Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
...
Critical thinking is a muscle, not a genetic trait. Its best gymnasium is time; its worst is speed. But given the busy weeks of a school term, and the persistence of continuous assessment – embedded into the CAPS system – it is difficult to believe these two principles swim in the same pool.
...
In democratic South Africa’s educational history, there is perhaps no better example of the cart before the horse than Sibusiso Bengu’s Curriculum 2005. Outcomes-based education (OBE) failed students, not because of its philosophy, but because a broken, fledgling democracy lacked the infrastructure to handle a first-world educational model.
Fast forward three decades to our current educational landscape: from the tenures of the late Kader Asmal to the Department of Basic Education’s (DBE) long-serving Angie Motshekga, and now to Siviwe Gwarube, the horse seems back in front.
Only now, it is being whipped into a gallop.
With the structures of its Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) and the diligent tracking of continuous assessment (CASS), a generation of learners are holding on tightly while education treats them more like utilities than human beings.
Curriculum and assessment cascades
If Asmal’s Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) was a join-the-dots exercise in assessment, the current Annual Teaching Plans (ATPs) and School-Based Assessment (SBA) models are a hyper-dense maze: the end goal has not changed but the curriculum is now flooded with mandatory tasks.
Conservatively, the number of assessments in Grade 8 is around 20. In a term. Times that by four terms – with the addition of examinations – and you’re looking at around 80 formal tasks in a school year. And that is Grade 8.
With such a heavy load, it is difficult to imagine that the CAPS goal of critical thinking – one of six – is truly realistic.1 Critical thinking is a muscle, not a genetic trait. Its best gymnasium is time; its worst is speed. But given the busy weeks of a school term, and the persistence of continuous assessment – embedded into the CAPS system2 – it is difficult to believe these two principles swim in the same pool.
It is also a misapplication of theory.
Bloom’s misapplied
Any Further Education and Training (FET: Grades 10–12) educator has heard of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The famous educational psychologist, Benjamin Bloom, spent his career studying the human mind, especially through the lens of assessment, and wrote his book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in 1956.3 It is Bloom’s taxonomy that the DBE has required to be implemented in every formal test.
But by Bloom’s own admission, he was describing the ontology of thought, not a rigid testing system to be unfolded in schools. According to Bloom, mastering learning took time, and in 1968 he would write, “Most students can master what we have to teach them, but the single most critical variable is time ... a rigid, uniform pacing system is the enemy of deep comprehension.”4
With statements like these, surely the DBE could pull back and ponder the theories of the very person they choose to use. The necessity of time fundamentally drove the spirit of Bloom’s philosophy and should drive the DBE’s own.
Curriculum 2005, constructivism, and compliance
Educational theory in South Africa is praising compliance over character, and in extreme cases even removing character. Because of this, the teacher–student relationship is often reduced to two cogs in a machine, rather than malleable human beings capable of teaching and appreciating knowledge. As has been established, critical thinking requires time. It does so because in its search for truth it must also allow the space for wrong answers. Without such, the mind cannot learn to reflect and criticise its own theories. But a curriculum in fast forward does not tolerate this. Instead, teachers are compelled to “teach to the test”, and instead of fostering critical thinking skills, they must instruct learners what to remember.
I recall a history lesson which ventured off into debate. Amicable but heated, learners were keen to express their points of view. But towards the back, one of the learners sat softly crying. Her response revealed a sad reality: “Sir, how is this discussion going to help us pass?” I couldn’t blame her. And what about the mental framework of not only this girl but the many other learners who come to school as victims of knowledge rather than its heirs – and without the freedom to develop their opinion or to find their voice? As much as the DBE purports to celebrate critical thinking, its own structures make it difficult to practise.
When Sibusiso Bengu launched Curriculum 2005, one of its underlying learning theories was constructivism.5 It was a theory discussed by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. On a practical level, given South Africa’s lack of resources, the DBE used Piaget’s theory – that children construct their own knowledge through discovery – to justify removing traditional textbook teaching.
On a political level, it was symbolic. The textbook represented the apartheid style of authoritarian teaching, where the teacher played the all-knowing guide and the student the subservient recipient. Bantu Education exemplified this, forcing learners to become labourers more than human thinkers. Constructivism, then, would become the nation’s emancipator, allowing learners to construct knowledge and regain dignity as “meaning-makers” with their teachers. But it struggled to work, and while Bengu’s reasoning was understandable, a young, new South Africa was simply not ready.
...
Arguably, however, the failure of the DBE’s relationship with constructivism was not its inability to practise the theory. Rather, it was the reactive decisions it made to counter this failure.
...
Arguably, however, the failure of the DBE’s relationship with constructivism was not its inability to practise the theory. Rather, it was the reactive decisions it made to counter this failure. In an exceptional example of throwing the baby out with the bath water the DBE looked past Piaget, choosing to implement the RNCS in 2002 and the CASS model which eventually became CAPS. In all of these, the core philosophy was, and remains, rigid testing and learner compliance.
Sadly, downplaying Piaget also meant losing one of constructivism’s enduring insights: that learning develops through engagement and developmental readiness. Much like Bloom, Piaget understood that meaningful learning requires time. Yet rather than adopting this principle, the DBE continues to run in the opposite direction. Instead of slowing down, a move that would give learners the space they need, the educational system now employs new measures to help learners push through; a profound example is the use of learner accommodations.
The slippery slope of accommodations
Learner population in national schools grew by 5% from 2024 to 2025;6 the number of learners using accommodations by 57%.7 An additional 3 800 learners were granted accommodations ranging from extra time to the more eerie-sounding “human readers” and “prompters”. Given the stress of a rigorous assessment policy, a rise in accommodations is to be expected. But a 57% increase should not be.
Of more concern, though, is the growing number of reasons learners seek these support systems; things like “severe burnout” and “panic disorder” are no longer nuanced but mainstream ideas. Remember these are adolescents, not high-functioning corporate executives. They are not running families, working jobs or paying bills. But they are going through the mill of an education system ruled by rigorous assessment. And – simply put – they are not coping.
No one in education doubts the necessity of accommodations. Many cases exist where learners experience necessary relief and where the joy of success justifies learner support. But there is also the other side; a side characterised by a fervency to diagnose the first, minute glimpse of failure. Here, the normal, otherwise healthy biological process is replaced with disorders that read more like mathematical equations:
- 2 – Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, combined presentation (moderate to severe)
- 1 / F41.0 – Generalised Anxiety Disorder with secondary Panic Disorder (exam-induced)
- 0 – Burnout / State of Vital Exhaustion (secondary to chronic academic overwork)
- 9 – Unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder impacting executive functioning (Working Memory deficit measured at the 14% percentile).
This is a genuine diagnosis from a recent report. There is something unsettling about it.
Reducing learners to atoms treats children as utilities rather than precious human beings. With such pedantic diagnosis, the far more natural and biological coping mechanism of resilience is bypassed, and children learn to flee rather than fight. Additionally, they never develop the chance to learn grit, nor realise that in themselves lies the God-given potential to succeed. Incredible power is given to a child when they are allowed to develop naturally and when they can weather the academic storms themselves. But that same power is removed when learners must stare at themselves through a purely scientific lens.
I recall the back-and-forth emails with a mother whose son was denied accommodations. Surely, he should have received them. He had “well-documented ADHD, anxiety, depression, and dyslexia”. But his test scores showed another story. With a little research I replied, “many dyslexic students develop coping strategies (such as relying on their verbal skills or understanding text structure) that allow them to compensate for reading/writing challenges. Accommodations don’t perform miracles, learners do.”
Still, my heart goes out to parents who are battling a system more than the shortcomings of their child.
Policy swings and pedagogical extremes
South African education, certainly over the last three decades, has struggled to find a middle-ground. From OBE to CAPS, policies have jumped flea-like from one extreme to the next. The brand-new CAPS document for History is a case in point. Instead of a small adjustment, it has removed most of 20th century ideology and replaced it with African history. No-one argues the need for curriculum change. But why remove so much content and then flood the curriculum to the extent that teachers begin on the back foot? And why, as the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) demands,8 take this same, untested curriculum, and unroll it nation-wide before trying it on those who actually want to take the subject?
These are the extremes that have characterised the DBE’s educational policies and its consequent assessment structures. While South Africa is a nation, it is not a homogenous group. Perhaps it is time to take a candid look at an education model that needs change.
As this country has taken time to heal, and time to develop, it must by the same token give its students the time to learn. Speaking recently at an education summit in Johannesburg, Professor Jonathan Jansen captured this systemic tragedy well. “We have built a system that values the architecture of school over the architecture of the soul,” he said.9
Notes:
1 https://www.education.gov.za/Curriculum/NationalCurriculumStatementsGradesR-12.aspx
2 Practical Assessment Tasks (PAT) and School-Based Assessment (SBA)
3 https://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Educational-Objectives-Handbook-Cognitive/dp/0582280109
4 https://tinyurl.com/577rs2kx
5 http://academic.sun.ac.za/mathed/174/Constructivism.pdf
6 https://www.education.gov.za/Resources/Reports.aspx
7 Ibid
8 https://www.sadtu.org.za/2026/sadtu-notes-the-publishing-of-the-draft-new-history-curriculum-for-grades-4-12-for-public-comment/
9 https://usaf.ac.za/professor-jonathan-jansen-challenges-set-practices-in-postgraduate-education-in-sa-universities-calls-for-a-renewal/
See also:
History in the classroom: Why CAPS must look beyond ideology