Educator perceptions of the impact of the departmental matric intervention strategies on selected under-performing schools in the Queenstown district

Abstract

The problem of school under-performance as defined by the level of pass rates of learners in the matric examinations has been a point of educational debate in South Africa for a number of years, especially after the attainment of democracy. In the Eastern Cape, Matric Intervention Strategies (MIS) have been used to address the problem. The aim of this study was to investigate educator perceptions of the impact of the MIS on selected under-performing high schools in the Queenstown District. Two case study schools classified as consistent under-performers participated in the study. Data was collected through in-depth interviews of key educators in these schools. There were five main findings. First, educators felt that Departmental intervention strategies had not made any significant improvement in addressing underperformance in the two case study schools. Second, participants saw underperformance by schools as caused by a myriad of factors which include those related to leadership and management at school and district levels and educator and learner factors, as well as teacher union interference. They did not see MIS as being able to address the causes simultaneously. Third, the implementation of the (MIS) at school level was poorly monitored by the Departmental officials. It was reported that under-performing schools were hardly visited and supported by the subject advisors and (MIO)s. Fourth, educators perceived the role of subject advisors to be limited to CASS moderation as they did not provide any developmental support to educators experiencing content gaps. Finally, educators saw the MIS as a money making scheme for certain educators and district officials. They claimed this was linked to corrupt practices during the appointment of tutors. The teachers did not have confidence in the appointment procedures used by the district for tutors. It can be concluded that the Matric Intervention Strategies in the two schools are not likely to achieve the intended results as long as educators do not think that the strategies are addressing the problems they face. Another conclusion is that the Matric Intervention Strategies are seen as ‘quick fix’ responses to what are really deep-seated and systemic problems in education. Given the findings of this study, it is recommended that the impact of Matric Intervention Strategies be the focus of a survey research for which a probability sample must be drawn that can generate findings that are generalisable across the participating target population. For the delivery of the MIS it is recommended that the weaknesses identified by educators of the two schools be further investigated so that new implementation plans can be developed.