Where is Ubuntu in competitive South African schools? An inclusive education perspective

ABSTRACT

The African philosophical concept of Ubuntu is the sense of togetherness and collaboration, and viewing people as being one part of a larger whole. In other words, the success of one should be the success of all. The correlation between the concept of Ubuntu dovetails with the cooperative and collaborative values of an inclusive education system, clearly enshrined in our Constitution. However, many South African schools are characterised by a competitive value system encouraging learners to outperform their peers academically, subsequently rewarding the learners' individualistic efforts to do so. These rewarded learners, generally comprising less than ten percent of the school population, experience privilege and distinction; their efforts are valued and celebrated. Their award-winning status allows them opportunities both within and post-school that are not afforded to the rest of the learners. The success of some learners occurs at the expense of other learners. Thus, there is a disjuncture between our sense of Ubuntu in proclaiming inclusivity on paper, yet in practice we continue to promote competitive values at our schools. This paper questions our double standards as educationists and explores ways in which we could reduce academic competitiveness to create schooling contexts that are conducive in realising inclusive education.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous knowledge
• inclusion
• exclusion
• competitiveness

Introduction and background

The provision of education in South African schools was unequal, fragmented and classified according to racial lines pre-1994, leaving the current post-apartheid government with the challenge of addressing multi-layered inequalities (Sayed and Soudien 2004; Walton et al. 2009). South African policy documents are underpinned by the social model of disability, consistent with the ideals of inclusive education, thus facilitating equity in education and society (Meltz, Herman, and Pillay 2014). Broadly speaking, the discourse of inclusive education incorporates the South African goal of extending quality education to the whole population (Engelbrecht 1999). Furthermore, Engelbrecht, Oswald, and Forlin (2006, 121) state that an inclusive education system is consistent with the democratic principles underlying South Africa’s democracy. For this reason, Meltz, Herman, and Pillay (2014) maintain that implementing inclusive education is heavily relied upon in terms of educational transformation in South Africa.

Originally inclusive education was concerned with students previously excluded from mainstream schools, notably students with disabilities, but evolved to become a broad rights-based concept that encompasses anyone who might be excluded from or have limited access to the educational system within a country (Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017). This is particularly relevant in the South African context, underpinned by the need to address past inequalities. Volmink (2018) describes inclusive education as an interconnectedness between learners, educators, and communities of learning, and providing a constructive environment that positively affects the self-worth, self-belief, and achievement of learners. Inclusion is especially focused on those children or groups of learners who are ‘at risk of marginalisation, exclusion or underachievement’ (Ainscow 2005, 119). In addition, the South African concept of Ubuntu dovetails well with the aims and ideals of inclusive education.

Ubuntu and inclusive education

The African philosophical concept of Ubuntu is the sense of togetherness and collaboration, viewing people as being one part of a larger whole, and attributing success as a collective of society. In other words, the success of one should be the success of all. The correlation between the concept of Ubuntu dovetails with the cooperative and collaborative values of an inclusive education system.

Ubuntu calls upon human beings to react with respect, dignity, and sensitivity towards one other (Mbiti 1969). This aspect resonates well with the biblical verse – treat others as you would like to be treated. Individuals are valuable irrespective of their characteristics. Children (irrespective of their differences) are seen as having potentials, abilities, and talents that are unique. Together with their age-mates, they should be nurtured and developed by adults, who respect their uniqueness. Any form of treatment which makes learners different from others is frowned upon as disturbing harmony and development of proper relationships. Such treatments make children view themselves differently, as superior, or inferior, and could promote feelings of intolerance and undermine social solidity (Phasha 2016).

From the Ubuntu’s perspective, an individual needs to be in the midst of others to qualify the status of a human being (Ramose 2001; Meltz 2011). In other words, an individual’s humanity is recognised only if they are an integral part of the community. According to Phasha (2016), Ubuntu does not put people in cubicles; it situates them within the web of relationship. An African child is born into a world consisting of people who are connected, not necessarily by blood. This makes the child a relative of many people in their community. In this network of relationships, they come to know about their entitlement to receive support from all relatives and to support other relatives (Mbiti 1969). They also learn that they should receive treatment equal to their age mate. This aspect makes children stay in solidarity to their own members. Therefore, anything that separates them from their peers violates their rights and constitutes denial of support (Phasha 2016). Lack of acknowledgement of the child’s contribution to the success of the group would frustrate them.

Ubuntu views the community as more important than an individual. Its tenet, communalism views humanity in terms of collective existence and intersubjectivity, which serves as the basis for supportiveness, co-operation, collaboration, and solidarity (Khoza 2005). Entrenched in this conception is a strong sense of responsibility sharing (Phasha 2016), hence the African idiom ‘Tau tsa hloka seboka di sitwa ke nare e hlotsa (lions that fail to work as a team will fail to bring down even a limping buffalo (literal translation))’. The idiom emphasises the importance of working as a collective rather than in isolation. Evidently, African children learn very early in their lives that they have a responsibility towards one another and therefore they must work together towards a goal. In class, their concern would not only be about their individual performance, but also about the performance of other members of the group. This resonates with the inclusive education value of cooperative learning, whereby the accountability to achieve an outcome lies solely with the group. An individual is responsible for completing his/her small part of the group’s task and for contributing to the success of the group (Tchatchoueng 2016). This reflects the African aphorism motho ke motho ka ba ba bangwe or umuntu ngu muntu nga bangwe, [that] a person is a person when s/he is in the midst of other people (translation)). This collectivism is entirely congruent with the cooperative efforts of Social Interdependence Theory (Johnson and Johnson 1989).

Social interdependence theory

According to Social Interdependence Theory (Johnson and Johnson 1989), three types of efforts can be seen in group situations: cooperative efforts, competitive efforts, and individualistic experiences. Cooperative efforts teach values such as a commitment to one’s own and others’ success and well-being, commitment to the common good, and the view that facilitating and promoting the success of others is a natural way of life. Competitive efforts inherently teach the values of getting more than others, beating and defeating others, seeing winning as important, and believing that opposing and obstructing the success of others is a natural way of life. Individualistic experiences inherently teach the values of a commitment to one’s own self-interest and the view that others’ well-being is irrelevant.

Research on classroom studies highlights positive social interdependence as promoting each other’s success (Jacobs and Greliche 2017), and collaboration within groups ensures active participation for all learners within the classroom (Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson 2008; Gratton 2015). This repositions the traditional hierarchical approach of the teacher as the main purveyor of knowledge wherein learners are expected to be obedient recipients of that knowledge (Johnson and Johnson 2009). Collaboration between learners in groups enhances the inclusivity of the classroom and provides opportunities for learners to engage in critical thinking via robust discussions, thus allowing for a model of successful learning of all within the classroom (Gratton 2015). The alignment with cooperative and collaborative schooling environments and higher levels of achievement is also found in the inclusion literature (Brantlinger 2004; Booth and Ainscow 2011; Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017; Väyrynen and Paksuniemi 2020).

Competitive South African schools and visible rewards

A large number of South African schools are characterised by academic competitiveness. This is mainly due to the traditional ways in which schooling took place, pre-1994, during the colonial and apartheid eras. Schools also reward learners publicly and visibly throughout the year in a variety of ways. For instance, publicly displaying printed names on honour boards in the school hall, awarding certificates and medals in assemblies and handing out scrolls, badges, and pins that learners may wear on their uniforms (Akabor 2019). These visible rewards are given to learners as an acknowledgement of their scholastic achievement and as a token of their contribution to the school’s culture of academic excellence.

Learners are stratified and differentiated into a schooling system, with different provisions for different ability groupings (Akabor 2020). The success of the selected and talented few is determined at the expense of the majority of learners, who are excluded from belonging to this exclusive group, but whose existence is necessary to validate and give meaning to the rewarded few (Dorling 2010). Learners rewarded for their excellent academic achievement are viewed as more worthy, belonging to an elite group, and are generally given more opportunities than the rest of the learners at school. This creates the likelihood for exclusion for those who have worked extremely hard, but have fallen short of the criteria necessary to be rewarded visibly and publicly.

It is apparent that not only learners benefit from the competitive visible rewards system (Akabor 2020). Schools benefit in many ways from the achievements of their learners, among which is the image of the school in providing excellence in academic achievement. Award-winning learners contribute to and are beneficiaries of, the pride that schools hold when they are highly ranked for the number of A’s they produce at matric level (Akabor 2019). Although this topic has not been formally explored by the literature in South Africa, a look at newspapers and schools’ social media pages in January after matric results are released provides evidence of the prestige associated with producing excellent matric results (Sobuwa 2020, January 7). Schools and districts of the department of education themselves are rewarded by the Minister of Basic Education. In publicly recognising the schools’ achievements, it appears as a motivation for schools to produce better results. Given that not all learners are motivated to achieve at school (Geduld 2017) questions are raised regarding learner motivation to achieve and how this can be encouraged for all learners.

Competitiveness and motivation

The widely believed claim that rewarding learners motivates them to achieve at school (Dweck 2006; Phillips and Lindsay 2006; Kohn 2007) prompts an exploration of motivation. Motivation is a complex construct to understand and each person is motivated by different factors (Dweck and Master 2008), and it is not possible to directly motivate others (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan 1999). However, it is possible that teachers can influence what learners are motivated to do (Dweck 2006). Lens and Rand (2000, 194) argue that there is no ‘all-embracing’ theory of motivation for all types of motivated behaviour, but motivation can broadly be defined into two categories: intrinsic or extrinsic. A combination of the two can be found in many behaviours (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan 2001).

Factors such as student dependence, teacher-directed learning, and competitiveness are associated with extrinsic motivation, whilst self-directed learning, learner-centred classrooms, student independence, and non-competitiveness are associated with intrinsic motivation (Clinkenbeard 1994). In South African classrooms today, there is a lack of learner-centeredness (Makoelle 2012), coupled with the prevalence of competitiveness (Hay and Beyers 2011). Both teacher-centeredness and competitiveness are known to encourage extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation (Phillips and Lindsay 2006). In education, the construct of motivation is used in conjunction with self-regulated learning, where self-regulation can be described as one’s own conduct in order to achieve a goal (Schunk and Zimmerman 2007). Learners who use self-regulated learning set better learning goals, implement more effective learning strategies, and exert more effort and persistence in their work (Zimmerman 1990). An emphasis towards independence is required for self-regulation to occur in learners (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan 2001). Encouraging self-regulated learning does not rely on the coaxing and cajoling of learners by teachers and parents to complete tasks. Rather, self-regulated learners take responsibility for their own learning (Schunk and Zimmerman 2007), and forms part of the goal orientation of motivation (Elliot 1999; Phillips and Lindsay 2006).

Achievement goal theory

Achievement Goal theory (Dweck 1986; Elliot 1999) is a framework used to explain and study academic motivation. It is situated within the goal orientation theory of motivation (Phillips and Lindsay 2006). The basic tenet of Achievement Goal theory is that individuals either have performance goals or mastery goals (Dweck 1986). Performance goals are also known as ego goals and are associated with demonstrating one’s superior competence, whilst mastery goals are linked with deeper, meaning-oriented learning (Fryer and Elliot 2008). The result of performance goals is defined as meeting a normative standard. Learners who are mastery-oriented are interested in self-improvement and tend to compare their current level of achievement to their own prior achievement (Anderman 2015).

Given that one of the aims of inclusive education is that every learner is not only present in class, but gets an opportunity to participate and achieve (Ainscow and Miles 2009; Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017), encouraging mastery rather than performance goals in classrooms is consistent with inclusive education. Within a classroom mastery goal structure, learners believe that class instruction is characterised by emphasis on improvement, learning new material to a level of mastery, and self-comparison (Anderman 2015). However, when learners perceive a performance goal structure, they believe that the class is characterised by competition, an emphasis on grades and relative ability, and outperforming others (Anderman 2015). In South Africa, there is evidence that schools appear to have a performance-oriented, competitive culture where learners are rewarded for excellence in academic achievement (Watkins et al. 2003; Akabor 2020).

Competitiveness and assumptions of learner ability

Whilst school prizes and awards are usually in place to create positive sentiments around the recognition of giftedness (Slavin 1991; Gagné 2004; Dweck 2006; Richards 2015; Sternberg 2019), a label itself which has been known to create animosity among peers (Phillips and Lindsay 2006), it is noted that schools are effectively catering for the wellbeing of what Gagné (2004) describes as the top ten percent of age peers. Subsequently, ninety percent of age peers are left out of the recognition process. The idea of recognising and celebrating the achievements of only ten percent of learners is deeply flawed and inequitable (Booth and Ainscow 2011; Slee 2011; Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017).

Teachers classify learners into groups based on assumptions about their abilities, and tailor their provision accordingly (Lu 2010; Hamilton and O’Hara 2011; Mijs 2016; Reay 2017). Streaming or tracking learners refers to the method of assigning pupils to classes based on their overall attainments. Streamed classes are used as the teaching units for all subjects with the result that the overall attainments of all pupils in different classes can be clearly ranked (Lu 2010). Broad-banding is frequently found in high schools, and is based on a similar premise as streaming but with use made of much broader ranges of ability. Thus, an imagined top, middle and lower achieving group of pupils would be split in terms of top and upper middle in one class and lower middle and lower in another (Hamilton and O’Hara 2011). Ability groupings are a world-wide school problem. Many countries are dealing with the inequities surrounding the use of restrictive ability groupings and its effects on teaching and learning, curriculum content and teacher expectations (Hamilton and O’Hara 2011). Learners in lower sets are labelled as being of lower ability and in addition to lowering their aspirations, are provided with a less challenging curriculum, poorer teaching and are known for disruptive behaviour (Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017). A predominance of particular groups exists within the lower sets such as boys, ethnic minorities and children with low socio economic status backgrounds (Hamilton and O’Hara 2011). The stratification of learners into ability groups can result in the exclusion and marginalisation of learners, particularly those that do not fall into the higher bands of the set groups (Hamilton and O’Hara 2011; Mijs 2016; Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017).

The study

This mixed methods study was carried out at two public high schools in Gauteng. Several categories of participants were involved in this study, namely grade 11 learners, grade 11 teachers, members of the SMT (Senior Management Team) and the parents of the grade 11 learners. The study was carried out in two phases, first quantitative then qualitative. However, this article reports on the second qualitative phase, using the perspectives of the teaching staff only. The main research question guiding this study was:

In what ways is visibly rewarding learners at high schools consistent with the aims and ideals of inclusive education?

followed by two sub-questions:

• How do the criteria, processes, and procedures of visibly rewarding learners promote or hinder the participation and achievement of all?

• What are the attitudes and beliefs of key stakeholders at high schools that drive or challenge the practice of visible rewards?

Selecting a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design became clear at the outset. Choosing mixed methods maximised the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methods, and deepened understandings in ways that using mono-methods could not (Creswell 2012). For example, qualitative methodology alone could not have provided a large data source of participant values and attitudes the way the surveys did, and quantitative methodology alone could not have provided the richness and depth gleaned from the interviews.

Sampling

There were multiple groups of participants involved in this study at each of the two selected schools. The Table 1 below shows the distribution of participants per school in phase 1 and phase 2 of the research.

Table 1. Number of participants per phase in each school.

	School A	School B
Phase 1: Quantitative
Grade 11 Learners	51 learner questionnaires received	53 learner questionnaires received
Parents	6 questionnaires received	11 questionnaires received
Phase 2: Qualitative
Grade 11 Learners	8 learners in focus group 1 4 learners in focus group 2	6 learners in focus group 1 5 learners in focus group 2
Teachers	7 x grade 11 class teachers covering the teaching of the following subjects: Mathematics, English, Afrikaans, Life Sciences, Technology, Life Orientation, Maths Literacy	6 x grade 11 class teachers covering the teaching of the following subjects: Mathematics, English, Study Skills, Life Sciences, Business Studies, Technology
School Management	1 principal	1 principal
School Management	1 deputy principal	1 deputy principal
School Management	2 HOD’s	1 HOD
Total number of participants 141	68 participants	73 participants

Sampling was both purposeful and homogenous, allowing for a deeper understanding of phenomena (Macmillan and Schumacher 2010) and giving voice to ‘silenced’ people (Creswell 2012). The two schools were deliberately sought for this study due to their student diversity with respect to gender, race, and social class. Ethical procedures such as requesting informed consent from all participants groups were followed before data collection took place.

Data analysis

After data were collected following the field work (both the focus group interviews and semi-structured interviews), the audio recordings were transcribed into written segments, coding of the interview data took place. Thematic content analysis methods were used to examine the data from the 43 interviews. Initial coding of the data was then collapsed into categories of similarities, which then allowed themes to emerge, in what Creswell (2012, 238) refers to as ‘layering the analysis’. The qualitative data arising from individual teacher interviews as well as individual management staff interviews was analysed using Social Interdependence Theory (Johnson and Johnson 2009).

Data from qualitative analysis

The qualitative data arising from the teachers and SMT members indicated that teachers and school managers were faced with difficult decisions and many perceived that the reward/award system is fair. Of the seven SMT members interviewed, four had indicated that difficult decisions needed to be made, but overall, the system took into account many factors and was fair. Two members felt that the system was not entirely fair, and that not all learners were being rewarded for their hard work.

The findings indicated that some but not all teachers were involved in the process of decision-making, depending on their membership of the awards committee. It is clear from each of the school’s policy documents on visible rewards that learners are not part of this decision-making process. One teacher explained the process thus:

There are committees who make these decisions, and then it gets published; this is the criteria for the rewards. So personally I am not involved in it and don't know much about it. But I do know, if I want to nominate a learner then the criteria for that award is available to me. Then I fill in a form that gets sent to Mr. Chair of the Committee … 

Teacher, School B

Another teacher at School B commented on the secret ballot vote for some of the major awards requiring all the teachers’ input. She had indicated that in the past, there was an open system of voting by show of hands, but that had changed to a secret ballot. Whilst she did not give reasons for the change, it can be deduced that there might have been problematic situations arising from the open voting system. With regards to the criteria and whether it was fair and equitable, one SMT member believed that regardless of the criteria, it would not be a flawless system, as criteria resulted in judging. Inevitably, there would have to be exclusions. She said that:

Whatever criteria you use; it always has flaws

HOD, School A.

The findings also indicated that teachers considered those learners who met the criteria to be awarded as top achievers and hard workers, whilst non-award winning learners were considered lazy, bitter, and envious. This finding fits resonates with Mijs (2016) argument of legitimising meritocracy and situating blame within the victims when they did not achieve.

I feel like it's almost, they deserve to be there. The kids at the bottom, I think it's a little bit of envy being not being able to push themselves, or for maybe not having the support systems that the kids have in that top hierarchy. Ok, so why am I not able to achieve that grade? I think they do judge each other and judge their circumstances. Teacher, School B

In the extract above, the teacher alluded to some learners not having ‘support systems’ and ‘circumstances’ that award-winners have. Her reference to learner background is poignant. This teacher’s extract implies that the school’s reward criteria and processes clearly favoured learners who had access to a particular kind of support that was not available to all learners. In South Africa, it is a widely accepted fact that socio-economic status has a bearing upon learner achievement (Fataar 2009; Meier and Hartell 2009; Mathebula 2018). Whilst teachers believed that the rewards system is fair, given that the school offered extra lessons for free to all learners, learners did not perceive this in the same way. Learners mentioned that some learners go for extra tuition paid for by their parents, to ensure that they produce excellent results, and alluded to this having an effect on the provision available in the classroom. One learner clearly felt that greater participation could be achieved in the classroom, and had this to say:

Not all of us can go for extra lessons after school [paid for by parents]. Teachers should elaborate on the work students don’t understand as it affects us when we write things like literature essays. Allocate us seats around the top scholars so we can get assistance, bettering us in the long run.

Learner, School B

The learner’s reference to more collaboration with learners who were academically talented indicated that he was aware of the ways in which other learners could assist him in his own learning. This fits well with the Participation Framework (Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017) that learners should be encouraged to use each other as a resource for learning. He also alluded to the fact that his family could not afford private tutoring that he knew other learners obtained. This highlights the disparities within household income where the availability of resources for bettering educational outcomes were limited amongst the lower income groups. Again, congruence can be drawn from this finding and that of Mijs (2016) argument that all children do not have the same starting points in life and that any system based on merit is bound to be unfair to some.

Furthermore, teacher beliefs and attitudes towards the hierarchies at school within learners is accepted as natural order of society, and is even perceived as being fair. This alludes to the prevalence of hegemonic ways of being (Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017) and what the majority of teachers felt was perfectly normal and not unusual. The following statement by a teacher at School B indicated the ‘fairness’ of the hierarchy as she believed that the learners work hard to get there:

I think if I looked at it at the night of the academics’ awards ceremony, the hierarchy is fair according to the way they work and how hard they work.

Teacher, School B

In contrast, learners at School A felt overwhelmingly that the criteria for visible rewards were too narrow, and that their hard work went unrecognised. Many learners felt excluded by the reward/award system. In order to ensure that the learners’ awards were worthy and valuable, teachers believed that it was better to recognise a smaller number of learners’ efforts as opposed to a larger number. Furthermore, some teachers believed that such learners deserved to be treated differently; referring to them as the elite, indicating that their outstanding achievements justified the inequity. She saw nothing wrong with describing learners as being superior to other learners. As Brantlinger (2004) states we endorse inequities at schools by allowing and legitimating inequalities and stratifications.

We’re only rewarding 20 out of 300 in assembly … in a way it is good, because there’s only 20. They ARE the elite.

Teacher, School A (her emphasis on ARE)

Learners knew that even within the awards there was a hierarchy, and that not all awards were given equal prominence. Some learners were vocal about wanting change. They felt the unfairness and the lack of dignity, and indicated their desire for all awardees to be treated equally. In addition, there was a lack of meaningfulness of the improvement award based on other learners’ perceptions of the award.

With respect to the criteria for visible rewards, overall the teachers mostly felt it was fair, and did not see any issues arising from such. However, a few teachers as well as some members of the SMT did express concerns with the rewards/award process and felt it could be sending out the wrong message to learners: one that did not foster long-term values, nor a mastery goal structure (Fryer and Elliot 2008; Anderman 2015). In terms of the entire staff agreeing to a school-wide practice, there is similar evidence of staff divided in their responses from Hamilton and O’Hara’s (2011, 720) study on ability groupings, where it was noted that ‘tensions were present in the responses of some of the head teachers’ indicating that not all the head teachers agreed but were bound to follow the school’s policy. The following extract indicates the principal’s concern of the rewards culture, and of the superficial nature of visible rewards:

I think my biggest concern is that the learners are only going for the material reward, such as the coloured blazer, and not actually seeing life’s journey that it is … um, school is just the very beginning of the journey … 

Principal, School B

The principal’s comments allude to the reliance on extrinsic motivation alone, and not enough attention being paid to the deeper symbolism, and life lessons that need to be learnt. Whilst some learners felt motivated by visible rewards, a significant number of learners were indifferent, rebellious and even demotivated towards visible rewards.

Many criteria for awards are indicated by learners achieving a certain percentage in order to qualify for the visible reward. Teachers knew that learners were labelling themselves as a result of being academically streamed and then visibly rewarded (or not). Reay and William (1999, 346) found similarly in their study of adolescent school children that formation of their identities strongly correlated to their assessments in class such that when they performed poorly, their perceptions of themselves were that of ‘failures’, and of ‘nobodies’. Reay and William (1999, 348) state that ‘Students have always informally assessed their own academic performance and that of their peers’. Similarly, Hamilton and Brown (2005, 48) found that ‘exam success or failure can be integral to how they [learners] see themselves and how institutions and individuals such as teachers attempt to define them’.

The following extract from a teacher indicated the effects of streaming:

I think because of the way we stream academically in certain subjects; they will label themselves the dumb class. I think it’s as a result, um even though it’s not a spoken about thing but maybe because I’m teaching Life Orientation there is a lot of discussion, the kids feel comfortable saying things like that so they will label themselves, the clever class versus the dumb class. Teacher, School A

Streaming, or tracking and broad-banding, is clearly a practice that reinforces inequality and works against inclusion (Hamilton and O’Hara 2011; Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse 2017). The teacher’s candid reference to streaming with reference to visible rewards corroborates with the research literature on the subject. Hamilton and O’Hara (2011) argue that ability groupings are a world-wide school problem, and many countries are dealing with the inequities as a result of restrictive ability groupings and its effect on teaching, learning, curriculum content and teacher expectations. The labelling of learners by and of themselves points to the acceptance of such labels. The harmful effects of labelling is associated with lowered school attitudes (Hamilton and O’Hara 2011; Mijs 2016) and poor identity formation (Reay 1998, 2017; Reay and William 1999).

Not all teaching staff agreed that rewards were fair. Some SMT members’ echoed the learners’ statements and agreed that recognition was not being given for the hard work and effort that the learners were encouraged to display. There was an indication that the system was not fair, and that learners were being betrayed by the system that is built upon recognising hard work and effort. One HOD had this to say:

So it’s maybe taking a child for example who doesn’t fare well in a lot of subjects but in another subject they are doing well [but not winning awards] because they are passionate, they’re talented, they’re working hard. What is their award? Where’s their recognition?

HOD, School A

In addition, one of the deputy heads felt that innate talent and abilities were being rewarded, and this was problematic. She knew that learners were being excluded from being visibly rewarded, yet they had worked extremely hard and deserved to be recognised for their efforts. It is interesting to note that the way talent is conceptualised by teachers is based on outdated ideas of abilities being fixed and innate (Gagné 2004; Dweck 2006; Richards 2015; Sternberg 2019). This idea has been challenged in the literature over the years. New conceptualisations are a multidimensional construct, take into account creativity and have an environmental basis with contextual variability (Richards 2015). The Deputy Head had said the following:

Now that is what my issue is. We are sometimes rewarding for innate ability. So yes, we award the top students, and yes rightly so … but I think at the same time, we tend to forget those children who are, in their own way, trying to achieve their very own measure of ability. We have to keep on reminding ourselves that there are these other children who are equally deserving of recognition and we let them fall by the wayside.

Deputy Head, School A

From the above quote, it is apparent that members of the school management are aware of the possible unfairness of visible rewards for some learners, but chose not to do anything about it. Many of these SMT members still sit on awards committees. Whilst they accepted the system was not fair, not a single staff member mentioned that change is imminent, or found it worthy to mention to their colleagues that things needed to change. In addition, some teachers did not agree with the practice of visible rewards, and believed that learners were not being rewarded for their hard work, nor were they being rewarded for reaching their full potential. One teacher had this to say:

The person who gets 60% does not ever get awarded for that achievement, whereas that achievement to get there has required so much of hard work. Effort to reach your final potential we don’t award, sadly … 

Teacher, School B

Competitiveness, Ubuntu and inclusive education

Competitiveness was a recurring theme derived from the learners discussing their comparisons to each other as well as the pressure placed on them to outperform others and win awards. Competitiveness in the study also encompasses the hierarchies and stratifications that arose from the competitive environment within which visible rewards were found. Whilst some staff members expressed their dissatisfaction with the system in the study, there was no indication that this would result in a willingness to change the status quo of rewards/awards at school. Herein lies the problem. What staff members believe as teachers, (they believe that every child deserves recognition) is contrary to what they practice at school (competitive hierarchies). As South African teachers who are well aware of the socio-economic disparities prevalent in our schools, more needs to be done to reduce hierarchies, and alter the climate of exclusivity. There is a clear disjuncture between our sense of Ubuntu and our daily reality: we proclaim inclusivity in policy, yet we practice competition and elitism in reality.

Furthermore, teachers’ beliefs about ability and talent recognition and learners beliefs about how they felt they should be recognised highlighted the problematic nature of the awards/rewards system and the various ways in which exclusions were taking place. The attitudes and beliefs that teachers showed towards learners’ abilities and talents further erodes a sense of belonging or togetherness. Frustration will develop as learners, particularly those whose talents were not recognised, come to look at themselves differently. This could lead to the school environment characterised by animosity. Ubuntu is an acknowledgement of success being the success of all (Phasha 2016). However, it appeared that only some learners had the opportunity to experience success. For award-winning learners, mostly they believed they got the recognition they deserved. Yet, those learners that did not win awards, or had won awards in the past but no longer won awards, felt disappointed and rejected from reward ceremonies. In addition, they felt that they are unrecognised for the creative talents they possess, which they believed to be hidden from others because they are not recognised for them. In this competitive environment, some must be losers in order for a few to be winners. Thus the success of some appears to occur at the expense of others, which is antithetical to the concept of Ubuntu.

The rewards system has proven to be inconsistent with the aims and ideals of inclusive education. Values such as collaboration, social justice, cooperation and learner-centredness appear to be missing from the rewards systems at schools. These values are harmonious with the African philosophy of Ubuntu. Consideration should therefore be given for incentive programmes at schools that involve groups rather than individuals. Incentivising a group rather than an individual curtails the development of unhealthy competition. Members of the group perform to the best of their ability, and they develop a supportive relationship required to achieve the learning outcomes collectively. Learners come to respect and appreciate each other’ skills and abilities as they realise that they need each other in accomplishing tasks.

When selecting incentive programmes, schools should be cognisant of neither creating hierarchies nor rewarding learners individually. In reducing the mechanisms supporting academic competition, schools can encourage collaboration and cooperation, thereby creating environments that facilitate inclusive communities at schools, thereby espousing Ubuntu. In particular, visibly rewarding learners via elaborate ceremonies using symbolic representations of academic achievement can be detrimental to the participation and achievement of all learners. This does not mean a reduction in the pursuit of excellence in academic achievement. Rather, the focus should be on prioritising the participation and achievement for all learners, where every learner is equally valued and the dignity of all learners is upheld at school. The ways in which we currently reward and award learners therefore needs revisiting. Teaching learners to value intrinsic motivation means changing our focus towards mastery goals rather than performance goals. Adopting a more learner-centred approach might offer some ideas into more inclusive ways of rewarding learners; ways that are consistent with Ubuntu.

In a more collaborative, or cooperative situation, the tournament or team reward structure outlined by Bigoni et al. (2015) could be considered, such that the success of all is considered valuable and worthy of recognition, rather than the success of a few individuals. Thus the efforts towards higher achievement of the class would change from concerns about individual learners’ success towards the success of the whole group before any awards can be given out.

Another possibility for schools to explore is the use of ipsative assessment (Mabry 1999; Hughes 2011). Ipsative assessment works on bettering ones’ previous best. It is an individualised form of assessment, that is not related to the achievement of others in order to determine one’s own best. It has been known to increase motivation in learners (Hughes 2011), which addresses previous concerns about the reduction of motivation to learn in rewards based programmes.

The practice of visibly rewarding learners at our schools need to be questioned in light of their symbolism – not only of the academic achievement of the learners which in itself might have issues regarding the criteria and the processes. More broadly, questions need to be asked concerning rewards and awards as a meritocratic method of sorting society, and as an entrenchment of neoliberal values that privilege some and exclude others. There is some indication that reward ceremonies can be used to realise social justice by rewarding a variety of categories of learners such that everyone wins a prize. Schools that reward ability and effort rather than social origin might substantially reduce the extent of social reproduction between generations of learners. On the contrary, schools that assist less talented and less motivated learners from advantaged backgrounds may increase social inequality and create barriers for academically able learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Given that South Africans are familiar with the concept of Ubuntu, the dominant culture and practice at schools is at odds with the culture of the people populating the schools, whether staff or learners.

Re-examining the practice of visibly rewarding at schools can be a creative process that schools must engage in with all stakeholders, including the learners themselves. This process is not a simple task and could be introduced in stages. As noted by Engelbrecht, Oswald, and Forlin (2006) during their use of the Index for Inclusion in Western Cape schools, the honest reflection on school cultures, policies, and practices can be a painful process at times. Revisiting and rethinking the rewards/awards programme is a process that is necessary for schools if they wish to facilitate collaboration over competition, improving the environment for inclusion.

The removal of the current system of visible rewards might sound drastic, but it has the potential to make schools seriously interrogate competitive practices that they might consider benign and beneficial to a few, towards a school culture that is collaborative, cooperative and is genuinely concerned with raising achievement for all. Whilst there is little evidence in the literature of South African schools that follow this system of no rewards, alternative pedagogies such as Montessori, Waldorf and Reggio Emilia are known to be non-competitive environments that promote the learning of each individual learner without drawing attention to the achievement of others (Edwards 2002).

A variety of possibilities exist for schools to rethink and reframe their rewards systems to enable schooling environments that are inclusive. Including learners as part of the decision-making process, allowing them to offer their input in the rewards process might be a step forward in realising a more inclusive approach. Whilst this study focused on the taken-for-granted practice of rewarding learners visibly and publicly, there are many other practices that need questioning due to their possible exclusionary effects on the learning and participation of all. Identifying and dismantling these practices should be a priority for our schools in order to facilitate inclusivity.

Conclusion

The idea of rethinking our rewards structure might appear daunting to many education managers. Indeed, some might even consider it an act of sacrilege. However, in order to truly facilitate the implementation of inclusive education in our schools, we cannot continue to do more of the same. We cannot continue to reward learners for individualistic efforts, nor maintain a competitive school structure as the harms of competitiveness far outweigh the benefits with respect to education for all. Perhaps looking at educational systems and methods that are more egalitarian might offer insight into possibilities for South African schools. At the very least, looking toward our own sense of Ubuntu should foster collaboration and encourage a sense of togetherness.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shakira Akabor

Shakira Akabor is a postdoctoral fellow at UNISA. She completed her PhD in inclusive education at the University of the Witwatersrand in 2020. Shakira’s research interests are on the reduction of competition at schools, and the ways in which we can include all learners in the classroom.

Nareadi Phasha

Nareadi Phasha is a professor and the first chair of the department of Inclusive education at the University of South Africa. In 2019, she was involved in the Teaching for All project in partnership with UNISA, the British Council and Media in Education Trust Africa (MIET AFRICA). This project resulted in the development of responsive quality inclusive education programmes implemented by 14 universities in South Africa.