Matric Failure

WE SHOULD not be tempted to make simple comparisons between the 2008 matric results and those of previous years, education minister Naledi Pandor has warned.

This was the first matric to be based on the new national curriculum , she said, and we had entered a "new phase of school- leaving examinations in SA".

Even without comparisons, however, the new phase is looking bleak indeed, and the headline figures have tended to disguise just how bad the latest matric results really are. More than a third of those who wrote matric failed. And that's bad enough, especially in this economic environment where jobs for youngsters are harder to find.

But passing matric doesn't necessarily mean that much either, given how pathetically little is required. To pass, a learner needs only 40% in three subjects and 30% in a further three. A learner could achieve what used to be called a university entrance pass with as little as 50% in four subjects and only 30% in the language in which his or her chosen university teaches. It is hard to imagine that such a student would even get through first year, never mind graduate with any sort of serious degree. Luckily, universities are entitled to define their own admission criteria. Institutions such as the University of Cape Town are already administering their own entrance exams, with others due to follow suit. And who can blame leading universities if they have doubts about the quality of matric and matric marks?

The maths marks look particularly suspicious, and questions have already been raised about whether the exam papers were dumbed down. The minister herself noted that Umalusi, the statutory body that vets the quality of the exams, had raised concerns about the "low level of challenge" in one of the maths papers. So even though we should be celebrating the fact that 63000 learners passed maths at the equivalent of higher grade, more than double the 27000 or so who gained higher-grade passes previously, it's hard not to be sceptical.

There's further cause for scepticism, and indeed for concern, if one looks at performance in "key subjects". Fewer than 30% of those who wrote physical science achieved 40% or better. In biology (now called life sciences) and history, fewer than 40% of those who wrote the exams managed more than 40%.

There is no way the pool of potential engineers, doctors, lawyers and other professionals is wide or deep enough. Where SA is going to get the skills it needs to run a modern economy is not clear. It is certainly not going to get them with matric results that look like this.

The new curriculum clearly was too ambitious, and it clearly has widened the disparities between good schools, public or private, and poor ones. But that's only part of the problem. SA's education system is simply not performing. Much money and effort has been spent in the past 14 years or so on initiatives that appear to have done little to boost educational outcomes. International practice shows that teacher quality is what matters most to performance, yet SA hasn't done nearly enough to boost the quality of its teachers and ensure that they can do their jobs properly. Nor has there been enough focus on leadership and management.

One of the first things this year's new government must do is take a serious look at SA's schools.