teachers’ roles a dissertation submitted to the …gp954fp4477/... · providing curriculum...

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



http://purl.stanford.edu/gp954fp4477

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


Prudence Carter


Walter Powell


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-



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)


(Group)


work)


Training)




resources, time t+1


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


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


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


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).


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-



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


• Creating institutions • Disrupting institutions

• Processual • Comparison of

timelines c. Inter-organizational structures emerging by 2000s


• 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


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


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)


(Group)


work)


Training)




resources, time t+1


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


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)


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


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”


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


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


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


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


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)


(Group)


work)


Training)




resources, time t+1


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


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)


(Group)


work)


Training)


resources, time t+1


Society

Key:

Unified structure (coherent links)

Partially unified structure (partially coherent links)

Fragmented structure (incoherent links)



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)


(Group)


work)


Training)

evaluations, consultations,

observations, time t-1



resources, time t+1


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


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


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


Jan 2005

> 3 Yrs after dvpt

Implementation began: Intermediate (G 4-6), FET (G 12)

Jan 2005 < 3 Yrs after devpt


Jan 2005

> 1 Yr after dvpt

Formative evaluation of standard 4 & 5 implementation

Jul 3-29 2005


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.