5. CURRENT DEBATES AND CRITICAL REFLECTIONS: THE ONGOING STRUGGLE FOR TRANSFORMATION
5.CURRENT DEBATES AND CRITICAL REFLECTIONS: ONGOING STRUGGLE FOR TRANSFORMATION
5.1Revisit promotion and progression policies
The National Policy Pertaining to the Programme and Promotion Requirements of the National Curriculum Statements Grades R–121 governs the promotion, and progression of learners through the basic education system. Some of the significant provisions of this policy are that learners may fail only once in a phase and must progress to the next grade if they fail to meet the outcomes of a grade for a second time in a phase, need only 30% to pass in some subjects, and should receive dedicated support when they progress. Although the underlying purpose of the progression policy is to reduce overcrowding, improve retention, reduce dropout, and prevent measures that could be detrimental to the dignity and self-esteem of learners, its practical implementation is flawed.
Research indicates that there is a lack of support for progressed learners, and that support is inconsistent and ineffective. The lack of a standardised framework for support, resources, and training for teachers culminates in no or ineffective interventions. Teachers are unable to provide adequate support to learners with significant foundational knowledge gaps while they must teach a specific grade’s curriculum, especially in overcrowded classrooms, which is a real concern in many schools. There is a dire need for comprehensive support policies and guidelines for teachers, both digitally and non-digitally.2
Research shows that progressed learners often feel stigmatised and demotivated, experience low self-esteem, and a sense of “having given up on learning”. This psychological toll can contribute to behavioural issues and further academic hurdles for students. When learners progress without adequate support, they tend to fall further behind, creating a cumulative learning deficit. This could lead to frustration and school dropout, undermining the policy’s purpose.3 This policy should be revised in light of the acceptability and adaptability requirements of the 4A framework on the right to education, since quality education is not attained through the current policy.
5.2Educational inputs versus outputs as indicators of the realisation of the right to education
The current trend is to focus on the inputs required to realise the right to education. However, considering the outcomes of international benchmarks tests, and research that indicates that 81% of Grade 4 learners cannot read for meaning4 it is time to answer the call for courts to move beyond specifying “input” but to also determine “minimum outcomes” (e.g., the ability to read for meaning by a certain grade) to better hold the government accountable to ensure the right to basic education is more than just a promise on paper. This shift necessitates judicial engagement with the effectiveness of inputs in achieving educational goals. The need to focus on adaptability and acceptability as components of the right to basic education requires urgent research and debate.5
5.3Re-imagining aims of education: shift to holistic development
Current debates are fixated on the symptoms of a broken system; however, a more fundamental discussion is needed on the purpose of education in South Africa. The CRC mandates that the aims of education must include the holistic and optimal development of individual children. This includes academic, social, emotional, and physical development of children.
However, the South African system has become narrowly focused on academic outcomes, and the quality of such outcomes is questionable. A critical debate that is yet to occur is the legal and policy imperatives to provide a comprehensive educational experience to all learners, including the child’s right to play, leisure, and cultural development, as enshrined in the CRC.6 The lack of sports facilities, art, and cultural activities in many under-resourced schools is a failure to meet this international standard and neglects a crucial aspect of child development.
Another failure is the lack of social services for children in schools, despite the unqualified constitutional guarantee of such services.7 When children’s social and emotional needs are not met, they cannot learn optimally. Failing to provide social services in schools hampers children’s rights in and through education.8 A shift in the debate on the aims of education and how to meet them is necessary and should move beyond minimum curriculum standards to hold the state accountable for providing a truly holistic and well-rounded educational experience.
5.4Navigating digital frontiers: equity and opportunity in artificial intelligence and information and communication technologies
Artificial intelligence (AI) and information and communication technologies (ICT) are transformative forces with the potential to address long-standing challenges in education, such as limited access and the need for personalised learning. Government initiatives (e.g., developing a coding and robotics curriculum and launching the IRIS AI teaching robot) demonstrate a degree of forward-thinking vision.
This technological promise carries profound risks. The current debate on ICT and education acknowledges the “digital divide” as a challenge. However, a more critical analysis reveals a deeper risk: if this divide, defined by unequal access to technology, electricity, and internet connectivity, is not actively and equitably addressed, AI and ICT will not close historical gaps but will instead create new ones. The tools of progress could entrench a new form of educational inequality based on digital access. A child in a well-resourced school with reliable internet and devices will be able to leverage AI for personalised learning, tutoring, and skills development, while a child in an under-resourced school with no connectivity and limited devices will be left even further behind.9
This system would effectively create a new form of educational separation – a system of digital exclusion that mirrors and reinforces historical socio-economic inequalities. Therefore, the debate must be reframed not only as a technological challenge but also as a moral and equity-driven imperative. The deployment of AI and ICT in education must be governed by an initiative-taking strategy designed to prevent this new form of exclusion, ensuring that technology serves as a bridge, not a barrier to quality education for all.10
