The National Strategy for Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education [NSMSTE] was promulgated two decades back with the aim of
improving national excellence in
mathematical sciences. Although the initiative has achieved several
gains in participation, top-end performance which was targeted has remained
alarmingly low at less than 5% annually. This study aimed at an in-depth
understanding of how and why top-end performances targets were not achieved. I
used an educational production function (EPF) to analyse the factors that were
prioritized and those that were ignored in the 20-year implementation period of the strategy. I used a
Secondary Qualitative Data Analysis design where I collected recommendations
made in 20 sampled documents which had evaluated the strategy. An EPF places
student ability as one key factor to be considered early in the primary school
suggesting that gifted students should have been identified early before
resources were provided. However, results show that the strategy prioritized
the provision of external resources without considering the potential of the
students. It also targeted low performance high schools instead of primary
schools. This could partially explain why the program failed to make a
significant impact. This study recommends that the Dinaledi School program
focuses on gifted students at primary school level instead of average students
at secondary level.
References
[1]
Booij, A. S., Haan, F., & Plug, E. (2017). Can Gifted and Talented Education Raise the Academic Achievement of All High-Achieving Students? IZA Discussion Papers No. 10836, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). https://ftp.iza.org/dp10836.pdf https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2988183
[2]
Bowles, S. (1970). Towards an Educational Production Function. In W. L. Hansen (Ed.), Education, Income, and Human Capitals (pp. 11-70). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
[3]
CDE (2013). Mathematics Outcomes in South African Schools: What Are the Facts? What Should Be Done? Centre for Development and Enterprise.
[4]
Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2011) Action Plan to 2014 towards the Realization of Schooling 2025. Department of Basic Education. https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ressources/southafrica_actionplan2025.pdf
[5]
Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2019). Annual Report 2018/2019. Department of Basic Education.
[6]
Department of Education (DoE) (2001). National Strategy for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in General and Further Education and Training. https://www.westerncape.gov.za/text/2003/strategy_math_science_fet.pdf
[7]
Department of Education (DoE) (2009). The Dinaledi Schools Project Report. National Business Initiative. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/29763809/the-dinaledi-schools-project-national-business-initiative
[8]
Gagné, F. (2015). From Genes to Talent: A DMGT/CMTD Perspective. Revista de Educación, 368, 12-37.
[9]
Grant, C. (2017). The Contribution of Education to Economic Growth. K4D Helpdesk Report. Institute of Development Studies. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/13117/K4D_HDR_The%20Contribution%20of%20Education%20to%20Economic%20Growth%20Final.pdf;jsessionid=41FAD5D10DA3CE7F76860523DBA6D8C4?sequence=206
[10]
Hanushek, E. A. (2020). Education Production Functions. In S. Bradley, & C. Green (Eds.), The Economics of Education (2nd ed., pp. 161-170). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00013-6
[11]
Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2020). Education, Knowledge Capital, and Economic Growth. In S. Bradley, & C. Green (Eds.), The Economics of Education (2nd ed., pp. 171-182). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00014-8
[12]
Heckman, J. (2011). The Economics of Inequality: The Value of Early Childhood Education. American Educator, 35, 31-35.
[13]
Irwin, S. (2013). Qualitative Secondary Data Analysis: Ethics, Epistemology and Context. Progress in Development Studies, 13, 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993413490479
[14]
Jenkins, J. J. (1981). Can We Have a Fruitful Cognitive Psychology? In H. E. Howe Jr., & J. H. Flowers (Eds.), Cognitive Processes: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1980 (pp. 211-238). University of Nebraska Press.
[15]
Kettler, T. (2016). Why Are Economists Evaluating the Impact of Gifted Education? Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16636172
[16]
Kottmeyer, C. (2011). Economy of Giftedness. Gifted Education Communicator, 42, 25-27.
[17]
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life Paths and Accomplishments of Mathematically Precocious Males and Females Four Decades Later. Psychological Science, 25, 2217-2232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371
[18]
Lubinski, D. (2016). From Terman to Today: A Century of Findings on Intellectual Precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86, 900-944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476
[19]
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2021). Intellectual Precocity: What Have We Learned Since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447
[20]
Mandelman, S. D., Tan, M., Aljughaiman, A. M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Intellectual Giftedness: Economic, Political, Cultural, and Psychological Considerations. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 287-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.014
[21]
McCabe, K. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2020). Who Shines Most Among the Brightest? A 25-Year Longitudinal Study of Elite STEM Graduate Students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 119, 390-416.
[22]
Milne, A. & Mhlolo, M. K. (2021). Lessons for South Africa from Singapore’s Gifted Education—A Comparative Study. South African Journal of Education, 41, 8 p. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n1a1839
[23]
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Belknap Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200 https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Capabilities-Human-Development-Approach/dp/0674072359
[24]
OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
[25]
Reddy, V., Winnaar, L., Juan, A., Arends, F., Harvey, J., Hannan, S., Namome, C., Sekhejane, P., & Zulu, N. (2021). TIMSS 2019: Highlights of South African Grade 9 Results in Mathematics and Science. Building Achievements Bridging Achievement Gaps. The Department of Basic Education.
[26]
Shaughnessy, M. F., Moore, T. L., & Maree, K. (2012). A Reflective Conversation with Kobus Maree, Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Gifted Education International, 29, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429412440650
[27]
Spaull, N., & Kotze, J. (2015). Starting behind and Staying behind in South Africa: The Case of Insurmountable Learning Deficits in Mathematics. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.01.002
[28]
Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education. American Institutes for Research, U.S. Department of Education and Office of Innovation and Improvement.
[29]
Terman, L. M. (1954). The Discovery and Encouragement of Exceptional Talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060516
[30]
UNESCO (2012). Addressing Exclusion in Education: A Guide to Assessing Education Systems towards More Inclusive and Just Societies. UNESCO.
[31]
Van der Westhuizen, D. (2015). High School Mathematics Marks as an Admission Criterion for Entry into Programming Courses at a South African University. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 10, 37-50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284493544
[32]
Wößmann, L. (2008). Efficiency and Equity of European Education and Training Policies. International Tax Public Finance, 15, 199-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-008-9064-1
[33]
Wößmann, L. (2015). The Economic Case for Education. Education Economics, 24, 3-32. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2015.1059801 https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2015.1059801
