1.5 CURRENT DEBATES AND CRITICAL REFLECTIONS: THE ONGOING STRUGGLE FOR TRANSFORMATION

1.5 CURRENT DEBATES AND CRITICAL REFLECTIONS: THE ONGOING STRUGGLE FOR TRANSFORMATION

1.5.1 Revisit the promotion and progression policies

The National Policy Pertaining to the Programme and Promotion Requirements of the National Curriculum Statements Grades R -12 1 governs the promotion and progression of learners through the basic education system. Some of the most significant provisions of this policy include that learners may fail only once in a phase and must be progressed 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 that they should receive dedicated support when they were progressed. Although the underlying purpose of the progression policy is to reduce overcrowding, improve retention, reduce dropout and prevent measures that can be detrimental to the dignity and self-esteem of learners, the practical implementation is found to be largely flawed.

Research indicates that there is a lack of support for progressed learners, support is inconsistent and ineffective. The lack of a standardised framework for support, lack of 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 have to teach the specific grade’s curriculum, especially in overcrowded classrooms, which is a real concern in many schools. There is a dire need for a comprehensive support policy 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. When learners are progressed without adequate support, they tend to fall further behind, creating a cumulative learning deficit. This can lead to a sense of frustration and ultimately school dropout, undermining the purpose of the policy. 3

It is evident that 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.

1.5.2 Educational inputs vs outputs as indicators of the realisation of the right to education

The current trend is to focus on the inputs that are 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 meaning 4 it is time to answer the call for courts to move beyond specifying “input” but to also determine” minimum outcomes” (eg., 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 would necessitate 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 needs urgent research and debates. 5

1.5.3 Re-imagining the aims of education: A shift to holistic development

The current debates are largely fixated on the symptoms of a broken system, but a more fundamental discussion is needed about the very purpose of education in South Africa. The CRC mandates that the aims of education must include the holistic and optimal development of the individual child. This includes academic, social, emotional, and physical development.

The South African system, however, has become narrowly focused on academic outcomes, with the quality of these outcomes themselves being called into question. A critical debate that is not yet on the table is the legal and policy imperatives to provide a comprehensive educational experience to all learners that includes 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 a neglect of a crucial aspect of child development.

Another failure is the lack of social services for children in school, despite the unqualified constitutional guarantee of social services for children 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 the provision of a truly holistic, well-rounded educational experience.

1.5.4 Navigating the Digital Frontier: Equity and Opportunity in the Age of AI and ICT

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, such as the development of a Coding and Robotics curriculum and the launch of the IRIS AI teaching robot, demonstrate a degree of forward-thinking vision.

However, this technological promise carries with it a profound risk. The current debate around ICT and education acknowledges the “digital divide” as a challenge. A more critical analysis, however, 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 the historical gaps but will instead create new ones. The very 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. The debate must therefore be reframed not just as a technological challenge, but as a moral and equity-driven imperative. The deployment of AI and ICT in education must be governed by a proactive 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