Original Research

The national progression policy in Gauteng schools: Is the policy failing progressed learners?

Gene Erasmus, Jean V. Fourie

Received: 28 Feb. 2024; Accepted: 29 Sept. 2024; Published: 06 Dec. 2024

Copyright: © 2024. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: The National Policy Pertaining to Programme Promotion Requirements (NPPPR) allows learners to repeat 1 year per phase. However, problematic policy implementation is indicated by the large numbers of unsupported progressed learners in schools, leading to unmanageable peer group dynamics and compromised educational outcomes.

Aim: To analyse and explain the status of the NPPPR regarding progressed learners in the Gauteng province.

Setting: The study was conducted in a Gauteng Education District from 2017 to 2019. Learners from all primary and secondary schools and all grades were included. Schools were located in townships and urban areas.

Methods: Quantitative data were collected, with purposive, non-probability sampling, in an education district, comprising 187 schools (6% of the Gauteng province, n = 407 347 learners). Data were collected on learner ages, grades and number of years progressed, from the Department of Education database. Descriptive statistics determined means, modes and frequencies.

Results: An increase in progressed learner numbers from 2017 to 2019 was seen, with most progressed learners in township, quintile 1–3, secondary schools, in the senior phase, and being males. Numbers declined in Grades 10 and 11.

Conclusion: Large numbers of progressed learners in Grades 8 and 9 lead to over-aged learners, overcrowded, unmanageable classrooms and overworked teachers.

Contribution: Valuable quantitative statistics on progressed learners allowed critique of the inconsistent implementation of the NPPPR policy which results in social and behavioural problems for teachers. This study contributes to creating an awareness of policy circumvention resulting in overburdened schools.

Keywords: progressed learners; Department of Basic Education; Gauteng Education District; descriptive educational statistics; NPPPR; progression policy; progression; social ontogenesis.

Introduction

Social value

Automatic progression within the South African education system is captured in the National Policy Pertaining to the Programme and Promotion Requirement (NPPPR) of the National Curriculum Statement Grades R-12. Despite the sound intentions of the policy, there are implementation challenges. Angie Motshekga, Minister of Education (2022), stated that repetition of grades is associated with learner drop-out and poor academic performance as implemented by the NPPPR. Learners who are progressed because of their age are often older than their grade peers, because of previous retentions possibly indicating that the progression policy is not functioning effectively. Progression leads to greater learning and content backlogs in Grades 8 and 9 in mathematics, science, and English, resulting from gaps in foundational knowledge and understanding of content from the lower grades (Matheza & Hendricks 2019).

Scientific value

There are seemingly increasing numbers of progressed learners in the education system, despite policies governing and prescribing the management of failing learners. In exploring the number of progressed learners in a particular education district, we describe the extent the policy is interpreted and implemented. These results create an awareness of the ‘progression problem’ to inform the DBE of possible policy reviews. Timely progression through school is crucial to enable learners’ successful transition into society as productive adults. If the progression policy is incorrectly applied, grade repetition can lead to high drop-out rates (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] 2012) and impact a learner’s well-being (Hernandez-Tutop 2012). Most learners are not dropping out at young ages, but they are dropping out under-educated (DBE 2017a).

Conceptual framework

Progression

Progressed learners are learners who are transferred to the next grade, despite not meeting the current grades promotion requirements (DBE 2011). A study conducted in a Durban school as early as 2015 alerted of the dire consequences of the increases in progressed learners in the further education and Training (FET) phase (Stott, Dreyer & Venter 2015). Learners progress through grades regardless of their level of skills and academic readiness for the next grade. The correct implementation of the NPPPR would see learners only within a maximum of 2 years of the age cohort of their grade (DBE 2011).

Social promotion, the term used for progression in the United States (US), initially emerged as an alternative to grade repetition in the 1960s and was seen as more constructive than repetition as it reduced the risk of children dropping out of school. According to Kaplan and Owings (2002), with this policy, the learner remained with their age cohort and reaped social and emotional benefits. Unfortunately, social promotion results in learners assuming they were no longer accountable for learning and did not have to expend much effort to proceed to the next grade, as social promotion would be applied. Teachers noted this lack of effort and accountability influenced other learners because those socially promoted learners could not cope academically because of skill and knowledge deficits not acquired from the preceding grade (Kaplan & Owings 2002). Similarly, Chen (2019) reported on a public-school review conducted in the US which found that social promotion policies resulted in learners developing the perception that hard work and achievement were unnecessary. Furthermore, academic demands in the next grade overwhelmed the progressed learners, and they usually did not receive adequate support to bring them up to grade level and thus remained under-educated, and they struggled to access tertiary studies, further training and employment opportunities (Chen 2019). Progressed learners exit the school system before finishing secondary school or with lower-quality qualifications, resulting in high costs for them, society and the country (Psacharopoulos 2007). In Botswana, children are automatically progressed from one grade to the next although repetition is allowed in Grade 4 for up to a maximum of 12.5% of learners (Ditebo 2002).

The progression policy

The NPPPR originated against the background of the history of South Africa’s education system under the apartheid government; and the enforcement of the NPPPR came because of increased pressure to increase matric passes because of the higher number of learners requiring schooling just after the 1994 elections (Burger, Van Der Berg & Von Fintel 2015).

The NPPPR is a national education policy which meets the legal requirements for a national qualifications framework and a certifying or accrediting body (National Education Policy Act, 1996). The policy applies to public ordinary, special schools and independent schools offering the National Curriculum Statement Grades R–12 (NCS) and forms the basis for the Minister of Basic Education to determine minimum outcomes and standards, and processes and procedures for the assessment of learner achievement (Act No. 84 of 1996). The NPPPR states that progression requirements for all grades within the appropriate age cohort should be adhered to unless the learner lacks the competence to cope with the following grade’s work, in which case, such a learner should be assessed to determine the level of additional support required. A formula (grade + 6 years) determines the appropriate age for that grade cohort. For example, the age cohort for Grade 1 will be 1 + 6 = 7 years (DBE 2012).

Progression, however, does not apply to Grade 12 learners. According to the DBE (2017b), learners who fail to meet the promotion requirements may write a maximum of two matric subjects the following year as supplementary examinations. The policy also included a multiple exam opportunity (MEO) gazetted in November 2017 that allowed progressed learners to write matric over two sittings. A limited number of subjects could be written during the end-of-year examinations of the learners’ Grade 12 year and the remaining subjects in a subsequent examination the following year. This MEO thus extends a learner’s period of school attendance (Khakhau 2015). In practice, this has led to learners not returning the following year to write the remaining subjects, thus leaving those learners with incomplete matric results and the inability to explore tertiary study opportunities and increased risk of unemployment (Kika & Kotze 2019).

Policy implications

There are different interpretations of the NPPPR policy across schools, leading to differences in policy implementation. The purpose of the MEO is viewed by some as a mechanism to manipulate the pass rate which is based on learner numbers who write all subjects during the examination at the end of their Grade 12 year (Kika & Kotze 2019). Schools can convince learners who are at risk, to make use of the MEO and ensure that all learners sitting the Grade 12 examinations will pass, thus manipulating a perceived increasing pass rate for the school (Kika & Kotze 2019).

Progressed learners often become despondent, drop out of school, or present with discipline problems (Smith & Loock 2018). Similar concerns have also been raised in Canada and the US with their social promotion systems (Chen 2019). The main reasons for these concerns is that learners lack the pre-requisite knowledge and skills to cope with the subject matter of their new grade (Phala & Hugo 2022).

Kika and Kotze (2019) mentioned positive reports of progression included in a document released in 2018 by the Southern African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU) which studied grade repetition patterns in South Africa. Findings from this report indicated that the proportion of those repeating more than once had decreased since the introduction of the progression policy for the FET phase. The proportion of 15–30-year-olds repeating more than once in the FET phase began to decline after 2013, which could be attributed to the introduction of the NPPPR; and 15–30-year-old respondents who completed their highest schooling grade just after the endorsement of the NPPPR in 2013 were significantly lowered (Kika & Kotze 2019). The report indicated that the highest grade completed for the just-after NPPPR cohort was significantly lower than the highest grade completed for respondents who completed school before the introduction of the policy. The proportion of respondents progressing at the desired rate was lower post-introduction of the progression policy (Kika & Kotze 2019). Although the implementation of the NPPPR seems to have reduced the prevalence of learners repeating a grade more than once, the grades completed seem to be lower than prior to the NPPPR implementation (Kika & Kotze 2019).

Thus, although repetition rates are lower, the impact could be transferred to the increased number of progressed learners. Learners are now progressed instead of retained. We posit that this will have a negative effect on learners as they are progressed without the necessary skills and foundation for the grade they need to complete. Further to this, continuous progression can impact Grade 12 results, as learners are progressed to the following grade without the academic foundation needed for the grade, and there is no time to catch up (Smith & Loock 2018).

Moreover, Bhengu (2021) published comments from teachers dealing with progressed learners, who are expected to support progressed learners through the year to enable them to catch up with their peers, in which teachers clearly stated that this is not happening in practice, and the policy hinders learners instead of helping them. The consensus from teachers interviewed by Bhengu (2021) appears to be that the progression policy should be ‘scrapped’. Reasons include teachers’ inability to support undeservedly progressed learners; demotivated learners who cannot complete work they are not ready or prepared for; and older children who bully their younger classmates (Bhengu 2021). A teacher commented that the policy was destroying learners’ future by sending them to the next grade despite not passing, the curriculum is results orientated, educators must work on finishing the syllabus in time, while teaching 76 learners in one class, of whom half have been progressed from lower grades without passing (Matiwane 2015). Learners tend to have self-esteem issues when in a class they feel lost and do not understand what is taught and then become angry, sleep-in class, and are disruptive (Matiwane 2015).

Furthermore, Burger et al. (2015) concur that the more lenient promotion policies raise important issues relating to educational alternatives for learners failing at school who do not have the skills to enter the labour market successfully. Arguably, this leads to no or few opportunities for learners to work or study when they leave school, because of their limited school background, thus increasing the rate of unemployment in the country as well as other psycho-social problems.

Theoretical framework

In our study, we took an African perspective on child development as described by Nsamenang’s theory of social ontogenesis, which differs from traditional Western theories of development. Social ontogenesis theory states that children are seldom taught directly, as they learn through active participation, and child development is a process of gradual and systematic social integration (Louw & Louw 2022). The theory advocates that children are co-participants in social and cultural life, and that human development is partly determined by the social ecology in which the human being learns and develops; thus, development is perceived as a function of social and not biological factors (Nsamenang 2006).

Within culturally diverse education environments, this perspective can impact learning in the classroom. Western theories of development need to be carefully considered within the African learner’s learning experience, as learners might not be on the appropriate developmental level to be exposed to the content and expectations of the grade, which may lead to progression or academic failure. We would therefore argue that a mind shift needs to be made by teachers to understand and accommodate those learners who have grown up in a context in which childhood development is not rigidly determined by chronological years and birthdays, but rather by social competency markers.

Aims of the study

The study analyses and explains the status of progressed learners in a Gauteng Education District (GED) for three consecutive years by identifying gaps in implementing policies relevant to progressed learners.

Research methods and design

The theoretical framework was based on Critical Theory, and we used a pragmatic research approach (Davies & Fisher 2018).

The methodology followed was a quantitative descriptive study with data on progressed learners collected from schools.

Setting, study population and sampling strategy

Sampling was done by selecting participants from a geographical area in a particular GED, using purposive, convenient and homogeneous sampling. The sample size (n = 187 primary and secondary schools, 407 437 learners) represented the population of 6% of the schools in the Gauteng province, and consisted of primary; secondary; combined; LSEN (Learners with Special Educational Needs); town, township and rural schools, representing all quintiles. It was assumed that all schools had progressed learners. The geographical area was known to us and was easily accessible.

From the large sample, we could generalise the study findings from the sample to the population of interest (Abutabenjeh & Jaradat 2017). The population comprised of all learners in the 187 schools which included all races, genders, ages, grades and a range of socio-economic status. Quantitative data relevant to progressed learners were collected and were verified against a Data Driven Districts (DDD) dashboard of the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE). Trustworthiness was ensured by triangulation of data sources, and results were verified by consultation with 15 school management teams.

Data collection and analysis

Quantitative data of learners, including number of years progressed, age and grades progressed for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 in a GED were collected from the DDD dashboard of the DBE, and schools provided statistics on progressed learners. The data proved to be stable over this period.

We captured, sorted and cleaned the data collected. The cleaning process included checking for and correcting errors (Creswell & Creswell 2022). Internal reliability was attained by obtaining statistical data from the DDD, and verified by comparing against promotion schedules from the schools, as Terr Blanche and Durrheim (1999) suggest verification of data sources. Data reliability was determined by comparing names of learners appearing on the promotion schedules indicating learners’ progress for the year – whether a learner is retained, progressed or promoted. The names of learners from these two data sources were thus correlated. Inter-tester reliability was not a concern, as we were the only researchers working on the study. External reliability was met as similar results would be produced if this study is repeated.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the variables. The analysis of the raw data was done with Statistical Consultation Services (Statkon) at the University of Johannesburg (UJ) using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM 1 New Orchard Road Armonk, New York 10504-1722, United States), a statistical and data analysis software offering researchers tools for better, easier research (Pickard 2013).

We presented the data in frequency graphs, tables, pie charts, histograms and scatter plots to report data and indicate relationships between quantitative variables (Whatley 2022). Drawing on Creswell and Creswell (2022), cross-tabulation was used to provide links between variables over the 3-year period, while contingency tables show the relationships between two or more categorical variables by crossing rows and columns.

We analysed results by measures of central tendency such as modes, means and medians. Following Whatley (2022), we used measures of dispersion to provide a short-hand way of describing the dispersion of values in a distribution, and statistical methods used were standard deviation (SD) and range. Drawing on Carter (2018), we used means, as they are easily understood and calculated; they represent each score in the distribution equally; they are fundamental to further calculations of SD, and are the most stable of measures of central tendency. Furthermore, medians were used as, according to Carter (2018), they are insensitive to extreme scores when the distribution is skewed, provide a dividing line between upper and lower values, and are easy to obtain.

The collected data were then compared against the NPPPR policy (DBE 2012), prescribing progression from one grade to the other. The NPPPR should be implemented in all schools, regardless of the school profile related to fees, location, and quintiles.

Ethical considerations

Ethical issues attended to were based on guidelines cited in Creswell and Creswell (2022). Ethical conduct was observed throughout the research process. Before conducting the research, approval was granted by the Ethical Clearance Committee (REC-110613-036) and ethical clearance number, Sem 1-2022-002 was allocated by the UJ. Approval was also granted by the GDE. The anonymity of the district, schools, school management teams and learners was ensured.

This study is value-free from any personal constructs, and as the statistical data are objective, we were not able to manipulate the figures or the policies. Therefore, we can state that the requirements of objectivity were met.

The results are generalisable to other education districts in the GDE as the sample used was large, and the context relative to progressed learners in the GDE is similar across all districts. Data obtained from the policy review and triangulation with quantitative data can be transferred to the greater provincial population.

All research involving human participants should have research ethics approval, and research ethics approvals have remained a vital responsibility since the Nuremberg code and the Helsinki declaration (Wilson 2013). Following Nel (2018) and Resnik (2011), the human rights of all individuals were respected and acknowledged. Regardless of, among others, age, sex, language, indigenous heritage, social status or sexual orientation, their identities were not disclosed. Terr Blanche and Durrheim (1999) indicated that humans are autonomous and self-determining beings; therefore, researchers should recognise the participants’ autonomy by obtaining informed consent and respecting their choice to participate in a study. Furthermore, participants should be allowed to withdraw from a research study without negative consequences at any time. There was no direct contact with participants, no learner names, names of principals or school names were used, and the name of the district was not published.

Following Wassenaar (2005), the principle of non-maleficence was always maintained as no participant was emotionally affected or upset by the study. According to the principle of consent as defined by Kress et al. (2013), there was no need for informed consent as data were collected from the DDD and promotion schedules; information was provided by schools, and consent was obtained from the GDE, as the DDD is administered by the GDE.

Before commencing the study, a research problem was identified that would benefit participants; schools included were identified; the district under study was kept anonymous; participants were not identified; all schools and learners involved were kept anonymous; and no identifiable information was disclosed.

As discussed in Mouton (2001), the security and confidentiality of the information collected were protected as we did not discuss any information about participants that could lead to their identification. The data collected have been used only for the stated purposes of this study.

The research was conducted in a socially responsive and responsible manner; data collected were only used for the study; and the collection of harmful information was avoided. The privacy and anonymity of participants were respected in the data collection, analysis and presentation.

Results

Figure 1 and Table 1 provide a graphic representation of the number and percentage of learners per promotion message over 3 years. The promotion message appears on each report issued to a learner. The promotion criteria indicated can be one of three messages. Promoted means learners passed the grade and will progress to the next grade by meeting the promotion criteria; not promoted indicates that learners will repeat the grade by not meeting the promotion requirements; and progressed, meaning that the learners will advance to the next grade despite not meeting the promotion requirements. Numbers indicate an increase in progressed learner numbers over 3 years.

FIGURE 1: Promotion messages of learners expressed as percentages.

Results in Figure 2 indicate progressed learner numbers per school type: primary, secondary, combined and LSEN. Data show that most progressed learners were in secondary schools, ranging from 85.69% in 2017 to 83.07% in 2019. The highest percentage increase in progressed learners over the 3 years appeared in LSEN schools, increasing by 3.15% over the 3-year period.

FIGURE 2: Percentage of progressed learners per school type in the sample from 2017 to 2019.

Table 2 shows the progressed learner numbers and percentages per school type for the 3 years, 2017–2019. Even though percentages indicated a decrease, progressed learner numbers appear to increase with learner enrolment numbers in schools (Table 2). Progressed learner numbers increased over 3 years, by 544 (2086-1542) in primary schools, 4536 (14418-9882) in secondary schools, 165 in combined schools and 579 in LSEN schools.

In all 3 years of data presented, the most progressed learners were in Grades 8 and 9. Progressed learner percentages in these grades are substantially higher, as indicated in Figure 3, compared to other grades. The figure shows an average increase of 31.41% in the progressed learner percentage from 2017 to 2019, when learners transfer from primary school to secondary school.

FIGURE 3: Learners progressed per grade as a % of the total learners progressed from 2017 to 2019.

There was incremental increase of progressed learners in grades (Figure 3). An average over 3 years of 0.38% of Grade 1 learners were progressed from 2017 to 2019 and the average progressed percentage increased to 0.88% in Grade 2. Progressed learners in Grade 7 are indicated as 5.61%; but when they reached Grade 9 in 2019, the percentage increased to 36.1%. This indicates many learners progressing from Grade 7 to Grade 8 and reaching a peak in Grade 9. Progressed learner numbers declined in the FET phase (Grades 10–12), compared with the General Education and Training (GET) phase (Grades 10–12), possibly because of learners dropping out of school.

Progressed learners in Grade 12 did not write the Grade 12 National Senior Certificate (NSC) examination and the progression requirements are not known. Figure 4 displays the Grade 12 data; as obtained from the NSC diagnostic report, progressed learner percentages were 12.06% in 2017, 15.42% in 2018, and 14.94% in 2019. Grade 12 progressed learner numbers increased by 2.78% from 2017 to 2019, thus an increase in the number of Grade 12 learners who did not write the NSC despite being in Grade 12. Some learners possibly opted for the MEO, where Grade 12 is completed over a 2-year period.

FIGURE 4: Percentage of Grade 12 progressed learners in the sample for 2017 to 2019.

Table 3 presents data processed that were obtained from NSC diagnostic reports of 2017, 2018, and 2019. The mean score of Grade 12 learners in this sample who wrote the matriculation examination (NSC) decreased from 88.06% in 2017 to 85.06% in 2019. The number of learners progressed from 2017 to 2019 ranged from 0% to 58% of school learners, and found that up to 58% of learners in a school progressed and did not write the NSC examinations. The mean percentage of progressed Grade 12 learners increased over the period from 2017 to 2019. Statistics obtained from NSC diagnostic reports of 2017, 2018, and 2019 indicate up to 49% of learners in a school failed the NSC examination over the 3-year period. The mean percentage of progressed learners in 2017 was 12.06 (SD = 9.972); in 2018, the mean was 15.42% (SD = 13.54); and in 2019, the mean percentage was 14.94 (SD = 12.635). The number of learners per school writing the NSC showed a decrease in the percentage of learners writing between 2017 and 2019.

Discussion of results

The study’s results showed that the number of progressed learners increased from 2017 to 2019 (Figure 1 and Table 1). Progressed learner numbers increased by 2088 from 2017 to 2018 and by 3736 from 2018 to 2019, thus an increase of 5824 (2.1%) over a period of 3 years in the GED. The increase in numbers of progressed learners appears to be alarming, considering that these learners are in grades without the academic foundation required for that grade.

While the percentage of learners retained shows a decline relative to the total numbers of learners (0.7%), the actual number of learners retained in grades increased substantially. Retained learner numbers increased by 1080 from 2017 to 2018 and by 1607 from 2018 to 2019, thus an increase of 2687 retained learners over a period of 3 years in the GED.

These results indicate that the NPPPR is possibly implemented to progress learners instead of retaining learners in a grade, as the increase in progressed learner percentages is more than the decline in the percentage learners retained.

Another problem is that progression excludes progressed Grade 12 learners from writing the NSC examination. The average percentage of Grade 12 progressed learners increased by 2.64% from 2017 to 2019; indicating the number of learners not writing the NSC examinations because of progression ranging between 0 and 35 in 2017, and between 0 and 53 in 2019. The average percentage of learners passing Grade 12 indicated a decrease of 2.28% over the 3-year period and the average number of learners failing Grade 12 showed a decline of 1.28% over the 3-year period. The result of this study indicates that learners are possibly progressed and excluded from the NSC and thus not reflected as failures (Table 3).

The above results should be viewed with the National Assessment Circular Number 5 of 2022 in mind (DBE 2022). The circular allows a special mark adjustment dispensation for learners in Grades 4–9 for 2022 and addresses possible disadvantages because of policy changes or other challenges in the academic year (DBE 2022). The directive is that marks can be adjusted by 5% in three subjects to effect a pass, thus adding 15% to a learner’s marks to pass the grade. A further directive is the condonation of mathematics, by means of which no learner may fail the grade if mathematics is the cause of failure (DBE 2022). This practice of mark adjustments was prescribed for the first time in 2015 as per National Assessment Circular 3 of 2015, where learners’ marks in the Senior Phase were adjusted. Three subjects could be adjusted within a 7% range of the pass requirements with the prioritisation of first additional language, home language and mathematics. The adjustment was put into effect where it led to a learner satisfying the overall promotion requirements (DBE 2015). This policy was continued in 2016, where adjustments of 6% in three subjects could be made: in 2017, an adjustment of 5%; and in 2018, an adjustment of 2% in mathematics or any other subjects (DBE 2015).

Thus, considering this circular, we contend that progression numbers are much higher than reported, as progression is done after adjustment of marks as per the circular requirements. Consequently, learners are being passed when they should have failed for not meeting the minimum promotion requirements for passing the grade. This practice causes an increase in the progression of learners, subsequently leading to a false representation of the situation in education, as failures are reduced and an unrealistic matric pass rate is presented. We would strongly argue that policies and assessment circulars are specifically implemented to thwart failure of learners and numbers of progressed learners.

School grades

Findings show that learners are progressed from as early on as Grade R (Figure 3). Barriers to learning may start at this young school-going age because of socio-economic challenges, poverty, language barriers, societal challenges and psycho-social problems. From our observations at schools, some learners enter school late as overaged learners leading to automatic progression. More results from data submitted by schools, indicated learners who never passed a grade but progressed every academic year from Grade 4 to Grade 11. Therefore, learners with a poor academic and educational foundation from Grade 4 are writing the NSC matric examination without ever having passed any school year. This progression was the result of the NPPPR being applied to learners being over the age cohort for the grade. A policy of fast-tracking is also used to fast-track learners entering the school system overaged, to facilitate age-appropriate progression. Fast-tracking also causes curriculum gaps because learners do not have the relevant academic foundation for the grade into which they are placed.

Grade R findings

Progression in Grade R can be because of late school entry, as one requirement for progression is staying with the age cohort applying the NPPPR, and this results in learners having a lack of foundation phase skills like reading and writing acquired in Grade R (Smith & Loock 2018). It is of great concern that Grade R teachers are required to submit promotion schedules with marks indicating percentages for home language and mathematics. Thus, arguably, based on these marks, which are awarded subjectively by the teachers, a learner could repeat Grade R in which the introduction to schooling and the education system is provided, and this is too early a stage at which to formally assess literacy and numeracy. This practice could potentially risk the incorrect identification of a learner as presenting with a barrier to learning. According to the School of Education at Stadio University (2020), Grade R is the reception year that prepares learners for Grade 1, and Grade R learners experience structured lessons with a formal curriculum, and are not formally taught language, mathematics and life skills, but are rather exposed to the learning fields, through integrated play-based activities. We therefore would argue that by assessing learners through the awarding of subjective marks to determine promotion or retention, the purpose of Grade R is undermined.

Grade 1–11 findings

Progression peaked in Grades 8 and 9 and then decreased in Grade 10 (Figure 3). Many learners are functioning below grade level and may have a level of learning potential lower than their peers. This is especially true of progressed learners who experience cognitive barriers to learning. However, issues such as the discrepancies in the degree of learner needs and challenges, and the number of learners that need support in each grade at a particular time should be considered with progression of learners (Nkosi & Adebayo 2021). Findings from this study indicate that many learners drop out of secondary schools, and that this takes place at the end of Grade 9. Implementation of policy or the lack thereof, from Grade 7 to secondary school, leads to high numbers of progressed learners in Grades 8 and 9. Since the administrative burden for teachers is eased when learners are progressed, rather than retained, this could be a factor in the frequent promotion of learners.

Grade 12 findings

As from 2015, progressed Grade 12 learners were allowed to complete Grade 12 over 2 years. The intention of this MEO was to assist progressed learners to pass matric, to reduce dropout rates and to improve the country’s education performance (Khakhau 2015). However, statistics indicate that the MEO possibly did not have the desired effect on the matric results. In 2018–2019, 88 828 Grade 12 learners opted for the MEO, of which 6354 (7.1%) passed, 73 467 did not achieve and 9007 did not write the examinations (Macupe 2022).We could not uncover an official tracking system which should be used by the GDE to find and monitor the learners who did not write and complete their matric examinations.

South Africa’s national matric pass rate for 2020 dropped by 5.1%, from 81.3% in 2019 to 76.2%. The reason for this was given by the DBE’s director-general (DG) as being because the MEO was discontinued for all Grade 12 learners in 2019 (Oukula 2021). Progressed learners wrote the end-of-year examination in one sitting for the first time in 2020, irrespective of their performance during the year (Oukula 2021). After the discontinuation of MEO, the DBE’s DG Mathanzima Mweli concluded that the 2020 drop in matric pass rate was mainly because of the over 70 000 progressed learners who sat for the 2020 examinations; and of the over 70 000 progressed learners who wrote the 2020 NSC examinations, only about 24 000 passed (Oukula 2021). When asked why there was such a high failure rate in the number of progressed learners (46 000), Angie Motshekga, the Minister of Education informed the media that 2020 progressed learners from 2019 did not receive the necessary academic support because of the challenges posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (Oukula 2021).

Therefore, it can be argued that progression of learners without the necessary academic background and scholastic skills, presents a challenge from Grade R when a learner enters the schooling system, right up to Grade 12 when the learner exits.

Progressed learner numbers increased by 2.1% (5824) over the 3 years in this district. Although a decrease in progressed learner numbers was noted in township schools, progressed learners in township schools exceeded the number of progressed learners in town schools by 45% over the 3-year period. We posit that numbers of progressed learners are higher than presented by the data obtained from DDD and from schools, if policies and circular amendments are considered. Policies and circular amendments are applied prior to learners being progressed despite not meeting the promotion requirements, and include: the MEO for Grade 12 learners, where learners could write matric over a period of 2 years; the National Assessment Circulars, where mark adjustments of up to 15% are made for learners to pass a grade; and a failure in mathematics in Grades 4–9 may not be used as a criterion to retain a learner, although mathematics is a promotion requirement as per the NPPPR. These reasons lead us to argue that the actual progressed learner numbers in schools are higher than the numbers gathered from the DDD and schools. The 2.1% increase may seem minimal; but if the true numbers are considered, it is concerning that so many learners move from one grade to another without having achieved the competencies and foundation for the grade they are in. Beere (2016) stated that there is merit in progressing learners to the next grade, but it is critical that the learner is given adequate support.

Conclusion and recommendations

Clear structure and guidelines should be provided by the DBE for consistent implementation of progression policy. The ad hoc amendments of policy implementation with circulars which allow deviation from policy need to be addressed, as policy deviations are detrimental to learners, resulting in perplexing teaching roles and increased administrative workloads of support staff, such as educational psychologists. In the GDE, there should be a review of support staff roles to render appropriate service to progressed learners. Additionally, the DBE should appoint more teachers to reduce the learner-teacher ratio as overcrowding makes remediation and the adequate support of progressed learners particularly difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the practical implementation of the NPPPR policy should be trained at all levels – national, provincial, departmental, and school level. There should be monitoring of correct policy implementation to move learners more quickly through the school years. In addition, the multi-curriculum schools should be fast-tracked, in which the General Education Certificate: Technical Occupational (GEC:TO) can be offered in mainstream schools. The formalisation of GEC:TO from a draft policy is long overdue, as learners leave school with no qualification despite completing a 4-year occupation specific course.

Despite these large numbers of progressed learners, it appears that the challenges presented by progressed learners in schools are ill-considered by political and educational leadership. This was evidenced by a proposed progression policy tabled by the Minister of Basic Education, Angie Motshekga in 2018, and quoted by Matheza and Hendricks (2019), that struggling learners in the Foundation Phase should be advanced through primary school without having to repeat a grade, without achieving appropriate educational milestones to avoid emotional suffering:

[E]ducation experts have opined on this matter, and the … message is that it does not make any educational sense for young children aged six to 10 years to repeat a grade. According to the experts, the children who repeat … gain absolutely nothing.

The authors of this article do not agree with the above sentiment, and are firmly of the opinion that young children do indeed benefit from grade repetition, provided that adequate remediation is consistently rendered. Learning the foundations of literacy and numeracy must be acquired in the foundation phase, in order for learners to benefit from the instruction provided and reduce the large numbers of unsupported progressed learners clogging up secondary schools.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Gauteng Department of Education (GDF), teachers, learners, principals of schools for their contribution to the study.

This article is partially based on the author’s dissertation entitled ‘The status of progress learners in a Gauteng education districk’ toward the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Psychology in the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, with supervisor Dr J.V. Fourie, received October 2023, it is available here: https://hdl.handle.net/10210/511906.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

G.E. conceptualised the study, carried out the investigations, collected data, liaised with the research ethics committee and prepared the article. J.V.F. critically revised the article, supervised the research work and sourced funding.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, J.V.F. upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References