Curriculum transformation must reflect context, challenge power and be inclusively consultative

For universities to drive meaningful curriculum transformation, they must operate with clarity, intentionality and a willingness to engage directly with entrenched power structures. This was a recurring theme during the question and answer session at the official launch of the Universities South Africa (USAf) and Council on Higher Education (CHE) baseline study on curriculum transformation on 10 June.

The launch brought together vice-chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors, academics and quality assurance leaders from across the country in both the public and private higher education, to engage with the findings of the national study on curriculum transformation.

Drawing from one of the study’s key findings that there’s no sector-wide, uniform understanding of curriculum transformation, delegates raised questions about the way forward and the role of national bodies like the CHE in defining curriculum transformation. This meant that universities prioritised different factors depending on their context, leading to a varied landscape where transformation is interpreted and enacted in different ways.

Ms Ziyanda Ngxabazi, Acting Director: Quality Promotion Directorate at the Tshwane University of Technology said: “If the CHE, in its role as a quality council, can define what curriculum transformation looks like for the country, then institutions can begin to interpret and apply that definition in ways that make sense for their contexts. But we can’t do that if we don’t even know what it means.”

In response, Professor Lesley Le Grange, a Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Education at Stellenbosch University and a curriculum scholar, said: “Curriculum studies is not a monolithic field. There are divergent perspectives. A lot of what develops in the field over time exists in tension with what happens inside institutions like schools and universities,” he said, adding that working within that tension is part of the work.

Instead of reinforcing outdated practices and ways of thinking, Professor Le Grange said the higher education sector must challenge inherited assumptions about what curriculum is and what it could be. “It’s not about old wines going into new bottles… I think we need new wine and new bottles.”

Transformation, he pointed out, also requires strategic engagement with institutional constraints, power and context – including how decolonisation is framed and understood across different histories and contexts. “Responses must be strategic,” he said, arguing that scholars can’t simply reject neoliberal capitalism or settler colonialism overnight, nor should they allow these to remain entrenched and unchallenged.

Associate Professor at UNISA’s Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Nokuthula Hlabangane, questioned the prevailing mindset that universities are politically neutral spaces. “I think fundamentally, if we continue to think of universities as apolitical entities, then in fact we are not asking the questions that matter,” she said.

She argued that when strategy is used as a substitute for bold engagement, it can indicate a reluctance to confront power directly. Professor Hlabangane cautioned that while universities plan and reposition themselves, the rest of society is not waiting for them. Nor, she added, is society necessarily looking to universities for leadership. “While the university seeks to manoeuvre and strategise, it should bear in mind that it is only just a part of society. It is not society. And from that point of view, we need to reflect on whether we are still of value to society.”

In his response, Professor Monwabisi Ralarala, Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic at the University of the Western Cape, called for the sector to move beyond theorising and endlessly debating the issue without implementing any changes. “We’ve been debating this for years… At some point, we have to move to implementation. Transformation is about change and obviously change doesn’t come cheap… We need more coalitions that will work. We need resources to push the agenda forward.” 

To shift from talk to action, he argued, the sector also needs a shared understanding of what transformation means in different institutional contexts. “Ask anyone in a faculty what transformation means, and you’ll get five to ten different answers,” he said. “That makes it difficult to move forward.”

After the Q&A session, participants broke into smaller groups to discuss the implications of the report’s findings for institutional practice. These discussions formed part of a broader stakeholder consultation workshop aimed at informing the development of Higher Education Practice Standards (HEPS) to support the implementation of the report. Each group then nominated a speaker to present their key takeaways.

One of the groups said of all the HEPS the sector has, curriculum transformation is among the most urgent and foundational, and thus sets “the tone for all the others.”

A key issue raised was the persistent confusion between transformation and diversity. Several speakers argued that the two are not interchangeable, and assuming they are has created serious obstacles to progress. “First and foremost, the definition of what transformation is must be established. Assuming transformation is diversity, and diversity is transformation, is causing us problems,” said Dr Caswell Ntseno, Vice-Principal and General Manager at the South African Theological Seminary.

Other delegates stressed that curriculum transformation cannot be treated as a one-size-fits-all exercise. In disciplines like information technology, rapid industry shifts make it difficult for policy and programme design to keep pace. This, delegates said, requires a more differentiated approach to curriculum transformation based on subject matter context.

Institutional and national cultural context was another recurring theme that emerged from the group discussions. Participants emphasised that transformation is shaped not only by what is taught, but by the underlying structures and attitudes within universities and in broader society.

“What is the context of this practice in South Africa? This question is very problematic,” said Mr Siyabulela Sabata, a Teaching and Learning Specialist from the University of the Western Cape. “The context is that we are grappling with the history of colonial apartheid… so the past in the present is what we are dealing with. We have to think about the policies from the national level to the institutional policies governing higher education and ask: are they aiding or constraining curriculum transformation?”

Delegates said that honest introspection was just as central to this work. One group referred to curriculum reform as a “biographical project,” calling on academics to reflect on how their own histories and subjectivities shape what counts as valid knowledge.

There was also a strong call for greater inclusion, especially from private institutions, custodians of indigenous knowledge such as traditional leaders, students, funders and professional bodies. These voices, participants said, should be consulted, because they are also impacted by curriculum reforms. “Universities are not the only source of knowledge. So, we also need to take into consideration the societies that we serve,” said one speaker.

Accountability and monitoring were also highlighted as critical next steps. Without strong curriculum change, leadership and clear systems of accountability, participants warned, the HEPS on curriculum transformation risks becoming another tick-box exercise. “And when we are doing this, we also need to think about very inclusive approaches that do not reduce transformation to metrics, like most concepts in higher education are reduced to metrics,” one delegate warned.

Lastly, there was an appeal to recognise the emotional labour involved in this work. “And the last, important point is that the work on transformation, decolonisation, Africanisation… whatever you call it, can be very emotional and psychologically taxing. We need to think about support and about what incentives are there for those involved in this process.”

Nontobeko Mtshali is a contracted writer for Universities South Africa.