Numerous changes have been made to the curriculum throughout the whole country of South Africa since 1994. The first stage of curriculum development was bringing the national curriculum together. This phase attempted to bring the formerly fragmented educational system together and address inequalities in teacher distribution, financial and material resource allocation, and educational access (Gumede & Biyase 2016). The second phase began in 2005 with the introduction of outcomes-based education (OBE). An increasingly appropriate and better educational system was thought to be advanced by the OBE through the integration of performance, abilities, and content (Adu & Ngibe 2014). The goal of the OBE system was to advance outcome-focused, learner-centred teaching and learning. Theoretically, this was a very good education, but in practice, it was difficult to put into practice because of resource scarcity and implementers’ ignorance; thus another alteration was made (Mbatha 2016). Furthermore, a number of arguments are presented by Jansen (1998) as to why the OBE component of the curriculum revisions will ultimately backfire on South Africa. He strongly contends that a lack of interconnected planning and policies is the reason behind the non-implementation of OBE. He felt that there was no comprehensive strategy outlining how these new concepts would be applied in schools with limited resources to go along with the curriculum overhaul. Du Preez and Reddy (2014) make a similar case in support of a curriculum implementation approach that aims to prevent resource waste and demoralising experiences. While there is consensus on the goals of reform, Brinkmann (2019) also looked at the discrepancies between policy and practice in curricular change and found indications of divergence in practice. They contend that in actuality, concepts are repositioned and recontextualised, frequently failing to achieve the objectives of social progress that are expected of them. When taken as a whole, these studies offer some insight into the prevalent problems with curricular reform in the South African setting.

The release of the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) in 2002 marked the third stage of curriculum transformation in South Africa following the end of apartheid. Although the Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2014) said that the RNCS and National Curriculum Statement (NCS) were not new educational systems because they had the same underlying presumptions, main goals, and design elements as C2005, they did enhance and streamline certain of its design elements. Moodley (2013) claims that there were certain implementation issues that the RNCS and NCS encountered that were comparable to those of C2005. These included being aware of the language used in outcome-based education, as well as evaluation and instruction techniques. As a result, as was already mentioned, the RNCS and NCS made a very vain attempt to tackle the issues surrounding the implementation of the South African curriculum. Subsequently, the RNCS encountered persistent implementation difficulties, prompting a review in 2009 that resulted in the development of Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), the current curriculum utilised in South African schools. Roblin, Schunn and McKenney (2017) state that the government of South Africa essentially implemented CAPS in response to the confusion and difficulties associated with the previous curriculum adjustments. To improve curriculum implementation, the modification focused on the CAPS, which took the place of the NCS in 2011. Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement, which was adopted in Grades 1, 2, 3, and 10 in 2012 and is currently being implemented in Grades 4, 5, 6, and 11, is the recently reviewed curriculum that is currently being used in South Africa (Department of Basic Education, 2019). Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement is an update to the NCS, not a new curriculum. The same methodology and technique as the NCS Grades R–12 are still used (Priestley & Philippou, 2019). It is a change to the curriculum, not the method of instruction (Makumane & Khoza, 2020). Subject Statements, Learning Programme Guidelines, and Subject Assessment Guidelines for Grades R–12 were developed to be replaced by this curriculum and assessment policy (DBE 2018).

The objectives of teaching and learning are spelt out in detail, with an emphasis on content areas and weighting. Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement, however, has a number of drawbacks, including an excessive workload brought on by an excessive number of evaluations. According to Dixon et al. (2018), the CAPS curriculum has been criticised mostly for emphasising rote memorisation over critical thinking abilities. In a time where knowledge is easily accessible, it is critical to be able to evaluate, combine, and apply knowledge. Because of the CAPS curriculum’s emphasis on fact memorisation, students’ capacity for critical thought is stunted, making them less equipped to handle real-world situations and prepare for further education. Indisputable proof of CAPS’s inapplicability on modern educational institutions is the lack of practice-focused instruction, learning, and evaluation. In addition, examinations and assessments that emphasise fact memorisation and repetition draw attention to how out of date our curriculum is. Development of curricula in schools is frequently outpaced by the quick speed at which technology and society are changing. As a result of its static character, the CAPS curriculum is now out of date and does not cover the critical skills and developing fields that are necessary for today’s workforce. Rudhumbu (2015) asserts that in addition to these factors, professional assistance, resources, and cultural, political, and technological considerations also have an impact on curriculum development. Given their influence on South African schools, it is imperative to address the swift advances in knowledge, information technology, and worldwide connections. Constant reviews and updates to the curriculum are required because of contextual changes. Support is an essential part of the process at every site in which curriculum is developed. In order to promote the development of curricula, Alvunger et al. (2021) argue for the carefully calibrated regulation of both guidance (such as instructions and materials) and conversation (such as time allocation and space for instructors to debate and work together).

In a similar vein, Nieveen and Kuiper (2021) address the necessity of striking a strategic balance between curriculum regulation (by giving guidance) and the supply of curriculum space for schools (by encouraging school-level curriculum development efforts). A careful blend of top-down (direction and guidance reflecting a shared sense of substantive purpose at policy level), bottom-up (local initiatives and decision making, to enable ownership, individual and collective in translating to site-specific wishes and demands), and side support (exemplification, direction and guidance, translations into possible scenarios outlining site-specific choices; professional development and part of curriculum design capacities as part of pre- and in-service teacher education, schools, school leaders, partners, teachers, etc.) is required to achieve this balance.

Opportunities for participatory curriculum creation are valuable because they let players co-construct and interpret the curriculum together. These chances can help teachers and other actors become more credible as curriculum creators. Nieveen and Kuiper (2021) caution that over-specification can hinder curriculum preparation in schools and classrooms and undermine teacher professionalism, underscoring once more the need for a careful balance between direction and discussion when developing curricula. Principals are therefore vital in assisting teachers adjust in addition to themselves as a result of changes in the environment. It is therefore imperative that school principals receive support in order to develop the skills required to deal with the changing environment (Sayed & Badroodien 2018; Van der Berg, Gustafsson & Burger 2020).

The effective adoption of new curriculum in schools depends on identifying and managing the deciding elements. If the previous circumstances are not properly understood and the effective components of the new curriculum’s implementation are not established, it is unlikely that new curriculum will be implemented successfully in the future. Subsequently, in numerous investigations, researchers have improved and expanded task technology fit (TTF) theory (Howard & Rose 2019; Zigurs & Khazanchi 2008). Nonetheless, the theory’s central tenet has not changed (Furneaux 2012). According to TTF theory, the utilisation of a technology and its effect on performance rely on how well it fits or aligns with the task that each individual must do (Furneaux 2012).

Task technology fit theory is especially helpful in illustrating how tasks and technologies interact. This takes into consideration the importance of the environments in which technologies are used (Howard & Rose 2019). Future research on fit factor has been drawn to the TTF model, despite the model’s low overall predictive strength (Wu & Chen 2017). The researcher in this study, however, used the curriculum-based reform (CBR) theory, a new theory derived from TTF theory. As observed by (Pyhältö, Pietarinen & Soini, 2018), teachers’ ability to make sense of the curriculum is a crucial component of successful required curriculum reform, yet it is frequently disregarded. According to Wallace and Priestley (2017), curriculum authorities are obligated to give teachers, schools, and curriculum brokers who operate at a level above the classroom continual assistance possibilities. The ‘quick fix’ and one-time workshops provided by curriculum authorities and other curriculum brokers are frequently insufficient because teachers require educational support rather than directive support (Pyhältö et al. 2018). This support should also take into account the teachers’ diverse backgrounds and the unique circumstances of their classrooms and schools. Given this, the purpose of the study was to ascertain the key factors that contribute to the effective implementation of CAPS in Tshwane South district secondary schools.

An approach to quantitative research was used in this work. Using numerical and quantitative data to predict and tabulate the data collected from the sample groups was made possible by this methodology. Cross-sectional surveys were used in the research study to collect data from study participants. Purposive sampling was the method employed to select research participants. According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018), using this sampling method, the researcher is able to target a certain group without having to display the entire population by using a non-probability sampling strategy.

A self-administered questionnaire was given to 600 teachers in 10 Tshwane South district secondary schools that were chosen. A total of 496 of the dispensed surveys were returned, yielding a 67% response rate. A total of 52 questionnaires were eliminated because of missing data, out of the 444 that were submitted for evaluation because of a lack of inclusion criteria. A total of 38.3% of the sample’s respondents were men, and 61.7% were women. The measurement tool was a structured questionnaire. Thirty-six factors pertaining to the implementation of updated or new curricula were considered. A pilot test was carried out with 20 secondary school teachers in the Tshwane North district to guarantee the questions’ clarity and readability. Several items were revised before being formally given to the subjects. In order to confirm the validity of the questionnaire, these 20 respondents were also invited for face validity. The piloted questionnaire’s inputs were used to finalise the questionnaire’s inputs. A Likert-type scale with five points was employed; 1 meant strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 disagree somewhat, 4 agree somewhat, and 5 agree. The relevance of each of the 36 variables was gauged using the scale. Data analysis was performed using the statistical software SPSS version 21.

To gather some basic data about the respondents, a section on their demographics was included in the questionnaire. Analysing the features of the sample was the first step in the data analysis process. Descriptive statistics were used for this purpose. Table 1 presents the findings.

Overall survey response rates were 61.7% among females and 38.3% among males, demonstrating the greater sway of the female group. The majority of the teachers were graduates, with 214 (48.2%) holding a bachelor’s degree or a Bachelor of Technology, 148 (33.3%) holding a diploma, and 24 (5.4%) holding a certificate or a high school diploma. Just 40 (9.0%), as indicated in Table 1, held a postgraduate degree. This indicates that the majority of the teachers possessed the necessary credentials to instruct secondary students. Regarding teaching experience, 159 respondents (35.81%) and 93 respondents (20.9%) had taught for more than 10 years and between 6 and 10 years, respectively.

Only 65 (14.6%) of the respondents had taught for less than a year, compared with around 28.6% (127) who had taught for 2 years to 3 years. These results clearly show that over half of the teachers (56.1%) had been in the classroom for more than 5 years. This indicates that the teaching workforce in the sample consisted of seasoned teachers who had been in the field for a considerable amount of time. Given that the majority of the teachers had more than 5 years of experience in the classroom, experienced teachers made up the teaching workforce in the sample. To assess the consistency and stability of the research tool, the item-to-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient were computed. The internal consistency or dependability of a collection of items was determined using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. According to established guidelines, the reliability of exploratory research is judged by its Cronbach’s alpha coefficient: a value above 0.8 indicates good reliability, a value between 0.6 and 0.8 indicates acceptable reliability, and a value below 0.6 indicates unacceptable reliability (University of California, Los Angeles 2020). In addition, the reliability of each construct was examined (refer to Table 2), and the Cronbach’s alpha values were found to be above the 0.70 threshold. Hair, Sarstedt and Ringle (2019) state that this demonstrates the high level of construct reliability.

To investigate the dimensions underlying the data set, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was a crucial next step. An EFA using Varimax rotation was conducted for this reason. Numerous significant recommendations made by Hair et al. (2019) were taken into consideration throughout this procedure, such as the removal of items with loadings less than 0.4 and cross-loadings less than 0.35.

In order to determine the correlations between the variables, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) tests were also looked at. Given that the KMO in this instance was 0.916 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.001, the data were deemed appropriate for factor analysis and sufficient correlations existed between the variables. A clear four-factor structure was shown by the EFA result employing the criterion of an Eigen value larger than 1. A total of 0.60% of the variance was explained by the components that were retrieved. Every item loaded higher on its corresponding build than on any other construct because each factor loading was greater than 0.6 on its own factor. This outcome validates the measurement’s discriminant validity.

Table 3 displays the findings factor analysis results. In addition, the names of the extract factors were determined by how highly the items loaded on each component. The original source, or the item’s meaning as it appeared in the questionnaire, was a crucial consideration when choosing appropriate titles for each component. The retrieved factors have four names as a result of this approach. ‘Leadership factors’ was the second component in this instance, while ‘teacher support factors’ was the first. The terms ‘teacher professional development factors’ and ‘successful adoption of future school curriculum’ were used to refer to factors 3 and 4, respectively. Verifying those extracted factors was the next step after the EFA.

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used in two stages for this purpose: the first stage involved hypothesis testing and the second stage involved confirmation. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as it is officially known, was the stage of confirmation that was carried out using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) in the AMOS software. Every extracted factor was examined within a solitary measurement model. Based on the fit metrics suggested by several academics, the measurement model was evaluated (Byrne 2010; Hair et al. 2019; Kline 2016). Among the metrics employed were Chi-square (χ²), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Furthermore, Byrne (2013) and Hair et al. (2019) advise adopting normed Chi-square (χ²/df), which was performed in this work, because the Chi-square is quite sensitive to sample size.

All of the fit indices that were used were over the recommended threshold, according to the measurement model. The normed Chi-square (χ²/df) value in this instance is 2.786, which is less than 5.0. In a similar vein, the CFI value is far higher than the 0.90 threshold. Finally, a satisfactory fit of the measurement model is also shown by the RMSEA, which has a value of 0.072, which is less than the threshold value of 0.08.

The goal of this research is to identify the variables that affect the SAFSC in the Tshwane South district. H1: The results of this study indicate that leadership was essential to the CAPS’s implementation in South African classrooms. The impact of leadership on curriculum development has been shown in earlier studies, as seen by the works of Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), and Bantwini and Moorosi (2018), which lends credence to the study’s conclusions. School principals are more likely to have an impact on the acceptance of a new curriculum because they are the leaders who determine the institution’s direction, supervise the quality of education, and oversee staff management. This outcome is consistent with the findings of Tirri et al. (2021), who noticed that school principals engage in a variety of professional leadership activities in the classroom, such as monitoring and supervising teachers’ work and providing advice to enhance their techniques. This outcome is consistent with the Department of Education’s (2015) results, which indicate that a key leadership role that is essential to their responsibilities is assisting with curriculum delivery.

H2: According to the study, TPD has a significant impact on whether or not a new curriculum is accepted. Understanding the curriculum by instructors is essential for its proper application in the classroom. This finding relates to the impact of teacher professionals on curriculum improvement and is consistent with the findings of many other studies (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017; Johns & Sosibo 2019; Mampane 2019). Furthermore, this research suggests that when the government promotes TPD, there is a greater chance that feature curriculum will be adopted and taught in schools. This is consistent with findings from a previous study, in which Phasha, Bipath and Beckmann (2016) studied teachers at the Further Education and Training (FET) level to uncover their perceptions on Professional Development (PD) before the new curriculum was put into place. The findings indicated that most teachers thought they would require empowerment and PD to deal with the changes. Without the PD that teachers in South Africa require to apply the new curriculum, students’ performance would suffer.

H3: This result indicates the lack of support that Tshwane South district teachers received for implementing CAPS in secondary education. However, a number of prior inquiries have verified that the district’s insufficient finances prevent it from providing curriculum consultants with the necessary help. This outcome is consistent with the research of several other scholars, such as Rammbuda (2019), who assert that the district does not have the resources to buy instructional aids. In addition, Beukes (2017) and West and Meier (2020) notice that there are two serious issues: insufficient funding and improper use of public funds. Supporting the arguments made by Beukes (2017), West and Meier (2020), and Rammbuda (2019) above, McLennan et al. (2017) claimed that curriculum advisors only visited schools once a year to assess how far along teachers and principals were with the curriculum because districts lack the resources or funding to visit schools. The findings of this study concur with Blignaut (2020) who contends that ‘curriculum and pedagogic change will only succeed if we embrace new ways of viewing knowledge and as well as embracing multiple knowledge traditions’ in order to overcome this theorising difficulty facing curriculum studies in South Africa. In order to achieve this, curriculum implementation must be inclusive and contextualised throughout South Africa’s many cultural contexts.

This study aimed to explore the variables that affect the effective implementation of new curricula in schools. Three hypotheses were formulated based on these independent variables, and each hypothesis was tested against the dependent variable of the successful acceptance of the school curriculum. The results of this study, which are supported by research, indicate that school leadership support and TPD have a significant impact on the SAFSC. Inadequate classrooms, a lack of teaching and learning resources, and a lack of initial and ongoing staff training all hinder school management teams’ ability to effectively manage curricular changes. It was noticed that while the school management team, who are seen as the primary facilitators and managers of the institution, bears accountability and responsibility for the successful implementation of curriculum changes, curriculum change has proven to be disastrous in certain schools. Further research may be performed on the best ways to support and train principals so they can foster democratic engagement and distribute the locus of control in curriculum decision-making more fairly among other stakeholders.