Is CAPS more likely to promote access and equity and social justice than C2005 and the RNCS did?
Submitted to Lynn Slonimsky: Wits School of Education
Date: 11 September 2012
By: Antoinette N. Malgas
Student Number: 0318127x
In this essay the writer will attempt to critically discuss whether CAPS is more likely to promote access, equity and social justice than C2005 and RNCS did. First I will give the definition of CAPS as per the Department of Education, followed by the discussion of C2005 and discussion of Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) and comparing them to CAPS. After I will discuss my own conclusion based on the enacted or lived curriculum.
A National Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement as explained by (Department of Education, 2012) is a single, comprehensive, and concise policy document which will replace the current Subject and Learning Area Statements, Learning Programme Guidelines and Subject Assessment Guidelines for all the subjects listed in the National Curriculum Statement Grades R – 12. The implementation of CAPS is an attempt to redress the failures and inadequacies of the previous curricula such as C2005 and RNCS. CAPS is means to promote access, equity and social justice in the country that has been subjected to apartheid and social injustices for a long period of time.
A good and acceptable curriculum must consider that each school should strive for both quality and egalitarianism in education. In this regard, quality of excellence would refer to students who work at the highest level of their capability and equality would refer to an equal opportunity to learn for each student. Equality in this instance is not necessarily about each student learning the same information, but that students learn under the conditions that suit them the best. (Reeves & Muller, 2005) state that in 1998 the C2005 was investigated through the President’s Education Initiative regarding the curriculum reform policies. C2005 was implemented with the belief that in its radicalism design in offering ideology and new terminology, it would be able to perform a horde of roles in responding to the new nation’s needs, especially addressing democracy(Department of Education, 2009). In the words of (Hoadley, 2007) one of the main factors leading to implementation of Curriculum 2005 was to create a schooling system that served to redress the inequalities created by apartheid education. Any society’s conception of a good society will shape the path that it creates meaning it has to address what knowledge to learn, how it is learned, whose knowledge and who gets access. C2005 was instead found to have disadvantaged those it intended to serve because it failed to provide clear guidelines to those teachers and learners who needed more input on how to go about teaching and learning. As argued by (Young, 2010) it is a crucial and emancipatory matter to give students access to powerful knowledge. Learners need to be exposed to strong discipline based knowledge and to the special knowledge of schooling that will enable them access to positions of power and influence in society. According to the report (Reeves & Muller, 2005) pointed out that Curriculum 2005 was driven by weak conceptual coherence in terms of specialised school knowledge and skills, it failed to reduce existing inequalities in learning outcomes. The inherent flaws of the curriculum as stated in the report (Department of Education,2009) became obvious with specific complaints about children’s inability to read, write and count at the appropriate grade levels. The challenge came because of general knowledge deficiency and moving away from explicit teaching and learning to facilitation and group work hence the learners suffered. The suggestions made based on the report included separation of integrated learning programmes into distinct subjects because it was noticed that there was weak lateral demarcation between school and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document