Theory of Change and Theory of Education: Pedagogic and Curriculum Defects in Early Grade Reading Interventions in South Africa

• In Event: Lesson from 10 years of the Early Grade Reading Studies series: learning to read in South Africa

Proposal

Michael Fullan (1999) made the distinction between a theory of change and a theory of education. Much of the field of educational change has focused on better understanding the former, that is, what knowledge is needed to make substantial educational change, particularly improvement to learning outcomes at scale. Fullan suggested that the cornerstone of change was the application of the correctly calibrated combination of capacity building (support) with accountability. Since then the knowledge-based of educational change derived from the theory of action has become far more sophisticated with extensive and deeper insights into change at the instructional core, structural levers, authentic cooperative professional learning, differentiated change journeys and when and how to use accountability measures in progressive ways (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2019; Hubers, 2020; Harris & Jones, 2017; Mourshed et al 2010; Fleisch, 2018 and 2020). In the South African context, much of the research on educational change has concentrated on different models, with various components and dosages, that elevate various learning outcomes (Arlington & Meiring, 2020; Cilliers et al 2020a; Cilliers et al 2020b; Fleisch et al 2016; Kotze et al 2019; NORC, 2019; Zenx, 2019). Our work over the past ten years has focused almost exclusively on using impact evaluation to build a robust knowledge-base on how an aligned and coherent set of components, i.e. lesson plans, learning materials and training/onsite coaching would predictably leverage gains in early grade learning (Fleisch, 2018). The mechanisms associated with these interventions generally assume that teachers would take up the new models in their daily routines and these routines would improve teachers’ use of time, space and resources which in turn would lift learning achievement system-wide. In the absence of longitudinal or panel systemic learner data, we have little idea of, and to what extent, the various interventions have indeed shifted the needle of early grade learning system-wide

This paper suggests that in part we may have been looking in the wrong place. The search for the optimal theory of change or theory of action is obviously very important, but could it not be that a key part of the problem are defects in our theory of education? This paper proposes that there is something educationally unsound in certain aspects of our national pedagogy and curriculum policy, and further, we are not likely to make much progress toward the goal of getting children to read for meaning by the time they get to be ten years old if these defects are not addressed. The paper points to two serious weaknesses in our policies on pedagogy and curriculum, the first is the under-specification and weak guidance with reference to the teaching of phonics with linked decodable texts, the second is the privileging of an unworkable reading teaching methodology called Group Guided Reading which is embedded in the policy documents and national interventions.

Author

• Brahm Fleisch, University of the Witwatersrand