The Pitfalls of Headline-Driven Narratives in South African Education.
South Africa’s education system is widely acknowledged to be in crisis. This is a national concern, echoed by international education agencies, commentators, and news outlets. This shared understanding of the problem prompts critical questions: What are the root causes of this crisis, and how can we effectively address them?
These are valid questions, and they often lead the media to simplify the issue by highlighting a few specific issues, suggesting they are the main culprits behind our struggles. This emphasis can create hype around valid yet relatively minor concerns, allowing the more significant underlying problems to go unnoticed. As a result, we find ourselves trapped in a cycle of misdiagnosis that continues for years, leaving us with a broken system.
A spanner in the works of this cycle is our democratic right to vote every five years. As we know, politicians aim to maximize votes, and the votes are dependent on public perceptions. Their public perception is largely shaped by how the media portrays them, and thus, it’s only right that they rely on media coverage to gauge concern, which perpetuates the cycle of focusing on the wrong problems.
This problem may also extend to corporations with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds directed at education. Their funding strategies may be influenced by prevailing public narratives about the challenges facing the education system. This can lead to a potential misalignment between funded initiatives and the most pressing needs for improved performance.
The issues that typically receive the most attention are “matric pass rates”, “reading abilities”, “teachers”- who are the most convenient scapegoats, “throughput” is also starting to make an entry and “dropouts”. I am by no means implying these are not important, they are, but they do, however, require context to reveal the deeper, systemic issues affecting education.
Addressing challenges in education effectively requires a holistic approach. For instance, consider the media’s focus on “reading abilities.” According to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), “81% of grade 4 children in South Africa were unable to read for meaning.” My immediate questions when I read this headline were: What was the population sample? Which provinces and quintiles did these children come from?
These questions are important in understanding the context in which the 81% of children that are cited, exist. When the sample size consists of only 12,426 children from 321 schools out of a total population of about one million learners across approximately 15,000 schools, it raises questions about the significance of the results. The sample size is too small to conclude that this is a crisis across the country, as it only examines 1.2% of grade 4 learners in 2.4% of schools in South Africa.
My next set of questions would be, how many of these children have learning difficulties? How many have parents or caregivers who supervise their reading daily? How long and how often do they read in class? What reading resources do schools provide? How does the department measure performance in reading? These questions help us gauge the severity of the problem.
From my experience in education, there are generally adequate reading resources. However, not every child has the opportunity to read to a teacher due to the high learner-to-teacher ratio. Additionally, some parents may not be involved in their children’s education for various reasons, and there may be undiagnosed learning difficulties that hinder effective reading interventions. Thus, focusing on “reading” itself may not be the most productive approach; instead, diagnosing learning difficulties, getting parents involved in their children’s education and appointing teachers would be a more worthwhile use of resources. The real threats to learning in this example are, learning difficulties, the lack of support from parents or caregivers, and insufficient one-on-one time with the teacher, rather than the ability to read for meaning.
In my example, I mentioned almost everyone key in a child’s learning ecosystem: parents, teachers, and education officials responsible for strategic decisions regarding curriculum, classroom management, resources, and governance. This group should always be included as a collective when examining the real issues in our education system, they are interdependent. In every learning issue, this group plays a role and should always be included in every conversation regarding a child’s education.
The media plays a vital role in our daily lives, informing us of current events and shaping our understanding of the world. If we are to use this information to drive progress and hold our leaders accountable for the state of education, it is only right that we expect deeper probes and accurate information that reflects the real issues at hand. Otherwise, we risk being misled by shocking headlines that distract us from the true challenges.
After all, shocking headlines should guide us toward the true challenges we need to address, such as: “81% of learners are reported to have learning difficulties, and the state lacks resources to address them.”
In conclusion, let’s seek to understand the nuances of our education challenges, create hype around the real challenges faced by our children, advocate for systemic change, and work together for a better future for our children.
Comments are closed.