Curriculum decision-makers on decolonising the teacher education curriculum

Pryah Mahabeer

doi:10.15700/saje.v38n4a1705

Abstract

Over 21 years into democracy and the commitment for radical transformation in education, South Africa continues to adopt and adapt international imperatives and standardisations in pursuit of first world rankings. Ironically, notions of indigenisation, decolonisation and Africanisation of the curriculum have become catch words of the day. In the wake of the #FeesMustFall movement, a rethink of the curriculum for tomorrow, and the manner in which we think and speak about the curriculum, has come to the forefront. Through Pinar’s method of currere, this paper demonstrates curriculum decision-makers’ thinking about decolonising the curriculum. While some curriculum decision-makers perpetuate Western ways of thinking about the curriculum, others make a shift in their thinking towards a ‘re-humanising’ approach to the curriculum. The present study maintains that curriculum decision-makers are catalytic agents, and are neither complacent nor at the mercy of Western knowledge and ideologies. They continue to be apprehensive on curriculum matters and disrupt entrenched taken-for-granted philosophies. This renders them agentic in their development of, and search for, alternate worthwhile home-grown knowledge, that leads towards a more ‘humanised’ curriculum approach. This paper further opens up discussions and possibilities around notions of ‘indigenisation,’ ‘Africanisation,’ ‘decolonisation,’ ‘humanisation’ on one hand, and Westernisation and Eurocentrism of the curriculum on the other, working together as co-existing realities towards transforming the curriculum in colonised countries like South Africa. Keywords: curriculum; curriculum change; decolonisation; humanisation; indigenisation; intellectualisation

Highlights

The trajectory of teacher education policy development in South Africa in the post-1994 era, described by Samuel (2012:32) as three ‘shifting waves,’ explains the dialogues around quality teachers and quality teacher education, with the aim of a “renewed radical transformation.” The first wave involved a radical dismantling and reforming of apartheid ideas to bring about redress in the teacher education curricula
Biesta (2016) raises important open questions in deliberating on whether humanism should be denounced or whether it can still be an effective approach at present within the South African context: what does it mean to be human and what is the meaning of humanity? The findings in this study suggest that humanist education should be advocated as a possibility to develop a decolonised curriculum, as it has been instrumental in conserving humanity of the human being (Biesta, 2016)
There are many contestations facing the development of decolonising the teacher education curriculum in South Africa, and curriculum decision-makers are agentic and have a worthy role to play

Summary

Introduction

The trajectory of teacher education policy development in South Africa in the post-1994 era, described by Samuel (2012:32) as three ‘shifting waves,’ explains the dialogues around quality teachers and quality teacher education, with the aim of a “renewed radical transformation.” The first wave involved a radical dismantling and reforming of apartheid ideas to bring about redress in the teacher education curricula. The trajectory of teacher education policy development in South Africa in the post-1994 era, described by Samuel (2012:32) as three ‘shifting waves,’ explains the dialogues around quality teachers and quality teacher education, with the aim of a “renewed radical transformation.”. The second wave embraced the reconceptualisation of teacher identities and the acquisition of proficient practical skills and knowledge to address the discontent with teacher education. This led to deliberations targeting universities for provisioning initial teacher education curriculum that was too theoretical, incoherent and not methodically aligned to the school curriculum (Samuel, 2012). In reacting to changes within the curriculum policy discourse, it is important to understand whose interests changes serve and the purposes for change (Shay, 2011)

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion