students less learning opportunities
than specified in the curriculum.
Less opportunity to learn (OTL) is associated with lower student achievement
outcomes (McDonnell, 1995, p. 308), and I argue that teachers’ non-teaching roles
compete for OTL time. Thus, by relating how teachers’ non-teaching roles is related to
gaps in the number of lessons teachers gave students, I also provide knowledge about
intervening factors that may be related to student achievement outcomes, although the
latter is not the direct focus of this study.
99
5.4. Findings
Here, I elaborate on my findings in three sections. The first two sections
respectively summarize the divergent histories and curriculum policy contexts
(structures) of Botswana and South Africa, the roles of CPP organizations in their
curriculum reforms (processes), and the organizational structures (outcomes) that
emerged. Specifically, section 5.4.1 discusses Botswana’s state-led reform processes of
creating teacher training and curriculum development organizations and projects from the
1970s to the 1990s, and the centrally governed organizational structures that emerged by
the 2000s. Section 5.4.2 discusses the roles of South Africa’s teachers’ organizations in
anti- and post-apartheid reform processes from the 1970s to the 1990s, the participatory,
relatively fast-paced curriculum development projects, and the relatively fragmented
inter-organizational structures that emerged by the 2000s.
The third section (5.4.3) is a comparative analysis of teachers sampled from either
side of the two countries’ shared border, in Botswana’s Southern Region and South
Africa’s NWP. My comparison of these teachers embedded in divergent organizational
structures in the respective socio-political contexts focuses on differences in their
reported non-teaching roles during reform processes during the 2009 school year, and
their respective curriculum coverage outcomes. I highlight the association between South
African teachers’ relatively more expansive non-teaching roles in their relatively more
fragmented system (e.g. multiple, competing unions, with greater participation in union
meetings), and the relatively fewer number of lessons that they teach, as compared to the
number of lessons expected from the curriculum.
5.4.1. Botswana: Creation of a partially unified bureaucracy (1970s-2000s)
Summary. From the late 1970s through the 1990s, within the frameworks
provided by Botswana’s policies – the 1977 National Policy on Education (NPE) and the
1994 Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE) – representatives from various
organizations engaged in processes of creating relatively unified teacher training and
curriculum development inter-organizational structures (Figure 5 - 3). Out of the
100
processes emerged a cadre of trained teachers who were involved in curriculum reforms
as civil servants working for the national Ministry of Education (MoE) by 2009. Within a
Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation (CD&E) and other MoE
departments, teachers and other local and foreign actors, including consultants from
international development agencies collaborated in curriculum formulation, support, and
implementation.
Figure 5 - 3. Botswana: Summary timeline for processes of creating CPP structures
Organizational structures were developed as part of state-led projects during the
period. Particularly, from the 1980s to early 1990s, the MoE established a number of
reform projects with financial and technical support from international organizations,
such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). For example,
the Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP I, 1981-1991), the Junior Secondary
Education Improvement Project (JSEIP, 1985-1991), and the Basic Education
Consolidation (BEC, 1992-1995) were mechanisms used to develop a bureaucracy in the
MoE, University of Botswana (UB), and teacher training colleges for carrying out
curriculum reforms. Through such collaborative projects, the CD&E and other
organizational structures were expanded, and curriculum formulation processes were
standardized. Additionally, during the period, pre- and in-service teacher training
101
functions were consolidated into a specialized department, teacher-training was
expanded, while the curricula of teacher training colleges were reformed and
standardized.
Botswana’s reform attempts faced organizational challenges, particularly rushed
timelines that led to improvisation, such that reforms’ institutionalizing goals were not
achieved to desired levels. For example, education project reports noted that due to
rushed timeline, there was inadequate support provided for teachers to implement
curriculum reforms. Also, informants indicated that Botswana’s first post-independence
6th grade mathematics curriculum, which was adopted in 1993 was “scanty” due to its
rushed formulation, a factor that was highlighted, and was also noted as a challenge faced
during South Africa’s reform processes (see Chapter 6).
Organizational challenges notwithstanding, by the 2000s a centrally governed
structure for curriculum formulation had emerged, with districts and schools functioning
as subordinate units of a national MoE bureaucracy. The MoE also oversees curriculum
support and implementation in coordination with other organizational actors, including
the University of Botswana. Standardized curricula for primary teacher training had been
upgraded to include subject specialization, and practicing teachers’ involvement in
shaping curriculum policy and practice had been codified into manuals that were to guide
reform processes governed within the MoE. Over a 40 month period from 2000-2003,
specialized Curriculum Development Officers (CDOs) in all subject areas led teachers’
participation in formulation processes for basic education reforms, including the
development of Botswana’s second post-independence 6th grade mathematics curriculum
(see Chapter 6), which was implemented beginning in 2006, and was still in place by
2009 when teachers were sampled from Botswana’s Southern Region for this study.
Botswana’s centrally governed processes and emergent organizational structures
allowed teachers to engage in curriculum reforms as MoE employees in a relatively more
streamlined manner than the case in South Africa. In the sections that follow, I elaborate
on the historical processes of Botswana’s curriculum policy-practice field creation over
the period 1970s-1990s (section 5.4.1.1), and the centrally governed organizational
structures that emerged by the 2000s (section 5.4.1.2). The historical processes and
structures that emerged in turn provide the context for my comparative analysis of
102
teachers’ curriculum reform roles, using data from Botswana’s Southern Region and
South Africa’s North-West Province (section 5.4.3).
5.4.1.1. Organizations and processes: Long-term creation (1970s-1990s)
Botswana’s education reforms have been carried out within the structural
frameworks provided by the country’s five- to six-year National Development Plans
(NDPs). The 1977 NPE emphasized a socio-political reform aim: strengthening social
harmony by increasing access to education for Botswana’s citizens (UNESCO, 2010,
p.1). The policy was implemented within the framework of Botswana’s 5th and 6th
National Development Plan (NDP), over the periods 1979-85 and 1985-1991
respectively. Under the NPE, the Government of Botswana (GoB) established a number
of education reform projects with support from international development agencies from
the United States of America, United Kingdom, and Scandinavian countries. Through
such projects, three drivers of educational change from the late 1970s to the 1990s were
(i) capacity building in education administration; (ii) the formalization and
standardization of curriculum formulation processes; and (iii) expansion of pre- and in-
service teacher training.
In 1994, the RNPE emerged to unify organizational structures that had previously
been fragmented under the NPE. The RNPE was developed and implemented under the
framework of Botswana’s 7th and 8th NDPs, spanning the periods 1991-1997 and 1997-
2003 respectively. Whereas the NPE’s goal was to enhance social harmony and localize
Botswana’s education from the British academic orientation that had been inherited at
independence, the RNPE had a global, economic development focus, having been
partially motivated by Botswana’s participation in the 1990 World Council on Education
for All (WCEFA) (MoESD, 2009). The RNPE’s stated aim was to “prepare Batswana
children for the transition from a traditional agro based economy to the industrial
economy that the country aspires to” in the 21st Century (RNPE, 1994, p. 5). The policy
specifically recommended reforms to make the curriculum more practice-oriented with a
focus on preparing students for “the world of work,” to enable the country compete in the
global economy.
103
One key mechanism that the MoE used for implementing the RNPE, and for
consolidating educational reforms that had been adopted after the 1977 NPE, was a multi-
focused, collaborative project called the Basic Education Consolidation (BEC) project.
The BEC was a joint MoE-USAID initiative, and sought to “strengthen and consolidate
the delivery system of basic education” (AED, 1995, p. 3). Whereas teacher training and
development of curricula for primary (grades 1-7) and junior secondary schools (grades
8-10) had occurred separately under PEIP and JSEIP, in BEC, curriculum development
processes for basic education schools (grades 1-10) and teacher-training institutions were
unified.
The MoE’s goal for BEC was to develop “a consolidated and integrated system of
basic education through a single project which would have as its holistic focus a system
of basic education” (CAI, 1996, p. 179), with another stated goal being “institutional
change” of previous NPE reforms. From 1992-1995, the BEC followed up on the work of
the PEIP and JSEIP, and included an additional component of reforms: standardizing and
unifying processes of assessment. Botswana’s assessment systems were revised from
norm-referenced testing (NRT) to criterion-referenced testing (CRT). Table 5 - 4 below
summarizes the timelines and key foci of the respective MoE-USAID projects.
Table 5 - 4. Botswana: Focus of key education reform projects, 1981-1995 Project Teacher
Training Curriculum Formulation
Administrative Capacity Building
Revision of Assessments
PEIP I (1981-1986) Yes PEIP II (1986-1991) Yes Yes Yes JSEIP (1985-1991) Yes Yes Yes BEC (1992-1995) Yes Yes Yes Yes Sources: PEIP, JSEIP, and BEC project reports
For the purposes of making comparisons with the South African processes
(section 5.4.2), I elaborate on four aspects of Botswana’s reform processes from the late
1970s, and particularly in the 1990s:
i. Creating specialized curriculum organizational structures, improvising by
including teachers on initial curriculum development teams in the absence of
trained personnel, and building capacity of education professionals for curriculum
formulation and support;
104
ii. Establishing mechanisms by formalizing and standardizing curriculum
formulation processes, with the participation of practicing teachers on
committees;
iii. Expanding teacher training, modifying and diffusing standardized curricula, and
introducing subject specialization for primary teacher training colleges (PTTCs);
and
iv. Improvising by rushing through reform processes when faced with time pressures.
5.4.1.1.1. Creating specialized departments, improvising, and building capacity
Over the period from the 1970s to 1990s, Botswana created specialized structures
for curriculum development, and built the capacity of bureaucrats to oversee curriculum
development, support, and implementation. Curriculum reform functions that were
previously carried out by disparate departments were consolidated in the specialized
structures during this period.
Upon the recommendation of the 1977 NPE, a Department of Curriculum
Development and Evaluation (CD&E) was created in 1978, and a Department of Primary
Education (DPE) was established at the University of Botswana (UB) in 1981 (UNESCO,
2010, p. 5). The CD&E took on the specialized function of curriculum development,
review, and revision, which had previously been conducted within disparate
organizational structures of the MoE, including in the Department of Secondary
Education (DSE). The DPE at UB was to reduce Botswana’s dependence on expatriate
teachers, and train locals to lecture in teacher-training colleges over the long term (Ohio
University, 1985, p. 1).
During the 1980s to the 1990s, as curriculum development activities grew, the
CD&E engaged in improvisation by temporally appointing (or “seconding”) teachers as a
“stop-gap” measure to develop curricula, given the low levels of capacity in the
department (Boe et al., 1990, p. 42). Through projects like the PEIP, JSEIP, and BEC,
teachers worked with government bureaucrats and expatriate consultants from
international organizations and universities in curriculum development teams, known as
Material Development Teams (MDTs). The variety in MDT team membership brought
105
diverse contextual knowledge and previous reform experiences to MoE’s curriculum
development efforts for basic education (grades 1-9). Table 5 - 5 below illustrates the
variability among the groups represented in MDTs for 7 subject areas in the late 1980s,
during the JSEIP.
Table 5 - 5. Botswana: Curriculum Material Development Teams (MDT) during late 1980s Groups of Actors Agriculture English Science Setswana Social
Studies Technical Studies
Mathematics
MoE Officials 1a 1 1 1 1a 1a 2 Curriculum Development Officers
0 2a 1a 1a 1 0 1a
Teachers 1 1d 1d 1 2 0 0 JSEIP Advisors/ Consultants
2 2 2d 1d 2d 1b 1c
Total 4 6 5 4 6 2 4 Source: JSEIP Mid-Project Evaluation (LBI, 1988, pp. 20-25) Notes: a Was the MDT Coordinator (in the case of English where there were two CDOs, only one was MDT coordinator). b Was the main person working on developing the curriculum documents. c Was not directly involved in developing the curriculum documents, but had offered to advise if needed. d Was subsequently involved in authoring a Curriculum Development Procedures Manual for CD&E (in the cases of Science and Social Studies, where there were two JSEIP representatives respectively, only one was involved in developing the manual).
Additionally, as part of the collaborative projects of the 1980s and 1990s, pre- and
in-service teacher training functions were consolidated to create a specialized teacher-
training department. In 1989, during the latter stages of the PEIP, a Department of
Teacher Training and Development (TT&D) was carved out from what had been the
MoE’s Department of Primary and Teacher Training, in response to the expansion of
primary education and the need for a specialized department to focus on teacher training
(UNESCO, 2010, p. 4). Three years later, in 1992, the MoE formally unified in-service
training under TT&D, whereas different MoE departments had previously provided such
training. In 1994 primary and secondary in-service training, which were separate units,
were further unified to become one unit in the TT&D.
After the period of improvising by temporarily appointing teachers to the
department, the CD&E expanded as some of the teachers and other personnel
transitioning into full-time employees (Figure 5 - 4). In 1985, seven years after CD&E’s
creation, there were two formally trained curriculum development officers among all of
106
six CD&E officers, who had expertise in 4 subject areas (Boe et al., 1990). By 1990 there
were at least twenty full-time Curriculum Development Officers (CDOs) in 10 subject
areas, including mathematics. A JSEIP evaluation report by Boe et al. in 1990 (p. 42)
notes that “many of the recently-appointed [CD&E] officers were formerly among the
seconded teachers who were part of the MTDs.” Although some staff benefitted from
training programs, they also learned on the job. By 1995, there were 25 CD&E officers
for 16 subject areas (Wright, 1995, p. 9).
Figure 5 - 4. Botswana: Timeline for development of curriculum development bureaucracy
5.4.1.1.2. Establishing mechanisms: formalizing curriculum formulation processes
Botswana’s reform processes established institutional mechanisms by formalizing
and standardizing curriculum formulation processes, ensuring the participation of
practicing teachers on formulation committees. Over the period 1989 to 1991, in response
to JSEIP evaluation recommendations, a group of MoE officials, consultants and teachers
who had participated in curriculum development in the 1980s codified curriculum
processes into CD&E policy, documented as a Curriculum Development Procedures
Manual. The manual indicated that curriculum development processes for each subject
area were to be conducted by a Subject Task Force, or Subject Panels, which had to
107
include practicing primary and secondary teachers for the review and revision of draft
curriculum documents (MoE, 1991).
JSEIP project evaluation recommendations were echoed in the RNPE, which
called for a “more systematic approach to” curriculum development work done by
Curriculum Development Officers, incorporating teachers (RNPE, 1994, p. 17). In
response, a number of manuals and documents were created to assist with anticipated
curriculum development projects. For example, in 1995, as part of the BEC, a document
was developed as a standardized template to be used for developing curricula across
subjects, called the Curriculum Blueprint: Ten Year Basic Education Programme
(UNESCO, 2010, p. 9).
Subsequently, CD&E officials used the curriculum development documents as
references to develop curricular materials during reforms, including the primary school
mathematics curriculum that was developed in the early 2000s and was being used by
2009 (see Chapter 6).
5.4.1.1.3. Expanding teacher training, and modifying training curricula and support
Other aspects of Botswana’s reforms through the 1990s were the expansion of
teacher training, the modification and diffusion of standardized curricula for primary
teacher training colleges (PTTCs), and the introduction of subject specialization in the
training of primary school teachers. Beginning with collaborations between a number of
teacher training institutes (at Lobatse & Serowe) in 1969, foreign trainers became
involved in the country’s reform efforts in the 1970s (MoESD, 2010), with the MoE
establishing Education Centers (ECs) in various regions of the country to provide in-
service training to clusters of schools (MoESD, 2010, p. 9). Two ECs were created in
1977, 8 more were constructed during the 1980s and early 1990s under PEIP (AED,
1995, p. 1), and two were added in the mid- to late-1990s (see Table 5 - 6).
108
Table 5 - 6. Botswana: Timeline for Education Center (EC) creation Year # ECs created Names of ECs 1977 2 Lobatse, Serowe 1988 2 Selibe Phikwe, Maun 1990 4 Mochudi, Tshabong, Molepolole, Ghanzi 1992 2 Tlokweng, Kasane 1995 1 Mahalapye 1999 1 Kanye Source: National In-service Teacher Education Policy Framework, MoESD (2010)
In the 1990s, during and after the BEC, there was further modification and
diffusion of pre-service and in-service teacher education reforms that began under PEIP
and JSEIP. The curricula of pre-service teacher training colleges were standardized, and
primary school teachers’ subject specialization was introduced after 1999. Similar to the
processes that MoE officials, expatriate consultants, and teachers had used in revising the
primary and secondary school curricula during the late 1980s, the MoE established
subject panels to standardize the curricula of PTTCs. First, the curriculum of one PTTC,
the Tlokweng College of Education, was used to test the upgrading of teachers from a
certificate to diploma level (AED, 1995, p. 12). The trial was then the subject of a
formative evaluation conducted by staff from the University of Botswana’s Department
of Primary Education (DPE) and other teacher training colleges. The task force findings
informed the development of an administrative manual, and the diffusion of the
curriculum upgrade program at the three other PTTCs (located at Lobatse, Serowe, and
Francistown). The processes culminated in the upgrading of PTTCs from certificate-
awarding (i.e. pre-tertiary) to diploma-awarding (i.e. tertiary, associate degree)
institutions beginning in 2000 (MoESD, 2009), with subject specialization adopted later
in the 2000s.
Additionally, mechanisms to provide support and accountability for teachers were
modified over the period from the 1980s to the 2000s. Teacher support and accountability
were strengthened through inspection mechanisms adopted within the framework
provided by the 1977 NPE (Republic of Botswana, 1977, p. 9). MoE set up inspection
teams that made annual visits to note processes in schools, and identify problems and
good practices. Attempts were made to strengthen teacher accountability by adopting a
Government White Paper on Job Evaluation for Teachers in 1988, calling for continuous
assessment of teachers, and the linking of teacher pay and promotion to job evaluations
109
(Republic of Botswana, 1991, p. 47). However, due to teacher complaints, multiple
modification efforts have been made, including providing professional development to
teachers on a more regular basis (Republic of Botswana 1994, p. 47), developing teacher
appraisal systems to enable teacher professional development from self-assessments
(Monyatsi, 2003, p. 10), and observations of teachers by teacher trainers, administrators,
and their peers (Tabulawa 2003, p. 21).
5.4.1.1.4. Improvising due to time pressures
Botswana’s reform attempts faced organizational challenges that led to
improvisation during reform processes. Project evaluation reports noted that time
pressures and truncation of projects did not allow for achieving policy goals to desired
levels. Specifically, the extent of institutionalizing of curriculum development processes,
teacher training, and capacity building had not become as embedded as desired. For
example in the case of the BEC project, the project was initially designed to last from
1992-1997, but was cut short by two years after USAID announced it was closing its
mission in Botswana in 1995. Project reports noted that the slow pace of activities
compounded time pressures faced. For example, originally, Botswana’s Revised National
Policy on Education (RNPE) was to have informed BEC project activities, which began
in 1992. However, the RNPE had been completed behind schedule, and was published 8
months later than expected, in 1994, with the result that BEC activities were delayed as
well, and were rushed to meet deadlines when the project was terminated early.
Project evaluation reports noted that time pressures were compounded by the
earlier than expected closure of BEC in 1995, which did not allow for achieving policy
goals to desired levels. Specifically, the extent of institutionalizing of curriculum
development processes, teacher training, and capacity building had not become as
embedded as the project sought. For example, in a final project report on curriculum
reforms by the mid-1990s, one of USAID’s institutional contractors, the Academy for
Education Development (AED) notes the following (AED, 1995, p. 11):
110
Due to the truncation of the [BEC] project, extensive testing of the revised [basic education] curriculum was not possible, nor was it possible to provide project supported teacher training required to implement the new curriculum.
Government officials and teachers who had been involved in curriculum
processes corroborated accounts of delays, and also highlighted that delays sometimes
resulted in rushing to finish projects. For example, the upper primary (grade 5-7) syllabus
that was implemented in 1993 had been based on the 1977 NPE, but had been completed
for implementation just prior to the 1994 RNPE. In that case, the formulation and
implementation of the curriculum lagged behind the policy by over a decade.
The case of the 1993 upper primary mathematics syllabus is also worth noting, as
a sub-sample of teachers and teacher trainers who were interviewed speculated that it was
developed in a “rushed” manner, and noted that it was a “scanty” curriculum that made it
challenging for teachers to understand what they were to teach. The vagueness of that
syllabus was cited as a factor that had to be addressed in curriculum revisions that
occurred in the early 2000s (see Chapter 6).
Despite the problems noted with time pressures, project delays and truncations,
and attendant inabilities to institutionalize changes as intended, a curriculum policy-
practice field had emerged in Botswana by the 2000s, from the combination of MoE
projects over the 1970s-1990s. In the section that follows, I sketch the organizational
structures that emerged from the processes of the 1970s-1990s.
5.4.1.2. Outcome: Partially unified structures (2000s)
Botswana’s curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field of the 2000s emerged out of
the processes described above, which resulted in partially unified structures: a centrally
governed structure for curriculum formulation, with districts and schools functioning as
subordinate units of a national MoE bureaucracy, which also oversees curriculum support
and implementation in coordination with other organizational actors, including the
University of Botswana (Figure 5 - 5). The partially unified bureaucracy developed the
mathematics curriculum that was being implemented in 2009, and oversaw teacher
training colleges and education centers that trained Botswana’s teachers, including the 6th
111
grade mathematics teachers who were sampled in 2009 and inform this study (see section
5.4.3).
Figure 5 - 5. Botswana: Curriculum policy-practice (CPP) organizational chart
Source: Constructed based on document reviews and interviews
In the remainder of this section I characterize the organizations concerned with
teachers’ roles in the CPP field as of the 2000s as the outcomes of the processes
described above. I set the stage for comparing teachers from Botswana’s Southern
Region, who inhabited this field in 2009, with their counterparts who inhabited another
CPP field across the border, in South Africa’s North-West Province (NWP) (see section
5.4.2 and 5.4.3).
112
5.4.1.2.1. Specialized Departments within the Ministry of Education
The central organizational actor in Botswana’s CPP field is the Ministry of
Education (MoE).5 MoE oversees the entire education system, with support from the
Ministry of Local Government and University of Botswana (UB), which respectively
provide material resources (e.g. infrastructure) and teacher training support. Additionally,
there is a National Council on Education (NCE) that advises the government on
education policy, and also monitors policy implementation (MoESD, 2009; UNESCO,
2010).
A number of specialized departments within the MoE oversee the education
system. For example, the Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation
(CD&E) oversees curriculum formulation, in coordination with a number of other MoE
departments. Among the others, the Department of Primary Education (DPE) oversees
curriculum implementation at the primary level, and the Department of Teacher Training
and Development (TT&D) is responsible for training teachers.6 The Department of
Teaching Service Management (TSM) is responsible for teacher recruitment and
placement. In addition to the MoE departments, the University of Botswana (UB)
provides support for pre- and in-service teacher training.
CD&E officials lead curriculum formulation processes through structures that
were developed through the 1980s and 1990s. For example, the 1991 Curriculum
Development Procedures Manual specifies guidelines for Curriculum Development
Officers (CDOs) to use in coordinating formulation efforts, including how to invite
practicing teachers to participate in curriculum formulation through soliciting district
offices. Additionally, curriculum development blueprints provide templates to help CDOs
develop curricula, including the primary school mathematics curriculum that was
developed in the early 2000s, and was being implemented in 2009.
Support and implementation of the primary school mathematics curriculum
occurs under the governance of the DPE at regional, district, and school levels. The DPE
has Regional Education Officers, and Senior Education Officers who oversee curriculum
5 Since 2008, the MoE has been called the Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD) to reflect a policy focus on developing skills for the 21st century. In this paper I use “MoE” for consistency. 6 The Department of Secondary Education (DSE) oversees secondary education.
113
support and implementation for each subject at the regional and district levels
respectively (as of 2009 there were 6 regions overseen by MoE, with a total of 9 districts
and 5 town councils). The district offices use curriculum statements to develop a plan,
known as the Scheme of Work, for implementing the curriculum during the school year,
which consists of about 180 school days (UNESCO, 2010, p. 8). The Scheme of Work
outlines the topics and objectives that schools within the district are to complete during
each of three school terms (around the periods, January-March, April-August, and
September-November).
Within this structure, teachers’ curriculum roles are emphasized at the school
level, with accountability measures in place, which were developed and adapted over the
years (Monyatsi, 2003). In each school, Senior Teachers coordinate curriculum planning
and implementation for each subject, whereas head-teachers oversee the management of
the school. For example, in mathematics, a Senior Mathematics and Science Teacher
coordinates the work of mathematics teachers who plan curricular activities for the school
and develop weekly Lesson Plans for their classes, based on the Scheme of Work for
each term.
5.4.1.2.2. Centrally governed, multi-organizational provision of teacher training
Whereas governance of primary school teacher training is formally centralized
within the MoE, in practice there is provision of teacher education by multiple quasi-
independent organizations, including other government agencies. For example, teachers
interviewed in Botswana’s Southern Region indicated that they participated in training
workshops organized by the Ministry of Health. The MoE’s TT&D oversees the four
Primary Teacher Training Colleges (PTTCs) and 12 Education Centers that were in
operation by 2009 (MoESD, 2009, p. 9). The Education Centers provide in-service
teacher training. All four PTTCs (located at Lobatse, Serowe, Francistown, and
Tlokweng), as well as two Secondary Teacher Training Colleges (STTCs) are affiliated
with the University of Botswana (UB) (MoESD, 2009, p. 4), which provides support for
pre-service teacher training, including the training of teacher trainers.
114
Having gone through processes of standardization as part of projects such as the
PEIP, JSEIP, and BEC, there is a uniform curriculum for the PTTCs, which phased out
the primary teacher certificate (PTC) in 1999 and were upgraded to exclusively award
diplomas as of 2000 (MoESD, 2009, p. 9). As of 2009, the curriculum for primary school
teacher training was structured with subject specialization. Of the almost 13,000 primary
school teachers who were serving about 331,000 students in 2007, 97% had received
formal teacher training (Figure 5 - 6).
Figure 5 - 6. Botswana: Number of primary and secondary Teachers, 1996-2009
Source: Central Statistics Bureau, Botswana, 2009.
5.4.1.2.3. Professionalized teachers’ organizations
Teachers’ involvement in curriculum processes has occurred directly through
their participation in MoE structures, such as CD&E curriculum committees, as well as in
districts and schools. As such, the roles of teachers’ organizations in Botswana’s CPP
field by 2009 were unlike their political roles in South Africa, where, for example, unions
are formally represented in curriculum governance structures, as I discuss later. Specific
to mathematics, there is a Mathematical Association of Botswana (MAB), an
115
organization for mathematics educators, which organizes national mathematics
competitions, including a mathematics Olympiad.
The oldest and largest teachers’ organization, however, is the Botswana Teachers’
Union (BTU). BTU was established as a teachers’ association in 1937, with membership
from primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions. Historically, it was focused on
educational goals, such as ensuring that diverse subject offerings existed in schools. Until
the mid-2000s the organization did not have collective bargaining rights, and the benefits
of membership were limited to participation in the association’s activities, such as an
annual Teacher’s day event.
After 2004, public servants in Botswana gained collective bargaining rights, and
the BTU began a recruitment drive (BTU, 2006), with a focus on attracting members
through offerings such as insurance schemes and funeral plans, in a country that has one
of the highest HIV prevalence rates worldwide. As of 2006 BTU’s total membership was
about 13,000, and about 70% of primary school teachers (over 8,000) were members, a
proportion that was found to be consistent with the membership rate among teachers
sampled from Botswana’s Southern Region (see section 5.4.3).
5.4.1.2.4. Other organizations concerned with reforms
Other organizations concerned with curriculum reforms in the education system
are textbook publishers and producers of other teaching and learning materials, as well as
school management teams, parent-teacher associations, and professional organizations.
Specific to mathematics, organizations concerned with curriculum reforms include
financial organizations, such as banks, whose representatives participated in consultation
processes.
In the section that follows (5.4.2), I characterize the CPP field processes and
organizational actors in South Africa, where a divergent history was associated with
relatively more politicized processes in a relatively more fragmented field during the
1980s through the 2000s.
116
5.4.2. South Africa: Deinstitutionalization of Apartheid (1970s-2000s)
Summary. In processes that intensified after the 1976 Soweto Uprising, South
Africa’s anti-apartheid and post-apartheid education reforms disrupted apartheid
structures by specifying participatory curriculum formulation, while leaving relatively
unspecified how to engage in training administrators and teachers for curriculum support
and implementation (Figure 5 - 7). Unlike the case of Botswana where curriculum reform
was characterized by teachers’ participation in reforms and their training within centrally
governed organizational structures, teachers’ roles in South Africa’s reforms occurred
through their participation in structures beyond government agencies. Teachers have
curriculum reform roles in multiple organizations, including government departments,
teacher unions and professional associations, and autonomous teacher training
institutions.
Figure 5 - 7. South Africa: Summary timeline for apartheid disruption processes
South Africa’s history of segregation under apartheid was manifest in divergent
governance practices and curricular approaches for different races and geographic
regions. There were at least 18 separate systems of curriculum and teacher training under
117
apartheid, as exemplified by the black homeland of Bophuthatswana (now in the North-
West Province, NWP), which embarked on its own education reforms in the late 1970s.
Bophuthatswana sought to present itself as a liberal society, and it adopted education
policies to reflect such socio-political goals, until political instability ended reforms in the
1980s. Yet, in most of South Africa under apartheid, teachers in the education
departments for black Africans, coloreds, and Indians worked under a “bureaucratic and
authoritarian” system in which policies were imposed, whereas white teachers who
represented a minority of the population had representation at government level
policymaking (Chisholm, 1999).
Post-apartheid policies of the 1990s restructured and democratized the racially
segregated curriculum field into a formally racially integrated system, in which
participatory processes by stakeholder organizations were formalized. South Africa’s
National Education Policy Act (NEPA) of 1996 required government to consult with
teachers’ organizations in policy-making, and unions have official representation within
the Department of Education (DoE), for providing input on curricular matters. Lack of
participation was one of the problems that the ANC Policy Framework for Education and
Training noted about the apartheid era curriculum, which participatory curriculum
formulation efforts were to address:
The lack of relevance of the curriculum has been exacerbated by the narrow base of participation in the process of curriculum development. In the main parents, teachers, students, workers and the private sector have not been involved […] the process of curriculum development must be democratised through the participation of all stakeholders (ANC, 1994a).
Over the 1990s and 2000s, there were multiple, relatively fast-paced participatory
curriculum formulation projects, including the processes in the early 2000s out of which
emerged the 6th grade mathematics curriculum – the Revised National Curriculum
Statement (RNCS, later called National Curriculum Statement, NCS) – which teachers
sampled from South Africa’s North-West Province were implementing in 2009. The
RNCS was developed over a 15-month period from 2001-2002, at a pace that was
relatively faster than the 40 months it took to develop the basic education level
curriculum materials for the much smaller population in Botswana (see Chapter 6).
118
By 2009, in a fragmented, multi-organizational curriculum policy-practice field
that had emerged in South Africa, parallel structures of governance existed in national
and provincial departments of education, teachers’ organizations, and schools, potentially
resulting in more non-teaching duties for teachers, who participate in the multiple
organizations. Additionally, unlike the case of Botswana where teachers worked within
MoE structures in curriculum reform processes that were relatively insulated from
political pressures, South Africa’s reforms occurred in the public sphere and became
politicized, and still remains “a public issue” (Harley & Wedekind, 2004). Teachers’
participation in multiple organizations that were formally engaged in politicized
curriculum reforms suggests that they may have less time for teaching, if all else is held
constant (see 5.4.3).
In the sections that follow, I elaborate on the historical processes of South
Africa’s curriculum reforms that were intended to de-institutionalize apartheid’s racially
segregated structures (section 5.4.2.1), and the desegregated, yet organizationally
fragmented structures that emerged (section 5.4.2.2). The historical processes and
structures that emerged in turn provide the context for my analysis of the expansive roles
that South Africa’s North-West Province teachers potentially play in their curriculum
policy practice field, as compared with teachers from Botswana’s Southern Region
(section 5.4.3).
5.4.2.1. Organizations and processes: Urgency in disrupting apartheid (1970s-2000s)
South Africa’s CPP field since the late 1970s has been characterized by multiple
attempts to quickly “move away” from the segregationist education policies of apartheid.
After the 1976 Soweto Uprising that protested apartheid curriculum language policies,
reform efforts intensified. In the 1980s and 1990s, expatriate and local South African
groups mooted various ideas during participatory processes of reforms, as they planned
the type of education system for the racially unified South Africa that they envisioned.
Specific to mathematics education, one set of proposals during the period of change was
to adopt a phased system of reforms, with a focus on capacity building – developing a
cadre of mathematics educators, administrators and scholars – while curriculum
119
committees developed fully fledged curricula over a five-year period (Volmink
Interview, October, 2010). Actual events took a different turn from that intention, as
symbolic racial integration and curriculum formulation processes proceeded relatively
much faster than the training of personnel for curriculum support and implementation.
In this section I elaborate on the following aspects of South Africa’s curriculum
reform processes:
i. Creating formally racially integrated, yet provincially fragmented organizational
structures, such as teachers’ unions and professional associations by integrating
previously racially segregated education structures;
ii. Establishing mechanisms to promote participatory curriculum formulation
processes, including formal representation from teachers’ organizations and other
stakeholder groups; and
iii. Restructuring apartheid era teacher training by closing training colleges or
subsuming them under formally desegregated, autonomous universities.
5.4.2.1.1. Attacking racial segregation, creating a racially unified, yet fragmented field
South Africa’s anti-apartheid processes, particularly from the 1970s, and post-
apartheid education policies in the 1990s “attacked” apartheid’s bureaucratic and
authoritarian governance and racial segregation by restructuring education departments
and organizations into formally racially integrated, yet organizationally fragmented
structures. Even before progressive education was adopted in South Africa in the 1990s,
the black homeland of Bophuthatswana had presented an alternative form of education by
adopting learner-centered curricula and teacher training in the 1970s (around the same
time as NPE reforms began in Botswana), in the form of a Primary Education Upgrade
Program (PEUP) that was formally supported by the Bophuthatswana government (see
Chapter 4; Chisholm, 2012). However, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the
legitimacy of apartheid was being attacked, instability characterized the country,
including the homeland. The PEUP was discontinued after an attempted coup in 1988 to
topple the Bophuthatswana government, which was perceived by some anti-apartheid
activists as a “puppet” of the apartheid regime (SADET, 2004; 2006).
120
Through the 1980s and 1990s, teachers were mobilized in organizations that that
mounted political resistance to undermine apartheid era governance structures. For
example, teachers in black schools engaged in a Defiance Campaign, physically ejecting
school inspectors and other administrators from their classrooms (Hyslop 1990; Jansen,
2004). Subsequently, teachers’ organizations participated in discussions about post-
apartheid education reforms, and emerged as key stakeholders in the participatory
structures, replacing authoritarian governance that had partitioned education into
segregated systems. For example, a number of non-racialized unions aligned with the
African National Congress (ANC), the Congress of South African Trade Unions
(COSATU), and the South African Communist Party (SACP) and engaged in political
activism, which continued to characterize their normative approaches through the 1990s
and the 2000s (Govender, 2004). Union representatives participated in policymaking
processes, as they served on various committees that deliberated over what became the
central education policies, the 1996 South African Schools Act (SASA), and the 1996
National Education Policy Act (NEPA).
As part of the transition, segregated education departments, universities, and
education organizations were restructured, and a racially unified, albeit fragmented multi-
organizational field emerged. For example, over 15 racially segregated post-secondary
institutions were closed or merged with others, such that 23 public universities that
emerged after the post-apartheid era were in existence as of 2009. Among the diverse
organizational actors with roles in participatory education reforms that took place in the
decentralized field were a unified National Department of Education (DoE), 9 provincial
departments of education, multiple universities, and teachers’ organizations.
Teachers’ organizations emerged from the integration processes as key players in
South Africa’s CPP field. In mathematics, the racially integrated professional
mathematics educators’ organization, known as the Association for Mathematics
Education of South Africa (AMESA) exemplified post-apartheid integration efforts.
AMESA emerged from the unification of 9 previously segregated mathematics education
associations in 1993, to present itself unequivocally as “the voice of the mathematics
educator in South Africa” (AMESA 2010 brochure).
121
While professional associations like AMESA served normative roles, teachers’
unions in particular emerged as powerful political organizations that also have regulative
roles with representation in the national DoE. After post-apartheid legislation guaranteed
teachers’ collective bargaining rights, and the right to strike, the largest union to emerge
in the 1990s was the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU), which
subsumed formerly racialized unions under a unitary organizational structure as it
embarked on a membership drive from 1993-1995 and increased its political power.
Additionally, the 1996 National Education Policy Act (NEPA) required government to
consult with teachers’ organizations on curricular matters, and unions have official
representation within the Department of Education (DoE).
Divergent origins of organizations. The divergent origins of racially integrated
unions and other organizations implied that their members had divergent educational and
socio-political experiences under apartheid’s segregated system, and there were
differences in their governance approaches and interactions with government, as well as
outcomes of such interactions. For example, on the one hand, non-white teacher unions
had been excluded from governance under apartheid, and developed political resistance
as a strategy that ultimately toppled the apartheid government. After apartheid crumbled
and the ANC negotiated for a transition to democratic elections in the early 1990s, there
was a shift in its socialist anti-apartheid policies, as it sought to address the concerns of
business and the middle class (Motala & Singh, 2001). The shift sometimes put the ANC
government at odds with the redress goals of dominant unions like SADTU, which
resorted to its “tried and trusted” strategy of political resistance to press for urgently
addressing economic and social disparities, and even engaged in strikes only weeks after
the first democratic elections in 1994 (Govender, 2004, p. 279).
On the other hand, white teacher unions had prior experience relying on
negotiations in dealing with the apartheid education authorities, and the unions that
emerged from that camp continued to use such “professional” approaches (Hyslop,
1990). Two post-apartheid unions – National Professional Teachers’ Organization of
South Africa (NAPTOSA), and the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie (SAOU) – initially
adopted an approach of setting up policy and research structures to negotiate with
government to advance their interests, reminiscent of the approaches used by the
122
apartheid-era white unions. NAPTOSA had emerged from a multi-racial federation of
unions, whereas SAOU is predominantly Afrikaans and emerged in 1996 after white,
Afrikaans-speaking teacher organizations withdrew from NAPTOSA, citing reasons such
as discomfort with political activism, reservations about affirmative action, and in protest
against the lowered status of Afrikaans in curriculum.
As the 1990s proceeded, the three unions competed for membership and sought to
increase their appeal to teachers by adopting a combination of political resistance (e.g.
strikes) and “professional” approaches (Torres et al., 2000), which address concerns
about schooling outcomes. For example, in a bid to strengthen its professional base to
complement its political strength and experiences with organizing teacher strikes,
SADTU established an education and research department by 1998 (Govender, 2004, pp.
275-281).
The expanded functions of such unions and other teachers’ organizations, and
their competition for influence suggests that their members – teachers – may engage in
diverse activities that compete for the time that they could otherwise spend teaching.
Indeed, teachers’ activism in such organizations potentially provides a career path in
which they can serve as representatives among the organizational stakeholders involved
in curriculum formulation processes, which I discuss next.
5.4.2.1.2. Establishing mechanisms for institutional disruption and creation through
curriculum projects
After the successful disruption of formal apartheid, South Africa’s curriculum
landscape over the 1990s and 2000s has been characterized by efforts at undermining
authoritarian apartheid era governance practices and creating a new education system.
The mechanisms for such efforts have been multiple, participatory curriculum reform
projects (for example, see Chisholm, 2005; Fataar, 2006), and which were characterized
as “rushed” by informants involved in the processes specific to primary school
mathematics. I elaborate on these projects.
123
Outcomes Based Education: politicized adoption of Curriculum 2005
Despite the intentions of some South African educators and policymakers for a
reform approach built around longer-term processes of creating a curriculum system,
change efforts proceeded relatively quickly after the first democratic elections in 1994.
According to some accounts, there was to have been a process of creating new curricula
over a five-year period, during which national and provincial curriculum institutes were
to have been created (ANC, 1994a), and the capacities of educators and administrators
for the new system were to have been built (Volmink Interview, October, 2010). By
1994, temporary curriculum reforms were made by “sanitizing,” or removing racist and
sexist references from apartheid-era curricula. Over 40 curriculum committees were
established and were to further deliberate and develop integrated curricula.
At the time, there was focus on “institutional forgetting” of apartheid, and the
majority’s sentiment that “anything would be better than apartheid” (Associated Press
report on Desmond Tutu St. Paul’s Cathedral Lecture, 1984) also applied in education.
Interviews of multiple policymakers who were involved in the processes indicated that
there was a desire to act quickly and adopt a new curriculum to “move away” from
apartheid, as some individuals wanted to avoid a situation where apartheid-era officials,
who were still in Department of Education, may have attempted to co-opt the
transformation processes.
In 1996-1997 curriculum reforms were introduced in the form of Outcomes Based
Education (OBE), under the first post-apartheid Minister of Education. The source of
OBE is contested, and some individuals who had been involved in the curriculum reform
processes indicated that it emerged “without warning” (Jansen, 2002b). The adoption of
OBE was influenced by ideas and language drawn from other countries including the US,
UK, Australia and New Zealand (Chisholm, 2005). A union representative who
participated in the reform processes indicated that the adoption of OBE in South Africa
emerged from conversations between a number of individuals who were involved in the
education sector in the 1990s (C2005 union representative interview, October, 2010). As
noted in other accounts (see Fataar, 2006, p. 648), a notable influence in the adoption of
OBE was William Spady, an American consultant, who later disavowed South Africa’s
version of OBE as it became controversial.
124
There are a number of indicators of explicit attempts to “forget” apartheid
practices in adopting the OBE curriculum. First, a key idea behind OBE in South Africa
was to organize learning around curriculum aims – the goals expected of teachers,
students, and administrators – not content, as had been the case during apartheid. The
decision to do away with aspects of an apartheid era curriculum extended to a decision to
substitute words like subject, teacher, and student, for learning area, educator, and
learner respectively, which were perceived to be less authoritarian. Second, a sense of
urgency in replacing apartheid education policies is implied by the name given to the
OBE curriculum, Curriculum 2005 (C2005), as well as its quick implementation. C2005
was so called because it was intended that it would have been implemented at all levels of
the education system by the year 2005. Tensions between such urgency and a slower-
paced approach to post-apartheid change notwithstanding, the OBE curriculum was
adopted in 1997, and implementation began a year later.
Diverse stakeholder representation was another characteristic of C2005
development that was indicative of efforts to enact practices that were in opposition to
apartheid era practices. Committees of stakeholder groups engaged in participatory
processes that were designed to be unlike the invisible processes employed by the
authoritarian apartheid government (Fataar, 2006). The C2005 development included
groups for each of 8 learning areas, including mathematics.7 Each National Learning
Area Committees (LACs), as the groups were named, was to develop the curriculum
aims, or “write a rationale for the learning area, and propose learning area outcomes that
reflected the critical and cross-field outcomes that overarched all learning areas”
(Ramsuran & Malcolm, 2006, p. 517). The LACs comprised individuals who were either
nominated to represent stakeholders, or self-nominated to participate on the committee of
their own accord. Among the stakeholders in the LACs were government officials,
university representatives, teacher unions, and in mathematics, the Association for
Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA).
The open nature of participation in the C2005 processes resulted in large LACs of
about 30-50, whose membership was fluid, with different members participating in a
7 The other learning areas were Languages, Natural Sciences, Technology, Social Sciences, Arts and Culture, Life Orientation, and Economic and Management Sciences.
125
number of curriculum development workshops for each learning area (Ramsuran &
Malcolm, 2006, p. 517), including mathematics (C2005 mathematics LAC member
interview, September 2010). For each learning area, a technical team of about three
curriculum writers was appointed. Groups of committee members then worked on
developing the curriculum for the different grade levels. For example, five members
representing teacher unions, AMESA, government officials, and universities worked on
developing the Intermediate Phase (grade 4-6) mathematics curriculum.
In 1998, less than a year after C2005 formulation was completed, its
implementation began in South Africa’s schools, and complaints emerged shortly after its
adoption. Jonathan Jansen, a renowned South African educational scholar, predicted the
failure of the reform in an article titled, “Why OBE will fail” (Jansen, 1997). Jansen
noted that the curriculum was “based on flawed assumptions about what happens inside
schools, how classrooms are organized and what kinds of teachers exist within the
system.” Fataar, another South African policy scholar notes (2006, p. 651):
The head long rush to phase in the [OBE] curriculum in all public schools nationally without adequate teacher training and resources led many commentators to question whether it would work. Teachers who had spent a couple of days in official information workshops were generally left frustrated at having to teach a complex and ambiguous curriculum.
The Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS)
In 2000, a year after a new Minister of Education took office, C2005 was
reviewed in response to complaints about its implementation (Bertram, 2008). Yet, at the
time of review, teacher unions and departmental officials who had been involved in the
C2005 processes had become deeply invested in the new curriculum (Fataar, 2006, p.
250). Hence, in the politically charged context of the review, the then Education Minister,
Kader Asmal pointed out publicly that the OBE curriculum was not being changed.
Rather, revisions were to “streamline” OBE, which was to meet international standards,
and address curriculum aims of social justice, a healthy environment, human rights, and
inclusivity, as with C2005. The following excerpts from minutes of a parliamentary
briefing illustrate the need felt for a public display of continuity during hearings about the
Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS):
126
Mr. I Vadi (ANC [member of parliament]) asked if this [RNCS] was a new curriculum or an extension of the old C2005. He suggested that it should be packaged as a new curriculum as the old C2005 had given rise to much negativity. Mr. Hindle [Deputy Director General of Department of Education and Training] replied that the curriculum is still C2005 as the fundamentals are still in place. It would be disastrous to send a message that schools are to forget everything introduced in terms of C2005. As he had stated earlier, stability and continuity were vital in this process. (Parliamentary Monitoring Group Minutes, 2001)
Development of the RNCS began in January 2001, and after a relatively fast-
paced process, it was finalized 15 months later, in April 2002 (see Chapter 6). Its
adoption marked the second major post-apartheid change in curriculum documents within
less than a decade. RNCS implementation at the 6th grade level began in 2005, the year in
which C2005 was originally intended to have been implemented system-wide. The RNCS
was in place during the Carnoy et al. study of 6th grade mathematics teachers in 2009. As
I discuss later (section 5.4.3), despite the RNCS enjoying teachers’ political support for
its socio-political aims of addressing equity, human rights and inclusivity, teacher
complaints about the organization of the curriculum surfaced after its implementation
began.
5.4.2.1.3. Closing and restructuring apartheid era teacher training colleges and
universities
After apartheid formally ended in 1994, teacher training colleges were among
organizations that were restructured, and a number of them were closed down, merged
with vocational schools, or subsumed under universities. In the post-apartheid era,
teacher education has been governed by provincial departments of education and
autonomous universities of varied quality, some of which themselves were undergoing
desegregation. The 23 public South African universities as of the 2000s emerged from
processes of post-apartheid integration. For example, in the North-West Province (NWP),
the majority black African, English-speaking University of Bophuthatswana was renamed
University of North-West in 1994. It was subsequently renamed the North-West
127
University (NWU) in 2004, after it was integrated with other majority white, Afrikaans-
speaking institutions.
With changes in South Africa’s socio-political and economic landscape came
changes in the pool of candidates entering teacher training. Since the mid-1990s, there
has been a decline in graduates from colleges of education, as Figure 5 - 8 shows.
Figure 5 - 8. South Africa: Graduates from colleges of education, higher education, 1994-2006
Source: Paterson & Arends (2009, p.94)
In the next section, I sketch South Africa’s CPP field as of the 2000s.
5.4.2.2. Outcome: Fragmented inter-organizational structures (2000s)
Summary. By the 2000s, a fragmented, multi-organizational field had emerged
from apartheid and post-apartheid era policies and processes of the 1990s (Figure 5 - 9).
Within the framework provided by post-apartheid policies and laws, particularly the 1996
South African Schools Act, the national DoE and multiple organizational actors engaged
in participatory processes of curriculum formulation, whereas curriculum support
(including administration and teacher training), and implementation at the school level
128
are governed by 9 provincial departments of education and autonomous universities.8
Additionally, there are minimal structures of teacher accountability, a legacy of the anti-
apartheid efforts that undermined administrative oversight over teachers (Hyslop 1990;
Jansen, 2004).
The formalized roles of teachers’ organizations in curriculum processes led to the
development of formalized curriculum structures within the organizations, with teachers
potentially having non-teaching roles to play as members of such organizations. The
decentralized, national and provincial departments of education are mirrored by teacher
organizations, including unions and professional associations in the field, which have
national and provincial curriculum development structures. For example, the unions and
AMESA have curriculum councils, and the curriculum council members have been the de
facto representatives in national curriculum formulation processes in the 1990s and
2000s. The multiple organizations and structures at the national and provincial levels of
teachers’ organizations suggest the potential for multiple non-teaching roles for teachers
in the field.
8 The DoE was restructured in 2009, with pre-tertiary education being governed by the Department of Basic Education (DBE), while a Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) governs tertiary education. In this paper I use “DoE” for consistency.
129
Figure 5 - 9. South Africa: Curriculum policy-practice (CPP) organizational chart
Source: Constructed based on document reviews and interviews
5.4.2.2.1. Decentralized department of education governance structures
As of 2009, national and provincial structures governed primary school
curriculum policies and practices in South Africa. In addition to the DoE there is a
national decision-making committee called the Council of Education Ministers (CEM),
whose members include the ministers of education from each of the 9 provinces of the
130
country, known as provincial Education Members of the Executive Council, MECs. The
CEM reports to the national Minister of Education and to the national parliament.
Whereas members of the CEM are political heads of provincial education
departments, there is another statutory governing structure called the Heads of the
Education Department’s Committee (HEDCOM), which is composed of the
administrative heads of the provincial education departments, known as Superintendent
Generals (SG). At the provincial level, the Superintendent General reports to the
Education MEC.
In each province, a Curriculum Management Committee (CMCs) governs
curriculum practices, although it has no direct decision-making mandate, but provides
viewpoints from the respective provinces to HEDCOM. The CMCs are composed of
Chief Directors, Directors of Curriculum, and Deputy Directors (also known as Chief
Education Specialists, CES) for three education “bands”:
• General Education and Training (GET), from Kindergarten - 9th grade;
• Further Education and Training (FET), from 10th-12th grade; and
• Higher Education and Training, which includes teacher training.
The provincial CMCs oversee curriculum practice for each education band, and
for each subject among districts and schools in the respective provinces. At the GET
band, there are Deputy Chief Education Specialists (DCES) for each subject, or learning
area. The DCES liaise with each provincial district through district-level officials – called
Subject Advisors – who are responsible for the respective subject areas. In turn, the
Subject Advisors oversee curriculum implementation and provide support to teachers for
the particular subject in schools within the district. As of 2009 there were 14,380 primary
schools, with 5,851,605 pupils and 181,805 teachers (Table 5 - 7).
Table 5 - 7. South Africa: Number of schools, students and teachers as of 2009 Type # Schools # Students # Teachers Primary 14,380 5,851,605 181,805 Secondary 6,304 3,856,946 141,841 Combined & Intermediate 5, 222 2,519,412 89,421 Source: Education Statistics in South Africa, 2009, p. 5.9
9 See: http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8RQsvgahSgA%3D&tabid=93&mid=1131
131
In the North-West Province (NWP), there are four GET Mathematics Subject
Advisors for each of four districts, who provide curriculum support to the teachers in
their respective districts, and report to the provincial DCES.10 The districts are further
broken down into Area Program Offices (APOs), which comprise clusters of schools. At
the school level, with South Africa’s focus on integration across subjects, there is a head
of department (HOD) who oversees all subjects for the three different phases of basic
education: Foundation (Kindergarten-Grade 3), Intermediate (Grade 4-6), and Senior
(Grade 7-9). The structure differs from the case of Botswana, where the equivalent of the
HOD, called a Senior Teacher, oversees teachers according to subject area, across grade
levels.
As of 2009, South Africa’s curriculum policy approach was to provide a broad
framework to allow teachers to be involved in curriculum planning at the provincial,
district, and school levels. Such an approach was to counteract the apartheid era approach
in which teachers “were controlled followers and were forced to practice through
prescription.” (DoE, 2003, Foreword). At the provincial level, teams of educators develop
Learning Programs to provide a framework for teachers to plan what aspects of the
curriculum are to be covered for each phase of education (e.g. Intermediate Phase, Grades
4-6). At the district and school levels, groups of teachers meet in retreats to work with
subject advisors and heads of departments respectively to develop grade-specific Work
Schedules that specify the allocation of topics for each subject, for each term in the
school year. Such meetings also provide a forum for discussing challenges faced in
curriculum implementation. At the school level, individual teachers develop Lesson Plans
for specifying teaching activities for the specific lessons, for each subject that they teach.
Additionally, teachers are required to have at least five other deliverables, including
assessment plans, and teacher and learner portfolios.
However, reviews conducted in 2009 indicated that teachers were opposed to
developing curricular materials, complaining that they lacked the time for doing so (DoE,
2009). The quote below presents the perspective from a member of the 2001-2002
national mathematics curriculum writing committee that developed the mathematics
10 See more on NWP education department at: http://www.nwpg.gov.za/education/
132
curriculum that was being implemented by 2009, regarding the context within which
curriculum policies were made in the early 2000s, and the outcomes of the approach:
We still lived in a world that believed that we would only tell teachers how to do it, but we wouldn’t do it for teachers. So teachers were provided with guideline documents on how to write a learning program, and a work schedule, and a lesson plan but nobody ever wrote it for them. The idea being that different schools would be autonomous. They would do their own thing … which I’m afraid never really happened effectively (RNCS curriculum formulation committee member interview, September 2010)
A 2009 review of NCS indicated that teachers’ found their workload to be
overwhelming (DoE, 2009), given the limited time they have in which to teach and
complete other tasks, such as their administrative duties. As my comparative study
findings show in further detail (section 5.4.3), the amount of administrative duties and
other non-teaching activities that South African teachers engage in are related to their
relatively more fragmented curricular system that emerged after decades of apartheid.
5.4.2.2.2. Fragmented teacher training
In the post-apartheid era, teacher training is provincially governed, and provided
by formally desegregated universities that have varied quality from their histories of
being embedded in segregated South Africa. Additionally, teacher-training workshops are
provided by provincial- and district-level Subject Advisors, who also monitor and
evaluate teachers.
In the North-West Province (NWP), the North-West University (NWU) is the key
provider of teacher training. The decentralized university has multiple campuses, and
emerged from the formal integration of previously separate institutions, including the
University of the North-West (formerly University of Bophuthatswana). There is an
Education faculty at Mafikeng, the site where a number of teachers sampled obtained
their training (section 5.4.3).
There is a downward trend in the number of NWP teachers over the 2000s, which
mirrors a national downward trend in the number of teachers (Figure 5 - 10).
Additionally, a downward trend in the number of schools in the province reflects closure
and merging of schools over the period.
133
Figure 5 - 10. NWP: Number of schools and teachers, 2000-2009
Source: Education Statistics in South Africa, 2000-2009.
5.4.2.2.3. Multiple Teachers’ Organizations
Multiple teacher organizations, including unions and AMESA represent the
interests of teachers in mathematics curriculum formulation. South Africa’s National
Education Policy Act (NEPA) of 1996 required government to consult with teachers’
organizations in policy-making, and unions have official representation within the DoE,
for providing input on curricula matters, whereas AMESA plays a normative role.
Parallel structures of governance exist in teachers’ organizations that liaise with the
national and provincial departments of education, potentially resulting in more non-
teaching activities in which teachers participate.
0!
5!
10!
15!
20!
25!
30!
35!
1998! 2000! 2002! 2004! 2006! 2008! 2010!
Population*(Schools*in*100s;*Teachers*in*1,000s)*
Year*
Schools!(100s)!Teachers!(1,000s)!
134
Multiple, Politically Powerful Teachers’ Unions
South Africa’s multiple, politically powerful unions have decentralized
organizational structures similar to the government, at the national and provincial levels.
As of 2009, three major unions (SADTU, NAPTOSA and SAOU) were competing to
contribute to government policies, and increase their appeal to teachers and boost their
membership. By 2001, about 97% of the 354,201 South African teachers were members
of a teacher union, a percentage that was consistent with the union membership of
teachers sampled in the North-West Province (NWP) in 2009 (see section 5.4.3). Table 5
- 8 below summarizes the relative sizes of the unions, showing that as of 2001 over 60%
of unionized teachers belonged to SADTU.
Table 5 - 8. South Africa: Union membership, 2001 Union Number Percentage SADTU 211,480 61% NAPTOSA 90,157 26% SAOU 42,800 12% Total 344,437 100% Sources: Education Labor Relations Council (ELRC), 2002; SADTU Congress Report, 2002
Decentralized Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA)
AMESA, the mathematics educators’ professional association has participated in
curriculum development since its formation in 1993. Its organizational structure mirrors
the decentralized national and provincial structure of the DoE. A national executive is
headquartered at Wits University, with provincial executive branches in each of the 9
provinces. AMESA also has curriculum committees at the national and provincial levels,
from which representatives are drawn to represent the organization during curriculum
processes.
At the national level, the organization’s stated activities include representing “the
interests of the mathematics education community on curriculum, policy and
implementation” (AMESA 2010 brochure). At the provincial level it organizes
workshops about developments in curriculum policies, as well as on teaching and
assessments. Additionally, AMESA organizes national and provincial forums for
mathematics educators, publishes news articles and research on mathematics teaching,
135
and organizes mathematics competitions among schools, including a South African
Mathematics Olympiad.
Whereas the findings presented above highlight the organizational structures of
Botswana and South Africa that emerged over decades, and provide some context for
teachers’ roles within each country, the individuals who inhabit these multiple
organizations remain invisible. A closer look at the cross-flow of individuals between the
organizations in the field is suggestive of the multiple roles of these organizations’
members, including teachers. Teachers’ political activism in unions sometimes takes
them away from teaching, and serves as a launching pad into other domains, including
government, as exemplified by South Africa’s cases of a president and general secretary
of SADTU, who became ANC members of parliament in the 1990s (Govender, 2004, p.
270).
In the next section, beyond the cross-flows of such high profile individuals from
teaching into other domains, I highlight teachers’ multiple roles in their CPP fields.
Specifically, I highlight the non-teaching roles of teachers in Botswana’s Southern
Region and South Africa’s North-West Province, who were embedded in the respective
fields as of 2009, and the implications for reform processes and outcomes of the two
countries.
5.4.3. Comparing Teachers along the Botswana-South Africa Border (2009)
The historical curriculum reform processes and emergent organizational structures
in Botswana and South Africa that were presented in sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide the
contexts for teachers’ roles in 2009 during the implementation of curriculum reforms in
the respective countries. This section compares teachers’ roles on either side of the
Botswana-South Africa border, given the tensions that exist between their non-teaching
roles and the time they spend teaching, which seems to be associated with student
achievement outcomes (Abadzi, 2007a; 2007b; 2009; Chisholm et al., 2005; McDonnell,
1995, p. 308). I address the following question here: In the shared border area of
Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s North-West Province, what were the
similarities and differences in teachers’ non-teaching roles and the time they spent
136
teaching within their respective inter-organizational structures during the 2009 school
year? I draw on data from sampled 6th grade mathematics teachers from Botswana’s
Southern Region and North-West Province (NWP).
With the divergent histories of schooling and teacher training in Botswana and
South Africa, I make references to history in my comparative analysis of the roles of
teachers who inhabit the respective education systems. Teachers’ previous academic
experiences of schooling are shown to affect their teaching practices (e.g. Boyd et al.,
2006; Lortie, 1975). Similarly, I explore associations between the historical socio-
political contexts within which sampled teachers were embedded during their own
schooling and training, and their non-teaching roles in their respective education systems.
South Africa’s politicized history suggests a greater level of teacher politicization, and
larger proportions of teachers engaging in non-teaching work, such as union activities,
relative to Botswana.
I use the historical time periods that sampled teachers originally qualified and
entered the teaching workforce (i.e. teacher cohort) as markers of the socio-political
contexts within which they were embedded, especially as students of primary and
secondary schools, and teacher training colleges from the late 1970s through the 2000s. I
identified five policy-relevant periods for sampled teacher cohorts based on the
curriculum reform histories on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border, from the
late 1970s to 2009 (Table 5 - 9).
137
Table 5 - 9. Policy-relevant time periods for teacher cohorts Period Botswana Bophuthatswana/North-West Province (NWP)
I Teacher training, curriculum reforms Teacher training, curriculum reforms Before
1986 • 1977 National Policy on Education
(NPE), Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP) I: Development of teacher training; creation of specialized department for curriculum development
• Bophuthatswana liberal democratic reforms beginning in late 1970s
• 1978 Primary Education Upgrade Program (PEUP): Adoption of learner-centered curriculum reforms; development of teacher training
1986-1990
• PEIP II & Junior Secondary Education Improvement Project (JSEIP): Curriculum reforms, unification of teacher training in specialized Department of Teacher Training and Development (TT&D)
• Formal development of PEUP continues until attempted Bophuthatswana coup in 1988, although teachers continue to use PEUP approaches & materials afterwards
II Consolidation of institutional creation Consolidation of apartheid deinstitutionalization 1991-1995
• Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE), Basic Education Consolidation (BEC) project: Standardization of teacher training curricula; standardization of curriculum formulation to include teachers on committees
• Teacher strikes, coup results in toppling Bophuthatswana government in 1994, followed by integration into South Africa and democratic elections
• South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) embarks on recruitment drive
1996-2000
• RNPE: Further development of teacher training, curriculum formulation processes
• Restructuring of racially segregated teacher training into racially inclusive systems (under 1 national, 9 provincial departments), C2005 curriculum reforms
• Unions & other teacher organizations’ involvement in curriculum reforms
2001-2009
• RNPE: Upgrading of teacher training to diploma, subject specialization; curriculum reforms from 2000 include appointed teachers on committees
• Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS): Curriculum reforms from 2001
• Unions & other teacher organizations’ continued involvement in curriculum reforms
Teachers who emerged from the distinctive histories on either side of the
Botswana-South Africa border similarly face tensions between the time they spend
teaching versus engaging in non-teaching activities in the multiple organizations they
may belong to. In each country, teachers’ emergent non-teaching roles may adversely
affect the time they spend teaching during the school year, resulting in gaps between the
expected and actual curriculum coverage. Although my process study makes no grand
causal claims, I show that, as compared with the Botswana sample teachers, NWP
teachers reported more expansive non-teaching roles and gave fewer lessons than was
expected in the 2009 school year, with potentially negative implications for their
students’ achievement gains (Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
138
The rest of the section is in three parts. First, in section 5.4.3.1. I compare the
characteristics of teachers in the respective fields, situating their schooling and socio-
political experiences and roles within the divergent historical education reform processes
on either side of the border. Second, section 5.4.3.2. compares curriculum reform
priorities of teachers on either side of the Botswana-South Africa border. Third, section
5.4.3.3 compares how gaps between intended and actual curriculum coverage (i.e.
number of lessons teacher gave in the 2009 school year versus number of lessons
expected from curriculum) were related to non-teaching activities that teachers on either
side of the border reported as competing for the time they spend in class.
5.4.3.1. Actors: Teachers inhabiting organizational fields in two different contexts
Analysis of the characteristics of teachers on either side of the Botswana-South
Africa border provides a perspective on the respective contexts within which they are
embedded. Where teachers of similar ethnicity and language inhabit two adjacent
education systems by chance, as in the case of Botswana’s Southern Region and South
Africa’s NWP, they are expected to be similar. Differences in their average
characteristics reflect differences in the contexts that they inhabit.
5.4.3.1.1. Teacher Characteristics: Demographics and Level of Politicization
On average, sampled teachers from Botswana’s Southern Region and South
Africa’s NWP were similar in characteristics such as gender composition and socio-
economic status, but differed on other measures, including age and union affiliation, both
of which were indicators of the divergent socio-political and educational histories across
the borders. On both sides of the border, the sampled teachers were about two-thirds
female: 69% in Botswana and 66% in South Africa. On average, no differences were
found between measures of sampled teachers’ socio-economic status (SES), consistent
with the assumptions of the “natural experiment” study design, which compared the
139
populations along the border of the two middle-income southern African countries with
the view to avoiding confounding effects of material resource differences.11
Sampled teachers on the Botswana side of the border were significantly younger
than those in NWP, a reflection of the different educational and socio-political histories
of the respective countries. The 58 sampled Botswana teachers’ average age was 39,
which was significantly lower than the average of 46 years, for the 62 sampled NWP
teachers. With such differences in teachers’ average age, one might expect variation in
experiences of schooling and types of training the teachers received during the different
points of their respective countries’ histories.
Divergence in teachers’ ages and the related historical experiences on either side
of the border were also reflected in differences in teachers’ engagement in socio-political
activities, such as participation in unions. In South Africa, teachers played political roles
in opposition to apartheid, after which teacher unions emerged as powerful organizations
by the mid-1990s. Given such a history, as expected, a relatively greater proportion of
teachers in the NWP indicated that they were union members, compared with Botswana.
Sixty out of 62 NWP sampled teachers (97%) indicated that they were union members,
consistent with estimates of South Africa’s national percentage of union membership in
the 2000s (Govender, 2004).12 A significantly smaller percentage of the 58 Batswana
teachers sampled (73%) were union members, consistent with the Botswana Teachers’
Union (BTU) estimates of primary school teachers’ union membership (BTU, 2006).
Next, I elaborate on the histories of sampled teachers’ on either side of the
Botswana-South Africa border and their non-teaching roles that emerged as of 2009.
5.4.3.1.2. Historical Contexts of Teachers’ Schooling and Entry into Teaching
Analyzing characteristics by teacher cohort (i.e. period in which originally
qualified as a teacher) provides indications of the historical socio-political contexts
11 There were no statistically significant differences in SES, as measured by teacher SES scores and the average SES score for each teacher’s students. 12 The two non-union members in the NWP sample included a teacher who reported expecting to complete her teacher training by 2010, and an expatriate teacher who had been recruited on a temporary basis to teach in 2009, due to teacher shortage at the school she was teaching.
140
within which teachers in the respective fields were embedded during their primary and
secondary schooling, as students in teacher training colleges, and when they entered the
teaching workforce. Of the 58 Botswana teachers sampled in Botswana, there were 54
with cohort information, whereas 61 of the 62 NWP teachers had cohort information.
Whereas almost all the 54 Botswana sample teachers were trained during an era when
reforms standardized basic education and teacher education in the 1980s and 1990s, the
older teachers from NWP were mostly trained before the 1990s, during the apartheid era,
when up to 18 separate education systems existed for the different races and regions,
including the separate black homeland of Bophuthatswana, which was only integrated
into South Africa’s NWP in 1994.
Standardized training, less union affiliation of Botswana teachers. All but one
Botswana sample teacher (who qualified as a teacher in 1975) had qualified as teachers
after the 1977 National Policy on Education (NPE), when basic education and teacher
training reforms began. The “average” Botswana teacher from the sample qualified as a
teacher in 1993, after teacher capacity development and curriculum reforms, including
the two phases of the Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP I, 1981-1986; PEIP
II, 1986-1991) and the Junior Secondary Improvement Project (JSEIP, 1985-1991).
Thirty-four percent (34%) of sample teachers were categorized in the 1986-1990
cohort (N=19), which had qualified as teachers during a period when primary and
secondary education were being strengthened, through projects such as the PEIP and
JSEIP (Figure 5 - 11). Twenty-three percent (23%) of teachers were categorized in the
cohort that had qualified as teachers over the period 1991-1995 (N=13), during the
consolidation of teacher training and standardization of curricula processes across the
country’s four primary teacher training colleges (PTTCs), through projects such as the
Basic Education Consolidation (BEC, 1992-1995). Twenty-one (21%, N=12) had
qualified after 2000, by which time Botswana had standardized the curriculum of teacher
training institutions and introduced subject specialization for primary school teacher
trainees. The pre-1986 cohort was a small proportion (11%, N=6). Hence, the majority of
teachers in the sample had experienced their schooling and teacher training during
periods when basic education and teacher training were being strengthened in the
country.
141
Figure 5 - 11. Botswana and NWP: Sampled teachers’ cohorts
Additionally, there was some variation in Botswana teachers’ union affiliation, by
cohort. Among a sub-sample of Botswana teachers who indicated the year they qualified
as teachers (N=54), the percentage of union membership was 76% (Table 5 - 10),
although the proportions for post-1996 cohorts were lower. Forty-two percent of the
cohort that qualified after 2000 reported being union members, as compared with 100%
of the cohort that qualified as teachers before 1986.13 In measuring non-teaching
activities, none of the Botswana teachers listed union meetings as an activity that took
them out of class, although there were such teachers in the NWP sample. Subsequent
13 An explanation offered for why larger proportions of the older cohorts are union members is that the incentives being used by the union in its recruitment drives in the 2000s (e.g. insurance policies and funeral plans) are more attractive to older teachers. Hence, greater proportions of older teachers are members. Another explanation is that whereas the Botswana Teachers’ Union (BTU) was the unified teacher association until the late 1980s, the establishment of other competing teacher associations fragmented the field, and younger cohorts of teachers did not join the organizations, as there was little benefit to joining any of them. Since 2004, unions have collective bargaining rights in Botswana, and BTU has been attempting to increase its membership.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Before 1986 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 After 2000
Perc
ent o
f Sam
ple
Teacher Cohort
Botswana South Africa-NWP
142
interviews in Botswana indicated that even union members did not leave school to attend
union meetings, as they were not held during school hours.
Table 5 - 10. Botswana: Sample teacher union membership by cohort Teacher Cohort (Period in which Originally Qualified as a Teacher) N* % Union Members Before 1986 6 100% 1986-1990 19 89% 1991-1995 13 85% 1996-2000 4 50% After 2000 12 42% Total 54 76% Notes: * Sample with cohort information.
Varied historical contexts of NWP sample teachers’ entry into workforce. On
average, the teachers in the NWP sample were trained earlier than those in Botswana, and
within the segregated historical contexts of apartheid South Africa. The sample of
teachers who qualified as teachers in the NWP region in the 1980s had been students at
teacher training institutions during the period of Bophuthatswana’s experiences of liberal
democratic reforms, which had included the adoption of learner-centered Primary
Education Upgrade Program (PEUP) reforms and the upgrading of teacher training
institutions (Chisholm, 2012). However, that period had also been marked by political
resistance and an attempted coup in 1988, after which the PEUP reforms formally ended.
All 12 teachers in the sample who were in the 1986-1990 cohort (20% of sample) had
qualified as teachers in teacher training colleges that were in the region, now the North-
West Province.
The cohort who qualified as teachers during the period 1991-1995 had been
students during a period of transition from apartheid. During that transition period there
had been political resistance against the government in Bophuthatswana, which some
anti-apartheid activists in South Africa considered a “puppet” of the apartheid regime
(SADET, 2004; 2006). Teachers who had graduated in Bophuthatswana around 1991-
1995 had been teacher trainees or new teachers in that period of resistance, which had
culminated in strikes by teachers and other public servants, and a coup that toppled the
Bophuthatswana government in 1994 and paved the way for the region’s integration into
South Africa. In that same period, between 1993-1995 the South African Democratic
143
Teachers’ Union (SADTU) had embarked on a massive recruitment drive, which resulted
in it becoming the dominant teacher union across South Africa (Govender, 2004). Only
about 10% of the sample had qualified as teachers after 1996, in the post-apartheid
period, after the homeland had become integrated into South Africa.
Teachers who entered the workforce during the apartheid and transition periods,
until 1995, indicated a higher measure of union activism relative to newer entrants, as
measured by their self-report of activities that take them out of class most often. Among
the sampled NWP teachers who entered the teaching workforce in the period 1991-1995
(N=19), 26% listed union meetings as one of the activities that often takes them out of
class (Table 5 - 11).14
Table 5 - 11. NWP: Union meetings as activity taking teachers out of class, by cohort Teacher Cohort (Period in which Originally Qualified as a Teacher)
NWP sample with cohort information
Union meetings are one of the activities that takes teacher out of class most often
N N % of cohort Before 1986 24 5 21% 1986-1990 12 3 25% 1991-1995* 19 5 26% 1996-2000 5 0 0% After 2000 1 0 0% Total 61 13 21% Notes: * Period of increased union recruitment in South Africa. Sample includes two teachers who were the only ones that indicated attending union meetings as the single activity that takes them out of class most often.
In the section that follows, I highlight the greater prioritization of socio-political
curriculum aims by the NWP sample, relative to teachers from Botswana’s Southern
Region, and I compare sampled teachers’ overall curriculum reform priorities.
14 In particular, two members of that cohort who originally qualified as teachers in 1993 were the only ones who indicated union meetings as the single activity that took them out of class most often. The two were among sample teachers whose levels of curriculum coverage during the school year were lower than the NWP’s already low average of 52 lessons measured. I use their case for discussion at the end of this chapter, about how teachers’ participation in socio-political work, such as union activities, competes for classroom time and results in wider curriculum policy-practice gaps.
144
5.4.3.2. Logics: Similarities and differences in teachers’ curriculum reform
priorities
Analysis of documents, survey data, and interviews indicated that although a
larger proportion of NWP sample teachers rated socio-political curriculum aims as a
higher priority when compared to the Botswana sample, the aspect of reforms that
teachers prioritized most, on average, was curriculum organization – how to reform –
followed by why reform (curriculum aims), and third being what to reform (curriculum
content). Consistent with findings from curriculum reform evaluations conducted in
South Africa (see Chisholm et al., 2000; DoE, 2009), Botswana’s Southern Region and
South Africa’s NWP teachers were concerned with how curriculum reforms facilitate
their work of teaching, for example through reducing their workload and increasing the
resources they have available for curriculum implementation.
As I discuss elsewhere (Chapter 6), teachers were concerned that curriculum
documents were “loaded” (i.e. have a high number of lessons to be covered in a year), or
were “vague,” making it challenging for them to decipher what content to teach at any
given time during the school year and complete the curriculum. Teachers expressed their
preference for newer curricula that had been developed in the early 2000s, which were
less vague than curricula that had been implemented in the mid-1990s in the respective
countries. However, the quote below by a NWP teacher exemplifies sampled teachers’
perceptions that curriculum policy expectations still did not reflect adequate
consideration for curriculum organization, in estimating how activities such as
administrative tasks disrupt their teaching schedules and add to their workloads.15
I think these people [who developed the curriculum] looked at what they thought should be taught in mathematics. They looked at the content, but they didn’t take the environment in which we were teaching into consideration. That’s what I think, because everything there is to teach is there. But you look at the time frames, they are unrealistic. Look at the other things we have to do apart from going to class. They are unrealistic … Well, I think they meant well when they developed the curriculum. But I think they didn’t take all of those things into consideration (NWP Teacher Interview, November 2009).
15 In Chapter 6, I present the perspective of individuals who were involved in curriculum formulation, indicating how short curriculum development timelines contributed to the inability to incorporate practicing teachers’ viewpoints and address realistic implementation timelines, especially in South Africa.
145
Before discussing teachers’ concerns with curriculum organization in further
detail, I highlight the differences in sampled teachers’ views on socio-political curriculum
aims in the two countries.
5.4.3.2.1. NWP teachers’ relatively higher prioritization of socio-political aims
In both the cases of Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s NWP,
teachers expressed high levels of support for socio-political aims of their respective
mathematics curricula. However, I highlight the support expressed by a greater
proportion of NWP teachers for socio-political curriculum aims (Table 5 - 12), which
reflects a greater level of enthusiasm NWP teachers expressed in survey measures about
the curriculum.
Relative to Botswana sample teachers, on average, NWP teachers’ responses
indicated a greater level of agreement with measures of socio-political curriculum aims,
on a 4-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=somewhat agree,
4=strongly agree). One question about implementation of the mathematics curriculum
obtained each teacher’s socio-political aims as follows: One of my most important goals
is for learners to participate in class to become better citizens. A second question
obtained teachers’ interpretation of their respective mathematics curriculum’s
prioritization of goals as follows: Mostly, the maths curriculum helps learners participate
in class and become better citizens. On both measures, NWP sample teachers’ agreement
with socio-political aims on average were significantly higher than for the Botswana
sample (p=0.0158 and p=0.0176 respectively).
146
Table 5 - 12. Botswana and NWP: Teachers’ perspectives on mathematics curriculum socio-political aims Curriculum Aims Botswana (N=56) NWP (N=56) Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=somewhat agree, 4=strongly agree) Average SD Min Max Average SD Min Max With regard to maths curriculum knowledge and resources, I believe or have found that: One of my most important goals is for learners to participate in class to become better citizens
3.63 0.75 1 4 3.90 0.36 2 4
As far as the goals of the mathematics curriculum are concerned, in my experience: Mostly, the maths curriculum helps learners participate in class and become better citizens
3.35 0.83 1 4 3.68 0.57 2 4
Limited time versus preference for learner-centered approach. Learner-
centered curricula have been used to promote socio-political curriculum aims in southern
Africa (Tabulawa, 1997; 2003), and a sub-sample of 11 teachers interviewed from the
Botswana-South Africa border areas schools expressed preference for the child-centered
curricula they were using in 2009. They noted that such approaches differed from the rote
learning of mathematics they had experienced as children or students in teacher training
colleges. Teachers indicated that the practice-based approaches of the new curricula made
mathematics “more fun” and also allowed learners to see the usefulness of the subject in
their socio-political and economic pursuits, beyond the academic skills they gained.
However, teachers noted that the ability to implement learner-centered approaches
was tempered by time constraints. Teachers noted that they are left with little time for
using learner-centered approaches in teaching, due to administrative work and non-
teaching activities that increase their workload. Lesson pacing for students of varied
abilities was another factor that made it challenging for them to use learner-centered
approaches. The quote from a NWP teacher:
I like this learner-centered approach. The problem is most of the time it slows you down. In a sense that you sometimes don’t reach your targets. Some learners are dragging you behind (NWP Teacher Interview, November 2009).
147
Four out of the 6 NWP teachers interviewed made comparisons between the
learner-centered approaches of RNCS and the Primary Education Upgrade Program
(PEU), which they had experienced in Bophuthatswana in the 1980s. They indicated that
PEUP had a different approach to grouping children. PEUP grouped children by ability,
with “slower” and “faster” learners grouped separately to allow for teachers to pace their
work differently, whereas the Outcomes Based Education (OBE) that they had adopted in
the mid-1990s used mixed grouping. Teachers noted that they faced difficulties with the
sequencing and pacing of lessons when implementing OBE and the related National
Curriculum Statement (NCS) for diverse groups of learners, and had found it easier to
implement the differentiated grouping under PEUP, as they were able to pace lessons
according to the differentiated groups. Such concerns were about curriculum
organization, and I present additional findings about teachers’ curriculum organization
priorities in the next section.
5.4.3.2.2. Teachers’ overall concerns with curriculum organization
Curriculum organization was the element that teachers on either side of the
Botswana-South Africa border desired most to reform. Teachers noted that despite their
support for curriculum reform aims, and their perspectives that the curriculum content
was adequate, changes to curriculum organization were needed to address challenges that
they faced, particularly from heavy workloads. Table 5 - 13 presents illustrative quotes of
teachers’ perceptions of various curriculum reform priorities, from interviews.
148
Table 5 - 13. Botswana and NWP: Teachers’ quotes about curriculum reform priorities Curriculum Reform Priority
Botswana Illustrative Quote NWP Illustrative Quote
Aims In maths we have to infuse environmental education in our teaching (BW Teacher #2)
When I was at school … teachers were only concentrating on knowledge, and everything was teacher centered ... what we are doing now ... we [are] talking about skills, knowledge, values, all those (NWP Teacher #1)
Content The curriculum is fine … the topics now are fine (BW Teacher #3)
Generally, there is a good feeling about the curriculum content (NWP Teacher #5)
Organization Non-teaching roles
You’ll find that every month we spend 2 weeks without teaching ... half the time … it’s spent testing and analyzing the results, and on other activities, like extra-curricular activities, meetings, workshops… (BW Teacher #2)
Our problem is the workload. The problem we are having is … too much administrative work … most of the time we are doing administrative work instead of being in class teaching (NWP Teacher #1)
Sometimes teachers are absent due to workshops, ill health, or social problems. When you are absent and you get back you try to squeeze the material, but the children don’t grasp the concepts if you rush (BW Teacher #5)
The only thing is that there is no time, especially when you have to manage and teach ... At times you’re not efficient, because at times you're called to meetings in teaching hours, so your lesson is disturbed (NWP Teacher #2)
Scope The syllabus for mathematics is too much. It needs more time (BW Teacher #1)
But there is too much to cover. The work schedule is too loaded (NWP Teacher #5)
The problem with the new syllabus is that there is a lot of material there to be covered within a short period … (BW Teacher #2)
Honestly, because there are so many topics, and with a limited time ... I didn’t even cover all the topics for this year. I didn’t manage to cover all the topics because of time (NWP Teacher #3)
Specification/ Interpretation (Aims-content organization)
Sometimes some of the objectives don’t go into details. It doesn’t show teachers how to go about it. So if you find that you don’t understand a certain topic … it’s not explained there, you find that it’s difficult for you to address that certain objective, unless you go to look for information from another teacher (BW Teacher #1)
But it's not very easy to interpret … even to interpret the NCS [National Curriculum Statement] (NWP Teacher #3)
A sub-sample of 9 teachers who were interviewed, from Botswana’s Southern
Region (N=3) and South Africa’s North-West Province (N=6) provided rankings of
curriculum reform priorities (Table 5 - 14).16 Curriculum organization was the top-most
16 As noted in the methods section (Chapter 3), I conducted semi-structured interviews with random sub-samples of 5 teachers in Botswana, and 6 teachers in NWP province as complements to surveys that were administered to teachers, including 58 from Botswana and 62 NWP teachers respectively, whose responses inform this chapter. Two of the five Botswana teachers declined to engage in the exercise of ranking the curriculum priorities after being interviewed, one cited having to return to teaching her class, and another
149
ranked reform priority (1.33). On average, curriculum aims was ranked the second reform
priority (2.00) among the sub-sample of teachers, with curriculum content being the
lowest ranked (2.56) (see Appendix 5 for survey results).
The table also separately summarizes ranking provided by the sub-samples of
teachers interviewed from Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s NWP. All
three teachers from Botswana ranked curriculum organization as their topmost reform
priority. Four of the NWP teachers ranked curriculum organization as their top priority.
One NWP teacher ranked curriculum aims as her number one priority, and another
ranked curriculum content first.17
Table 5 - 14. Botswana and NWP: Teachers’ ranking of curriculum reform priorities Curriculum Reform Priority Average Ranking Overall
(N=9) Botswana Teachers
(N=3) NWP Teachers
(N=6) Aims 2.00 2.33 1.83 Content 2.56 2.67 2.50 Organization 1.33 1.00 1.50 Note: Top ranked priority=1; Middle ranked priority=2; Bottom ranked priority=3
In the next section, I focus on the problems that teachers highlighted about how
curriculum organization affects their abilities to implement the curriculum as intended.
Specifically, I discuss relationships between curriculum policy-practice gaps and
activities that compete for teaching time, and take teachers out of classrooms on either
side of the Botswana-South Africa border.
indicated she had no expertise in curriculum formulation and therefore had no basis for ranking. All 6 NWP teachers provided their opinion about reform priorities. Such differences in teachers’ responses also provide some indication of differences between the teachers who inhabit the two fields. The Botswana teachers appeared to guard their teaching time closely and were conservative in estimating their abilities, whereas NWP teachers were relatively more enthusiastic about the curriculum, were more open, and expressed more confidence in their abilities than was measured in outcomes, such as mathematics test scores. 17 Interviews and rankings done by teacher trainers and curriculum committee members were consistent in showing the relatively greater level of curriculum aims’ prioritization in NWP, as compared to Botswana’s Southern Region, where curriculum organization was often ranked top, with some exceptions.
150
5.4.3.3. Processes and outcomes: Curriculum policy, practice, and gaps
Survey, interview, and classroom data indicated a number of similarities and
differences in non-teaching activities that compete with teaching time on either side of
the border, potentially leading to gaps between intended and actual curriculum coverage.
Teachers suggested that they face time pressures due to “loaded” curricula. They also
complained about the planning of curriculum organization without adequate
consideration for their non-teaching roles, such as administrative work related to
continuous assessment and extra-curricular activities (e.g. sports and cultural events),
which were related to socio-political curriculum aims, such as the development of well-
rounded students who are to participate as citizens in society.
Among the sampled teachers from Botswana’s Southern Region and South
Africa’s NWP, the largest proportions of teachers listed attending department and
committee meetings as the activity that takes them out of class most often. Teachers on
both sides of the border also indicated professional development workshops take them
out of class. However, whereas there were instances of NWP teachers reporting being
taken out of class by union meetings, there were no such cases among Botswana teachers.
5.4.3.3.1. Gaps between intended and Actual Number of Lessons Taught
Analysis of curriculum implementation showed that the gaps between the
intended and enacted curriculum were smaller in Botswana’s Southern Region than in
South Africa’s NWP. Specifically, I present on the overall amount of time teachers
provided students with opportunity to learn (OTL) – indicated by curriculum content
exposure – which was measured by counting the total number of daily pieces of written
work in workbooks from the beginning of the school year in January, 2009, until the
beginning of November, 2009.
The data show that on average, teachers gave far fewer lessons than expected.
Teachers in both cases were expected to have done about 150 lessons over the period
from January to beginning of November. On average, Botswana teachers gave half the
expected number of lessons, whereas NWP teachers gave a third. The highest number of
151
lessons was 142, recorded in Botswana, and the lowest number of lessons was 21,
recorded in NWP.
Gaps in the intended and actual number of lessons warranted further analysis of
factors that compete with time that teachers spend providing students with opportunity to
learn. The following quote from a Botswana teacher, conducted independent of OTL data
collection, suggests that Botswana teachers spend about half of their time in non-teaching
activities, consistent with what was measured from student workbooks:
You’ll find that every month we spend 2 weeks without teaching ... half the time … it’s spent testing and analyzing the results, and on other activities, like extra-curricular activities, meetings, workshops … (Botswana Teacher Interview, 2009).
In the next section, I discuss in further detail the non-teaching activities that
teachers cited as competing for their classroom time, which in turn contribute to
curriculum policy-practice gaps.
5.4.3.3.2. Non-Teaching Activities Competing for Teaching Time
The largest proportions of respondents on either side of the Botswana-South
Africa border – more than a third in each case – reported participation in department and
committee meetings among the activities that take them out of class most often.18
Professional development was another activity reported by about a fifth of respondents in
both cases. Additionally, NWP sample teachers reported being taken out of class by
socio-political work, such as union meetings, responsibilities related to community/local
politics, or domestic responsibilities; whereas none of the sampled Botswana teachers
listed such activities.
Differences in how Botswana and NWP teachers answered a survey about
activities that take them out of class highlighted further divergence in teachers’
characteristics. The survey question asked teachers to indicate one activity that takes 18 My analysis of survey responses about activities that take teachers out of class does not account for the time that teachers may spend sitting in class grading student assignments. Teacher interviews suggested that such administrative work also takes up their teaching time (see also DoE, 2009).
152
them out of class most often. Whereas 61 out of 62 NWP teachers responded to this
question, less than two-thirds of sampled teachers from Botswana indicated an activity
that took them out of class often. Also, whereas all of the Botswana sub-sample of
teachers who responded to the question listed a single activity, almost a third of sampled
NWP teachers provided more than one activity. Follow-up interviews of NWP teachers
(N=6) suggested that the reason for indicating more than one activity was that there were
multiple activities that took teachers out of class often.19
Thus, in my findings below, I present two sets of responses: (i) for the cases
where NWP teachers listed one or more activities that take them out of class often, and
(ii) for the cases where Botswana and NWP teachers listed only one activity that takes
them out of class most often. Comparisons made below between the NWP and Botswana
data are based on the sub-sample of responses in which teachers indicated only one
activity that takes them out of class most often.
Sixty-one (61) NWP respondents indicated one or more activities that take them
out of class often (Figure 5 - 12). Twenty-one percent (21%) of respondents indicated that
union meetings take them out of class, third after department/committee meetings (42%)
and professional development (35%). Eighteen percent (18%) indicated consultations
with parents/guardians, followed by consultations with other teachers (11%),
consultations with learners (8%), “other” (i.e. illness, 6%), domestic responsibilities
(3%), and community/local politics (2%). No respondent indicated that a second job took
them out of class. Nineteen percent (19%) responded that they are never taken out of
class.
19 I deduced another, possibly less plausible explanation for why some NWP teachers provided more than one response from an explanation by a South African community activist, who noted that teachers, as with other anti-apartheid activists, learned that “the rule is to disobey the rule.” Following such a logic, a survey directive to indicate only one response may have been disregarded by teachers whose rule was to “disobey the rule.”
153
Figure 5 - 12. NWP: Activities that takes teacher out of class most often
Forty-three out of 61 NWP respondents indicated only one activity that takes them
out of class most often (Figure 5 - 13). Of that sub-sample, 35% (N=15) cited department
and committee meetings, 26% (N=11) indicated they were never out of class, 23%
(N=10) cited professional development, 5% (N=2) each cited union meetings, non-school
responsibilities (i.e. community/local politics and domestic responsibilities), and
consultations with learners/guardians. One teacher cited consultations with other
teachers.
0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Perc
ent o
f res
pond
ents
(N=6
1)
Activity
154
Figure 5 - 13. Botswana and NWP: Single activity that takes teacher out of class most often
Thirty-three Botswana sample teachers listed only one activity that takes them out
of class most often. Of the sub-sample, 39% (N=13) indicated department or committee
meetings (Figure 5 - 13). Next were consultations with other teachers (24%, N=8),
followed by training and professional development (18%, N=6). Nine percent (9%, N=3)
indicated consultations with parents (none of the respondents indicated consultations with
learners), 6% (N=2) responded never being out of class, and one respondent (3%, N=1)
indicated non-school responsibilities (i.e. a second job).
5.4.3.3.3. Number of Lessons, by Activities Taking Teacher out of Class
On both sides of the border, among the sub-samples of teachers who reported a
single activity that takes them out of class most often, attending meetings was associated
with lower curriculum coverage than the sub-sample average, whereas consultations with
0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Botswana (N=33) South Africa-NWP (N=43)
155
other teachers was associated with greater curriculum coverage.20 Figure 5 - 14
summarizes the number of lessons covered by teachers, categorized according to the
single activity they reported as taking them out of class most often.21
Figure 5 - 14. Botswana and NWP: Number of lessons, by activity that takes teacher out of class most
often
Among the NWP sub-sample with information on number of lessons and
activities (N=38),22 the two NWP teachers who cited union meetings as the single activity
that takes them out of class most often had the lowest number of lessons on average (38), 20 I only present results of the sub-samples as I found statistically significant differences in their curriculum coverage. In the NWP, analysis of the entire sample of respondents, including those who reported more than one activity that takes them out of class did not provide statistically significant patterns of relationships. 21 The activities reported by teachers were also compared with learner reports of teacher absenteeism. Despite the limited amount of variation in the absenteeism data, the information it provided was consistent with what I show here. For example, the absenteeism score (calculated from student reports) was the highest for teachers who reported union meetings, relative to others in the sub-sample. In other words, the teachers who reported that union activities take them out of class most often were also reported as being the most absent from class, according to the student reports of teacher absenteeism. 22 Out of 43 teachers who indicated only one activity that takes them out of class, there were 5 missing information on total number of lessons, leaving 38 teachers for this analysis.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Num
ber
of le
sson
s, Ja
n-N
ov 2
009
Activity
Botswana (N=33) South Africa-NWP (N=38)
156
compared with the average for the sub-sample (50). In the Botswana sample, the one
teacher who indicated a second job had the lowest number of lessons (64), compared with
the sub-sample average of 84.
The data indicated that teachers’ consultations with other teachers were related to
greater curriculum coverage. On average, the sub-sample of Botswana teachers who cited
consultations with other teachers (N=8) had the highest number of lessons on average
(95). Also these teachers produced the highest gains in learner scores for the sub-sample
of teachers, on average (6.2%, compared with 5.2% respectively). For the NWP sub-
sample, the only teacher who indicated consultations with other teachers gave 56 lessons,
six more than the average for the sub-sample. NWP sample teachers who indicated that
they were never out of class (N=8) and those who reported being taken out of class most
often by consultations with learners/guardians (N=2) had the highest number of lessons
in the NWP sub-sample (60), although their students did not have the highest test score
gains over the year.
The finding about positive relationships between teacher consultations and greater
curriculum coverage is consistent with information from interviews, which indicated that
teachers consult their colleagues to help them teach mathematics topics that they find
difficult. Teachers’ collaboration possibly enables them to complete the curriculum
faster. Teachers sometimes engage in informal specialization: they share teaching tasks
by “trading” lessons, opting to teach topics that they are most comfortable with, which
they can teach faster than their colleagues, even outside of their formally assigned
classes. One Botswana teacher noted the following:
If I have a problem with a certain topic or a certain objective but I feel I cannot handle it properly, I cannot deliver to the kids, then I ask my neighbor to handle it for me, and then I take something from her class to teach (Botswana Teacher Interview, November 2009)
Survey and interview responses also suggest that another form of teacher learning
may be an alternative reason for a positive relationship between teacher consultations and
curriculum coverage. The greatest proportion of teachers on both sides of the border
agreed that one of the most important ways they learn the curriculum is from informal
conversations with their colleagues (88% in Botswana, 87% in NWP). Teachers may be
157
gaining more knowledge on the curriculum from their peers, enabling them to cover
more. Alternatively teachers who consult with other teachers may simply be more
proactive, and more likely to complete the curriculum, irrespective of what they learn
from their peers.
Interview responses did not provide much information for drawing conclusions
about the low curriculum coverage of the two Botswana teachers who reported never
being out of class. However, as the quote from a Botswana teacher suggests, teachers
who feel insecure in their abilities might not indicate so or ask for help from their
colleagues when they face difficulties:
But then there are other people who wouldn’t say I have this problem in this … in this topic … They would just keep quiet … Those who don’t open up, maybe, I think they think that when they say … they have a problem in something, people would make fun of them, or people might think they are not educated, or clever (Botswana Teacher Interview, 2009).
Additionally, the data do not indicate clear relationships between curriculum
coverage and the activities of teachers who are most often taken out by consultations with
learners/guardians. I speculate that NWP teachers who were consulting with learners out
of class gain a better understanding of the problems that students face, enabling them
adapt and cover more of the curriculum.
5.4.3.3.4. Number of Lessons, by Cohort
Whereas teacher studies usually include teachers’ number of years teaching (i.e.
experience) as a variable, the sometimes unique imprint of teachers’ cohort suggests that
in comparative analysis such as this, a more nuanced approach should be taken in making
associations between teachers’ experience, teaching practices (e.g. OTL), and outcomes
(e.g. student test gains). My case findings show that, on average, there is uniformity in
number of lessons given by Botswana teacher cohorts, with a relatively greater number of
lessons given by teachers who entered the workforce after teacher training was upgraded
in 2000. However, there is relatively greater variation among NWP cohorts.
158
For the Botswana sub-sample with data on cohort and number of lessons (N=56),
on average, teachers had engaged students in covering 80 lessons, or about half of the
expected number of lessons (Figure 5 - 15). Among the NWP sub-sample teachers with
data on cohort and number of lessons (N=55), the average number of lessons was 52, or
about a third of the expected lessons.
There were differences in lesson coverage by cohorts in each field (Figure 5 - 15).
In Botswana, the cohort that had originally qualified as teachers after 2000 had a slightly
higher number of lessons on average (85 lessons), compared with the overall sample
average of 80. That cohort had been trained around or after the time when Botswana had
upgraded its teacher education system. On average, the teachers who had qualified before
2000, prior to the upgrade, covered about 79 lessons.
Figure 5 - 15. Botswana and NWP: Number of lessons, by teacher cohort
Despite the youngest teacher cohort having the greatest curriculum coverage, it
was the teachers from the 1996-2000 cohort, whose students registered the highest gains
in mathematics scores over the 2009 school year (6.8%, compared to 4.9% on average for
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
All Cohorts Before 1986 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 After 2000
Num
ber
of L
esso
ns, J
an-N
ov, 2
009
Teacher Cohorts
Botswana (N=56) South Africa-NWP (N=55)
159
the sample). A plausible explanation for this is that there are interactions between the
teacher experience and the quality of teacher training. Hence, the post-2000 cohort with
the higher quality of training may provide greater levels of OTL and generate higher
student gains than those of the previous cohorts, controlling for years of experience.
However, given the correlation between cohorts and years of experience, it is challenging
to make such distinctions without data that allows a longitudinal comparison of teachers’
OTL coverage and student scores as their years of experience increase.
In NWP, it was not the more recent cohorts that covered the highest number of
lessons. Rather, it was the teachers who had originally qualified as teachers in the period
1986-1990, who covered the highest number of lessons on average (63), and whose
students registered the highest average gains among the NWP sample (5.7%, compared
with 3.5% on average). Note that the period 1986-1990 marked the latter phase of the
Primary Education Upgrade Program (PEUP) in Bophuthatswana. Teachers who entered
the workforce during that period may have benefitted from training provided prior to the
formal termination of PEUP, after the attempted coup in the black homeland.
The NWP cohort that qualified in the period 1991-1995 had the least lessons
covered, on average (46) (statistically significantly lower than for the cohort with the
highest number), and the average gains of their students was 3.1%, less than the average,
and also below the average gain for the 1996-2000 cohort (4.6%). Teachers entering the
workforce in 1991-1995 did so in a transition period, which was marked by
organizational restructuring (e.g. integration of racially segregated organizations,
uncertainty about teacher training colleges, etc.) and political activism. During the early
1990s, teacher unions raised their profiles, and SADTU embarked on a major recruitment
drive. It is worth noting that the two teachers who had indicated unions meetings as the
only activity that takes them out of class most often had both qualified as teachers in
1993, during that period.
5.4.3.3.5. Alternative Reasons: Teacher Mathematics Capacity, Class Size, SES
The number of mathematics lessons that teachers give may be related to other
school-level or teacher-level factors besides activities that take them out of class, and I
160
summarize here the findings of such analysis. Schools where students have low socio-
economic status (SES) measures and those with bigger class sizes may cover less of the
curriculum. Whereas there were no significant aggregate SES differences between
students from either side of the border, average class sizes in Botswana were smaller (29)
than in NWP (37). Teachers who may be resistant to reforms, or those with lower
mathematics capacity may be teaching fewer lessons. Survey responses and interviews
indicated that teachers in both countries had favorable views of their respective curricula,
with 72% of sampled teachers from Botswana and 82% from NWP agreeing that teachers
played important roles in curriculum development. An analysis of teacher capacity
showed that although teachers on both sides of the Botswana-South Africa border scored
poorly in mathematics, NWP teachers scored significantly lower than their Botswana
counterparts. The overall mean score for the Botswana sample, which as indicated earlier
was younger and more recently trained, on average, was 53%. The mean score for the
NWP sample was significantly lower (47%).
Teacher mathematics test scores by cohort. With the divergent histories of
schooling and teacher training in Botswana and South Africa, an analysis of teachers’ test
scores by cohort showed small qualitative differences (Figure 5 - 16). The average score
for the 56 Botswana sample teachers who provided data on the year in which they
qualified as teachers was 52% (one percent lower than for the entire sample of 58
Botswana teachers). The highest average score (55%) was obtained by the cohort of
teachers who qualified as teachers after 2000 (N=12), when Botswana had upgraded
teacher training from a certificate to diploma level at the end of the 1990s. The second
highest scoring cohort was the one that had been trained 1986-1990, around the second
phase of the Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP II).
Among the NWP sample teachers, the average for the highest-scoring cohort,
those who originally qualified in 1986-1990 (N=12), was 50%. The average score for the
61 NWP sample teachers who indicated the year in which they qualified was 47%. The
overall highest score in the NWP (77%) was obtained by a teacher who was due to
161
complete teacher training at the university level in 2010 (the score was not included in
the chart below, N=1).23
Figure 5 - 16. Botswana and NWP: Mathematics test score, by teacher cohort
Although I do not present detailed results here, analyses of such measures
indicated that for the NWP sample, teachers’ indication of activities that take them out of
the class partly explained the number of lessons they gave, controlling for measures such
as teachers mathematics test score, class size, and class SES (see Appendix 6 for
regression summaries of NWP and Botswana samples).
An illustrative case. Having contrasted the cases of Botswana’s Southern Region
sample teachers with NWP teachers, I further highlight the cases of two NWP teachers
who entered the teaching workforce in 1993, around a politicized period of transition in
South Africa, when unions embarked on recruitment drives. The two teachers were the
23 Additional analysis found no significant relationships between the specific teacher training institutions attended and test scores.
0%!
10%!
20%!
30%!
40%!
50%!
60%!
Before!1986! 1986;1990! 1991;1995! 1996;2000! After!2000!
Test*Scores*
Teacher*Cohort*
Botswana! South!Africa;NWP!!
162
only ones to indicate union activities as the single activity that took them out of class
most often.
I present a summary profile of the two “union activists” – Mma, a female teacher,
and Rra, a male teacher – in comparison with the profile of the “average” NWP sub-
sample teacher, who is a female I call Dumelang (Table 5-15). Mma and Rra were only a
year apart in age, and had qualified from two different teacher training colleges in the
NWP in the same year (1993). They had both spent three years in teacher training, after
secondary school, similar to the average teacher in the sample. In both cases, their survey
responses indicated that they had strong socio-political aims for teaching, and agreed
strongly about socio-political aims for the mathematics curriculum, similar to the average
NWP teacher. Their class sizes were similar to the average.
Table 5 - 15. NWP: Profiles of teacher characteristics and number of lessons given Variable Teacher 1
(Mma) Teacher 2
(Rra) "Average" NWP Teacher
(Dumelang) Gender Female Male Female Age 38 39 45 Education Grade 12 + 3 Yrs TTC Grade 12 + 3 Yrs TTC Grade 12 + 3 Yrs TTC Year Qualified as Teacher 1993 1993 1988 Socio-Political Aims Index*: Self
4 4 3.9
Socio-Political Aims Index*: Perception of Curriculum
4 4 3.6
Mathematics Test Score 29% 57% 46% Teacher SES 18 24 15 (0-24) Class Average SES 10 14 10 (4-19) Class Size 35 37 36 Union Member Yes Yes Yes Activity that takes teacher out of class most often
Union meetings Union meetings Activity other than union meetings
Number of Lessons, Jan-Nov, 2009
32 44 50
Source: Botswana and NWP teacher surveys. Notes: * Highest value for index is 4, strongly agree with statement supporting socio-political curriculum aims.
There were some differences between the two teachers. Mma scored 29% on the
mathematics test, which was below the average NWP score for the sample (46%),
whereas Rra scored 57%, which was even above average for the higher-scoring
163
Botswana’s Southern Region teacher sample (52%). The students in Rra’s class have
higher socio-economic status (SES). Both teachers have a higher socio-economic status
than the average NWP sample teacher, with Rra’s SES score being the highest possible.
However, despite having more resources than the average NWP sample teacher,
the number of lessons Rra gave (44) was lower than the NWP sample average of 50. The
number of lessons for Mma was even lower, which was not surprising, given her lower
level of resources. The illustrative case shows the multiple factors that potentially affect
curriculum coverage, with union meetings being one of the non-teaching factors.
5.5. Discussion
The cases studied provide empirical evidence of similarities and differences in
teachers’ roles within organizational field processes that occur within structures that in
turn emerged from different histories. From the institutional work perspective that I use,
within the adjacent, yet divergent socio-political contexts of Botswana and South Africa,
field level reform processes during the 1970s-1990s, and the inter-organizational
structures and teachers’ roles by the 2000s emerged out of interactions between structures
– specifically, policies that had emerged from societal processes over time (see Chapter
4) – and with organizational and individual agency.
CPP field organizations are inhabited by teachers, whose institutional work efforts
to reform their education systems are temporally embedded, as they attempt to enact
policies based on their imaginations of “possible future trajectories of action,” as well as
their “selective reactivation” of “past patterns of thought and action” (Battilana &
D’Aunno, 2009, pp. 46-47). Out of Botswana’s decades-long processes of institutional
creation, relatively unified inter-organizational structures were built over the 1970s-
1990s for carrying out curriculum development, as well as teacher and administrator
capacity building. In the racially diverse country of South Africa, after decades of anti-
apartheid political resistance, a focus on disrupting apartheid institutional structures as
quickly as possible by adopting participatory curriculum development processes resulted
in relatively fragmented inter-organizational structures. There was relatively less
specification of how to create institutions for developing teacher and administrator
164
capacity over the long-term. Within the respective inter-organizational structures,
teachers had both teaching and non-teaching roles, with South African teachers having
relatively more expansive non-teaching roles in their relatively more fragmented inter-
organizational structures.
5.5.1. Long-term institutional creation in Botswana
Using the theoretical framework provided by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p.
46), within Botswana’s stable policy contexts, CPP field organizational actors’
institutional creation efforts – which involved creating proto-institutions, establishing
institutional mechanisms, advocating diffusion, improvisation, and modification of
processes – were relatively time-consuming, slower-paced processes. Within the
framework provided by the 1977 National Policy on Education (NPE) projects such as
the Primary Education Improvement Project (PEIP) and the Junior Secondary
Improvement Project (JSEIP) were multi-year mechanisms for creating a partially unified
curriculum bureaucracy, and for specifying curriculum and teacher development
processes based on past experiences. The NPE processes led to modifications that were
framed within the 1994 Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE), leading to further
CPP field processes that shaped inter-organizational structures that emerged by the
2000s. Particularly, over the period of decades, through improvisation processes, there
was learning among the government officials, expatriates, and teachers who were
employed to assist with project activities such as curriculum development, because there
were not enough government personnel to implement the projects. The multi-functional
groups engaged in modifying curriculum reform processes and teacher training over time,
based on their diverse experiences.
In Botswana, following the decades-long institutional processes of creating a
specialized curriculum bureaucracy, there were relatively coherent linkages between
curriculum formulation and the two other phases of reform: support, and implementation.
Efforts at creating coherent institutional structures were sometimes not achieved to
desired levels, with “rushed” timelines being one of the factors blamed for such failure.
By 2009, curriculum support occurred in partially unified inter-organizational structures,
165
as the MoE, other government agencies, and multiple CPP organizations attempt to
coordinate in training teachers (Figure 5 - 17).
Figure 5 - 17. Botswana: Partially unified curriculum structures emerging from iterative institutional creation processes
Teachers’ involvement in curriculum processes occurred directly through the
MoE, and by 2009, the roles of teachers’ organizations in Botswana’s CPP field were
relatively more streamlined, unlike their more expansive roles in South Africa, where
teachers were also involved in unions, which were formally represented in curriculum
governance structures. Botswana teachers were “street level bureaucrats” (Lipsky, 1980),
who provided their practical teaching expertise from curriculum implementation, as they
worked on teams with consultants and government officials in processes of curriculum
formulation and support. Teachers indicated that the time that they spent in non-teaching
roles competed with the time they spent teaching. However, the gaps between policy and
practice were smaller in the relatively less fragmented Botswana CPP field, in a context
where teachers’ non-teaching roles were not as expansive as in South Africa.
structure: consistent policies
(1) 1977 NPE, (2) 1994 RNPE
outcome: partially unified
inter-organizational
structures
process: decades-long
institutional creation, with some “rushed”
processes agency: some past curricular practices
166
5.5.2. Long-term institutional disruption and limited creation in South Africa
Some have used political frameworks for arguing that South Africa’s post-
apartheid curriculum changes have failed in part because they were merely politically
symbolic (Fataar, 2006). Others have argued that reform processes were rushed to
achieve desired political aims, but at the expense of specifying curriculum content and
structure, and developing a plan for implementation (Chisholm et al., 2000; Harley &
Wedekind, 2004, p. 212).
From an organization studies perspective, this comparative institutional work
account finds that South Africa’s CPP field organizational actors engaged in institutional
disruption attempts in the 1990s, with relatively minimal specification of how to engage
in longer-term creation of coherent structures for replacing apartheid era institutions, and
for improving student outcomes. Within the framework provided by Battilana and
D’Aunno (2009, p. 48), institutional disruption of apartheid involved failing to enact
institutionalized practices, institutional forgetting, attacking the legitimacy of apartheid,
and undermining its institutional mechanisms. Apartheid disruption efforts also involved
teachers’ institutional work of engaging in strikes, thereby attacking the legitimacy of the
apartheid system, and ejecting school inspectors, thereby undermining institutional
monitoring mechanisms. South Africa’s processes of choosing participatory curriculum
reform organizational structures and processes in the 1990s exemplified institutional
disruption of apartheid through failing to enact authoritarian apartheid practices.
Integrating racially segregated organizations, closing teacher-training colleges, and
leaving teacher training to be governed by decentralized universities and provincial
governments also exemplify institutional forgetting of an authoritarian apartheid past.
However, South Africa’s CPP field that emerged from post-apartheid policies and
contradictory apartheid and anti-apartheid practices remained relatively fragmented by
2009 (Figure 5 - 18).
167
Figure 5 - 18. South Africa: Fragmented CPP field inter-organizational structures emerging from institutional disruption and limited creation processes
There has been some institutional creation, although further long-term efforts are
yet to be specified for matching the long-term policy visions of South Africans. After
decades of anti-apartheid struggle, and post-apartheid disruption work, teachers’ unions
and professional organizations have been developed, and emerged in the 1990s to play
key roles in relatively fragmented curriculum reform organizational structures. With
almost a 100% of teachers becoming union members by 2001, teachers have played
multiple roles, including in schools and unions. In that setting, teachers were what I call
street level politicians, as their past experiences had focused on “street level politics”
(RNCS curriculum formulation committee member interview, September 2010), and they
were concerned with socio-political aims of disrupting apartheid’s structures.
Further institutional creation efforts will benefit from alignment between the
visions of teachers and policymakers in the post-apartheid era, although questions remain
about how to specify institutional creation processes. Sampled NWP teachers’ responses
to surveys and interviews indicated a greater prioritization of socio-political curriculum
aims (e.g. using the curriculum to teach better citizenship), relative to Botswana teachers.
NWP teachers were engaged in socio-political work, such as participating in union
meetings, in addition to administrative non-teaching work, which Botswana teachers also
engaged in. NWP teachers’ broader scope of non-teaching work was associated with
structure: post-apartheid
policies (urgent
democratization)
outcome: relatively
fragmented inter-organizational
structures
process: decades-long institutional
disruption, “rushed” institutional creation
agency:
apartheid vs. anti-apartheid curricular
practices
168
relatively less curriculum coverage (i.e. number of lessons covered in the school year)
than that of their Botswana counterparts.
5.6. Conclusion
Despite data limitations, including small sample sizes, my findings from this
chapter highlighted the implications of inter-organizational structures on teachers’ roles
in participatory reform processes. From an organizations studies perspective, I have used
the concept of “organizational fields” (DiMaggio, 1991; Scott and Meyer, 1991; Scott et
al., 2000) to explore the roles of teachers in curriculum reforms. Although I make no
causal claims, I provided empirical evidence of teachers’ curriculum reform roles by
comparing the historical processes of the curriculum policy-practice (CPP) fields in
Botswana and South Africa over the 1970s-1990s, and teachers’ roles in the respective
fields. I focused on the roles of 6th grade mathematics teachers who were teaching along
the Botswana-South Africa border, in Botswana’s Southern Region and South Africa’s
North-West Province (NWP) during the 2009 academic year.
Contrary to reviews that bemoan teachers’ peripheral roles in education reforms
in the past (Dalin, 2004; Maruatona, 1994; Okpala & Tabulawa, 2003; Ramparsad, 1995;
1999; Tabulawa, 2002), my process study finds that teachers played multiple roles in the
respective curriculum reform processes of Botswana and South Africa in the 2000s.
However, teachers’ expansive roles were associated with work overload. Thus, teachers’
curriculum reform priorities were to reduce their workload. Samples of teachers surveyed
and interviewed across both sides of the Botswana-South Africa border indicated that
they are most concerned with curriculum organization (e.g. how the curriculum is
organized to reduce their workloads, such as having fewer administrative tasks).
In both cases, teachers’ non-teaching roles are exemplified by their participation
in non-teaching activities, such as attending meetings, at the cost of teaching and
covering the curriculum. However, the relatively less fragmented inter-organizational
structures that emerged in Botswana are associated with smaller gaps between intended
and actual curriculum coverage, as compared to South Africa, where the fragmented field
is associated with greater involvement in non-teaching activities, as indicated by
169
teachers’ reports of activities that take them out of class, such as attending union
meetings. The latter finding implies there are greater coordination and accountability
challenges where teachers play multiple roles within fragmented inter-organizational
structures during reforms.
Hence, careful consideration must be given to institutional creation, in developing
coherent inter-organizational structures within which teachers participate in curriculum
reform processes in different contexts. In neither the case of Botswana or South Africa do
teachers’ roles fit the model of the efficient teacher (Welmond, 1999), whose primary
responsibility as a member of a school is focused on achieving academic aims. Rather
teachers in both countries have heavy workloads due to their non-teaching roles.
Botswana’s Southern Region teachers’ roles are not as expansive as the teachers from
South Africa’s North-West Province (NWP), who have more diverse, expansive roles in
multiple organizations, despite a history of inferior teacher training under apartheid.
Some are engaged in their communities as dedicated teachers, whose roles in
organizations such as teacher unions are not focused on teaching. Indeed, some teachers’
non-teaching activities in unions appear to be costing students, who are not being
afforded adequate opportunity to learn.
Teachers are the “software” or the “engine” of curriculum reform processes,
given the behind-the-scenes roles that they play in formulating, providing support for,
and implementing curricula that are articulated through the more visible “hardware,” such
as curriculum documents. Balance must be sought in the roles teachers play during
reforms. On the one hand, reforms fail where and when teachers are not fully engaged in
reform processes. However, on the other hand, reforms fail when and where institutions
are not specifically developed to increase teachers’ capacities, and where they are
overloaded and unable to teach as many lessons as expected. For curriculum reform
processes to succeed, long-term plans for teacher training and capacity building, and
coordination between curriculum reform organizations need to be specified.
To achieve curriculum reform aims, SSA countries must look beyond short-term
political benefits of participatory processes for creating curriculum documents, to specify
long-term, multi-level, multi-phased processes of creating coherent curriculum structures,
especially for providing teacher training. Lessons should be learned from in-depth
170
analyses of countries’ specific historical policy contexts, and how previous organizational
field processes have shaped curriculum inter-organizational structures, and teachers’
roles. SSA countries must also evaluate how teachers’ teaching and non-teaching roles in
their current contexts are in turn shaping the success or failure of reform efforts, and how
teachers’ roles should be directed to address anticipated academic, economic, and socio-
political aims of future reforms.
171
CHAPTER 6. CURRICULUM FORMULATION PROCESSES
6.1. Introduction
This chapter presents an organization studies perspective on teachers’ roles in
curriculum reforms by focusing on their participation in curriculum formulation
committees in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Leyendecker’s (2008) study of reforms in SSA
notes that understanding and addressing micro-level problems with curriculum
formulation is a prerequisite to reducing policy-practice gaps. Additionally, exploring
teachers’ roles in curriculum formulation responds to calls for addressing the problem of
gaps between curriculum policy and practice by using the voices of teachers to guide
policymaking solutions in SSA (Motala, 2001, p. 242). Some research, mostly conducted
in industrialized regions such as the US, suggests that policy-practice gaps are smaller in
cases where teachers – the ultimate implementers of curriculum – are involved in their
formulation (Remillard et al., 2009; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Yet, knowledge about
teachers’ roles in SSA’s curriculum formulation is weak, reflecting a wider dearth of
knowledge on curriculum development processes in the region (Leyendecker, 2008).
My study addresses the problem of limited curriculum formulation knowledge by
drawing upon cases of reforms from Botswana and South Africa, adjacent, middle-
income SSA countries with divergent socio-political histories and educational outcomes.
My perspective is partly informed by research I conducted of 6th grade mathematics
teachers (and students) along the Botswana-South Africa border, who are of similar
ethnicity, but emerged from the distinctive histories on either side of the border (see
Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming). Over the period 2009-2011, I obtained data on
teachers’ and administrators’ views on their respective curricula from surveys and
interviews that I conducted during fieldwork, and I also gathered data on curriculum
reforms from documents and interviews of policymakers, teacher trainers, and other
stakeholders involved in curriculum formulation.
172
My surveys and interviews of teachers on either side of the Botswana-South
Africa border highlighted two underexplored aspects of curriculum organization – broad
curriculum scope and lack of curriculum structure – as factors contributing to policy-
practice gaps, in addition to other factors that have been more widely emphasized, such
as poor training and material resources (Bertram, 2008; Chisholm et al., 2000; Reeves,
1999). Teachers noted that they were unable to complete “overloaded” curricula, and that
when developing lesson plans with their colleagues, varied interpretations about what to
cover in “vague” curricula, made their “group work” more challenging. Also, “confused”
teacher trainers and textbook publishers were unable to provide the support needed for
successful implementation.
Differences in the sizes of policy-practice gaps in the two countries highlighted
the potential salience of differences in their curricula (Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
My analysis of the respective mathematics curricula that were being used in the two
countries during the 2009 academic year indicated differences in their scope and
structure, and led me to explore how divergences had emerged, despite my findings that
in both cases teachers had been involved in their formulation. I focused on the
formulation of Botswana’s Upper Primary Mathematics Syllabus and South Africa’s
Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS),24 the curricula that were being
implemented by the teachers in 2009. The two curricula had been formulated
independently in the respective countries around the same period, during the early 2000s.
Differences in the socio-political environment and organizational structures of the
two countries suggested divergent curriculum formulation processes and teachers’ roles
within their respective contexts. Whereas Botswana’s formulation processes were
conducted in a society that had been creating educational organizational structures in a
politically stable environment since independence in 1966, South Africa’s reforms
appeared to be a continuation of processes to deinstitutionalize apartheid structures.
My process perspective conceptualizes teachers’ participation in curriculum
formulation committees as institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et
al., 2009; 2011), which is defined as “the purposive action of individuals and
24 The curriculum was later renamed the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). I use RNCS as that was the name during formulation, and used in the curriculum documents analyzed.
173
organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions.” Specifically, I
draw upon the literature on group processes to speak to the challenge of how decision-
makers on formulation committees attempt to bring about institutional change as they
address tensions between implementation practices embedded in the past habits of
teachers, and idealized, future-oriented curriculum policy goals. My study of curriculum
formulation is empirical evidence of “practical-evaluative” institutional work that occurs
at the group level, during which decision-makers “contextualize past habits and future
projects within the contingencies of the moment” (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009, p. 41,
47).
The tensions between the past and the future are reflected in the fact that
worldwide, billions of dollars are invested into formulating future-oriented strategic plans
and policies that have failed to change the old habits of implementers in organizations,
including schools (McLaughlin, 1991). In the education field, policymakers may seek to
address perceived problems with a curriculum by revising it, often at great cost, as related
documents, such as textbooks also have to be revised. Yet, it is unclear what roles
teachers – as key implementers – play in curriculum formulation processes, or even
whether their perspectives on curricular problems from their implementation experiences
may shape the success or failure of curricula that are subsequently developed.
One underexplored potential cause of implementation failure may lie in how
implementers perceive past or current problems that an organization must address to
achieve its future objectives. A better understanding of how to reconcile implementers
past habits and future-oriented policies will help in specifying stakeholders’ roles in
processes of formulating strategic plans, which are “bricolages” created from knowledge
of past habits and future aspirations, for reducing costly changes and related frustrations
that arise from reform implementation failure.
My study extends knowledge on implementers’ roles in policy and strategy
formulation, and contributes to the institutional work literature by developing a micro-
level model in the neoinstitutional framework (Powell & Colyvas, 2008). My process
study also responds to the call by Chisholm and Leyendecker (2008, p. 202) for research
approaches that “identify specific conditions, requirements, processes and approaches” to
improve education in the various countries within SSA. Groups are the basic unit within
174
which occur processes of developing policies and translating them into practice. Thus,
my findings also have practical implications for how to design policy-practice processes
at the group level.
The rest of the chapter proceeds in 5 sections. First, I present my research
questions and theoretical considerations. Second, I discuss the methodology. Third, I
present my findings. I then discuss findings in the context of institutional work, after
which I conclude with a summary.
6.2. Research Questions and Theoretical Considerations
Having elaborated on the emergence of policies (Chapter 4) and inter-
organizational structures (Chapter 5), this chapter focuses on group level processes and
the curricula that emerge in a given socio-political context (Figure 6 - 1). In each country,
the 6th grade curriculum that that emerged in the 2000s was developed over time within
the structures of their respective CPP fields.
175
Figure 6 - 1. A focus on curriculum formulation within a CPP field
Using Pettigrew’s (1997, p. 340) processual framework, I conceive of curriculum
formulation as embedded within multiple levels of structures, specifically, governed
within each country by policies, as well as organizational structures (see Chapter 5).
Curriculum formulation processes involve diverse individuals representing various
stakeholder organizations, working in groups within the structures of their specific policy
context to promote one or more reform priorities, and guided by knowledge from past
curricular experiences (Figure 6 - 2).
Outcome: Success (small policy-practice gaps)
A: Curriculum Formulation
(Group)
C: Implementation (e.g. Teaching, non-teaching
work)
B: Support (e.g. Teacher
Training)
evaluations, consultations, observations (inner arrows, time t-1)
curriculum statement/syllabus, teacher guide, time t+1
implementation plan, time t+1
resources, time t+1
Curriculum Policy-Practice Field
Society
176
Figure 6 - 2. Curricula emerging from curriculum formulation processes
6.2.1. Questions about Institutional Work at the group level
My organization studies perspective conceptualizes teachers’ participation in
curriculum formulation committees as institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006;
Lawrence et al., 2009; 2011). My analysis of data led me to focus on “practical-
evaluative” institutional work that occurs at the group level (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009,
p. 41, 47; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 994), as teachers and other decision-makers on
curriculum formulation committees create new curricula by contextualizing their past
curriculum implementation habits and visions of curriculum practices and outcomes that
are captured in policies. Divergences in curricula may arise from differences in the extent
to which curricula represent a “bricolage” of perspectives of diverse committee members,
including teachers, for whom opportunities to provide knowledge about past teaching
habits may vary, from one context to another.
In exploring teachers’ curriculum formulation roles across contexts, I address the
following question: How did differences in the primary mathematics curricula of
Botswana and South Africa emerge, despite teachers’ involvement in both processes in
the early 2000s? The question was further broken down into three parts:
1. What were the differences between the respective curricula produced in the early
2000s?
structure: policies, inter-org. structures
outcome: curriculum documents
process: institutional work
agency: past curricular
practices
177
2. Within the policy contexts and organizational structures of Botswana and South
Africa, who were the actors on their respective national curriculum formulation
committees?
3. What were the respective committees’ processes, and teachers’ roles?
Although participatory policies adopted in the 1990s ensured that teachers were
involved in reform processes in the cases of both Botswana and South Africa (Chapter 4),
there were differences between the organizational structures within which teacher
involvement occurred in the respective countries (Chapter 5). By the early 2000s
Botswana had standardized teacher training and developed curriculum policy-practice
organizational structures that were relatively less fragmented than in South Africa.
Further, as it emerged, within the contexts provided by policies and organizational
structures, the roles of practicing teachers in curriculum formulation committees were
relatively more specified and formalized to draw upon their past implementation habits in
one context than in another, with implications for committees’ processes and outcomes.
Initial interviews of curriculum formulation committee members highlighted their
activities as “group work,” which led me to draw from the group processes literature for
developing knowledge about teachers’ roles in curriculum formulation processes in the
two countries. Specifically, I draw on two main concepts: functional diversity of group
members (6.2.2) and the role of time in shaping group processes and outcomes (6.2.3).
6.2.2. Functional diversity in groups
As groups, curriculum committees may be functionally diverse, comprising a mix
of group members from different functional specialties (Keller, 2001). In my study of
mathematics curriculum formulation, teachers, teacher trainers, and government officials
from various departments are conceived as coming from diverse functional specialties.
My preliminary research led me to further differentiate between the functional specialties
of primary school teachers and secondary school teachers. In Botswana, curriculum
committee members noted functional differences between the perspectives of primary
and secondary school teachers, given that they work with students at different levels of
178
development. Further, my review of documents, including Botswana’ Curriculum
Procedures Manual indicated a differentiated conceptualization of primary and
secondary school teachers’ functional specialties.
Functionally diverse groups have varied perspectives on their tasks, with
associated costs and benefits for group process and outcomes (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt,
2003; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Page, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). I apply such
knowledge in comparing the cases of teachers’ roles in curriculum formulation processes.
Teachers’ perspectives may be drawn from their experiences with teaching, which are
oriented towards past habits, and may be in tension with the future-oriented policy goals
of other stakeholders (e.g. MoE officials) engaged in curriculum reforms.
6.2.2.1. Potential cost of functional diversity: Conflict
Potential costs of functional diversity include conflicts that arise due to
differences in group members’ perspectives. The curriculum policy-practice literature
reviewed provided some insights for making propositions; though none specifically
addressed the questions this paper poses about teachers’ roles in curriculum formulation
in SSA. For example, outside SSA, Remillard et al. (2009) described a U.S. case study of
Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP) formulation, in which some policymakers were
frustrated by teachers’ focus on “trivial” details of implementation, rather than the bigger
picture goals. Although that observation was not her focus, it suggests that policymakers
in that context were more concerned with future-oriented, big picture curriculum aims,
whereas teachers drew from their past experiences and focused more on the details of
implementation, which I conceptualize as part of curriculum organization. Three
curriculum priorities were used as a framework for analysis (Table 6 - 1). Curricula – as
“bricolage” – are created from the three elements, which were conceptualized as potential
sources of conflict, where different curriculum committee members prioritize them
differently.
179
Table 6 - 1. Multiple curriculum reform priorities as potential sources of conflict Curriculum Reform Priority Description Aims: why reform Academic, economic, socio-political Content: what to reform Subject (i.e. primary school mathematics in English language) Organization: how to reform Content-Aims Organization (structure and terminology/presentation of
curriculum documents), Scope (number of sub-topics), Schedule, Sequence/Pacing, Implementation Design, Evaluation/Assessments
Source: Adapted from Walker (1990); Botswana, South Africa interviews.
Interviews conducted in Botswana and South Africa highlighted curriculum
organization as teachers’ primary reform priority (Chapter 5). Thus, “holding constant”
curriculum content (i.e. curriculum committees compared were reforming primary school
mathematics in the English language), I propose that where teachers had roles in
curriculum formulation processes, there was likely to be conflict between the curriculum
organization priorities of teachers (from their past practices) and the curriculum aims that
non-teachers prioritized (from policy goals).
6.2.2.2. Potential benefit of functional diversity: Access to information
There are potential benefits of group functional diversity, including better project
outcomes. In a review of organizational studies on diversity, Milliken and Martins (1996,
p. 411) suggest that such benefits of functional diversity arise from greater access to
information. Functionally diverse curriculum committees may have greater access to
information for developing curricula.
Among the three curriculum reform priorities, information on curriculum
organization in specific contexts is limited. Debates about curriculum reforms often focus
on pedagogy related to curriculum aims, and assessments related to content (Cuban,
2006), but Walker (1990) suggests that curriculum organization most directly affects
practice, and it is often underspecified in reforms (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008),
resulting in curriculum policy-practice gaps.
There may be benefits to having curriculum formulation teams that include more
sources of information on curriculum organization, notably teachers with prior
implementation experiences from the relevant contexts. Teachers’ curriculum
organization information may complement the visions and information on curriculum
180
aims and content from policy and subject experts respectively, leading to a “bricolage”
curriculum, in which diverse priorities are addressed more adequately, and resulting in
smaller policy-practice gaps.
6.2.3. Group processes as contingent on time pressure from the environment
Time pressure is a contextual factor that interacts with functional diversity during
group processes (Harrison et al., 1998). In curriculum formulation, whether costs or
benefits of functional diversity are realized are contingent on a number of environmental
factors, such as the contexts within which groups engage in and resolve conflict, and
make use of new information. My initial hypothesis was that in politicized contexts, such
as in post-apartheid South Africa, teachers on curriculum committees would focus on
socio-political curriculum aims, along with non-teachers. However, that was not the case.
Rather, what emerged was that relative to the case of Botswana, the politicized context of
South Africa exerted relatively greater time pressures on the mathematics curriculum
formulation committee.
Curriculum committees, like other groups, face time pressure from the
environment that they inhabit (Ancona & Chong, 1996), such as deadlines that may arise
in the contexts that their work is being carried out. In politicized contexts, time pressures
may arise from political cycles, as politicians rush to conduct “symbolic” curriculum
reforms to bolster their legitimacy and maintain their portfolios. In bureaucratized
contexts, such as in schools, time pressures may arise from academic calendars.
As I present in further detail, in the relatively more politicized context of South
Africa, informants highlighted time pressures from political considerations, compared
with bureaucratic procedures highlighted in the Botswana case. Individuals who had been
involved in curriculum formulation indicated that politicians were interested in showing
what they accomplished before leaving office. In the relatively more bureaucratized
Botswana, markers of time arose from bureaucratic factors, such as multi-year National
Development Plans (NDPs). However, informants also noted, given Botswana’s history
of exceeding low expectations after independence, politicians preferred to lower
expectations by suggesting longer policy timelines that they exceeded. In both cases,
181
temporal consideration from the respective contexts interacted with human agency in
shaping curriculum committees’ processes and outcomes.
6.3. Methodology
I used Pettigrew’s (1997) processual approach for constructing comparative case
studies, for which my sources of data were (i) the 6th grade mathematics curriculum
documents that were being used in 2009, (ii) historical documents, and (iii) interviews
with policymakers, administrators and teachers (see Chapter 3). In this chapter, I focus on
information obtained from historical and contemporary curriculum documents, and from
individuals who had participated in national committees that had formulated the
curricula. In Botswana, I interviewed 7 out of the 13 individuals who served on the
curriculum committee that developed the upper primary mathematics curriculum. In
South Africa, 4 out of 7 individuals who were involved in the mathematics committee
were interviewed. My objective was to explore whether teachers presented alternative
sets of views and roles on curriculum formulation committees. Three curriculum
priorities – aims, content, and organization (as previously shown in Table 6 - 1) – were
used to frame interview questions and initial analysis of differences between the
perspectives of teachers and other stakeholders on curriculum committees (Chapter 3).
A methodological question arose about how to compare differences in teachers’
participation on committees and the curricula that emerged in the two cases.
Relationships between formulation committees’ processes were clearer for two particular
elements of curriculum organization, which I chose to focus on: (i) the scope (i.e. number
of mathematics sub-topics to be covered in a school year), and (ii) the content-aims
organization, or the structure of each curriculum statement in relating content and aims.
Other curriculum organization elements were determined outside of the committees that
specifically developed the respective mathematics curricula. For example decisions on
curriculum schedule, sequencing, implementation, and evaluations occurred through
other structures, for which adequate analysis was not possible, given the data I was able
to obtain.
182
Table 6 - 2 summarizes the approaches used for addressing my questions through
processual analysis (see Chapter 3 for further details). I analyzed documents and
interviews to compare differences in the scopes of the coded curricula and the structures
of the respective curriculum statements of the two countries (see Appendix 7), and in the
roles of teachers and other committee members within their respective policy contexts
and organizational structures.25 Additionally, using a narrative approach (Abell, 2004;
Pettigrew, 1985; 1990; Bates et al., 1998), I analyzed the committees’ processes and
compared their respective timelines.
Table 6 - 2. Summary of approach for curriculum committee perspective
Table 6 - 3 summarizes the framework that emerged from my iterative analysis of
the data on committees’ processes. The typologies of institutional work developed by
Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48) were found to be a useful framework for analyzing
the “practical-evaluative agency” of the respective committees. Two types of institutional
work were found to be salient from the data. First, institutional creation is characterized
by “translation,” “bricolage”, and “reacting to shocks.” Second, institutional disruption is
characterized by “avoiding institutional monitoring and sanction,” and “not selecting
25 Additionally, I analyzed informants’ rankings of the centrality of other committee members to determine whether teachers played central (1=most central) or peripheral roles, but do not discuss further, given that information was not obtained from all committee members. In Botswana, teachers and teacher trainers were ranked second after curriculum development officers, whereas in South Africa the one teacher on the committee was ranked first.
Question Data Themes/Events Analytic Method 1. Outcomes: Differences between curricula
• Curriculum Statements
• Scope (number of sub-topics)
• Structure (layout, numbering, language)
• Comparison of coded sub-topic counts
• Descriptive 2. Structures & Actors: Teachers and other actors within respective structures
• Interviews • Committee
drafts, documents
• Policies, structures, motivations
• Committee composition (primary teachers, secondary teachers, teacher trainers, government officials)
• Descriptive
3. Processes: Curriculum formulation events, teachers’ roles
• Interviews • Committee
drafts, documents
• Formulation events • Timelines (slow-paced/fast-
paced)
• Analysis of narratives
• Comparison of timelines
183
institutional practices/selecting others.” There were divergences in the types of
institutional work during formulation processes in the cases of Botswana and South
Africa, which I present in my findings below.
Table 6 - 3. Interpretive framework for analysis of curriculum formulation processes Examples of process codes
First-order categories Second-order themes Aggregate dimension
being briefed about roles, expectations
Specifying committee leadership and expectations
Initiating/Selecting committee governance and practices
Type of institutional work done during curriculum formulation
being provided with guidance documents, drafts
Specifying committee tasks
getting delayed, meeting in-between full meetings, falling behind, making up for classes
Combining curriculum formulation with other responsibilities
Reacting to “shocks” of time pressures and workloads
downloading curricula Borrowing curricula reading documents, doing assignments
Working on tasks individually/sub-groups
“Translating” information during group work
fighting, deliberating, arguing, debating
Developing drafts
leading teacher consultation workshops, having informal conversations with teachers
Consulting teachers during school visits
Finalizing drafts as “bricolage”
soliciting public comments Consulting public during hearings
creating implementation plan in-house
Developing implementation plan during curriculum statement production
Planning implementation26
conducting field visits Developing implementation plan after evaluation
6.4. Findings
This comparative study finds that despite teachers participating in curriculum
formulation committees in Botswana and South Africa in the early 2000s, there were
26 “Planning implementation” is an aspect of institutional work that I address separate from the other processes specified by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009). Informants highlighted that as an important process, but it was done outside the mandates of the curriculum formulation committees that I focus on.
184
divergences in the formulation processes and the respective 6th grade mathematics
curricula that emerged, and were being used in the adjacent countries during the 2009
school year. My findings address questions about the interactions between the structures
within which committees’ are embedded, and committees’ agency in shaping curriculum
outcomes. First (section 6.4.1), my comparison of the two countries’ respective
curriculum statements highlights divergences in curriculum organization. Second (section
6.4.2), differences in the scope and the structure of the respective curricula were traced
back to differences in the committees’ composition and their processes within their
divergent policy contexts and organizational structures. Details of findings are presented
in the two sections that follow.
6.4.1. Differences in outcomes: Two elements of curriculum organization
I highlight qualitative differences in two elements of the organization of the
respective countries’ 6th grade mathematics curricula: (i) the scope (i.e. number of
mathematics sub-topics to be covered in a school year), and (ii) the content-aims
organization, or the structure of each curriculum statement in relating content and aims.
A curriculum with a relatively smaller scope and greater structure emerged in Botswana,
as compared with South Africa.
6.4.1.1. Curriculum scope: Number of sub-topics in curriculum documents
A comparison of coded curriculum statements shows that Botswana’s Upper
Primary Syllabus (Standard/Grade 6 Mathematics) has a relatively smaller scope than
that of South Africa. I compare my measure of the scope of the two countries’ curricula
relative to others analyzed in a UNESCO study that provided a framework for
comparisons (Benavot, 2011) (Table 6 - 4).27 The UNESCO study identified a total of
eight topic areas in mathematics curricula. The topics include (i) Number, operations and
27 I verified my counts with three mathematics/curriculum experts, who were members of the 2009 study of teacher quality and student outcomes along the Botswana-South Africa border (see Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
185
relationships, which constitutes the largest proportion of the sub-topics; (ii)
Measurement; (iii) Geometry (Position, Visualization and Shape, and Symmetry,
Congruence and Similarity); (iv) Algebra/Patterns (Proportionality, and Functions,
Relations and Equations); (v) Data Handling (Representation, Probability, & Statistics);
(vi) Elementary Analysis; (vii) Validation and Structure; and (viii) Other Content.
Table 6 - 4. Scope of Botswana and South Africa mathematics curricula Topic Total # sub-
topics possible Botswana South Africa
# % of Total # % of Total Numbers 20 8 40% 14 70% Measurement 3 2 67% 2 67% Geometry 9 6 67% 5 56% Algebra/Patterns 7 1 14% 2 29% Data Handling 2 2 100% 2 100% Elementary Analysis 2 0 0% 0 0% Validation & Structure 2 0 0% 0 0% Other Content a 6 1 17% 1 17% Total 51 20 39% 26 51% Sources: Benavot (2011); Coded curricula Notes: a For Botswana’s curriculum, “Other Content” is “Problem Solving”, whereas for South Africa’s it is “History and Nature of Mathematics”.
Five of the eight topics are found in both Botswana’s and South Africa’s
curricula, namely Numbers, Measurement, Geometry, Algebra/Patterns, and Data
Handling. Both Botswana and South Africa have one content area coded as “Other
Content.” Botswana’s other content topic is a distinct Problem Solving Module, which
aims to develop students’ abilities “to be creative in applying mathematical concepts and
techniques and to reflect critically on the methods they have chosen” (Botswana Upper
Primary Syllabus, p. 67). Post-apartheid South Africa’s 6th grade mathematics curriculum
addresses an additional content that is integrated throughout the curriculum, coded as the
History and Nature of Mathematics, which is to develop students’ knowledge about the
contribution of various cultures to mathematics throughout history. The additional
content was to address apartheid era ideologies that sought to exclude the contributions of
non-whites in mathematics.
Out of 51 possible sub-topics, Botswana’s curriculum contains 39% (20 sub-
topics), relative to South Africa’s 51% (26 sub-topics). The main difference is in
186
Numbers: Botswana’s curriculum has 8 of the 20 possible sub-topics under Numbers
(40%), whereas South Africa’s curriculum has 14 of the 20 possible sub-topics under
Numbers, or 70% of the sub-topics.
6.4.1.2. Aims-Content organization: Structure of curriculum documents
Botswana’s curriculum statement has a more highly structured organization than
that of South Africa. Specifically, the sub-topics and objectives under each topic area, as
well as the curriculum language in Botswana’s curriculum are more distinctly organized
than those of South Africa.28 Excerpts from page 75 of Botswana’s sixth grade
curriculum statement, on the Number module indicate that the first sub-topic is Whole
Numbers (sub-topic 1.1), which has nine specific objectives that are clearly numbered
(Figure 6 - 3). Specific objective 1.1.1.3 is for students to “read whole numbers in
numerals and words up to 100 000,” whereas a related specific objective, 1.1.1.4 is for
students to “write whole numbers in numerals and words up to 100 000.” The level of
detail in the curriculum is exemplified by the distinction between reading and writing.
Figure 6 - 3. Excerpt from Botswana 6th grade mathematics curriculum statement: Numbers and Operations
28 Given my strategy of temporal bracketing, my analysis of curriculum formulation is limited to the curriculum statements produced during period when the respective mathematics curriculum formulation committees were in existence, from 2000-2003. Thus, my analysis does not include another, more structured curriculum document that was developed in South Africa during the Foundations for Learning (FFL) initiative which was launched in 2008, and was to improve student outcomes by 2011. Teachers and administrators interviewed were using the RNCS documents, and noted that the said FFL curriculum document was only being introduced in schools in 2009, and was not yet in use. Further curricular changes began in 2010, after this study.
187
Another distinct sub-topic area of the Number module concerns Decimals (sub-
topic 1.4, page 76). Specific objective 1.4.1.1 is for students to “read decimal numbers in
numerals and words up to thousandths.” A related specific objective, “1.4.1.2” is for
students to “write decimal numbers in numerals and words up to thousandths.”
However, among the modules in the curriculum, informants noted that they found
the Problem Solving module to be “vague” and “confusing,” and a former MoE official
who was involved in developing the curriculum notes that “its implementation is a big
problem” (BW Committee Member #2, 2009). Excerpts of the Problem Solving module
(page 81) are illustrated in Figure 6 - 4.
Figure 6 - 4. Excerpt from Botswana 6th grade mathematics curriculum statement: Problem Solving
Complaints about confusion stemming from curriculum vagueness were also
made about South Africa’s curriculum (also, see DoE, 2009), and a descriptive analysis
of the sixth grade section of the curriculum statement illustrates differences with the
Botswana curriculum. The organization of topics and the text-heavy layout of the
statement differs from the tabular layout of Botswana’s curriculum statement. Also,
without the type of numbering that is found in Botswana’s curriculum, it is less clear
which sub-topics are referenced in the bullets of South Africa’s curriculum statement. For
example, for Learning Outcome 1: Numbers, Operations And Relationships, the objective
is that “the learner will be able to recognize, describe and represent numbers and their
relationships, and to count, estimate, calculate and check with competence and
confidence in solving problems.” On page 41 of the RNCS mathematics curriculum
statement, the first section provides details of the Numbers learning outcome at the sixth
188
grade level, and includes multiple, interwoven sub-topics, such as whole numbers,
decimals and fractions (Figure 6 - 5).
Figure 6 - 5. Excerpt from South Africa 6th grade mathematics curriculum statement: Numbers, Operations and relationships
The first square bullet on the excerpted page above notes that the objective
concerning the learning of decimals is achieved when the learner “counts forwards and
backwards in decimals.” On whole numbers (under the third square bullet), South
Africa’s objective is that the sixth grade student “recognizes and represents … whole
numbers to at least 9-digit numbers … in order to describe and compare them.” In this
particular example given, the objectives for Batswana students are less ambitious than for
their South African counterparts. Whereas Batswana sixth grade students are to write
whole numbers up to 100,000 those in South Africa are to recognize and represent whole
189
numbers up to “9-digit numbers” (999,999,999). In other sections of the South Africa
curriculum (see page 43), learners are to solve “problems in context including contexts
that may be used to build awareness of other Learning Areas, as well as human rights,
social, economic and environmental issues.”
Whereas South Africa’s curriculum had less specified language and was less
structured than that of Botswana, the Problem Solving module in the latter curriculum
was found to be relatively vague. Excerpts from the two curricula are summarized in
Figure 6 - 6.29
Figure 6 - 6. Summary of curriculum excerpt examples Topic/ Sub-topic
Botswana South Africa
Whole Numbers
1.1.1.3 read whole numbers in numerals and words up to 100,000 1.1.1.4 write whole numbers in numerals and words up to 100,000
recognizes and represents … whole numbers to at least 9-digit numbers … in order to describe and compare them
Decimals 1.4.1.1 read decimal numbers in numerals and words up to thousandths 1.4.1.2 write decimal numbers in numerals and words up to thousandths
counts forwards and backwards in decimals
Other Contenta
4.1.1.1 play mathematical games that require problem-solving processes 4.2.1.1 discuss different problem solving strategies to use in order to solve a problem
solves problems in context including contexts that may be used to build awareness of other Learning Areas, as well as human rights, social, economic and environmental issues.
Source: Botswana and South Africa curriculum statements. Notes: a For Botswana’s curriculum, “Other Content” is specified as a “Problem Solving” module, whereas for South Africa, the “History and Nature of Mathematics” is integrated throughout the curriculum.
How did the curricula emerge? Interviews indicated that the knowledge and
experiences of curriculum formulation committee members partly shaped the curricula,
as illustrated by the quote below from a teacher trainer involved in Botswana’s
curriculum formulation:
29 Comparisons of the teacher guides of the two countries further illustrate similar differences as found in the curriculum statements. Botswana’s teacher guide for mathematics provides illustrative examples and references the corresponding specific objective numbers from the curriculum statement. Examples mostly use pictures and numbers, and also provide suggested support materials for teachers to use. South Africa’s text-heavy teacher guide contains relatively more information on the curriculum philosophy, and provides few examples for teachers to use in teaching.
190
Eiiii problem solving! It was a new topic in primary … I remember this one [pointing to page 73 in syllabus, and seeming very excited] … ‘acquire problem solving skills’ … … and what does it tell you? It tells you that … even the writers they had problems with problem solving ... [reading from syllabus] ‘play mathematical games.’ What do you mean? These are the arguments that we had ... if you are not very clear … If you write an objective such as this one, you’ll find that from standard one up to standard seven, they are playing ‘snakes and ladders’ (BW Committee Member #12, 2009)
In the next section I elaborate on how the curricula emerged in both Botswana and
South Africa.
6.4.2. Divergent structures, actors, and processes
Within the divergent policy contexts and organizational structures of the adjacent
countries, curriculum formulation committee composition, and group processes,
particularly timelines were associated with observed differences in the respective primary
school mathematics curricula. A larger, more functionally diverse committee in Botswana
included practicing primary school teachers in a more in-depth, albeit slower curriculum
formulation process, in which teachers and teacher trainers drew from their past
experiences and negotiated with other committee members to specify a relatively highly
structured curriculum, with a relatively smaller scope, to address teachers’ workload
concerns. South Africa’s smaller committee included one practicing secondary school
teacher, but no primary school teachers, in a curriculum formulation process that had
shorter timelines, which informants indicated was partly due to political pressure. In the
South African context, faster-paced formulation processes were associated with the
committee’s “borrowing” of foreign curricula, and relatively limited feedback from
practicing primary school teachers for adapting and finalizing the curriculum produced.
The timelines are summarized in Figure 6 - 7.
191
Figure 6 - 7. Timeline for mathematics curriculum formulation processes in Botswana and South Africa in the early 2000s
In Botswana, two relatively large committees with overlapping membership
developed (i) curriculum statements, or Upper Primary (grade 5-7) Mathematics Syllabi,
and (ii) Teachers’ Guides. The period from drafting and finalizing the curriculum
statements for grades 1-7 was about 40 months (20 months for lower primary, grades 1-4,
and 20 months for upper primary, grades 5-7). I analyze the processes of the 13-member
committee that developed the Upper Primary (grade 5-7) Mathematics Syllabi (see .
In South Africa, a racially diverse six-member team was tasked with developing
the Kindergarten-9th grade mathematics curriculum for the multi-racial, multi-ethno-
linguistic country with a population more than 24 times that of Botswana. The committee
was tasked with developing three curriculum documents: (i) a curriculum statement
(Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades R-9: Mathematics); (ii) an assessment
document (National Curriculum Statement Assessment Guidelines for General Education
and Training: Intermediate Phase), which was meant to communicate visions around
how to assess the subject; and (iii) a teacher’s guide (Teacher’s Guide for the
Development of Learning Programmes), which was meant to aid teachers in their
development of learning programs and work schedules. In South Africa, the period from
drafting and finalizing the curriculum statements for Kindergarten-grade 9 was about 15
192
months. The mathematics curriculum committee composition in each country is
summarized in Table 6 - 5.
Table 6 - 5. Primary mathematics curriculum formulation committees of early 2000s Committee Members Botswanaa South Africa Curriculum Statement Teachers’ Guide All Documents Department/Ministry officials 4 5 1 Primary school teachers 2 8 0 Secondary school teachers 1 3 1 Pre-service teacher trainers 2 0 3 In-service teacher trainers/support 4 2 1 Total 13 18 6 Source: Curriculum documents, informant interviews Notes: a. Some members of the upper primary committee had previously served on the lower primary committee, including 4 of the 7 members who were interviewed. Six of the individuals on the committee that developed the Curriculum Statement were also involved in developing the Teacher Guide: 2 department officials (including the Curriculum Development Officer (CDO), who was secretary of the committee), 2 in-service teacher trainers/support personnel, and 2 primary school teachers.
In the sections that follow (6.4.2.1-6.4.2.8), I elaborate on my findings about the
committees and processes. To facilitate comparisons between each of the curriculum
formulation structures, actors, and events, in each section, I first present a summary,
followed by the case for Botswana, and then for South Africa.
6.4.2.1. Structures: Policies, motivations, and reform priorities in the early 2000s
Summary. Whereas reforms in Botswana and South Africa shared similar policy
aims, there was divergence in the direct motivations for the respective reforms, which
began almost around the same time, in the early 2000s. In Botswana and South Africa,
reforms were to address academic, economic, and socio-political curriculum aims, such
as improving educational outcomes, preparing students for the world of work, and
promoting democratic citizenship respectively. However, whereas Botswana’s
formulation processes that began in 2000 were motivated by its 1994 education policy
changes that were framed within periodic, multi-year National Development Plans
(NDPs), South Africa’s formulation processes were set in motion in 2000 after a new
minister of education sought to address complaints about Curriculum 2005 (C2005), the
country’s first post-apartheid curriculum that had been adopted in 1997 (Fataar, 2006).
193
Below, I elaborate on the direct motivations and priorities of the respective reforms,
which I summarize in Table 6 - 6.
Table 6 - 6. Botswana and South Africa: Motivations and reform priorities Theme Botswana South Africa Direct motivations for reforms
• Recommendations of 1994 Revised National Policy on Education
• Recommendations of 2000 evaluation initiated by new education minister
Reform Priorities Curriculum Aims: why reform
• Academic: “raise educational standards,” “give learners opportunity to approach [mathematics] problems with flexibility”
• Economic: “preparation for the world of work,” “prepare Batswana for transition […] to industrial economy”
• Socio-political: “preparation of students for life, citizenship,” address “access and equity,” “emerging issues such as HIV”
• Academic: “development of a high level of knowledge and skills”
• Economic: “stimulating minds of young people so that they are able to participate fully in economic life”
• Socio-political: “creating awareness of the relationship between human rights, a healthy environment, social justice and inclusivity”
Curriculum Organization: how to reform30
• Reorganize curriculum documents to address complaints about “abstract,” “scanty,” “unclear,” “vague” 1993 curriculum
• “Streamline” Curriculum 2005 (adopted in 1997) to address complaints that curriculum was “overloaded” in terms of the learning areas and design, “vague,” “poorly specified,” contained “complex terminology,” suffered from “rushed implementation”
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.1.1. Botswana: Reforms within the framework of long-term development plans
Botswana’s long-term National Development Plans (NDPs) framed its 1994
Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE), which motivated the upper primary
curriculum reform that was set in motion during the late 1990s. Specifically,
recommendation 17 of the RNPE called for the development of “a continuous basic
education curriculum” that unified the primary and junior secondary curricula (RNPE,
1994, p. 17).31
30 As I indicated in the methodology section (6.3), I only address two aspects of curriculum organization in this study (content-aims organization, and scope) given the completeness of data available, although there were other aspects of curriculum organization that reforms were addressing. 31 The RNPE goals were reemphasized in another policy document, Vision 2016, which was developed in 1997, in anticipation of Botswana’s 50th independence anniversary.
194
Reforms had academic, economic, and socio-political aims. Archival documents
and curriculum committee members cited Botswana’s poor performance on international
assessments as a motivation for reforms. Thus, reforms were to “raise education
standards at all levels” (RNPE, 1994, p. 5). The Foreword of the Upper Primary Syllabus
also notes that reforms were to change from an academic curriculum to adopt a “student-
centered approach” in which teachers “build upon learners’ own experiences” by
“facilitating learning,” and strengthening learners’ “practical problem solving skills” in
mathematics. Additionally, the reforms were to strengthen the teaching and learning of
technology, science and mathematics. The RNPE reforms’ stated economic goals were to
develop a curriculum to provide “adequate preparation for the world of work” (p. 3), and
“prepare Batswana children for the transition from a traditional agro based economy to
the industrial economy that the country aspires to” in the 21st Century (p. 5). The
RNPE’s socio-political vision was for the education system to “develop moral and social
values, cultural identity and self-esteem, good citizenship” (p. 5), and for the curriculum
to address “emerging issues” such as HIV/AIDS and environmental challenges (Upper
Primary Syllabus, Foreword).
Participants in reform processes also noted that changing curriculum organization
was another motivation for reforms. Specifically, changes were to address flaws in
Botswana’s 1993 syllabus, which did not provide enough detail to guide teachers. One
curriculum committee member, a teacher trainer, notes that the problem with the old
syllabus was that it was “too scanty … it wasn’t detailed enough … the syllabus wasn’t
providing enough information” (BW Committee Member #4, 2009). An excerpt from the
syllabus, from the first page for 6th grade mathematics, on Sorting, Classification and
Sets, Numbers and Operations, and Fractions and Decimals illustrates informants’
assertions about the curriculum statement’s lack of detail (Figure 6 - 8).
195
Figure 6 - 8. Excerpts from Botswana’s 1993 upper primary curriculum statement
The entire Grade 6 mathematics section for the older syllabus comprised three and
a half pages.32 In addition to the topics noted above, there were brief sections on
Measurement; Algebra; and Geometry. Among curriculum writers interviewed, a
perceived goal of the process was the development of new curriculum documents that
provided detailed information that would facilitate teaching in classrooms. Next, I turn to
the motivations for the reforms in South Africa.
6.4.2.1.2. South Africa: Reforms initiated by new minister of education
Around the time that RNPE curriculum formulation processes began in Botswana,
South Africa conducted its second post-apartheid elections, in 1999. A new education
minister came into office and asked for a review of C2005, responding to complaints
from various constituents including the academic community and schools (Fataar, 2006).
32 This compares with 9 detailed pages for the same section in the curriculum developed in the early 2000s.
196
A committee was appointed in February 2000, and given three months (March to May,
2000) to conduct a review and report on C2005, whose implementation had begun two
years before, in 1998.
The review findings pointed out that while there was broad support for the
academic, economic, and socio-political aims of C2005, there were curriculum
organization flaws that had to be addressed. C2005 was “overly designed” and “poorly
specified” by grade; contained “complex terminology” that “complicated translation into
classrooms;” was “overloaded” in terms of the learning areas and design; and suffered
from “rushed implementation” (Chisholm et al., 2000; Parliamentary Monitoring Group,
2001). The review committee recommended the simplification of the curriculum,
specifically noting that a revised curriculum should be “written in clear language”
(Chisholm et al., 2000, p. vii). The recommendations set into motion the Revised
National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) formulation processes.
The RNCS reforms were initiated in a politicized environment, and marked a
transition period in which subject experts, including active members from the Association
for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA) played key roles in a curriculum
policy-practice field that had been dominated around 1994-1997 by labor unions –
including powerful, political teacher unions (Fataar, 2006; Govender, 2004). There was
some resistance to modifying C2005, as some actors – including people involved in its
development – felt that it was premature to review the first visible post-apartheid
curriculum, given the short length of time that it had been implemented. With such
political considerations, the review committee “streamlined” C2005 and reduced the
number of curriculum documents associated with it (as many as 12 types of documents),
while maintaining the Outcomes Based Education (OBE) foundation of the curriculum.
Hence, the RNCS reflected the OBE philosophy and one of its stated aims was “to ensure
that a national South African identity is built on values very different from those that
underpinned apartheid education” (RNCS Mathematics Curriculum Statement, p. 3),33
consistent with key post-apartheid education policies, the 1996 South African Schools
Act (SASA), and the 1996 National Education Policy Act (NEPA).
33 See: http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/education.htm
197
6.4.2.2. Structures: Curriculum formulation organizational structures
Summary. In both cases studied, curriculum formulation was conducted by a
number of subject committees and other crosscutting groups and structures that oversaw
the processes. However, whereas curriculum development manuals specified formulation
processes led by MoE officials in permanent, centrally governed structures in Botswana,
decentralized structures were employed in less-specified processes in South Africa (Table
6 - 7). Also, whereas the curriculum committee’s processes were specified in Botswana,
South Africa’s committee was guided by documents specifying the aims of the
curriculum.
Table 6 - 7. Botswana and South Africa: Curriculum formulation structures Botswana South Africa • Permanent, specified curriculum formulation
structures within Ministry of Education (MoE), with specialized MoE officers leading ad-hoc committee
• Curriculum Development Procedures Manuals specified committee processes
• Temporary Ministerial Project Committee (MPC) set up by Department of Education (DoE) for overseeing ad-hoc curriculum committee, which had relatively high autonomy
• Committee guided by documents specifying OBE aims; briefs for common language to use in documents (e.g. Learning Outcomes, Assessment Standards)
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.2.1. Botswana: Permanent, centrally governed structures and specified processes
Botswana’s curriculum formulation structures were governed in the Department
of Curriculum Development and Evaluation (CD&E) in the Ministry of Education
(MoE), and processes were specified in a Curriculum Development Procedures Manual.
The manual had been developed between 1989 and 1991 as part of the Junior Secondary
Education Improvement Project (JSEIP), a collaboration between the Government of
Botswana and the USAID. The manual was created to codify processes that had been
used in Botswana’s prior curriculum formulation efforts in the 1980s, as well as
experiences from foreign consultants who were providing technical assistance. As the
introduction to the manual notes:
198
Over the years the Curriculum formulation Unit (CDU) has established formal and informal procedures for developing a syllabus and for developing and implementing instructional materials. Because that information has not been consistently documented, Curriculum Development Officers (CDOs) and others involved in curriculum formulation have not had easy access to it. This manual documents CDU’s curriculum procedures for easy reference. Also, we have included some new techniques that we hope will make the curriculum formulation process easier and more effective (Curriculum Development Procedures Manual, p. I-1).
The manual specified, in detail, the various stakeholders and steps to be used in
curriculum formulation. Emphasis was placed on the size and functional diversity of
curriculum committees. A section on coordinating group work suggests that:
Usually it is not effective or wise for one person or even a small group of people to try to design a curriculum. It is much better to involve a variety of people in developing products like a syllabus, student materials and teacher’s guides (p. 1-7)
The manual also highlights the inclusion of practicing teachers on curriculum
formulation committees, as “skilled teachers and others who will be affected by [the
curriculum] can tell … what it takes for [it] to work in the real world” (p. 1-8). The
manual also noted the need to provide training for individuals involved in curriculum
formulation committees, stating that curriculum officers should lead the process, and
warning that although “teachers know best what students and classrooms in Botswana
are like … they do not necessarily have the training or experience” for formulating
curriculum documents.
The manual outlined various levels at which multiple steps of curriculum
formulation processes had to be planned. A long-term, multiple-year view was suggested
in conceptualizing the processes from beginning to end, including the development of
curriculum frameworks; formulation of initial drafts; obtaining feedback for revising
drafts; conducting field trials, and formative and summative evaluations of curriculum
documents. At each level “realistic” timelines were recommended, with the note to revise
time estimates when needed, and not be bound by unrealistic deadlines.
Overview of standardized processes. Curriculum Development Officers (CDO)
interviewed noted that the manual was their primary source of guidance. One CDO who
was involved in mathematics curriculum formulation during 2000-2003 notes: “What I
can honestly tell you … I was never trained in curriculum development. I just relied on
199
the manual. That’s what we did. We followed the manual” (BW Committee Member #2,
2009).
The mathematics curriculum formulation of 2000-2003 was organized into
multiple, sequential steps with the participation of various stakeholders. Interviews with
individuals involved in the reforms painted a sketch of the processes, which had been
standardized over the 1990s (see Chapter 5), and involved two phases.
In the first phase, a review framework was developed to specify broad goals, and
also specify a number of curriculum change factors, such as why changes were being
made, what was being changed, how changes were to be made, and the implications of
the changes. After the review framework was completed, national panels comprising
diverse stakeholders (not just educators) were set up for each subject, to identify the
challenges and needs of various sectors of the economy as related to each particular
subject. For example, accountants or engineers serving on national mathematics panels
would indicate what mathematical skills were lacking among recent graduates of the
education system, and what mathematical topics needed strengthening in reforming a
curriculum. For the Basic Education level, which spans grade 1-7 and the 3-years of
junior secondary school, the processes culminated in the development of a document
called the Curriculum Blueprint: Ten Year Basic Education Programme. The Blueprint
was developed by drawing upon various sources, including policies and curricula from
industrialized countries and SSA.
During the second phase, which is the focus of my study, subject panels,
comprising teachers, pre-service lecturers from teacher training institutions, in-service
trainers (known as Education Officers), and Curriculum Development Officers (CDO)
from the MoE were established to develop curriculum documents, with the Curriculum
Blueprint providing a common framework for the development of all subject curricula.
Bureaucratic directives were issued from heads of departments, who often designated
representatives to panels and committees. Although membership to subject panels was to
be on the basis of expertise, a number of participants interviewed noted a reality: even in
a bureaucratic society, it was impossible to ensure that participation was solely on the
basis of expertise. An illustrative quote from a government official concerns the inability
to fully control selection into committees:
200
You can’t go and pick people [to serve on curriculum panels]. You ask from their employer … in employment people look at different things, maybe behavior … or at whatever subject … they look at a lot of other things … friends and all those things … so there’s nothing you can do (Former Mathematics CDO, 2010)
The comment highlights the limits to which bureaucratic guidelines can reach,
and alludes to the co-existence of political and other informal factors within the
bureaucratic Botswana context. I turn next to the case of South Africa.
6.4.2.2.2. South Africa: Decentralized structures and less-specified processes
South Africa’s structures were relatively more decentralized, as a number of
committees were formed to lead the formulation process, which were governed by the
DoE. The RNCS General Education and Training (GET, grades R-9) formulation teams
included a Ministerial Project Committee (MPC), which included representatives from
academic institutions, government, and teachers’ organizations, oversaw the process;
Working Groups for the subjects, or learning areas; as well as teams to address cross-
cutting issues (e.g. human rights and inclusivity, qualifications and implementation).
Additionally, there was a Task Team of MPC “mentors” who coordinated with each
working group. Selection to the RNCS committees was primarily on the basis of
expertise, although political considerations also played a role. For example, although
teacher unions members were not officially represented in subject working groups, their
members were involved in aspects of the process, including in writing groups, though
only where they had nominees who met criteria (Chisholm Communication, 2010).
After the review of C2005, nomination and appointments to the RNCS
committees had been done in December 2000. Formal appointments were made to the
Working Groups, unlike participation in C2005 development, where stakeholder
organizations had made nominations in some cases (Ramsuran & Malcolm, 2006, p.
517).
201
6.4.2.3. Actors: Composition of curriculum committees
A number of similarities notwithstanding (i.e. committee members interviewed in
both countries had prior teaching experience, and had university level training in
mathematics), there were three distinct differences noted in the composition of
mathematics curriculum committees, whose members were interviewed in Botswana and
South Africa (see Table 6 - 8). First, there were 2 practicing primary school teachers on
the committee in Botswana, and none in South Africa. Second, whereas at least 2
committee members in Botswana had previous curriculum formulation experience, none
of the members in post-apartheid South Africa had prior experience. Third, whereas a
shared characteristic of the 7 committee members interviewed in Botswana was that they
had all been trained at the University of Botswana, South Africa’s committee members
interviewed were of diverse racial and educational backgrounds, having been schooled
under apartheid, but cited their active participation in the dominant mathematics
association, Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA) as a
shared characteristic.
Table 6 - 8. Botswana and South Africa: Curriculum committee composition Theme Botswana South Africa Primary school teachers on committee
• 2 practicing primary teachers on committee
• 0 with primary teaching experience (at least 4 with secondary teaching experience)
Prior curriculum formulation experience
• At least 2 with previous formulation experience
• 0 with previous formulation experience
Characteristics • All interviewed committee members (N=7) trained at University of Botswana
• All interviewed committee members (N=4) active members of Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA); were racially diverse
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.3.1. Botswana’s Mathematics Subject Panel (MSP)
As specified by the curriculum formulation manual, Curriculum Development
Officers (CDO) were scribes of the panel. Other committee members included practicing
primary and secondary school teachers, teacher educators (lecturers), and in-service
202
teacher trainers and support personnel (known as Education Officers). Brief profiles of
the Upper Primary MSP members are presented in Table 6 - 9.
Table 6 - 9. Botswana: Brief profiles, upper primary mathematics subject panel members Position at time of formulation
Title/ Comment about role Involved in Teachers’ Guide
Curriculum Officer CDU/CD&E, Recording Yes Curriculum Officer CDU/CD&E, Recording MoE Officer - Assessment Exams Research & Testing Division Yes Primary School Teacher Teacher, Our Lady of the Desert Primary
School Yes
Primary School Teacher Teacher, Matsiloje Primary School Yes Secondary School Teacher Nanogang CJSS Pre-service Teacher Trainer Tlokweng College of Education Pre-service Teacher Trainer Serowe College of Education In-service Teacher Trainer Teacher, Serowe Education Center
(Chairperson, teacher guidelines task force) Yes
In-service Teacher Trainer Education Inspector, Tonota Education Office Yes In-service Teacher Trainer Kanye Education Center In-service Teacher Trainer In-Service Office MoE Officer - Dept. of Non Formal Education
Dept. of Non Formal Education (was passive member of committee)
Sources: Botswana document reviews and interviews.
Two committee members who were interviewed had previous curriculum
formulation experience, having served on committees that developed the 1993 upper
primary mathematics curriculum and secondary curricula respectively in the 1990s.34
All seven MSP members interviewed, as well as an eighth government official
involved in the subsequent secondary school mathematics panel were alumni of
University of Botswana, and were taught by some of the same lecturers, including
individuals who had been trained as part of capacity building projects like the Primary
Education Improvement Program (PEIP). Informants noted that at UB, one aspect of their
training was a module on curriculum development. However, they noted that despite
having some basic conceptual knowledge of curriculum development, their practical
experiences with national curriculum formulation had been limited prior to their
participation on formulation panels.
34 The two were a pre-service teacher-trainer and an assessments officer.
203
6.4.2.3.2. South Africa’s Mathematics Working Group (MWG)
The RNCS GET Mathematics Working Group (MWG) was racially diverse, and
comprised six members who had mathematics expertise and teaching experiences from
diverse educational backgrounds. Three members were working in mathematics
education (i.e. doing pre-service teacher training) at different phase levels in higher
education institutions. A fourth member was a mathematics teacher with many years of
experience teaching in a high-performing secondary school, and two members were in-
service trainers (known as Subject Advisors) from the national and a provincial
department of education respectively. A seventh individual, an MPC member who taught
secondary school and at the higher education level, did not work directly on the MWG,
but coordinated between the MWG and the other teams. Brief profiles of the MWG
members and MPC coordinator are presented in Table 6 - 10.
Table 6 - 10. South Africa: Brief profiles, mathematics working group members Position at time of formulation35 Title/ Comment about role Secondary School Teacher Was elected AMESA President at time of formulation, was
former elected AMESA Secretary; Grad training in U.S. Secondary School Teacher; Academic
Graduate training in U.S.
Pre-service Teacher Trainer Was former elected AMESA President, former secondary teacher; Graduate training in Europe
Pre-service Teacher Trainer Was active in AMESA, former secondary teacher Pre-service Teacher Trainer Research Unit for Mathematics Education in a university
(became a passive participant on the committee) In-service Teacher Trainer Subject Advisor in National Department In-service Teacher Trainer Subject Advisor, Provincial Maths Curriculum (union activist) Sources: South Africa document reviews and interviews.
The committee members came from diverse socio-political backgrounds, having
experienced schooling in segregated educational systems during the apartheid era. For
example, an informant involved in formulation processes reported having been expelled
from teacher training, while another reported having been jailed, respectively for their
anti-apartheid activities during the 1970s and 1980s.
Members of the MWG who were interviewed felt that their expertise and active
participation in South Africa’s mathematics education field were key reasons for their 35 One of the members listed was an MPC member who coordinated with group.
204
nominations and subsequent appointments. Although, none of the committee members
had previous curriculum-writing experience, two of the curriculum writers interviewed
cited academic papers they had written about curriculum formulation as possibly
influencing their nomination to participate. Three informants interviewed cited their
active participation in the AMESA as a shared characteristic that they perceived to be a
reason for their nomination. One curriculum writer (SA Committee Member #C, 2011)
notes: “No one was formerly ‘representing’ a constituency, but we were drawn from
different interest groups … The one thing we had in common was that all of us were
active participants in AMESA activities.” Two members of the group had previously
served in elected positions as president and secretary of AMESA. The two respectively
functioned as chairperson and secretary of the working group, and the said former
AMESA secretary was the sitting AMESA president at the time of the curriculum
formulation. Another working group member’s active participation in the South African
Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) was perceived to have been a reason for his
nomination.
6.4.2.4. Processes: Selecting committee processes
Summary. Whereas non-authoritarian processes were selected in the post-
apartheid context within which South Africa’s committee operated, Botswana’s
committee and its processes were initiated and led by government officials using
previously developed guidelines (Table 6 - 11). In Botswana, Mathematics Curriculum
Development Officers (CDOs) led processes, guided by procedures in the Curriculum
Manual. CDOs also drew upon the Curriculum Blueprint that was used in creating an
initial draft document to guide the committee, whose members were to provide
curriculum development input from their teaching experiences. South Africa’s committee
processes were relatively minimally specified, in a context that continued to “move
away” from the apartheid era.
205
Table 6 - 11. Botswana and South Africa: Committees’ initial processes Botswana South Africa • Committee members briefed by mathematics
Curriculum Development Officers (CDOs) about what was expected of them, based on what was specified in previously developed curriculum manuals
• Committee members were to draw from their experiences as teachers and build upon initial draft provided by CDOs, based on previously developed blueprint
• Committee members briefed by education minister about what was expected of them, with relatively minimal specification of processes
• Committee members were to start with “blank slate” and “move away” from apartheid era, and were not to be “constrained” by “the school realities”
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.4.1. Botswana: Specifying processes led by Curriculum Development Officers
Mathematics Curriculum Development Officers (CDOs) from the MoE set initial
parameters and led the committee’s processes. The CDOs briefed committee members
that they were expected to further develop an initial mathematics draft syllabus that the
CDOs had created. The initial mathematics curriculum draft comprised a list of targets
that the CDOs had composed from a Curriculum Blueprint developed previously. The
Blueprint had provided the framework for each subject area, and had specified the
curriculum aims, which the committee was then to organize around mathematics content.
CDOs specified that committee members were to contribute to developing the drafts
based on their past experiences, as teachers, teacher trainers, and as education
professionals who were also “going to receive … students and implement the curriculum”
(BW Committee Member #7, 2010).
6.4.2.4.2. South Africa: Avoiding authoritarian structures and “constraints” of the past
Curriculum committee members interviewed in South Africa noted that within
their post-apartheid context, where there was a focus on democratic processes and
achieving curriculum aims, there was relatively minimal specification of committee
members’ roles, and the groups’ processes and approaches emerged. Non-authoritarian,
participatory formulation processes were to break with the apartheid past, when it was
206
perceived that “one guy in a smoke filled room … sits … and writes a curriculum” (SA
Committee Member #G, 2010).
Committee members were initially briefed by the Minister of Education, who
wanted the Outcomes Based Education (OBE) curriculum to be “internationally
benchmarked,” and suggested that the writing of the curriculum was not to be
“constrained” by “the school realities” (SA Committee Member #A, 2010), for
ultimately contributing to the “unification of the country” (SA Committee Member #B,
2009). From committee members’ perspective, there was a focus on outcomes (i.e.
curriculum aims) desired at the end of basic education, and the committee had latitude in
how to organize the curriculum. A mathematics curriculum writer notes the following:
We were given writing briefs that explained the common language that was to be used in the curriculum, like Learning Outcomes, Assessment Standards, Learning Programmes, etc. We were also given general documents that outlined the aims of Outcomes Based Education and addressed issues for example like inclusivity and human rights, that we were expected to adequately reflect in the curriculum statements we wrote. The actual format and organization of the [curriculum] content developed over time as different groups produced different things, and these were shared so that some features could be adopted by all groups (SA Committee Member #C, 2011)
Within the post-apartheid context, formulation processes were to “move away
from the old prescriptive syllabus to a broader curriculum statement with a lot of space
for teachers to develop learning programs” (SA Committee Member #G, 2010), and
unlike the case of Botswana, South Africa’s mathematics committee had a “blank slate”
(SA Committee Member #A, 2010).
6.4.2.5. Processes: Reacting to “shocks” of time pressures and workloads
Summary. Committee members interviewed from both countries noted that they
had to adjust to time pressures and heavy workloads experienced during curriculum
formulation, which some – including teachers and teacher trainers – combined with their
regular work. However, South Africa’s smaller-sized committee faced greater time
pressures and workloads, relative to Botswana’s committee, which had specialized
officers whose work was devoted to curriculum development. In the short time frames of
South Africa, the mathematics curriculum writing team engaged in curriculum
207
“borrowing” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004), and created drafts based on curricula from
industrialized English-speaking countries.
In both cases, actual timelines exceeded initial estimations, as adjustments were
made to estimated timelines that were found to be unrealistic. In Botswana the intention
was for curriculum development to be completed over a two-year period, whereas in
South Africa the intention was about 6 months. For Botswana’s 13-member committee,
initial drafting to finalization of the primary mathematics curriculum statements occurred
during a period spanning about 40 months: 20 months for lower (1-4) and upper primary
(5-7) syllabus respectively. For South Africa’s 6-member committee, the processes of
developing three sets of curriculum documents for Kindergarten – Grade 9 spanned 15
months. The respective committees’ timelines for developing their respective curriculum
statements are summarized in Table 6 - 12. (Details of the timelines are presented in
Appendix 8.)
Table 6 - 12. Botswana and South Africa: Curriculum formulation timelines Botswana South Africa • Entire period from drafting to finalization: 24 months
initially estimated; actual time was 40 months (20 months each for lower & upper primary syllabus)
• With practicing teachers on committee, marker of time was the school year: met about two times per term (about once every other month for 5 day-period)
• Entire period from drafting to finalization: 6 months initially estimated; actual time was 15 months
• With short timeline given to complete the task, marker of time was months: met about twice per month for 3 day-period
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.5.1. Botswana: Combining curriculum formulation and teaching
The process of developing the primary school curriculum took longer than the 2
years (May 1999 until May 2001) that was initially estimated in the Curriculum Blueprint
that provided a framework for the process. The Mathematics Subject Panel (MSP)
developed the curriculum for lower primary (grades 1-4) over the period March 2000 –
November 2001, after which the committee developed the upper primary (grades 5-7)
over the period March 2002 – November 2003.
During its tenure, the Upper Primary MSP met in Gaborone, at the CDU offices
and sometimes in hotel conference rooms. Meetings were held about twice per school
208
term (about once every other month), usually lasting for a week. A number of panel
members indicated that the process took longer than estimated because members were
practicing schoolteachers and teacher-training lecturers, who had to combine their regular
work with curriculum formulation. A panel member who was a lecturer at a teacher
training college gave the following reason for why the process took as long as it did:
Because [the committees] were using people who were actually teachers in the field, who would have to take care of their [class tasks] and at the same time come over here [to Gaborone]. So in order not to disturb the learning a lot we had to … schedule [meetings] such that it would be a week or two and then we would go back and do our normal duties. (BW Committee Member #9, 2009)
Except for CDOs whose dedicated responsibilities were curriculum development,
committee members noted having to combine their curriculum formulation with their
teaching workloads. During meetings, tasks took longer than anticipated, while similarly
upon their return to teaching, they had to make up classes for being away.
6.4.2.5.2. South Africa: “Borrowing” Curricula and extending short timeframes
South Africa’s process of developing Curriculum Statements, Learning
Programme Guidelines, and Assessment Guidelines was completed within a 15-month
period, beyond the 6 months initially estimated. In January 2001, members of South
Africa’s MWG and other learning area groups were briefed about their tasks, and were
initially to complete the task of developing new R-9 mathematics curricula for South
Africa from January 2001 to June 2001.
With the short timeline for completing tasks, time pressures became apparent to
the MWG after it began its work, and the committee reacted by “borrowing” curricula
from foreign sources. One committee member notes the downloading of several
mathematics curricula from various industrialized English-speaking countries, including
Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and a number of US states:
209
But we also were working under a fairly tight time frame, and so I think we spent some time thinking about what we wanted this curriculum to achieve but fairly quickly it deteriorated … [there was] a realization that there were other English speaking nations that already had a curriculum … I had access to the internet at home … so it was a question of I just sat on the internet and I just pumped out curriculum after curriculum (SA Committee Member #A, 2010)
Over the 6-month period, the committee met about twice a month (maximum
once after every 10 day-period), for about 3 days at a time. Members often met for each
period in hotels that included conference venues. In each location, the team stayed for the
duration of the meeting period, and worked full days. As one writer notes, they also
worked in between meetings:
After each meeting, we assigned tasks that individuals had to undertake that were circulated for comments via e-mail prior to our next scheduled meeting. In addition, myself and one other member who was also based in [Cape Town], also used to meet in between the full working grouping meetings. (SA Committee Member #C, 2011)
However, despite the extra time the committee members devoted to their work, it
became apparent the tasks could not be completed in the time period, and the timeline
was subsequently extended, ending in April 2002.
6.4.2.6. Processes: “Translating” curriculum policy and practice during group work
Summary. A sketch of the committees’ work of curriculum writing shows some
similarities, but also, divergences in the processes that occurred in the two contexts. The
respective cases are summarized in Table 6 - 13. In both cases, tasks were assigned to
committee members, who then presented their ideas to other team members for critique
and discussion, similar to how group work is conducted in schools and other workplaces.
Committee members also noted that besides discussions with other committee members,
they obtained input and feedback informally from their colleagues in schools and teacher
training institutions as they continued to develop drafts in between committee meetings,
until the deadlines for finalization of drafts.
Members from Botswana’s larger, functionally diverse committee described
debates about curriculum organization. Particularly, teachers cited their past curricular
experiences of having heavy workloads and difficulty with implementation to oppose
210
increases in curriculum scope proposed by MoE officers, who were looking to meet
policy objectives. Debates resulted in modifications of initial curriculum drafts.
In the short time frames of South Africa, the mathematics curriculum committee
members reviewed curricula they had “borrowed” from industrialized English-speaking
countries and used them for developing drafts, responding to an objective of developing
an internationally comparable curriculum. South Africa’s smaller team did not encounter
“fights” described in Botswana, but engaged in “deliberations” about curriculum
organization that also drew upon international research. Team members also obtained
informal input from their colleagues.
Table 6 - 13. Botswana and South Africa: “Translating” during group work processes Botswana South Africa • 13-member team developed Upper-
primary (grade 5-7) syllabus
• “Fights” about curriculum scope & language (e.g. inclusion of problem solving as a topic)
• Relatively more in-depth engagement of primary teachers on committee
• 6-member team developed entire kindergarten-grade 9) curriculum statement, assessment standards, teacher guidelines
• “Deliberations” about curriculum organization (language used), socio-political aims (e.g. human rights, inclusivity, etc.)
• Relatively less engagement of primary teachers; team took initiative to seek input from colleagues in teacher training institutions
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.6.1. Botswana: Functionally diverse team engaging in Task Conflict
Botswana’s mathematics committee was tasked with developing and organizing
the curriculum content and aims by modifying the initial draft. Team members were
assigned to sub-groups that worked on specific modules across the grades. They also had
“assignments,” as they were tasked with writing specific modules, sometimes overnight.
In discussions, team members presented their opinions about where content was to be
removed or added, or language to be phrased specifically to ensure that teachers across
the country had similar interpretations for consistent implementation. Members presented
their work to the larger group, which provided comments for further development. A
committee member from the ministry of education recalls:
211
You know how we did it … we would divide ourselves … a group will be working on a module, this group will be working on a module. So we assigned modules to ourselves. So as a group if you are assigned module 1, you’ll go and work on module 1 across the standards … you present to the whole group … who will now critique and make comments (BW Committee Member #4, 2010)
Debates ensued between the functionally diverse actors, with informants
particularly noting that teachers and trainers sought to reduce the scope of topics, whereas
MoE officers sought to maintain the number of topics and sub-topics in the drafts.
Debates were related to differences between the perspectives of MoE officers who had
secondary school teaching experience, and practicing primary school teachers and teacher
trainers, who brought their practical experience to bear on revising the drafts, making
them key players in addition to the MoE officers. Committee members with no primary
school teaching experience noted that initially they underestimated the primary school
teaching workload. However, during deliberations they gained a better understanding of
the challenges faced at that level, and primary school teachers and teacher trainers
sometimes convinced the team to reduce the scope of the curriculum, or change the level
of difficulty of material to be more “realistic.” The teacher trainer below indicates how
committee members’ different perspectives from their respective experiences influenced
debates:
I mean in the end there were fights […] we decide this [sub-topic] we don’t want, they should remove it […] These two [pointing to names of Curriculum Development Officers in curriculum document] were from secondary education so they didn’t know much about primary. So they depended on lecturers from colleges of education who had taught in primary schools, and the Education Officers who also have taught in primary schools and then became Education Officers. Everybody participated according to what they were doing … the primary school teachers, they were then actually teaching in the classroom. They knew all the difficulties they were encountering with some of the topics … (BW Committee Member #8, 2010)
For the majority of informants interviewed (N=6), the most memorable debates
on the committee were related to the inclusion of a new topic in the curriculum: Problem
Solving. Some MoE officials were strong advocates for the inclusion of the topic, given
its specification as priority area in policy. However, other committee members opposed
its inclusion, including primary school teachers and teacher trainers, who had no previous
experience learning or teaching the topic, and argued that such a module was more
related to language than mathematics. As a secondary school teacher on the committee
212
noted, the topic was included upon the insistence of the government officials,
representing the “other content” area in Botswana’s curriculum:
[The Curriculum Officers] ... stamped their foot down that [Problem Solving] is coming in. We said ‘no this is not,’ but then they just put their foot down and said, ‘the question is not whether we include it or not. It’s what should we put in as problem solving.’ (BW Committee Member #7, 2010)
Corroborating other informants’ accounts, the same secondary school teacher
noted that with no concrete input on the Problem Solving from primary school teachers
who had no prior experience studying or teaching the topic, “there was a dearth of
ideas,” and a vaguely worded module emerged as a result.
6.4.2.6.2. South Africa: Small team “translating” borrowed curricula under time
pressure
In South Africa, after a Mathematics Working Group (MWG) member had
downloaded several examples of curricula, the MWG members reviewed them, and also
reviewed various research papers as they deliberated over the content and organization of
the curriculum they were developing. A curriculum writer elaborates:
We also read and discussed research papers that focused on particular content areas and mathematical processes that we wanted to reflect but were struggling to formulate into curriculum statements … These papers were helpful in that they gave us a bigger picture of the issues involved, and we had to think through how best to write curriculum statements and learning programme guidelines that took these issues into account (SA Committee Member #C, 2011)
Curriculum writing tasks were divided among five members, who were then to
report on their progress to the group as they proceeded, with the chairperson overseeing
the overall process. One curriculum writer noted the size of the team as having
determined how tasks were allocated, and why there are five learning outcomes in the
mathematics curriculum:
213
So it kind of became a natural division of labor that there would be 5 topics [in the mathematics curriculum] … so measurement is a good example of where we have 5 [topics] because we were 5 members of the committee. Where if there had been 4 members of the writing committee there’s a very good chance that measurement might have been absorbed into geometry (SA Committee Member #A, 2010)
With “streamlining” OBE being a central part of the process, a substantial part of
deliberations within the team were about how to organize the curriculum content, given
the desired aims. In drafting the curriculum documents, the team’s starting point was to
specify the outcomes desired by the end of the GET band. They then specified the
outcomes at the end of the Foundation, Intermediate and Senior Phases in a
developmental way, drawing from other curricula, and taking into account their
estimation of the age and mental maturity of the learners at each phase, as well as the
content load within each grade:
So we wrote grade 9 then we would write grade 6 then we would write grade 3. And then we would fill up the gaps … and where did we get what we wrote? We got it from the international curricula … we’d literally put 6 curricula next to each other. And we’d say what did [each one] do … and then we’d sit about it and we’d talk and we would …you know … we would engage with it, we would debate it, … and then we would write. (Committee Member #A, 2010)
The MWG members interviewed recalled that there were no major disagreements
within the team. Informants attributed the smooth functioning to the previous experiences
some team members had from working with each other in AMESA. Where differences in
team members’ opinions about an issue persisted after debates, consensus was reached by
referring to research papers and the curriculum documents from other countries. Other
key points of discussion included the mathematical language used in documents, as well
as inclusion of language that addressed the crosscutting issues highlighted during
briefings, such as human rights and inclusivity. On the deliberations of the team, a writer
states:
We also had long deliberations about links between mathematical contents and how to make these visible … There was lots of deliberation around language usage, wanting to be mathematically precise, but also keep language accessible for teachers … We had to deliberate where and on how we were going to address the more general curriculum concerns about inclusivity, human rights issues, social and cultural awareness and sensitivity, in a mathematics curriculum. There were also concerns about making links to other Learning Areas, which we had to consider. (SA Committee Member #C, 2011)
214
With no formally specified manner for draft curricula to be reviewed by other
teachers during the process, members of the committee took initiative in engaging their
colleagues to provide feedback. Of particular note was the input provided by a school
development unit (SDU) where one of the teacher trainers worked. The SDU engaged in
deliberating over the draft documents as they were developed, as a committee member
recalls:
[The committee member] would often go back to the schools development unit with the work that we developed and they would sort of interrogate it. They had a culture of sitting down on a Wednesday afternoon, taking the document, reading it, talking about it, negotiating it … [That] was entirely coincidental. It was not in the design … (SA Committee Member #A, 2010)
Committee members also noted that in-between meetings, they consulted
informally with their colleagues at the teacher training institutes where they worked.
Their colleagues also provided them with teachers’ materials that they consulted as they
developed the curriculum documents.
6.4.2.7. Processes: Finalizing curricula as “bricolage”
Summary. There were divergences in the finalization of curricula in the two
cases compared (see Table 6 - 14). Members of the Botswana committee were formally
included in leading workshops held with stakeholders to revise and finalize the
curriculum, after which the documents were vetted in formally specified processes. South
Africa’s committee finalized the curriculum documents after receiving public comments,
but committee members had no formal involvement in determining the final layout of the
curriculum document, or in conducting teacher-training workshops upon the completion
of their curriculum-writing contracts.
215
Table 6 - 14. Botswana and South Africa: Finalizing curriculum documents Botswana South Africa • Committee members led stakeholder
workshops, after which there was refinement of curriculum statement
• Teachers’ guide developed after workshops, after which curriculum documents finalized through MoE specified processes
• Public hearings and comment period encouraged practicing teachers to review and provide feedback on all draft documents; “very few” comments received
• Refinement and finalization of all documents after public hearings and comment period
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.7.1. Botswana: Consulting Stakeholders in Sequenced Revision and Finalization
For mathematics, as with other subjects, consultation workshops were held for
key stakeholders, mostly Education Officers, teachers, and textbook publishers to solicit
their input for finalizing drafts. The workshops identified problematic or challenging
items in the curriculum, and based on the feedback obtained, refinements were made. A
primary school teacher who was a curriculum committee member had participated in
workshops, and recalls the feedback obtained and changes made:
We took the draft to teachers before it was finalized. The teachers’ comments changed the draft. The specific objectives changed, and even the general objectives. You find that teachers were saying if you look at the objectives some say ‘develop further knowledge’ … We used ‘further’ a lot in the draft syllabus, and so based on the comments we changed the structure and used more specific language … The comments about the specific objectives was that some were too many, and the teachers felt that for example combining 1.1.1.1 with another reduces the number of objectives to be covered (BW Committee Member #5, 2009)
Subsequently, support materials were developed based on the syllabus, including
teaching guides for teachers, as well as training programs for teacher trainers. After,
teams of curriculum formulation officers reviewed the refined drafts for each subject in
turn, focusing on whether the documents met the specifications spelt out in manuals, and
whether the processes of curriculum formulation were followed. After, a Curriculum
Inter-Departmental Task Force reviewed the documents for each particular subject,
including mathematics. The task force for mathematics comprised mathematics experts
from the University of Botswana, and other departments in the Ministry of Education,
including the departments concerned with primary and secondary education, and teacher
216
training. They checked for technical issues, such as mathematical accuracy, and how the
documents relate to broader curriculum aims.
Finally, the draft documents were vetted by a Ministry Performance Improvement
Committee (MPIC), which was chaired by the Deputy Permanent Secretary with other
directors at the Ministry of Education serving as members. The MPIC reviewed the
curriculum to verify that it was consistent with broad policy goals. The MPIC’s approval
of the documents and the Deputy Permanent Secretary’s signature signified the final step
for the curriculum to be officially implemented.
6.4.2.7.2. South Africa: Receiving public comments
After drafts of the curriculum were completed by June 2001, they were sent out
for public comments during July-October 2001. Public hearings were held in November
2001, with teacher unions playing a critical and supportive role in the process (Chisholm
Communication). Feedback received for intermediate mathematics concerned curriculum
organization, including using simplified language for the curriculum documents. One
writer recalls that the feedback did not result in major changes to the drafts, which were
finalized by April 2002:
Very few … very very very very very few [comments were made] … but there were comments made … some of those submissions were useful in the sense that we used them to tweak the document, but we certainly did no more than a few tweaks (SA Committee Member #A, 2010)
Other informants who had been involved in various phases of mathematics
curriculum development in both the C2005 and RNCS formulation commented that both
processes were characterized by limited public comment when drafts were presented to
the general public and teachers. However, after implementation began, there was much
criticism from teachers as they attempted to enact the curricula (C2005 Mathematics
Committee Member, 2010), as was the case in other subjects.
217
6.4.2.8. Processes: Planning implementation
Summary. In both countries, implementation design was outside the mathematics
committees’ mandates (Table 6 - 15). In Botswana, the curriculum development unit
collaborated with other departments in a formative evaluation of the initial
implementation of the curricula in grade 5, which provided minimal recommendations for
subsequent grade 6 implementation. In South Africa, implementation plans developed by
an Implementation Working Group (IWG) in parallel with the development of curricula
were rejected as being “unrealistic,” after which the DoE developed its own plan for a
phased implementation. Below I elaborate on the differences in how implementation
design was organized in the two countries.
Table 6 - 15. Botswana and South Africa: Planning curriculum implementation Botswana South Africa • Implementation design outside MSP
mandate (responsibility of Primary Education Dept., Teacher Training Dept., etc.)
• No formal piloting; 6th grade implementation informed by formative evaluation of 4th & 5th grade implementation
• Phased implementation by grade: Grade 5 in 2005; Grade 6 in 2006
• Implementation design outside MWG mandate (responsibility of Implementation Working Group (IWG). IWG plan rejected as “unrealistic” and re-done internally by DoE
• No formal piloting
• Phased implementation by grade clusters: (Grade 4-6) in 2005
Sources: Botswana, South Africa document reviews and interviews.
6.4.2.8.1. Botswana: Formative evaluation of 4th and 5th grade before 6th grade
implementation
The implementation of the sixth grade mathematics curriculum reforms in 2006
was preceded by a formative evaluation of reform implementation by the CDU in 2005,
“to learn from the standard 4 and 5 implementation experiences” and “provide feedback
to inform the Standard 6 implementation,” as specified by curriculum guidelines (MoE,
2005, p. 3). The evaluation involved surveying teachers and school heads in over 250
sampled schools during the first year of implementation. Findings from the evaluation
218
were documented in a Standard 4 and 5 Formative Evaluation Report, which reported the
following:
Mathematics seems to have the least number of implementation problems. The most common problem in Mathematics, like in all other subjects was the lack of instructional materials and equipment … Respondents indicated that they had problems of making children understand Mathematics using English as a medium of instruction … Objectives were said to be too many.
Among the problems noted, the report’s short list of recommendations suggested
that instructional materials be distributed early to avoid shortages in schools. However,
there were no recommendations addressing the issues of language and scope (i.e.
objectives being too many).
6.4.2.8.2. South Africa: Development of “unrealistic” implementation plan
In South Africa, implementation plans were developed in parallel with the
development of curricula. An Implementation Working Group (IWG) was established to
develop an implementation plan at the same time as the subject working groups. In other
words, plans for implementation were made under the same short timelines and other
conditions as have been described for the Mathematics Working Group (MWG). A
member of the Mathematics Working Group recalled, “it was made very clear that we
were not to concern ourselves with matters of implementation” (SA Committee Member
#A, 2010).
The simultaneous development of the Implementation Plan with subject curricula
is especially noteworthy, as the draft plan was completed at the same time as draft subject
curricula. It was not possible for the IWG group to have factored in specific learning area
issues in its plan. Submissions received about the IWG plan criticized it as being “too
removed from the realities of schools” (IWG Comment Document, 2001), and the plan
was rejected. Ultimately, the implementation of RNCS was planned through internal
processes of the DoE. Implementation of the curriculum at the Intermediate Phase
(grades 4-6) began in 2005. There was no piloting. Reasons given included lack of
219
funding, and the political infeasibility of offering a new curriculum to some schools while
excluding others.
6.5. Discussion
Within the divergent socio-political contexts of Botswana and South Africa, there
were differences in teachers’ roles in curriculum formulation processes, and in the
curricula that emerged, although there were also some similarities. From the institutional
work perspective that I use, divergences emerged from the ways in which structures –
specifically, policies and organizational structures that had been developed over time –
interacted with teachers’ agency, as they participated in curriculum formulation processes
in the two socio-political contexts.
Curriculum formulation committees’ members, including teachers, are agents
whose institutional work efforts to reform their education systems by creating new
curricula are temporally embedded, as they “contextualize past habits and future projects
within the contingencies of the moment” (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009, pp. 41, 47). In
Botswana, a functionally diverse curriculum formulation committee experienced tensions
between practicing teachers’ focus on their experiences of having been students and
teachers under older curricular regimes, and the future-orientation of government
officials who were focused on developing curriculum documents to meet policy aims. In
South Africa, a racially diverse, post-apartheid curriculum formulation committee was in
effect urged by a then new education minister to continue disrupting apartheid structures
by not being “constrained” by the past, but rather focus on the future.
6.5.2. Institutional Creation in Botswana
Within Botswana’s stable policy contexts and centrally governed organizational
structures in the early 2000s, the mathematics curriculum committee members built upon
previous reform experiences and engaged in institutional creation (Figure 6 - 9). In a
220
context where curriculum formulation processes had been formalized as part of policies
adopted during the 1980s and 1990s, decision-makers on committees translated
information from the past as they projected into the future. Government officials created
an initial draft by translating curriculum development manuals that had codified past
experiences of foreign and local curriculum development agents, and had specified that
information from practicing teachers’ past habits were essential for curriculum
development. Translation also occurred as teachers, teacher trainers, and others brought
knowledge from their past teaching experiences and engaged in “group work” in
committees, and obtained other stakeholders’ inputs in refining and finalizing draft
curricula. Translation processes resulted in the creation of curriculum documents that
drew upon various resources, a bricolage of past curricular habits and future aspirations
that had been formalized in policy.
Figure 6 - 9. Botswana: Curricula emerging from institutional creation processes
The committee also reacted to shocks, some of which were anticipated from past
experiences. For example, Botswana’s curriculum development manual noted that delays
were likely to arise in curriculum formulation processes, and recommended not be bound
by unrealistic deadlines, but rather, revise time estimates when needed. Initial estimates
of 24 months for completion of curriculum documents in the early 2000s were not
achieved, as a slow-paced formulation processes resulted from various factors, including
time constraints faced by practicing teachers on the committee, long debates that ensued
between the diverse members, and the phased approach to materials development. With
structure: coherent, multi-focused
policies; partially unified inter-
org. structures outcome: relatively specified
curriculum documents
process: institutional
creation structure:
past curricular practices
221
knowledge from the past, timelines were adjusted, and curriculum formulation was
completed over a 40-month period. Additionally, evaluating the implementation of the
grade 1-4 syllabus indicated problems that may not have been anticipated, for informing
the implementation of the grade 5-7 syllabuses.
6.5.2. Institutional Disruption and Creation in South Africa
Although apartheid had formally ended in South Africa by the early 2000s, after
initial fast-paced attempts to adopt a post-apartheid Curriculum 2005 had “failed,” the
mathematics curriculum committee’s formulation efforts were made in an environment
that was still focused on using participatory processes for disrupting apartheid’s
“oppressive structures”, while also engaging in institutional creation. Post-apartheid
policies adopted in the 1990s led to the emergence of participatory, decentralized
organizational structures (Chapter 5).
The organizational structures in which formulation efforts occurred during the
early 2000s reflected efforts to adapt the first post-apartheid curriculum, employing
participatory processes that were decentralized, but with some oversight from the DoE. In
the context of having emerged from a repressive apartheid system, structures that may
have been perceived to be authoritarian were not selected, but rather, curriculum
committees were given relatively high autonomy, and they had relatively high flexibility
in using what processes they saw fit for developing curriculum documents. Also, there
was limited monitoring of the curriculum committees. As opposed to the approach in
Botswana, where Curriculum Development Officers were mandated to lead curriculum-
writing processes, South Africa’s committees’ members’ roles emerged, and there was a
“mentor” assigned to the group, representing some limited oversight, in what I
characterize as a partially unified structure (Figure 6 - 10).
222
Figure 6 - 10. South Africa: Curricula emerging from institutional disruption and creation processes in partially unified curriculum development structure
In projecting towards the future, curriculum committee members attempted to
translate information from diverse sources, including curricula “borrowed” from a
number of English-speaking industrialized countries. Borrowed curricula had to be
revised for implementation in the South African context, a process that required time.
However, given time pressures, there was limited input from practicing teachers to
develop a coherent, specified curriculum (i.e. a “bricolage”) to the extent achieved in
Botswana. In South Africa, reactions to “shocks” included the extension of the
curriculum development timeline from the initial 6 months estimated, with the processes
completed after 15 months. However, committee members indicated that the extension
was insufficient for adequately specifying the curriculum. Thus, the NCS curriculum that
emerged was relatively less structured, and had a bigger scope than that of Botswana,
although the NCS was perceived to be more coherent than the previous C2005. South
Africa’s relatively broader, and more vague NCS curriculum was associated with greater
variation in implementation, and less curriculum coverage than in Botswana (Chapter 5;
see also Carnoy et al., 2012 forthcoming).
structure: participatory focus of
multiple policies, partially unified curriculum
development structure outcome:
relatively less specified
curriculum documents
process: institutional disruption &
creation structure: limited input from
previous curricular experiences
223
6. Conclusion
This chapter has highlighted curriculum formulation as group processes, in which
teachers contribute to the institutional work of curriculum reform. Group processes of
formulating curricula involve functionally diverse committee members, including
teachers, whose actions are shaped by their past experiences and future-oriented reform
priorities, and time pressures from the environment in which they are embedded.
Qualitative methods were employed, including analyzing documents and
interviews from Botswana and South Africa. This comparative study finds that despite
teachers participating in committees that formulated the primary school mathematics
curricula in Botswana and South Africa in the early 2000s, in the relatively more
politicized context of South Africa, primary school teachers were unable to provide much
input from their experiences during formulation processes that were relatively more
rushed. Thus, a relatively more vague curriculum with a larger scope emerged in South
Africa.
My process perspective sheds light on how structure interacts with human agency
in determining group outcomes in SSA. The work of teachers and other members of
curriculum committees exemplifies the “practical-evaluative” institutional work that
occurs at the group level, during which decision-makers’ actions are as a result of
interactions between the time pressures they face, their past experiences of the policy
contexts and organizational structures within which they have been embedded, and their
visions of the future (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009, p. 41, 47). Further research is needed
to develop a better understanding of how group processes shape educational and
organizational outcomes in SSA.
224
CHAPTER 7. REFORM PROCESSES AS INSTITUTIONAL WORK
In this chapter, I conclude my dissertation by discussing teachers’ roles in multi-
level, multi-phased curriculum reform processes as institutional work (Lawrence &
Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2011); teachers engage in purposive action that is aimed
at creating, maintaining, or disrupting curricula in the socio-political contexts within
which they are embedded. Given the consensus that teachers are “the key to change” in
educational reforms worldwide (Kilpatrick, 2009), my dissertation has entered the debate
about whether teachers shape or are shaped by reforms. I have shown cases of how
teachers iteratively shape, and are shaped during reform processes.
This chapter draws upon my analyses of documents, interviews of policymakers
and teachers, teacher surveys, assessments, and classroom data. Although the cases
studied of reform processes do not allow for making grand causal claims, they emphasize
history in showing how Botswana and South Africa teachers’ teaching and non-teaching
roles in the 2000s were enabled or constrained at three levels: by policies, organizational
structures, and curricula that they had partly contributed to creating in prior periods in
their respective socio-political contexts.
From the three levels, teachers had multiple roles. First, teachers were members
of societies who engaged in societal reform processes spanning decades, out of which
education policies emerged. Second, teachers inhabited multiple organizations, such as
schools, government agencies, teacher training institutes, and teacher unions and
professional organizations, through which they participated in teaching and non-teaching
activities, such as curriculum development and providing curriculum support over
multiple years. Third, teachers were members of groups, specifically in this study,
curriculum formulation committees that spent several months developing curriculum
materials that were then used in schools. In Botswana’s Southern Region and South
Africa’s North-West Province (NWP), the non-teaching responsibilities of sampled
teachers competed for the time they spent teaching in the 2009 school year. In the post-
apartheid South African context that emphasized socio-political curriculum aims of
225
democratizing curriculum, NWP teachers had more expansive non-teaching roles, and a
more ambitious curriculum with a relatively bigger scope and less structure emerged, as
compared to the case of Botswana. The gaps between the intended curriculum and
implemented curriculum were bigger in the NWP than across the border, in Botswana’s
Southern Region. My study suggests that during curriculum formulation, allowing for
time to incorporate practicing teachers’ past experiences as input for planning curriculum
support and implementation results in curricula that have relatively greater specificity and
smaller scope, making them more likely to be implemented as intended.
The chapter is in three sections. I begin with a discussion of my dissertation
study’s theoretical contributions to the curriculum studies and institutional theory
literatures. Second, I discuss the policy implications of my findings, with
recommendations for additional curriculum reforms that are taking place in Botswana
and South Africa, and other parts of the world. Third, I recognize the limitations of my
retrospective case study approach, and I provide recommendations for longitudinal
process research to investigate teachers’ roles in multi-level and multi-phased curriculum
reform processes as they occur.
7.1. Theoretical contributions: Curriculum studies and institutional theory
My dissertation contributes to curriculum studies and institutional theory
literatures. I presented three perspectives on teachers’ roles in reforms, as members of
societies, organizations, and curriculum formulation committees. I used a process
approach for each perspective (Pettigrew, 1997), as I analyzed (i) the environments
within which teachers’ roles played out in reform processes in Botswana and South
Africa, (ii) the events that constituted the processes, and (iii) outcomes that emerged at
the levels of society, organizational field, and curriculum formulation committees. I
highlight how teachers’ roles in institutional change processes of multi-phased
curriculum reforms extend beyond teaching, during curriculum implementation, to non-
teaching roles during curriculum formulation and provision of curriculum support.
226
Speaking to the curriculum studies literature, I contribute to developing a model
of the complex relationships between teachers’ roles and multiple levels and phases of
curriculum reforms and outcomes, beyond teaching in classrooms. Additionally, my
findings inform debates in institutional theory about how social structure and the agency
of individuals – especially teachers in my cases studied – shape, and are shaped during
institutional change processes (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Emirbayer, 1997; Emirbayer
& Johnson, 2008; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998), building on Giddens’ (1976; 1979; 1984)
theory of structuration and Bourdieu’s (1977; 1984) theory of practice.
Specifically contributing to the emerging literature on institutional work
(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2009; 2011), my comparative analysis
highlights teachers’ roles in curriculum reforms, with some variation from one country’s
socio-political context to another, even where teachers inhabit environments that are
adjacent to each other, as in the cases of Botswana and South Africa. I find similarities
and differences in the curriculum reform roles of teachers from similar cultural
backgrounds, who live on either side of the two countries’ shared border.
7.1.1. Curriculum reforms as multi-level, multi-phase processes
Whereas studies reviewed about curriculum reforms adopt static viewpoints
(Chapter 2), my process study presents a fresh perspective on the dynamic nature of
reforms. From the cases of Botswana and South Africa that were studied, curriculum
reforms occur within multiple levels of structure that are respectively provided by
policies, inter-organizational structures, and curriculum documents within the socio-
political environment of each country. In iterative processes, teachers are affected by, and
effect reforms at various levels, as members of society, inhabitants of Curriculum Policy-
Practice (CPP) fields, and as group members in curriculum formulation committees or
teams in schools, education administration offices, unions, and other organizations to
which they may belong.
Figure 7 - 1 below represents the multi-level, multi-phase model in which
teachers engage in reform processes. Building on studies that have analyzed curriculum
policymaking and implementation separately (Fataar, 2006; Tabulawa, 2003), I showed
227
how teachers play roles in multiple phases of curriculum policy-practice processes,
comprising:
i. Curriculum formulation, which includes the development of curriculum materials,
such as curriculum statements, teacher guides, and implementation plans;
ii. Curriculum support, which includes administration and teacher training; and
iii. Curriculum implementation, which includes teaching as well as non-teaching
activities, such as student assessment, participation in school meetings, and
sporting and cultural events, for realizing non-academic curriculum aims.
Figure 7 - 1. A curriculum policy-practice (CPP) process model
In each case, at each of three levels there are interactions between the respective
structures and teachers’ agency during reform processes, out of which outcomes
respectively emerge. Within each country’s socio-political context, reform processes
occur at the level of society, and education policies emerge over time from the actions of
social actors, including teachers. The model also specifies the CPP field organizational
Outcome: Success (small policy-practice gaps) / Failure (large policy-practice gaps)
A: Curriculum Formulation
(Group)
C: Implementation (e.g. Teaching, non-teaching
work)
B: Support (e.g. Teacher
Training)
evaluations, consultations, observations (inner arrows, time t-1)
curriculum statement/syllabus, teacher guide, time t+1
implementation plan, time t+1
resources, time t+1
Curriculum Policy-Practice Field
Society
228
structures involved in three phases of CPP processes – formulation (A); support (B); and
implementation (C). Policies emerging from society-level processes provide the structure
from which the CPP field emerges in turn (as shown by the arrow from Society to the
CPP field), including the inter-organizational structures of the field. Within the CPP field,
information flowing from organizational actors (including teachers’ organizations) link
each phase of the processes: curriculum formulation, support, and implementation.
In this model, teachers and other actors in organizations, including government
officials, make decisions based on past experiences and their projections of future goals.
Actors’ prior experiences with curriculum implementation, support, and formulation may
inform curriculum reforms. This dissertation highlighted the links between curriculum
formulation and the other phases, given that despite the impact of curriculum formulation
on support and implementation, there is little knowledge about formulation processes in
SSA (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008). I characterize the organizational actors, and the
roles that teachers and other individual actors (e.g. teacher trainers and government
officials) play in reform processes.
At any given time (t) within a CPP field, experiences from curriculum
implementation and support in the past period (t-1) are to inform curriculum formulation
committee members as they develop curricula (indicated by the inner arrows, from phase
B and C respectively towards A), for achieving future-oriented curricular goals. The
curricula are codified in curriculum materials, such as curriculum statements or syllabi,
and implementation plans that the curriculum committees develop.
Subsequently, in period t+1 (indicated by outer arrows), the curriculum materials
then shape curriculum implementation directly, as curriculum materials enter the
classroom (outer arrow from phase A towards phase C), as well as indirectly, via the
curriculum support phase that includes the pre- and in-service training of teachers and
provision of administrative support for teachers implementing the curriculum in
classrooms (outer arrows from phase A towards phase B, and then towards phase C).
Each CPP phase is concerned with the various aspects of curriculum, which my
study conceptualizes differently from the dichotomized “intended” versus “enacted”
concepts of curriculum (see Leyendecker, 2008). To specify a framework for
comparisons, I mapped curriculum theory with existing knowledge of reforms. Drawing
229
upon a framework from Walker (1990), and from my reviews of documents and
curricula, I specified three fundamental curriculum elements – or curriculum reform
priorities – that receive varying degrees of attention during reforms: (i) aims, (ii) content,
and (iii) organization. From the institutional theory perspective, the curriculum reform
priorities were conceptualized as institutional logics, or the practices and symbolic
constructions that provide guidelines for individuals and organizations within an
organizational field, about how they are to carry out their work (Friedland & Alford,
1991, p. 248; Scott, 2001, p. 139). The three curriculum reform priorities or CPP
institutional logics and their components are summarized below (Table 7 - 1).
Table 7 - 1. Summary of curriculum reform priorities Priority Description Aims: Why reform
Academic Provide academic (mathematics) skills Economic/Individual Potential
Enable each individual to realize his or her full potential in a career path
Socio-political Address societal needs by preparing each individual for roles as citizens
Content: What to reform Subjects & Topics What subjects should be reformed (6th grade mathematics) Language What language to use in the mathematics curriculum (English)
Organization: How to reform Content-Aims Organization
How given mathematics topics and language should be organized in curriculum documents to address given curriculum aims (e.g. structure and language of the curriculum in relating content and aims)
Scope How many mathematics sub/topics, and how many aims should be included in the curriculum (related to the breadth/depth of teaching)
Schedule How sub/topics, and curriculum aims should be allocated to specific time schedules in a day, week, term, or year
Sequence/Pacing How sub/topics should be ordered and presented over time Implementation Design How to deliver the curriculum, including planning the resources and support
to be provided for implementation (e.g. planning for training, administrative activities, etc.)
Evaluation How to evaluate teaching and learning (e.g. continuous assessment, criterion/norm-referenced testing)
Source: Adapted from Walker (1990); Botswana and South Africa interviews
Where diverse actors bring multiple perspectives to institutional processes, there
may be competition between institutional logics, and institutional change is more likely
(Scott, 2008a; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). For curriculum reforms to be institutionalized,
the multiple curriculum reform priorities – aims, content, and organization – should be
addressed in each of the three CPP phases that are outlined in this study. For example,
230
curriculum statements and implementation plans that are developed during the
formulation phase should address curriculum aims, content and organization to support
curriculum implementing. At the curriculum support phase, teachers must be trained on
the aims of reforms, subject content, and organization, including guidance on how to
deliver the curriculum. During the implementation phase, teachers then address the three
curriculum priorities in their classroom practices, as they attempt to achieve academic,
economic, and socio-political aims by delivering subject content, guided by curriculum
organization structures. Specifically, curriculum documents, such as syllabi and teacher
manuals provide guidance on how curriculum aims and content should interact in lessons,
the scope, the schedule, sequence and pacing of lesson presentation, resources to be used
in delivery, and how teaching and learning are to be evaluated.
However, curriculum aims are particularly evident in Outcomes Based Education
(OBE), which focuses on specifying the desired outcomes of education, rather than the
content or organization. OBE has been adopted in several SSA countries, including
Botswana and South Africa. Looking beyond the rhetoric that countries use in declaring
their adoption of OBE, this study highlighted divergence in emphasis placed on different
curriculum reform aims in the socio-political contexts of the two countries studied, and
differences in reform processes and outcomes that emerged. In the next section, I
elaborate on the study’s contribution to understanding teachers’ roles in curriculum
reform processes.
7.1.2. Curriculum reform as institutional work
My study contributes to the emerging literature on institutional work (Lawrence
& Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2011), which is defined as “the purposive action of
individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions.”
Departing from the dichotomies of prior studies, I characterize teachers as neither
completely “trapped by institutional arrangements” of curriculum policies, nor as
“hypermuscular institutional entrepreneurs” whose agency in shaping curriculum reforms
knows no bounds (Lawrence et al., 2009, p. 1; also see Hwang & Powell 2005).
231
My three perspectives of comparative cases from Botswana and South Africa –
societies, curriculum policy-practice fields, and curriculum formulation committees –
highlighted teachers’ roles in two forms of institutional work, based on the frameworks
provided by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48): institutional creation and institutional
disruption (Table 7 - 2). From my data, at the societal and organizational field levels,
institutional creation involved “inventing”/ “creating proto-institutions,” “establishing
institutional mechanisms,” “advocating diffusion,” “improvising,” and “modifying.” For
my curriculum committee level data, institutional creation was characterized by
“translation,” “bricolage”, and “reacting to shocks.” At the societal and organizational
field levels, institutional disruption involved “attacking the legitimacy or taken-for-
grantedness of an institution,” “undermining institutional mechanisms,” “failing to enact
an institutional practice,” and “institutional forgetting.” At the group level institutional
disruption was characterized by “avoiding institutional monitoring and sanction,” and
“not selecting institutional practices/selecting others.”
Table 7 - 2. Types of agency and forms of institutional work Level/Perspective Institutional creation Institutional disruption Societal and CPP field
• inventing/creating proto-institutions
• establishing institutional mechanisms
• advocating diffusion • improvising • modifying
• attacking the legitimacy or taken-for-grantedness of an institution
• undermining institutional mechanisms • failing to enact an institutional practice • institutional forgetting
Group • translation • bricolage • reacting to shocks
• avoiding institutional monitoring and sanction
• not selecting institutional practices/selecting others
Source: Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48)
The comparative cases showed that the curriculum reform priorities that emerge,
and teachers’ roles in the institutional work of curriculum reforms vary from one country
to another, given differences in the histories of each society. In the different socio-
political contexts of countries, policies, organizational structures, and curricula reflect
different forms of institutional work that involve teachers who have roles at national,
provincial/regional, district, or school levels. Teachers are simultaneously part of the
impulse for curriculum reforms, and are also bound by structures (curriculum policies,
232
organizational structures, and curricula) that emerge from reform processes that they
sometimes contributed to instituting across space (countries) and time (decades, years,
and months respectively). Institutional creation or disruption actions may then facilitate
or constrain teachers’ roles in curriculum implementation.
7.1.2.1. Societal perspective: Working as members of society
Teachers and other members of society are embedded within their specific
country’s socio-political context, which is also shaped by the global context at each
particular point in history. Specifically, within each country’s socio-political context, the
formulation, support, and implementation of curricula emerge from societal processes
that may span decades, with teachers being among the social actors who shape the
processes.
Within the respective socio-political contexts of Botswana and South Africa, over
a period of decades, teachers were involved in shaping curriculum polices that emerged
by the mid-1990s, albeit in divergent ways. In the early 20th century, during periods of
colonization in SSA, formal education in Botswana and South Africa expanded through
the work of teachers who were community members, missionaries, and civil servants.
Later in the 20th century, teachers’ curriculum reform roles included institutional creation
(particularly, Botswana case) as well as institutional disruption (South Africa case).
Whereas state-led processes in Botswana engaged in steady institutional creation efforts
in education since independence in 1966, South Africa’s societal processes up to the
1990s focused on policies to disrupt apartheid era institutions, with relatively less
specification for creating post-apartheid curriculum institutions.
After decades of being colonized, Botswana society engaged in institutional
creation, and attempted to develop its education system by adopting multi-focused
policies with a long-term orientation. Over the 1970s-1990s, state-led processes that
included teachers led to Botswana’s policies that have addressed teacher training and
curriculum development, reflecting the multiple curriculum reform priorities in multi-
phased processes of reform. Relative stability and continuity have characterized
education policies and practices at the basic education level (i.e. elementary/primary and
233
middle/junior secondary school). Botswana’s first major education policy, the 1977
National Policy on Education (NPE), was adopted 11 years after independence, with
modifications that further specified teacher training, administrator capacity building, and
curriculum development made in the 1994 Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE)
17 years later. The RNPE goals were further reemphasized in another policy document,
Vision 2016, which was developed in 1997, in anticipation of Botswana’s 50th
independence anniversary.
Although South Africa is adjacent to Botswana, its divergent history was one of
institutionalized racial segregation under apartheid, from 1948, during which different
races experienced divergent school curricula. Over decades, teachers were members of
society who engaged in the institutional work of disrupting apartheid, notably over the
1980s and 1990s, when they employed political resistance, such strikes, until apartheid
crumbled in the mid-1990s. Policies that emerged from that process were focused on
“forgetting” apartheid’s authoritarian and segregated structures, by replacing them with
participatory curriculum development structures. The policies that teachers contributed to
shaping by the mid-1990s provided the context for teachers’ roles in schools, unions, and
other organizations that were concerned with curriculum policy and practice after that
period.
7.1.2.2. Organizational field perspective: Working as organizations’ members
In addition to teachers being members of society, they are members of
organizations that are concerned with curriculum policy and practice, constituting
curriculum policy-practice (CPP) fields. Within CPP fields in different socio-political
contexts, teachers’ institutional work may include multiple roles in various organizations
during the multiple phases of curriculum reforms (formulation, support, and
implementation), in national curriculum formulation committees, provincial/regional and
district agencies providing curriculum support, or administrative school groups.
Teachers’ roles in various organizations within each CPP field are associated with
tensions between the time they spend teaching versus engaging in non-teaching work.
The inter-organizational structures that iteratively emerged from, and shaped teachers’
234
work in both Botswana and South Africa were either unified, partially unified, or
fragmented (Table 7 - 3). In the relatively more racially diverse context of South Africa, a
relatively more fragmented CPP emerged as participatory organizational structures were
set up at national, provincial, and district and school levels, with teachers having more
expansive non-teaching roles in such structures, relative to the context of a more
homogenous Botswana.
Table 7 - 3. Types of inter-organizational structures and cases Type of structure
Case
unified organizational subunit in centralized curriculum development structure (e.g. Botswana Curriculum Development and Evaluation Department, CD&E)
fragmented quasi-independent organizations with conflicting, uncoordinated curriculum demands (e.g. South Africa curriculum support structures)
partially unified
quasi-independent organizations governed under centralized structure, coherent policy (e.g. Botswana teacher training structures; South Africa curriculum development structures)
Using the theoretical framework provided by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p.
46), two forms of institutional work were salient in the processes studied. Within
Botswana’s stable policy contexts, CPP field organizational actors engaged in
institutional creation, which involved relatively slow-paced processes of creating proto-
institutions, establishing institutional mechanisms, advocating diffusion, improvisation,
and modification of processes for teacher training, administrator capacity building, and
curriculum development. Botswana teachers were involved in state-led processes out of
which emerged a CPP field with relatively less fragmented inter-organizational structures
as compared with the case in South Africa. Curriculum formulation is conducted within a
centrally governed curriculum development bureaucracy that has coherent links with a
partially unified curriculum support structure. Within this field, Botswana teachers
participated in teams within the Ministry of Education (MoE) that established curriculum
reform institutional mechanisms by codifying curriculum processes that were later used
to standardize the curricula of schools and teacher training colleges by the late 1990s.
There are relatively strong, coherent linkages from curriculum formulation to support and
implementation, which emerged out of the multi-pronged approach that specified
organizational structures for curriculum development, and for developing the capacities
235
of administrators and teachers by the 1990s (Figure 7 - 2). By the 2000s, teachers’ roles
were relatively more streamlined within the relatively unified CPP field.
Figure 7 - 2. Botswana’s relatively unified curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field
From an organization studies perspective, this comparative institutional work
account finds that after a decades-long anti-apartheid struggle, South Africa’s CPP field
organizational actors engaged in relatively fast-paced institutional disruption attempts in
the 1990s, with relatively less specification of slower-paced institutional creation efforts.
Choosing participatory curriculum reform organizational structures and processes in the
1990s exemplified institutional disruption of apartheid through failing to enact
authoritarian apartheid practices. Integrating racially segregated organizations, closing
teacher-training colleges, and leaving teacher training to be governed by decentralized
Outcome: Relative success
(relatively small policy-practice gaps)
A: Curriculum Formulation
(Group)
C: Implementation (e.g. Teaching, non-teaching
work)
B: Support (e.g. Teacher
Training)
curriculum statement/syllabus, teacher guide, time t+1
resources, time t+1
Curriculum Policy-Practice Field
Society
Key:
Unified structure (coherent links)
Partially unified structure (partially coherent links)
Fragmented structure (incoherent links)
implementation plan, time t+1
evaluations, consultations, observations (inner arrows, time t-1)
236
universities and provincial governments also exemplify “institutional forgetting” of an
authoritarian apartheid past.
There has been some institutional creation, although further efforts are needed to
address challenges that persist. After decades of anti-apartheid struggle, and post-
apartheid disruption work, teachers’ unions and professional organizations emerged in
the 1990s to play key roles in relatively fragmented curriculum reform organizational
structures. By the 2000s, teachers had relatively expansive roles in the multi-
organizational field in which teacher unions and other organizations were all to
participate in a democratized reform processes. The CPP field is relatively fragmented,
and there are relatively weak, or incoherent linkages between curriculum formulation,
support, and implementation structures emerging out of an approach that has left
unspecified the roles of teachers on curriculum formulation committees, as well as how to
develop curriculum support, particularly teacher training, while teachers’ time is spent
participating in multiple organizations (Figure 7 - 3).
237
Figure 7 - 3. South Africa’s relatively fragmented curriculum policy-practice (CPP) field
After 2009, South Africa undertook another review of its curriculum, as teachers
complained about the workload posed by the Revised National Curriculum Statement
(DoE, 2009). Reforms began in 2010, illustrative of the role that teachers play in
initiating reforms. However, in the politicized context, it remains to be seen whether
reform processes and outcomes will differ from the previous attempts that were made in
1994, 1997, and in the early 2000s.
Outcome: Relative failure
(relatively big policy-practice gaps, leading to further system-wide reforms)
A: Curriculum Formulation
(Group)
C: Implementation (e.g. Teaching, non-teaching
work)
B: Support (e.g. Teacher
Training)
evaluations, consultations,
observations, time t-1
curriculum statement/syllabus, teacher guide, time t+1
implementation plan, time t+1
resources, time t+1
Curriculum Policy-Practice Field
Society
Key:
Unified structure (coherent links)
Partially unified structure (partially coherent links)
Fragmented structure (incoherent links)
238
7.1.2.3. Group perspective: Working as curriculum formulation committee
members
At the group level, teachers’ institutional work in curriculum reforms was
exemplified by their non-teaching roles as members of national curriculum formulation
committees. Teachers participated in curriculum committees to provide their perspectives
for shaping curriculum documents in their capacities as practicing teachers from their
schools (both Botswana and South Africa cases), or as representatives of teacher
organizations, such as unions (South Africa case). Teachers’ work with teacher trainers
and government officials on curriculum committees constitutes group work. The
committees’ processes, and the roles that teachers play, occur over several months within
each the context of each country’s policies and inter-organizational structures, with
curriculum documents emerging as the outcomes, which in turn shape curriculum support
(including administration and teacher training) and implementation.
As part of curriculum committees’ processes, they elaborate on, and specify
curriculum reform priorities: aims, content, and organization. While my study explored
the three curriculum reform priorities, my findings highlighted curriculum organization
during curriculum formulation. Debates about reform failure often focus on pedagogy
related to curriculum aims, and assessments related to content (Cuban, 2006). However,
Walker (1990) suggests that curriculum organization most directly affects practice, and it
is often underspecified in reforms (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008), potentially resulting
in policy-practice gaps that may vary from one education system to another. The cases
showed that on curriculum committees, practicing teachers’ concern and their expertise
was in curriculum organization, which is linked most directly with implementation.
My study focused on two aspects of curriculum organization: content-aims
organization and scope, which interviewees linked to problems of curriculum support and
implementation that arose from the curriculum formulation phase. For example, sampled
teachers noted that during reforms, their teacher trainers were themselves confused by
“vague” language used for specifying curriculum content-aims organization in
curriculum documents, making it more challenging for navigating through and
completing “overloaded” curricula, while attempting to meet the time demands placed on
239
them by non-teaching responsibilities in the organizations they belonged to, including
their schools and teacher organizations (Chapter 5).
Focusing on the curriculum formulation processes by which the organization (i.e.
content-aims organization and scope) of the Botswana and South Africa 6th grade
mathematics curricula emerged in the early 2000s, I find that there were similarities and
divergences in the forms of institutional work done during formulation processes. Two
forms of institutional work were found to be salient from the data, based on the
typologies of institutional work developed by Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48):
institutional creation and institutional disruption. In both cases, committees’ institutional
creation work included “translating” policy goals and attempting to create draft
curriculum documents that were “bricolages” of past curriculum experiences and policy
goals of diverse committee members, as well as reacting to “shocks” from time pressures,
by extending the respective committees’ deadlines.
However, despite teachers participating in both curriculum formulation
committees, there were divergences in the processes and the respective 6th grade
mathematics curricula that emerged, and were being used in the adjacent countries during
the 2009 school year. A larger, more functionally diverse committee in Botswana
included practicing primary school teachers in a more in-depth, albeit slower-paced
process of “translating” knowledge from their past experiences and negotiating with the
future-oriented, policy-focused committee members (e.g. government officials) to specify
a curriculum that was a “bricolage” that addressed teachers’ workload concerns: a
relatively highly structured curriculum, with a relatively smaller scope.
South Africa’s committee also engaged in institutional disruption, which involves
“avoiding institutional monitoring and sanction,” and “not selecting institutional
practices/selecting others” (Battilana and D’Aunno, 2009, p. 48). In avoiding the
authoritarian structures and monitoring that was reminiscent of apartheid, minimal
monitoring structures were put in place, and limited directives were given to the
committee about how to do its work. South Africa’s smaller committee included one
practicing secondary school teacher, but no primary school teachers, in a curriculum
formulation process that had shorter timelines, which informants indicated was partly due
to political pressure. In the South African context, faster-paced formulation processes
240
were associated with the committee’s “borrowing” of foreign curricula, and relatively
limited feedback from practicing primary school teachers for adapting and finalizing the
curriculum produced. A curriculum with a relatively smaller scope and greater structure
emerged in Botswana, as compared with South Africa. Botswana’s curriculum was
associated with smaller policy-practice gaps among sampled Botswana teachers, relative
to the South Africa case.
7.2. Policy implications
My study findings have implications for curriculum formulation, support, and
implementation, particularly in SSA. I discuss three policy implications, namely: (i)
placing the curriculum organization considerations of practicing teachers at the heart of
reforms; (ii) paying greater attention to learning lessons from past reform experiences and
current practices for formulating future-oriented curricula that are realistic, while aiming
towards ambitious ideals; and (iii) specifying realistic timeframes for reform processes
based on prior experiences, and conceptualizing timeframes at the multiple levels where
they occur, as societal, organizational field, and group processes.
7.2.1. Prioritizing practicing teachers’ considerations
The cases analyzed, especially that of Botswana, show how practicing teachers
provide expertise that informs reforms over time, beyond the socio-political benefits of
teacher “buy-in” or “ownership.” Such socio-political goals have been highlighted
worldwide as motivation for including teachers in education policymaking, but are
inadequate for bringing about change (Coburn, 2003). Practicing teachers provide a more
realistic sense of educational contexts, the resources and time needed, and the processes
for successfully implementing reforms. Teachers’ perspectives complement those of non-
teachers, who may otherwise develop curricula with ambitious aims and broad scopes,
241
which may be desirable in the long-term, but may fail due to incorrect assumptions, and
breed fatigue and cynicism about reforms (World Bank, 2008), as informants noted.
Hence, practicing teachers’ priorities should be placed at the heart of curriculum
reforms, in considering and specifying informed policies about their workloads over the
short term (during, and immediately after reforms), especially when reforms require
teachers’ participation in meetings and professional development workshops to contribute
to, learn about, or plan the administration of curricular changes. Another central goal of
reforms should be teachers' long-term recruitment and professional development, as
institutional workers who participate in curriculum formulation, support, and
implementation, beyond teaching in classrooms.
During curriculum formulation, practicing teachers help to strike a balance
between curriculum over-specificity and vagueness. Vague curricula present challenges
to teachers, who face time pressures in doing their work and reported that they find some
specificity in curriculum documents to be useful. As of 2010, South Africa began
reforming its curriculum documents again to address the problem of vagueness, which
practicing teachers highlighted in a 2009 evaluation (DoE, 2009). However, over-
specifying curricula and attempting to make them teacher-proof for policy fidelity may be
a recipe for failure. Teaching contexts change from place to place, and year to year, and
curriculum planning should account for such variation. Curricula may specify a number
of scenarios for providing some structure that guides administrators and teachers to make
decisions relevant to teaching in their specific contexts, to avoid situations in which
policymakers unsuccessfully attempt to specify one curriculum for diverse populations,
and engage in “futile pedagogical wars” over policies that teachers may disregard if they
find them to be irrelevant for their contexts (Cuban, 2006).
Additionally, practicing teachers temper tendencies to overload curriculum scope,
which makes misalignment with practice more likely, all else equal. Teachers are
unlikely to complete curricula that have more topics than they can teach in a school year,
especially when they also engage in activities other than teaching. The cases of Botswana
and South Africa show teachers’ concerns about the time constraints and workload they
face from their participation in curriculum formulation and support, in addition to
teaching. Building the capacity of practicing teachers, teacher trainers, and administrative
242
staff who engage in policymaking committees is more likely to yield education policies
that strike a balance between policy ideals and the diverse realities in schools, for
reducing the gaps between policy and practice.
7.2.2. Paying attention to past reform experiences and current practices
Curriculum reforms are oriented towards a desired future, but individuals
planning reforms should specify what structures should be put in place for facilitating
reform processes. Stakeholders involved in planning reforms must pay closer attention to
past reform experiences and current curricular practices, and draw upon knowledge about
each of the curriculum priorities (aims, content, and organization) during multiple phases
of reforms (formulation, support, and implementation). Particularly, curriculum reform
efforts, and policymaking generally, should pay more attention to questions of curriculum
organization: how curricula were planned and delivered successfully or unsuccessfully in
the past, to complement the focus on the what (content), and the why of curriculum
(aims), which are future-oriented. Whereas making projections about the subject content
and the types of students and workers desired is commendable, it is also necessary to
spend time and resources in understanding and addressing past and present curriculum
organization challenges, for achieving long-term ambitions.
7.2.2.1. Drawing from past experiences to specify guidelines on procedures
Botswana’s Curriculum Development Procedures Manual is an example of a tool
that drew upon past practices and experiences to inform subsequent reform efforts. The
manual was developed by a functionally diverse group of individuals who brought their
decades of experiences as teachers, government officials, academics, and foreign
consultants over the two-year period during which they developed the manual. The
manual took into consideration the fact that rushed reform processes in the past had not
yielded desired outcomes, and that while practicing teachers may not have the capacity to
develop curriculum documents on their own, they could provide their expertise as
243
practitioners. The manual subsequently provided “structure” for reforms processes,
guiding Curriculum Development Officers in their complex tasks by showing how to plan
and develop a curriculum through drawing upon the expertise of practicing teachers.
7.2.2.2. Developing curricula in phased processes to build experience
Additionally, employing a phased curriculum formulation approach, as was the
case in Botswana during the early 2000s allows for building expertise among committee
members over time, during a single reform project, as compared with attempting to
complete multiple aspects of formulation simultaneously. Teachers and other curriculum
committee members who were involved in developing the lower primary (grade 1-4)
curriculum were able to gain experience that was then applied to subsequently developing
the upper primary (grades 5-7) curriculum.
7.2.2.3. Learning from piloting new curricula, for adapting and diffusing lessons
In addition to soliciting public comments from stakeholders (e.g. teachers), whose
time may already be limited due to heavy workloads, input should be obtained from
stakeholders’ actual work practices, including through pilot projects. Three points are
especially worth noting regarding the piloting of curricula:
• Allocating time and resources for piloting new curricula as part of curriculum
formulation processes allows for building expertise among teachers, education
officials, and other stakeholders involved in piloting, and in discovering bottle-
necks prior to full-scale, costly implementation.
• Piloting curricula presents an opportunity to learn from curriculum
implementation on a smaller scale, generate excitement about curriculum reforms,
and prepare administrative offices and schools for full-scale implementation. For
example, pilot schools may be chosen by publicized lotteries that generate
excitement, taking into account relevant representation issues (e.g. organizing
lotteries to ensure that schools representing relevant regions or socio-economic
244
strata are represented in sampled pilot schools). As is the case with lesson study
practiced in countries such as Japan (for examples specific to mathematics, see
Murata et al., 2011), the successes and challenges faced during actual
implementation in pilot schools can then also be synthesized and publicized prior
to full-scale implementation.
• Given the different contextual environment of schools, piloting provides
opportunities for specifying multiple, concrete scenarios that stakeholders can
understand from their own experiences. For example, while the challenges faced
in rural schools engaged in pilot programs are likely to differ systematically from
those faced in urban schools, there is likely to be some variation even among
types of schools. Specifying scenarios provides stakeholders in different types of
schools with some guidance, while also allowing flexibility for them to translate
and adapt curricula to their specific needs.
7.2.3. Conceptualizing timelines for multi-level, multi-phase reform processes
Institutional change processes, such as curriculum reforms are complex and time-
dependent. Thus, realistic timeframes for reform processes and attainment of outcomes
should be specified for various stakeholders based on past experiences, and the
timeframes should be conceptualized at the multiple levels where they occur, as societal,
organizational field, and group processes. Although reforms in developing country
contexts may take generations to yield desired outcomes, there is scant knowledge about
timelines for evaluating such efforts and outcomes, which may vary at different levels of
analysis (Woolcock, 2009). My study highlighted reforms as societal processes that span
decades, as organizational field processes that involve multiple organizations
coordinating over years, and as group processes (e.g. curriculum formulation
committees, school governing boards, and student teams in classrooms) that occur over
months (Table 7 - 4). Thus, reform timeframes should be studied for further
conceptualizing theories of change, and specifying desired reform outcomes at each of
these levels.
245
Table 7 - 4. Three levels of reform processes, outcomes, and timeframes Perspective Outcomes Timeframes Societal processes (Chapter 4)
• Social structures and policies for achieving academic, economic, and socio-political aims
• Decades
Organizational field processes (Chapter 5)
• Organizational structures • Multiple years
Group processes: Curriculum formulation committees’ processes (Chapter 6)
• Curriculum documents • Multiple months
Reform timeframes may vary from one context to another, and policymakers
should plan reforms at societal, organizational field, and group levels, making estimations
based on information from the past about how long prior reform efforts took, and
projections of the future, considering a country’s specific context.
• First, at the societal-level, considering that colonial institutions, state-led, and
grassroots societal processes emerged over decades, policymakers creating
curriculum institutions in Botswana and South Africa, as well as other SSA
countries should specify long-term curriculum reform aims in policies that frame
reform processes in timeframes of decades.
• Second, at the organizational field level, the relatively long timelines for
Botswana’s processes of creating proto-institutions, such as a curriculum
bureaucracy from the late 1970s, establishing projects and procedures as
institutional mechanisms, advocating diffusion of practices, improvising, and
modifying reform processed through the 1990s suggest that even in a relatively
well-endowed, less diverse country, reform processes were relatively slow-paced.
Countries with bigger, more diverse populations and less resources may expect to
spend greater amounts of resources or take longer periods, say in the order of 20
years for such institutional creation.
• Third, at the group level, translating the past experiences and visions of diverse
stakeholders is a time consuming process, and reform planners must keep this in
mind. South Africa’s past experiences of developing curriculum documents
during the early 2000s suggest that in the context of a diverse population,
policymakers should not expect that 15 months is enough time to adequately
obtain input from teachers’ practices for modifying curriculum documents.
Botswana’s timeframe of 40 months, while relatively slower-paced, allowed for
246
greater teacher engagement and input, and was associated with smaller policy-
practice gaps.
Policymakers must link short-term goals with long-term institutional
improvement. Three points are worth noting, given the knowledge that political
considerations are part of education processes, and that stakeholders are likely to focus on
incentives that are aligned with short-term political cycles:
• Change efforts must specify short-term, intermediate goals that can build
teachers’ confidence and expertise, and which politicians can claim credit for, in
efforts to ultimately achieve long-term curriculum reform aims. For example, to
build on policies that have empowered racially integrated teachers’ organizations,
politicians can introduce innovative incentive programs for channeling teachers’
political activities into improving student learning. Such a program might be one
that institutes an award for academic competitions between groups of schools or
union branches (similar to extra-curricular cultural and athletic competitions)
based on curricular practices, such as completion of curricula, as well as self- and
peer evaluations.
• The cases studied provide some insights for how to develop curriculum change
institutions, for example, by specifying a career ladder (long-term) that rewards
practicing teachers’ teaching and school roles. For example, rather than de facto
rewards for teachers’ non-teaching, political roles in unions during election
periods, programs could be developed to reward teachers’ short-term knowledge
sharing in curriculum planning teams. Peer programs could be set up to publicly
recognize such teachers during specified time periods (e.g. monthly, per term, or
annually), thereby institutionalizing the value accorded to teacher knowledge at
the local level.
• Additionally, strategies must be developed for buffering longer-term institutional
creation efforts – such as teacher training and support – from political cycles. A
2011 announcement proposing South Africa’s creation of a national curriculum
institute is in the right direction (L. Chisholm, personal communication, March 7,
2012), especially if it is coupled with specifying long-term efforts at teacher
education, as Botswana’s policies have attempted to do. Flexibility is needed in
247
adjusting timelines for reforms if needed, to avoid costly failures, which
ultimately slow down change efforts and increase cynicism about reforms.
7.3. Study limitations and suggested future research
My study has a number of conceptual and methodological limitations. First, from
a conceptual viewpoint, the study is limited due to the case study approach used. As with
other process studies, although the details of events from two adjacent countries allow for
highlighting the dynamic manner of curriculum reforms, the limited set of cases does not
allow for seeing “the much wider terrain” to make generalizations (Pettigrew, 1997, p.
347). From the two cases studied, strong claims cannot be made about whether the
interaction of a given structure (e.g. policy) and type of agency over time would result in
a particular outcome, as the structures and the types of agency that emerge in any context
are often not identical, being themselves products of interactions during prior processes.
However, studying multiple cases in which a given structure and type of agency
consistently produces a given outcome provide clearer evidence for generalization. Also,
given the assumption of nonlinearity of processes (Pettigrew, 1997, p. 341), my study is
unable to “locate external singular causes” about differences in curriculum reform
processes and outcomes (Abell, 2004, p. 296). The multiple factors that I find to be
relevant for reform processes present challenges in seeking a better understanding of
which variables should be targeted for addressing policy goals, especially in the context
of limited resources. Thus, case studies of reform processes from additional countries,
and over more periods of time would provide an even better understanding of teachers’
roles in SSA’s reforms, and what factors may be targeted for producing desired reform
outcomes across various SSA countries
Second, the study has methodological limitations. As the events analyzed in this
retrospective study had occurred earlier, in some cases almost a decade prior to the study,
it is possible that responses from interviews conducted for my retrospective study were
inaccurate (Weick, 1995). My triangulation of data, including a reliance on written
documents, served to address this limitation, although some inaccuracies may have
remained. An additional methodological limitation is due to logistical reasons. I was
248
unable to remain in Botswana and South Africa for long periods of time, and I had to
engage in intensive data collection and analysis during field visits. My data collection
approach had implications for data analysis. For example, although it was my intention, I
was unable to contact, and build relationships with informants who would have provided
detailed data for analyzing the growth in organizational personnel over time, and
information on financial resources for specific aspects of reforms. Also, as some
documents and informants were only available during my field visits, I coded data while
in the field to allow for verifying information obtained, instead of using software that
would have been available in other contexts, and would have facilitated subsequent data
organization and analysis.
The limitations noted can be addressed by longitudinal process studies that are
designed to enable long-term data collection on site, and in real time, as part of
curriculum reforms in SSA. For example, case studies could be conducted to address
questions related to institutional creation that are noted in Table 7 - 5, as part of
curriculum formulation committee processes in Botswana, South Africa, and other SSA
countries over the next decade. Such studies addressing the questions below would
complement and build on my retrospective study.
Table 7 - 5. Questions about institutional creation Level/Perspective Institutional creation Process questions Societal and CPP field (Background studies to be conducted prior to reforms)
• inventing/creating proto-institutions
• How have teachers been involved in the development of curriculum proto-institutions (e.g. curriculum agencies, organizations, teacher training colleges)?
• establishing institutional mechanisms
• How have teachers’ roles been specified in curriculum reform projects and procedures?
• advocating diffusion • How are teachers involved in the diffusion of curriculum reforms and curricular materials?
• improvising • How have teachers improvised during curriculum reforms? • modifying • How have curriculum reforms and materials been modified
over time? Group (Studies to be conducted in real-time during reforms)
• translation • How do teachers on curriculum committees (and curriculum planning teams) translate curriculum policy goals, and how do non-teachers on committees translate teachers’ viewpoints during curriculum formulation processes?
• reacting to shocks • How are reform timelines specified for reforms, and how do curriculum committees react to shocks, such as deadlines?
• bricolage • How do curriculum documents emerge from negotiations between teachers and non-teachers during curriculum committee processes?
Source: Institutional creation elements from Battilana and D’Aunno (2009, p. 48)
249
It takes time to create institutions. Similarly, it takes time to develop knowledge
for improving education in SSA. Studies addressing questions such as those above will
require research projects with a long-term orientation. Such projects would directly draw
upon knowledge from past reform experiences at the societal and organizational field
levels, while also developing knowledge about real-time curriculum reform decision-
making processes from curriculum formulation committees. The knowledge from such
research can then inform further efforts at creating curriculum institutions in SSA for
addressing the educational, economic, and socio-political aims of curriculum reforms in
the region.
250
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol Introduction
1. Introduce myself and give a brief outline of the research project 2. Explain the consent, and ask them for consent if not already obtained 3. Ask the participant for their contact details in case I want to clarify anything 4. Obtain information on demographic characteristics 5. Explain the format of the interview, and ask their permission for my tape recording of the
interview Thanks for agreeing to speak to me. I believe your input will be valuable for a better understanding of mathematics curriculum development, and the teaching and learning of mathematics. To protect your confidentiality I obtained your consent electronically/have a consent form for you to read and complete if you agree. Please let me know if you have any questions. Could you please give me your name and contact details in case I need to contact you for clarifying anything, and if you would be willing to be interviewed in future about your experiences. The interview will probably take about an hour or more. If you feel comfortable with it I’d like to tape the interview, so I don’t have to write extensive notes while we’re talking. However, if you don’t feel comfortable I don’t need to tape. The confidentiality of responses is guaranteed and you can remain anonymous (that is, simply quoted as a teacher or policymaker), or your comments here can be ascribed to you if you like. I will transcribe the interview. Would you be interested in seeing a copy of the transcription? Date ___________________________ Time: From _________To _________ Location ________________________ Interviewer ______________________ Consent obtained? ____ Contact Details Name ________________________________________ Institution/School _______________________________ Address _______________________________________ Mobile Phone __________________________________ Home Phone ___________________________________ Work Phone ___________________________________ Fax __________________________________________ Email ________________________________________ Demographic Characteristics Gender ________________________________ Age ___________________________________ Primary Language _______________________ Race & Ethnicity_________________________ Profession
1. Current Job Title: __________________________ 2. How long have you been at your current job? 3. Please describe what you do at your current job? 4. [If being interviewed as curriculum development participant] Have you ever been a primary or
secondary school teacher? a. What subject(s) did you teach? b. What grade(s) did you teach?
5. [If being interviewed as teacher] Have you ever been involved in the process of designing mathematics curriculum, either a member of a curriculum committee, panel, taskforce, or working
251
group; participant in curriculum review hearings, consultations or pilot programs; offered submissions about curriculum, etc.?
a. In a sentence or two please describe which mathematics curriculum development project(s) and your involvement.
I. History Experience Teaching [Skip if member of curriculum committee with no mathematics teaching experience]
1. Reflect back and tell me how you became a mathematics teacher? [When/Why you decided to enter teaching? How come mathematics specifically?]
2. Which other subjects do you teach, if any? [Keep reminding them that study is only about 6th
grade mathematics] Experience with Curriculum Formulation [Skip if teacher with no curriculum formulation experience]
1. Reflect back and tell me how you became involved in the process of designing mathematics curriculum? [When? How come the mathematics curriculum specifically?]
2. Which other curriculum committees have you served on, besides the [2000/2001] mathematics committee? [Keep reminding them that study is only about 6th grade mathematics]
Capacity (Mathematics Training)
1. Where did you complete your formal mathematics training? 2. At what level was this? [secondary, teacher training, university, other?] 3. From when to when did you have that training? [How long was your highest level of formal
mathematics (teacher) training?] 4. Where and when did you receive any additional mathematics (teacher) workshops/training
sessions? Capacity (Curriculum Training)
1. Where did you receive training related to developing mathematics curriculum documents? 2. From when to when was your curriculum development training? [How long?]
II. Curriculum Views Past/Present Schooling/Social Context: Background
1. [All] Reflect back on the type of upper primary school you attended and tell me the differences between how you were taught mathematics there, and the primary school your children attend(ed)?
2. [Teachers] Reflect back on the type of upper primary school you attended and tell me the
differences between how you were taught mathematics there and the school you teach now?
3. [Teachers] Describe how you were taught mathematics during your post-secondary training?
4. [Teachers] Would you say that you like the new curriculum, dislike the new curriculum, or neither like nor dislike the new curriculum? Why?
5. [Teachers] Looking at the mathematics curriculum statement and teachers guide, how much do you think the committees that designed the curriculum considered teachers’ ideas? Why do you think so?
6. [Teachers] How much do you think the people who designed the mathematics curriculum thought about how it should be implemented in real schools? Why do you think so?
252
Rankings/Curriculum Reform Priorities [All. If interviewing teacher with no prior curriculum design experience, ask for opinion on future formulation: Appendix 2]
a. How did you come up with these allocations for the various curriculum reform priorities? III. Mathematics Curriculum Formulation Processes
1. Tell me about the work of your mathematics curriculum committee. [What were you supposed to do for developing the curriculum? What were the desired products, and what did these products have to include?]
2. Which professional or occupational groups did members represent? [Refer to list, verify
membership, ask about members whose names included/not included]
3. Describe the common ideas among the committee members about the old curriculum as compared to the curriculum you were designing?
4. What materials and documents were your starting points for the curriculum design process?
5. How much time [weeks/months/years] did your committee spend creating (a) the grade 6 mathematics curriculum statement, (b) the grade 6 teacher guidelines, (c) the curriculum implementation plan?
6. When did the committee meet to work on each of the documents? [From when to when?]
b. How often did the committee meet? c. How long were the committee meetings? d. Where did the committee meet?
7. Reflect back and describe the most heated debates during the mathematics curriculum writing
process [about curriculum priorities]? a. What was the stance of each person on the committee? b. Reflect back and describe aspects of the debates that committee members were not
comfortable with? c. What were the outcomes of the debates?
8. [Ask for them to reconstruct from memory in ranking members: Appendix 3]
Views on curriculum organization/implementation.
1. At the time of designing the new curriculum what were the views expressed in the committee about teachers’ abilities to teach the topics to be covered?
2. At the time of designing the new curriculum what were the views expressed in the committee about
the extent of training teachers would need to implement the curriculum?
3. At the time of designing the new curriculum what were the views expressed in the committee about whether teachers would be able to complete the curriculum in the school year? How factors like teacher absenteeism, extra-curricular activities, etc. would affect implementation?
4. At the time of designing the new curriculum what were the views expressed in the committee about
how long it would take for desired changes to happen?
5. How did the committee come up with the timeline for implementation?
253
6. From your perspective what aspects did the mathematics curriculum writing committee recommend that were successfully implemented? How come they were not implemented?
7. From your perspective what aspects did the mathematics curriculum writing committee
recommend that were not successfully implemented? How have they been problematic for teaching mathematics?
IV. Other Questions/Points?
1. What changes would you recommend for the process of curriculum design?
2. What would you keep the same from your curriculum design experiences?
3. Are there other questions or points you would like to make regarding the mathematics curriculum and/or its formulation?
Close Thank the participant for their time Remind the participant I may contact them in case I want to clarify anything
254
Appendix 2: Curriculum Priority Survey Instrument Below are some priorities that some people have said are important for creating a mathematics curriculum.36 Curriculum Aims
Academic Aims: How the curriculum can best provide students with mathematical skills. Economic/Individual Potential Aims: How the curriculum can best enable each individual student to realize his or her full potential in their career path. Socio-political/Democratic Citizenship Aims: How the curriculum can best address societal needs by preparing students for roles as citizens.
Curriculum Content Mathematics Topics to be Covered: What mathematics topics the curriculum should cover.
Curriculum Organization Content-Aims Organization/Interaction: How given mathematics topics should address given curriculum aims. Implementation Design: The overall plan for organizing the curriculum, including planning the resources and support to be provided for implementation. Schedule: The allocation of mathematics topics and curriculum aims to specific time schedules in a day, week, term, or year. Scope: How many mathematics topics and how many aims should be included in the curriculum. Sequence: The order in which mathematics topics should be presented over time.
Which are the most important priorities to you? Rank the priorities, indicating 1 for the most important, 2 for the second most important, 3 for the third, and so on.
Priority (listed in alphabetical order) Rank Aims Content Organization What proportion of the total time do you think should be spent on each of the listed priorities by the people who are designing the curriculum? Please allocate a total of 100% across various priorities during the creation of mathematics curriculum. Keep in mind that the total must equal 100%. Feel free to revise your percentages until you are satisfied and so that the total equals 100%.
Priority (listed in alphabetical order) Percentage of Time Academic Aims Content-Aims Organization/Interaction Implementation Design Economic/Individual Potential Aims Mathematics Topics to be Covered Schedule Scope Sequence Social Aims TOTAL POINTS ALLOCATED 100% 36 Adapted from Rothstein (2008) & Walker (1990).
255
Table A1. Informant Ranking of Curriculum Reform Priorities, Botswana and South Africa Botswana Teachers (N=3) Teacher Trainer (N=1) MoE Officials (N=2) All (N=6) Aims 2.33 2.00 3.00 2.50 Content 2.67 3.00 1.00 2.17 Organization 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.33 South Africa Teachers (N=6) Teacher Trainer (N=3) DoE Official (N=1) All (N=10) Aims 1.83 1.67 1.00 1.70 Content 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.70 Organization 1.50 1.33 2.00 1.50
256
Appendix 3: Ranking of Committee Members Rank the people who influenced the work of the committee. Indicate 1 for the person you rank highest, 2 for the person you rank second highest, 3 for the third highest, and so on.
Person [names were provided for the informant]37
Details of person from syllabus/documents Rank
37 In Botswana the names were listed in the syllabus and teachers’ guide. In South Africa the names were initially obtained from Ministerial Project Committee Chair, and a snowball method was used in obtaining other names.
257
Appendix 4: Illustrative Quotes from Text
Categories (codes) Botswana South Africa (Chapter 4) What curriculum reform and teacher policies emerged by the mid-1990s? Documents Report of the National Commission on Education (RNCE,
1993) Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE, 1994)
ANC Policy Framework for Education and Training (ANC, 1994a) White Paper on Education and Training (DoE, 1995)
teacher/ curriculum policy focus
The quality of teaching is the most important determinant of the quality of education. Teachers are the agents of all curriculum implementation and their centrality to the education system cannot be overemphasized (RNCE, 1993).
The Ministry regards teacher education (including the professional education of trainers and educators) as one of the central pillars of national human resource development strategy, and the growth of professional expertise and self-confidence is the key to teacher development (DoE, 1995).
The Commission recommends that as part of the overall development of teachers and as an incentive, attention should be paid to their job enrichment and rotation needs. The goal is to create a pool of experienced professionals for leadership in the various areas such as examinations work, curriculum development, and as resource persons for workshops and seminars (RNPE, 1994).
The lack of relevance of the curriculum has been exacerbated by the narrow base of participation in the process of curriculum development. In the main parents, teachers, students, workers and the private sector have not been involved … the process of curriculum development must be democratised through the participation of all stakeholders (ANC, 1994a).
long/short-term policy orientation
Educational planning has a long gestation period and is optimized when the likely long-term changes in the structure of the population, the economy and employment opportunities are taken into account. Projections of socio-economic development over the next twenty five years provide the context of the Commission's plans for the future development of the education system (RNCE, 1993).
The Ministry recognises that it is important to set up rapid processes for the production of new curriculum frameworks and core curricula. Much valuable work has been done already, within the Department of Education, in university curriculum projects, by subject associations, and by NGOs, alone and in networks. All curriculum change is a lengthy process, but strategic points of entry will be found so that a progressive transformation will take place on a phased basis (DoE, 1995).
Further training of teachers should be guided by clear and long term training plans with objectives for each level (RNPE, 1994).
Urgent attention will be given to a review of industrial relations legislation for the education and training sector in order to ensure that effective mechanisms for collective bargaining and dispute resolution are in place (ANC, 1994a).
258
Appendix 5: Summary Teacher Survey
Botswana Sample North-West Province Sample
Variable N mean sd min max N mean sd min max p-value
Female 58 0.69 0.47 0 1 62 0.66 0.48 0 1 0.7426
Age 56 39.46 7.71 23 54 59 45.73 7.85 26 65 0.0000
<30 56 0.13 0.33 0 1 59 0.02 0.13 0 1 0.0266
30-39 56 0.36 0.48 0 1 59 0.22 0.42 0 1 0.1082
40-49 56 0.48 0.50 0 1 59 0.44 0.50 0 1 0.6591
>49 56 0.04 0.19 0 1 59 0.32 0.47 0 1 0.0000
Year qualified as teacher 56 1993.29 8.02 1975 2009 61 1986.89 9.18 1961 2010 0.0001
Before 1986 56 11% 31% 0 1 61 39% 49% 0 1 0.0003
1986-1990 56 34% 48% 0 1 61 20% 40% 0 1 0.0846
1991-1995 56 23% 43% 0 1 61 31% 47% 0 1 0.3386
1996-2000 56 11% 31% 0 1 61 8% 28% 0 1 0.6463
After 2000 56 21% 41% 0 1 61 2% 13% 0 1 0.0011 Years of pre-service (categorical) 51 4.35 1.11 1 6 60 4.57 1.01 1 6 0.2956
None 51 0.06 0.24 0 1 60 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.5323
<1 Yr 51 0.00 0.00 0 0 60 0.02 0.13 0 1 0.3214
1 Yr 51 0.02 0.14 0 1 60 0.05 0.22 0 1 0.3803
2 Yrs 51 0.49 0.50 0 1 60 0.23 0.43 0 1 0.0051
3 Yrs 51 0.31 0.47 0 1 60 0.58 0.50 0 1 0.0041
>3 Yrs 51 0.12 0.33 0 1 60 0.08 0.28 0 1 0.5559 One of the most important ways I have learned about the maths curriculum is through:
Discussions at staff meetings 55 2.33 1.11 1 4 60 3.03 1.04 1 4 0.0006
Informal conversations with my colleagues 58 3.19 0.78 1 4 60 3.32 0.93 1 4 0.4231
Information during in-service training 53 2.53 1.20 1 4 61 3.64 0.68 1 4 0.0000
Information from my principal 55 2.16 1.13 1 4 57 2.89 1.06 1 4 0.0006 My pre-service teacher training 54 3.13 1.20 1 4 60 3.22 1.01 1 4 0.6776
Participating in curriculum review meetings 52 2.29 1.23 1 4 58 3.52 0.88 1 4 0.0000 Reading the curriculum documents 55 3.27 0.93 1 4 62 3.81 0.60 1 4 0.0005 With regard to maths curriculum knowledge and resources, I believe or have found that: One of my most important goals is for learners to gain skills for getting jobs after school 57 3.63 0.67 1 4 60 3.63 0.80 1 4 0.9898 One of my most important goals is for learners to participate in class to become better citizens 57 3.63 0.75 1 4 62 3.89 0.37 2 4 0.0220
259
Botswana Sample North-West Province Sample
Variable N mean sd min max N mean sd min max p-value I understand the maths curriculum 56 3.38 0.65 2 4 61 3.43 0.76 1 4 0.6955 I have found it easy to implement the maths curriculum in my classes 58 3.02 0.89 1 4 62 3.19 0.72 1 4 0.2369
I feel adequately prepared for teaching the maths curriculum 57 3.02 0.95 1 4 61 3.66 0.57 1 4 0.0000
I have the resources (e.g. time & materials) to teach the maths curriculum 58 2.09 0.96 1 4 62 2.84 0.98 1 4 0.0000
The maths curriculum makes classroom management more difficult 57 1.93 0.88 1 4 62 2.16 1.12 1 4 0.2112
As far as the goals of the maths curriculum are concerned, in my experience: Mostly, the maths curriculum helps learners participate in class and become better citizens 56 3.32 0.88 1 4 62 3.66 0.57 2 4 0.0154
Mostly, the maths curriculum improves learner achievement outcomes 55 3.33 0.64 2 4 62 3.56 0.56 2 4 0.0364 Mostly, the maths curriculum guides the content of what I teach 56 3.36 0.70 1 4 61 3.69 0.59 1 4 0.0069
Mostly, the maths curriculum guides my teaching methods 57 3.21 0.86 1 4 61 3.61 0.64 1 4 0.0057 Mostly, the maths curriculum focuses on the purpose of learning maths 56 2.91 0.82 1 4 61 3.66 0.63 1 4 0.0000 The national maths curriculum is one of the most important factors in addressing the achievement needs of learners in my school 54 3.15 0.68 1 4 60 3.63 0.55 2 4 0.0001
With regard to curriculum development, in my view:
Community & local leaders had an important role in creating the maths curriculum 51 2.08 1.07 1 4 60 2.28 1.11 1 4 0.3254 National officials had an important role in creating the maths curriculum 49 2.90 1.14 1 4 60 3.50 0.72 1 4 0.0020
Foreign experts & donors had an important role in creating the maths curriculum 43 2.56 1.05 1 4 52 2.90 0.96 1 4 0.1005 Teachers & school administrators had an important role in creating the maths curriculum 55 3.11 1.13 1 4 58 3.43 0.84 1 4 0.0907
Activities that take me out of class most often 33 4.64 3.15 2 10 62 7.13 3.43 1 11 0.0007
Indicator of response counts 58 0.57 0.50 0 1 62 1.66 1.17 1 6 0.0000
Union meetings 58 0.00 0.00 0 0 62 0.21 0.41 0 1 0.0002 Department/Committee meetings 58 0.22 0.42 0 1 62 0.42 0.50 0 1 0.0217
260
Botswana Sample North-West Province Sample
Variable N mean sd min max N mean sd min max p-value Consultations with other teachers 58 0.14 0.35 0 1 62 0.11 0.32 0 1 0.6826
Domestic responsibilities 58 0.00 0.00 0 0 62 0.03 0.18 0 1 0.1590
Responsibilities related to second job 58 0.02 0.13 0 1 62 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.3215
Responsibilities related to community/local politics 58 0.00 0.00 0 0 62 0.02 0.13 0 1 0.3213
Consultations with learners 58 0.00 0.00 0 0 62 0.08 0.27 0 1 0.0241
Consultations with parents/guardians 58 0.05 0.22 0 1 62 0.18 0.39 0 1 0.0299 Training/Professional Development 58 0.10 0.31 0 1 62 0.35 0.48 0 1 0.0009
Never out of class 58 0.03 0.18 0 1 62 0.19 0.40 0 1 0.0057
Other 58 0.00 0.00 0 0 62 0.06 0.25 0 1 0.0446
Teacher SES Score 58 13.91 5.64 0 24 62 14.79 6.18 0 24 0.4182
Union Member 56 0.73 0.45 0 1 62 0.97 0.18 0 1 0.0004
Number of Lessons 58 79.43 22.00 33 142 56 52.13 16.24 21 97 0.0000
# Lessons: Number 58 28.15 15.67 7 97 62 43.22 16.91 11 94 0.0000
# Lessons: Measurement 58 10.05 6.28 0 24.6 62 6.28 5.30 0 24 0.0006
# Lessons: Geometry 58 5.80 4.06 0 16.1 62 5.91 6.93 0 29 0.9152
# Lessons: Algebra 58 2.86 3.07 0 15 62 1.41 2.15 0 11 0.0037
# Lessons: Data 58 5.19 4.29 0 13 62 1.93 2.87 0 12.9 0.0000
Teacher Math Score: Overall 58 0.53 0.14 0.02 0.79 62 0.47 0.12 0.14 0.78 0.0249
<35 58 0.12 0.33 0 1 62 0.16 0.37 0 1 0.5262
35-44.9 58 0.05 0.22 0 1 62 0.26 0.44 0 1 0.0016
45-49.9 58 0.16 0.37 0 1 62 0.16 0.37 0 1 0.9276
50-59.9 58 0.34 0.48 0 1 62 0.27 0.45 0 1 0.4077
>60 58 0.33 0.47 0 1 62 0.15 0.36 0 1 0.0193
Score: Number 58 0.53 0.17 0 0.86 62 0.48 0.15 0.18 0.95 0.0771
Score: Algebra 58 0.62 0.20 0 1.00 62 0.57 0.20 0 1 0.1622
Score: Geometry 58 0.51 0.19 0 0.86 62 0.41 0.20 0 1 0.0040
Score: Measurement 58 0.57 0.25 0 0.91 62 0.48 0.21 0 1 0.0444
Score: Data 58 0.40 0.16 0 0.75 62 0.39 0.19 0.00 0.83 0.7012
Class SES 58 9.69 3.06 1.94 16.45 62 10.81 3.66 3.77 21.81 0.0700
261
Appendix 6: Estimates of Activities and Number of Recorded Lessons
Table A6a. Estimates of single activity that takes teacher out of class most often on number of recorded lessons from math workbooks, Jan-Nov, 2009, North-West Province Sub-sample Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Union meetingsa -22.3750+ -21.1321+ -23.6219+ -22.2313+ (12.5905) (12.4559) (12.6280) (12.6339) Dept/Com meetings -15.9750* -14.3154* -15.0019* -13.8161+ (6.9723) (6.9892) (7.0239) (7.0730) Tchr consultations -4.3750 -3.9844 -4.8516 -4.3930 (16.8920) (16.6674) (16.8724) (16.8031) Othr Responsiblties -19.3750 -18.7003 -15.9883 -16.2670 (16.8920) (16.6725) (17.1756) (17.1019) Lr/Gdn consultations -0.8750 0.0838 -3.2461 -1.8150 (12.5905) (12.4419) (12.7750) (12.7832) Professional Dvlpmt -9.6607 -6.9567 -10.5145 -7.9622 (8.2424) (8.3782) (8.2704) (8.5451) Tchr Math Score 0.1007 (0.2655) Class Size 0.3472+ 0.2841 0.2454 (0.2072) (0.2120) (0.2196) Class SES 1.2234 0.9569 0.7135 (0.8580) (0.9171) (0.9387) Intercept 60.3750*** 45.2365** 37.5449*** 37.1621*** 48.9046*** 50.3010*** 42.9572** (5.6307) (12.5722) (7.8271) (9.3181) (10.2042) (11.1721) (12.9202) R-squared 0.2070 0.0042 0.0763 0.0564 0.2548 0.2367 0.2704 R-squared (Adj.) 0.0429 -0.0251 0.0491 0.0287 0.0685 0.0459 0.0542 N 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Source: North-West Province (NWP) School Sample, 2009 Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 a. Reference variable: Never taken out of class
262
Table A6b. Estimates of activity that takes teacher out of class most often on number of recorded lessons from math workbooks, Jan-Nov, 2009, Botswana Sub-sample Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Dept/Com meetings 9.1154 5.8672 11.4314 8.5503 (16.8417) (17.4963) (16.3236) (17.0212) Tchr consultations 23.3750 18.6981 21.0759 17.0700 (17.5294) (18.6948) (16.9849) (18.1309) Othr Responsiblties -7.5000 -10.7070 -13.9726 -16.5957 (27.1564) (27.6873) (26.5011) (27.0486) Lr/Gdn consultations 12.5000 9.2930 14.8638 12.0173 (20.2412) (20.8255) (19.5998) (20.2348) Professional Dvlpmt 15.5000 10.5113 14.4761 10.1670 (18.1043) (19.3767) (17.4974) (18.7655) Tchr Math Score 0.5276* (0.2446) Class Size -0.8197 -0.5345 -0.4645 (0.6227) (0.6991) (0.6783) Class SES -2.1869+ -2.1613 -2.1066 (1.1582) (1.2607) (1.2762) Intercept 71.5000*** 56.5166*** 107.4858*** 107.1216*** 90.2077** 93.6834*** 109.3786** (15.6787) (13.4546) (17.8699) (12.5295) (29.1259) (19.9194) (30.5031) R-squared 0.1225 0.1305 0.0529 0.1031 0.1418 0.2117 0.2262 R-squared (Adj.) -0.0400 0.1024 0.0224 0.0742 -0.0562 0.0297 0.0095 N 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 Source: Botswana School Sample, 2009 Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 a. Reference variable: Never taken out of class; None of respondents indicated union meetings.
263
Appendix 7: Botswana and South Africa 6th Grade Mathematics Topics
Code Labels38 Code Botswana South
Africa
% of total possible
sub-topics
% of total
possible sub-
topics Numbers 1.1 40% 70% Whole Numbers 1.1.1 0 0 Meaning 1.1.1.1 1 1 Operations 1.1.1.2 1 1 Properties of Operations 1.1.1.3 1 1 Fractions & Decimals 1.1.2 0 0 Common Fractions 1.1.2.1 1 1 Decimal Fractions 1.1.2.2 1 1 Relationships of Common & Decimal Fractions 1.1.2.3. 1 1 Percentages 1.1.2.4 1 1 Properties of Common & Decimal Fractions 1.1.2.5 0 1 Integer, Rational & Real Numbers 1.1.3 0 0 Negative Numbers, Integers & Their Properties 1.1.3.1 0 0 Rational Numbers & Their Properties 1.1.3.2 0 1 Real Numbers, Their Subsets & Properties 1.1.3.3 0 1 Other Numbers & Number Concepts 1.1.4 0 0 Binary Arithmetic and/or Other Number Bases 1.1.4.1 0 0 Exponents, Roots & Radicals 1.1.4.2 0 0 Complex Numbers & Their Properties 1.1.4.3 0 0 Number Theory 1.1.4.4 0 1 Systematic Counting 1.1.4.5 0 0 Estimation & Number Sense Concepts 1.1.5 0 0 Estimating Quantity & Size 1.1.5.1 0 0 Rounding & Significant Figures 1.1.5.2 1 1 Estimating Computations 1.1.5.3 0 1 Exponents & Orders of Magnitude 1.1.5.4 0 1 Measurement 1.2 67% 67% Measurement Segments 1.2.1 1 1 Computations & Properties of Length, Perimeter, Area & Volume 1.2.2 1 1
Estimation & Error 1.2.3 0 0 Geometry: Position, Visualization & Shape 1.3 67% 56% 1-D & 2-D Coordinate Geometry 1.3.1 1 1
38 Benavot (2011) framework for UNESCO curriculum study.
264
Code Labels38 Code Botswana South Africa
2-D Geometry: Basics 1.3.2 1 1 2-D Geometry: Polygons & Circles 1.3.3 1 1 3-D Geometry 1.3.4 1 1 Vectors 1.3.5 0 0 Simple Topology 1.3.6 0 0 Geometry: Symmetry, Congruence & Similarity 1.4 Geometry: Transformations 1.4.1 1 1 Congruence & Similarity 1.4.2 0 0 Constructions w/ Straightedge & Compass 1.4.3 1 0
Proportionality 1.5 14% 29%
Proportionality Concepts 1.5.1 0 1 Proportionality Problems 1.5.2 0 0 Slope & Simple Trigonometry 1.5.3 0 0 Slope and gradient in straight line graphs 1.5.3.1 0 0 Linear Interpolation & Extrapolation 1.5.4 0 0
Functions, Relations, & Equations 1.6
Patterns, Relations & Functions 1.6.1 0 1 Equations & Formulas 1.6.2 1 0 Trigonometry & Analytic Geometry 1.6.3 0 0
Data Representation, Probability, & Statistics 1.7 100% 100%
Data Representation & Analysis 1.7.1 1 1 Uncertainty & Probability 1.7.2 1 1 Elementary Analysis 1.8 Infinite Processes 1.8.1 0 0 Change 1.8.2 0 0 Validation & Structure 1.9 Validation & Justification 1.9.1 0 0 Structuring and Abstracting 1.9.2 0 0
Other Content 1.1 17% 17%
Informatics 1.10.1 0 0 History and nature of mathematics 1.10.2 0 1 Special application of mathematics 1.10.3 0 0 Problem solving heuristics 1.10.4 1 0 Non-mathematical science content 1.10.5 0 0 Non-mathematical content other than science 1.10.6 0 0
265
Appendix 8: Detailed Timeline of Curriculum Formulation Events
Botswana Timeline South Africa Timeline Activity Dates Period
(months unless stated)
Activity Dates Period (months unless stated)
Intended period of curriculum development
May 1999-
May 2001
24 Intended period of curriculum development
Jan 2001 - Jun 2001
6
Development of lower primary (G 1-4) syllabus
Mar 2000-
Nov 2001
20 Development of all GET (K-9) curriculum documents
Jan 2001 - March
2002
15
Development of lower primary (G 1-4) teacher’s guides
Jul 2001 – Aug 2004
37 Presented draft curriculum documents for public comment
Jul 30 2001 - Oct 31
2001
3
Public hearings on curriculum were held in Parliament
Nov 2001
1
Implementation workshops for syllabus & t-guides
Jan 2002-
Nov 2004
34 Working Groups revised curriculum documents
Dec 2001 – Mar
2002
4
Implementation of standard 1 curriculum
Jan 2002
< 1 Yr after dvpt
RNCS declared the official curriculum
Apr 2002 1
Development of upper primary (G 5-7) syllabus
Mar 2002-
Nov 2003
20
Development of upper primary (G 5-7) teacher’s guides
Oct 2003 –
May 2006
19
Implementation workshops for syllabus & t-guides
Sep 2004 –
Sep 2006
24 Implementation began: Foundation (G K-3), FET (G 11)
Jan 2004 < 2 Yrs after devpt
Implementation of standard 4 curriculum
Jan 2005
> 3 Yrs after dvpt
Implementation began: Intermediate (G 4-6), FET (G 12)
Jan 2005 < 3 Yrs after devpt
Implementation of standard 5 curriculum
Jan 2005
> 1 Yr after dvpt
Formative evaluation of standard 4 & 5 implementation
Jul 3-29 2005
Implementation of standard 6 curriculum
Jan 2006
> 2 Yrs after dvpt
266
References
Abadzi, H. (2007a). Absenteeism and beyond: Instructional time loss and consequences.
Policy Research Working Paper No. 4376. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Abadzi, H. (2007b). Instructional time loss and local-level governance. Prospects, 37(1),
13-16.
Abadzi, H. (2009). Instructional time loss in developing countries: Concepts,
measurement, and implications. World Bank Research Observer, 24(2), 267-290.
Abell, P. (2004). Narrative explanation: An alternative to variable-centered explanation?
Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 287-310
Academy for Education Development (AED). (1995). Botswana Basic Education
Consolidation (BEC) Project: Final Report, September 1992-September 1995. Report
submitted to USAID. Washington, D.C.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
African National Congress (ANC). (1994a). ANC Policy Framework for Education and
Training. Last retrieved May 23, 2011, from ANC Web site:
http://www.anc.org.za/263
African National Congress (ANC). (1994b). ANC Reconstruction and Development
Programme. Last retrieved May 23, 2011, from ANC Web site:
http://www.anc.org.za/234
Alderuccio, M. C. (2010). An investigation of global/local dynamics of curriculum
transformation in sub-Saharan Africa with special reference to the Republic of
Mozambique, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
40(6), 727-739.
Ancona, D., & Chong, C. L. (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle and rhythm in
organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 251-284.
Associated Press. (1984, November 22). Tutu says ‘anything better than apartheid.’
Gadsden Times;Sect. B:10 (col. 4). Last retrieved March 7, 2012, from Google Web
267
site:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19841122&id=9rofAAAAIBAJ
&sjid=kNcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3323,4556269
Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in
organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 245-273.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Exploration in policy
sociology. London: Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (1994). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. In S. J. Ball (Ed.),
Education reform: A critical and poststructural approach. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Banks, O. (1976). The sociology of education. London: Batsford.
Bates, R. H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J. L., & Weingast, B. (1998). The analytical
narrative project. The American Political Science Review. 94(3), 696-702.
Battilana, J., & D'Aunno T. (2009). Institutional Work and the paradox of embedded
agency. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors
and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31-58). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Beck, R. (2000). The history of South Africa. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing
Group.
Benavot, A. (2011). Learning to read and numerate in the developing world: Cross-
national commonalities and differences in the intended curriculum in primary school
reading and mathematics. Montreal: UNESCO.
Berliner, David C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? Chapter from,
The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts and practitioner perceptions.
New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Bernstein, B. (2004). Social class and pedagogic practice. In S. J. Ball (Eds.), The
Routledge Falmer reader in sociology of education. London and New York:
Routledge Falmer.
Bertram, C. A. (2008). Curriculum recontextualisation: a case study of the South African
high school History curriculum. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
268
Boe, E. E., Capper, J., Kraft, R. J. (1990). Junior Secondary Education Improvement
Project (JSEIP): Review and Evaluation Report. Gaborone, Botswana.
Botswana Teacher’ Union (BTU). (2006). Recruiting and unionising more teachers.
Gaborone.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in
entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement.
Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176-216.
Carnoy, M. et al. (2012 forthcoming). The low achievement trap: Comparing schooling
in Botswana and South Africa. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council
(HSRC).
Carnoy, M., Gove, A., & Marshall, J. (2007). Cuba’s academic advantage. Why students
in Cuba do better in school. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723-33.
Chabbott, C. (2003). Constructing education for development: International
organizations and Education for All. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Chia, R., & Langley, A. (2004). The first organization studies summer workshop:
Theorizing process in organizational research (call for papers), Organization Studies,
25(8), 1486.
Chisholm, L. (1999). The democratisation of schools and the politics of teachers’ work in
South Africa, Compare, 29(2), 111-126
Chisholm, L. (2005). The politics of curriculum review and revision in South Africa in
regional context. Compare, 35(1), 79-100.
Chisholm, L. (2012). Education policy borrowing across African borders: Histories of
learner-centred education in Botswana and South Africa. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F.
Waldow (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and Lending
in Education. London & New York: Routledge.
269
Chisholm, L., Hoadley, U., & wa Kivilu, M. (2005). Educator workload in South Africa:
Final report prepared for the Education Labour Relations Council. Cape Town:
Human Sciences Research Council.
Chisholm, L., & Leyendecker, R. (2008). Curriculum reform in post-1990s Sub-Saharan
Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(2), 195-205.
Chisholm, L., Volmink, J., Ndhlovu, T., Potenza, E., Mahomed, H., Muller, J., Lubisi, C.,
Vinjevold, P., Ngozi, L., & Malan, B. (2000). A South African curriculum for the
twenty first century: Report of the Review Committee on Curriculum 2005. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting
change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (1991). Of revelation and revolution. Christianity,
colonialism and consciousness in South Africa, Volume One. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Creative Associates International (CAI), Inc. (1996). Summative Evaluation of the Basic
Education Consolidation Project. Report submitted to USAID. Washington, D.C.
Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. (1980). Actors and systems: The politics of collective action.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cuban, L. (2006). Getting past futile pedagogical wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 793-
795.
Dalin, P. (Ed.). (1994). How schools improve. London: Cassell
Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L. & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership
and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
44 (4), 809-837.
Department of Education (DoE). (1995). White Paper on education and training. Cape
Town: Department of Education.
Department of Education (DoE). (2003). Teacher’s guide for the development of learning
programmes: Mathematics, Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education (DoE). (2009). Report of the task team for the review of the
implementation of the National Curriculum Statement. Pretoria: Department of
Education.
270
DiMaggio, P. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S.
art museums, 1920-1940. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267-92). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell. W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
Drori, G., Meyer, J., Ramirez, F., & Schofer. E. (2003). Science in the modern world
polity: Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Eichengreen, B. (2008). The European economy since 1945: Coordinated capitalism and
beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elmore, R.F., & McLaughlin, M. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of
American education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Elmore, R.F. (2001). Professional development and large-scale improvement in
education. Report prepared for the Albert Shanker Institute.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of
Sociology, 103(2), 281-317.
Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and Organizational Analysis. Theory and
Society, 37(1), 1-44.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. ( 1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology,
103(4), 962-1023.
Fataar, A. (2006). Policy networks in recalibrated political terrain: The case of school
curriculum policy and politics in South Africa. Journal of Education Policy, 21(6),
641-659.
Floden, R. (2003). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A.C. Porter, & A.
Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational
achievement. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Fogo, B. (2010). What every student should know and be able to do: The making of
California’s framework, standards, and tests for History-Social Science.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
271
Foster, J., Addy, N. A., & Samoff, J. (2012, in press). Crossing Borders: Research in
Comparative and International Education. International Journal of Educational
Development.
Fox-Wolfgramm, S., Boal, K.B., & Hunt, J.G. (1998). Organizational adaptation to
institutional change: A comparative study of first-order change in prospector and
defender banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 87-126.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fuller B. (1991). Growing up modern: The western state builds third world schools. New
York: Routledge.
Gallie, M. (2007). The implementation of development appraisal systems in a low-
functioning South African school. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Gaotlhobogwe, M. (2009). Botswana broken into 19 new sub-districts. Last retrieved
March 7, 2012, from MmegiOnline Web site:
http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=2&dir=2009/January/Thursday15
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C.
Geertz, The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic
Books
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules for sociological method. New York: Basic.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262-1267). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Govender. (2004). Teacher unions, policy struggles and educational change, 1994 to
2004. In L. Chisholm (Eds.), Changing class: Education and social change in post-
apartheid South Africa (pp. 267-291). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
Press.
272
Government of Botswana (GoB). (2005). Upper Primary school syllabus (standard five
to seven). Gaborone: Department of Curriculum Development and Evaluation.
Graaff, J. (1992). Is Bop better? A case study in educational innovation in
Bophuthatswana. In H. Jacklin, & J. Graaff, J., Rural education in South Africa. A
Report on Schooling Systems in the Bantustans. Unpublished Report.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The
contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1082.
Hallet, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and
organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy, Theory and
Society, 35(2), 213-236 .
Halpern, J. (1965). South Africa's hostages. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Harley, K., & Wedekind, V. (2004). Political change, curriculum change and social
formation, 1990-2002. In L. Chisholm (Eds.), Changing class: Education and social
change in post-apartheid South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council
Press.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time
and the effects of surface and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy
of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
Hinings, C.R., Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Kikulis, M. (1996). Values and organizational
structure. Human Relations, 49 (7), 885-916.
Hodgkinson, C. (1983). The philosophy of leadership. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoffman, A. J., & Ventresca, M. J. (2002). Introduction. In A. J. Hoffman & M. J.
Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy, and the natural environment: Institutional
and strategic perspectives. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Institutions and entrepreneurship. In S. A. Alvarez,
R. Agarwal, & O. Sorenson (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (pp.
179-210). Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
Hyslop, J. (1990). Teacher resistance in African education from the 1940s to the 1980s.
In M. Nkomo, (Eds.), Pedagogy of domination: Towards a democratic education in
South Africa. Trenton: Africa World Press.
273
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and
organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management,
29(6), 801-830.
Jansen, J. (1993). Curriculum reform in Zimbabwe: Reflections for the South African
transition. In N. Taylor (Eds.), Inventing knowledge: Contests in curriculum
construction. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
Jansen, J. (1997). Why OBE will fail. In J. Jansen & P. Christie (Eds.), Changing
curriculum: Studies on Outcomes Based Education in South Africa. Johannesburg:
Juta Academic Publishers.
Jansen, J. (2002a). Political symbolism as policy craft: Explaining non-reform in South
African education after apartheid. Journal of Educational Policy, 17(2), 199-215.
Jansen, J. (2002b). Setting the scene: Historiographies of curriculum policy in South
Africa. In J. Jansen, J. Gultig, & U. Hoadley (Eds.), Curriculum: From plans to
practices. Oxford University Press and the South African Institute for Distance
Education.
Jansen, J. (2004). Autonomy and accountability in the regulation of the teaching
profession: A South African case study, Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 57-66.
Jansen, J., & Christie, P. (Ed.). (1999). Changing curriculum: Studies on Outcomes-
based Education in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta Academic Publishers.
Kamens, D. H., & Yun-Kyung, C. (1992). The legitimation of new subjects in mass
schooling: 19th!century origins and 20th!century diffusion of art and physical
education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(1), 43-160.
Kann, U. (1988). Education and development in Botswana. Gaborone: Government of
Botswana.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product
development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(3), 547-559.
Kennedy, C. (1996). Teacher roles in curriculum reform. English Language Teacher
Education and Development (ELTED), 2(1), 77-88.
Kilpatrick, J. (2009). The mathematics teacher and curriculum change. PNA, 3(3), 107-
121.
274
Kogan, M. (1975). Educational policy-making. Cambridge: Allen and Unwin.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4), 691-710
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization
Science, 8(1), 1-22.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R.
Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization
studies (2nd ed., pp. 215-254). London, UK: Sage.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: theorizing and studying
institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional
work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, D. (1982). Exploring the construct of “Opportunity-to-Learn”. Integrated Education,
20(1-2), 62-63.
Leyendecker, R. (2008). Curriculum reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities and
obstacles. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, South Africa.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy; Dilemmas of the individual in public
services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Louis Berger International (LBI), Inc. (1988). Junior Secondary Education Improvement
Project (JSEIP): Mid-Point Evaluation. Report submitted to USAID. Washington,
D.C.
Malao, J. (1983). Planning an educational system for Bophutatswana. (Unpublished
M.Ed thesis). Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education.
Maruatona, T. L. (1994). Hegemony and the curriculum process: A critique of curriculum
development and implementation in Botswana. Mosenodi, Journal of the Botswana
Educational Research Association, 2(2), 15-32.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications.
275
McDonnell, L. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn as a research concept and policy instrument.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.
McKee, L. & Pettigrew, A. M. (1988). Managing major change. Health Service Journal,
17, 1358-1360.
McLaughlin, M. (1998). Listening and learning from the field: tales of implementation
and situated practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins
(Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
McLaughlin, M. (1991). The RAND change agent study: ten years later. In R.O. Allan,
(Ed.), Education Policy Implementation. New York: SUNY.
McLaughlin, M., & Mitra, D. L. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory:
Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 3(1), 301-323.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M. & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World Society and the
nation-state, American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144-181.
Meyer, J. W., Nagel, J., & Snyder, C. W. (1993). The expansion of mass education in
Botswana: Local and world society perspectives. Comparative Education Review,
37(4), 454-475.
Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., & Strang, D. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and
school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(2), 186-201.
Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., Strang, D., & Creighton, A. L. (1988). Bureaucratization
without centralization: Changes in the organizational system of U.S. public education,
1940–80. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and
environment (pp. 139–167). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding
the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 21(2), 402-433.
Ministry of Education (MoE). (1991). Curriculum Development Procedures Manual.
Gaborone.
Ministry of Education (MoE). (2001). The development of education: National report of
Botswana prepared for the International Bureau of Education (IBE), UNESCO. Last
276
retrieved March 7, 2012, from the IBE, UNESCO Web site:
www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Botswana.pdf
Ministry of Education (MoE). (2004). National quality education for all young people:
Challenges, trends, and priorities: National report of Botswana prepared for the
International Bureau of Education (IBE), UNESCO. Last retrieved March 7, 2012,
from the IBE, UNESCO Web site:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE47/English/Natreps/reports/botswana.pdf
Ministry of Education (MoE). (2005). Standard 4 and 5 formative evaluation report.
Gaborone.
Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD). (2009). Policy brief prepared
for the Mozambique Ministry of Education and Culture. Botswana.
Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD). (2010). National in-service
teacher education policy framework. Botswana: Department of Teacher Training and
Development.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Mokgosi, L. Z. (2009). Enhancing Quality Education: An investigation in high achieving
secondary schools in Botswana. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Sussex, UK.
Monyatsi, P. P. (2003). Teacher appraisal: An evaluation of practices in Botswana
secondary schools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UNISA, Pretoria.
Motala, E. (2001). Policy analysis capacity in South Africa. In Y. Sayed & J. Jansen
(Eds.), Implementing education policies: The South African experience. Cape Town:
UCT Press.
Motala, E. & Singh, M. (2001). Introduction. In Motala, E. & Pampallis, J. (Eds.),
Education and equity: The impact of state policies on South African education.
Sandown: Heinemann.
Murata, A., Hart, L. & Alston, A. (2011). Lesson Study Research and Practice in
Mathematics Education. New York: Springer.
Musgrave, P. W. (1968). The School as an organisation. London: MacMillan.
277
National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI). (1993). Education, planning, systems
and structure. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Ocasio, W. (1995). The enactment of economic adversity: A reconciliation of theories of
failure-induced change and threat-rigidity. In L.L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior, 17 (pp. 287-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ohio University. (1985). Primary Education Improvement Project, Report 8. Report
submitted to USAID, 31 October, 1985.
Okpala, J. & Tabulawa, R. (2003). The role of teachers in developing school geography
curriculum. In Gerber, R. (Ed.), International Handbook on Geographical Education
(pp. 171-189). Dordrecht: Klewer Academic Publishers.
Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1996).
The European reconstruction, 1948-1961: Bibliography on the Marshall Plan and the
Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC). Washington, D.C.:
OECD Publications and Information Center.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups,
firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Parsons, Q. N. (1983). Education and development in pre-colonial and colonial Botswana
to 1965. In C. Michael (Eds.), Education for Development in Botswana: Proceedings
of a Symposium held by the Botswana Society, Gaborone, 15-19 August 1983.
Botswana: Macmillan.
Parsons, Q. N. (2000). The Botswana history pages: A brief history of Botswana.
Retrieved February 2, 2011, from Thuto Web site:
http://www.thuto.org/ubh/bw/bhp1.htm
Paterson, A. & Arends, F. (2009). Teacher graduate production in South Africa. Cape
Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press.
Patton, M. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility and credibility of qualitative
analysis. Health Services Research (Part II), 34(5), 1189-1208.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1985). Contextualist research: A natural way to link theory and practice.
In E. E. Lawler, A. M. Mohrman, S. A. Mohrman, G. E. Ledford, T. G. Cummings, &
Associates (Eds.), Doing research that is useful for theory and practice (pp. 223-
274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
278
Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change. Organization Science,
1(3), 267-292.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 13 (4), 337-348.
Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the
classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From
capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the States (pp.60-80). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Powell, W.W., & Colyvas, J.A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational institutionalism (pp. 276-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ramirez, F., Suarez, D., & Meyer, J. (2007). The worldwide rise of human rights
education. In A. Benavot, & C. Braslavsky (Eds.), School knowledge in comparative
and historical perspective: Changing curricula in primary and secondary education,
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: CERC Studies in Comparative Education.
Ramparsad, R. (1995). Attitudes of secondary school science teachers in a former Indian
Department of Education towards science curriculum development. (unpublished
M.Ed research report). University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Ramparsad, R. (1999). A strategy for teacher involvement in curriculum development.
(unpublished DEd thesis). Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.
Ramsuran, A., & Malcolm, C. (2006). Professionalisation as a social regularity: The
policy process in South Africa's Natural Science curriculum. South African Journal of
Education, 26(4), 515-528.
Reddy, V. (2006). Mathematics and science achievement at South African schools in
TIMSS 2003. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press.
Reeves, C. (1999). Are teachers likely to achieve the natural science outcomes for
Curriculum 2005? Journal of Education, 24, 45-64.
Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Llyod, G. M. (Eds.) (2009). Mathematics
teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and mathematics instruction.
New York: Routledge.
279
Republic of Bophutatswana (1978). Report of the National Education Commission.
Education for Popagano. Mafikeng: National Education Commission.
Republic of Botswana. (1977). National Commission on Education (NCE). Gaborone:
Government Printer.
Republic of Botswana. (1978). The National Policy on Education (NPE). Gaborone:
Government Printer.
Republic of Botswana. (1991). Teacher performance appraisal. Gaborone: Government
Printers.
Republic of Botswana. (1993). National Commission on Education (NCE). Gaborone:
Government Printer.
Republic of Botswana. (1994). The revised national policy on education (RNPE).
Gaborone: Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa (RSA). (1996a). National Education Policy Act (Act 27 of
1996). Pretoria: Government Printers.
Republic of South Africa (RSA). (1996b). South African Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996).
Pretoria: Government Printers.
Rosenshine, B., & Berliner, D. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of
Teacher Education, 4(1), 3-26.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.
Sayed, Y. (2002). Educational policy in South Africa: from opposition to governing and
implementation. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 29-33.
Sayed, Y. (2004). The case of teacher education in post-apartheid South Africa: politics
and priorities. In L. Chisholm (Eds.), Changing class: Education and social change in
post-apartheid South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council Press.
Schlemmer, L. (1982). A venture in educational development. An external evaluation report on
the Bophutatswana teacher upgrading project. Mounted by the SACHED Trust, Centre
for Applied Social Science. University of Natal, Durban.
Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., Houang, R., Wang, H., Wiley, D., Cogan, L. & Wolfe, R. (2001).
Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
280
Scott, W. R. (2008a). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and
Society, 37(5), 427-442.
Scott, W. R. (2008b). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural,
and open system perspectives. Prentice Hall.
Scott, W. R., Mendel, P. J., & Pollack, S. (1996). Environments and fields: Studying the
evolution of a field of medical care organizations. Paper presented at a conference on
institutional analysis, University of Arizona, March 1996.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. (1991). The rise of training programs in firms and agencies: An
institutional perspective. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13, 297-326. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and
healthcareorganizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Shipman, M. D. (1975). The sociology of the school. London: Longman.
Sidiropoulos, H. (2008). The implementation of mandatory mathematics curriculum in
South Africa: The case of Mathematical Literacy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1991). Researching the homeless: The characteristic
features and virtues of the case study. In J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, & C. Sjoberg
(Eds.), A case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
South African Democracy Education Trust (SADET). (2004). The road to democracy in
South Africa, Volume 1, 1960-1970. Cape Town: Zebra Press.
South African Democracy Education Trust (SADET). (2006). The road to democracy in
South Africa, Volume 2, 1970-1980. Pretoria: UNISA Press.
Spreen, C. (2004). Appropriating borrowed policies: Outcomes-based education in South
Africa. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.). The global politics of educational borrowing and
lending (pp.101-113). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and
lending. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
281
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Study Commission on U.S. Policy toward Southern Africa. 1981. South Africa: time
running out: the report of the Study Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Southern
Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tabulawa, R. (1997). Pedagogical classroom practice and the social context: The case of
Botswana. International Journal of Education Development, 17(2), 1889- 1204.
Tabulawa, R. (1998). Teachers’ perspectives on classroom practice in Botswana:
Implications for pedagogical change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11 (2), 249-268.
Tabulawa, R. (2002). Geography in the Botswana secondary curriculum: A study in
curriculum renewal and contraction. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 11(2), 102–118.
Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centred pedagogy and political
democratisation: a critique, Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26.
Taylor, P. (1998). Development of a model for analysis of the policy-making process for
in-service training of teaching staff: A case study of an agricultural education
institution in Botswana. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading,
UK.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
K. Sahlin-Anderssen, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of organizational
institutionalism (pp. 99-129). London: Sage Publications.
Tiplic, D. (2008). Managing organizational change during institutional upheaval:
Bosnia-Herzegovina’s higher education in transition. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). BI Norwegian School of Management, Norway.
Torres, C. A., Cho, S., Kachur, J., Loyo, A., Mollis, M., Nagao, A., & Thompson, J.
(2000). Political Capital, Teachers’ Unions and the State: Value Conflicts and
Collaborative Strategies in Educational Reform in the United States, Canada, Japan,
Korea, Mexico and Argentina. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles
Latin America Centre.
282
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia. A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
UNESCO. (1990). The Jomtien Declaration. World declaration on education for all:
Meeting basic learning needs. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2000). Dakar Framework for Action. Education for All: Meeting our
collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2010). World Data on Education: Botswana. (7th ed.). Last retrieved March
7, 2012, from the IBE, UNESCO Web site:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf-
versions/Botswana.pdf
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2009). Partnership to
transform South African education: American support, 1986–2009. Johannesburg:
Acumen Publishing Solutions.
Vally, S. (2007). From people's education to neo-liberalism in South Africa. Review of
African Political Economy, 34(111), 39–56.
van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker,
W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscape and trends (pp. 1-10).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Walker, D. F. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to Learn: The impacts and policy implications educational
evaluation and policy analysis. American Educational Research Association, 20(3),
137-156.
Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organisations. London: Sage.
Weiler, H. N. (1988). The politics of aborted reform: Education and the legitimacy of the
state in France and West Germany. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Education Researchers Association (AERA), New Orleans.
Weiler, H. N. (1990). Curriculum reform and the legitimazation of educational
objectives: The case of the Federal Republic of Germany. Oxford Review of
Education, 16(1), 15-27.
283
Welmond, M. (1999). Teacher identity in Africa: The case of the Republic of Benin.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C.A., III. (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wolhuter, C. C. (2008). Review of the review: Constructing the identity of comparative
education. Research in International and Comparative Education, 3(4), 323-344.
Woolcock, M. (2009). Toward a plurality of methods in project evaluation: A
contextualized approach to understanding impact trajectories and efficacy, Journal of
Development Effectiveness 1(1), 1-14.
World Bank. (2008). Curricula, examinations, and assessment in secondary education in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Herndon, VA, USA: World Bank.
Wright, C. (1995). Towards a curriculum policy for basic education in Botswana.
Consultant’s report, Basic Education Consolidation (BEC) Project. Gaborone.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.