A national outcry: Comment on the draft LTSM policy

The Draft Learner and Teacher Support Material Policy that is causing such an uproar in the South African education scene purportedly had noble intentions – to ensure that all the injustices and inequalities of the past are addressed. It states that “Redress and equity are fundamental principles enshrined in the constitution. Within the learning and teaching support material provisioning context these principles are crucial, as the injustices of the past have to be corrected”.

All parties involved in the educational book value chain – from paper, to printing, authors, booksellers, librarians, teachers, and parents – have been up in arms about the draft policy, stating various grounds to not go ahead with the LTSM policy in its current form.
Through both the two tier procurement model and the one book per subject per grade per language proposal, the DBE is looking for economies of scale that will reduce the cost of textbooks and their distribution, the department hopes that this will help them achieve universal textbook coverage. The question is though, at what cost? The disruption that this will cause in the industry will be catastrophic for many. Mpuka Radinku, executive director of the Publishers’ Association of South Africa (PASA), told the Cape Times that the industry would suffer severely and publishing companies would have no choice but to retrench staff, while others could face closure.

Cost reductions – At what cost?
Apart from noble intentions of redress, the main reason behind the proposal is the erroneous idea that it will save costs. On the PRAESA website, Kate McCallum writes that the Department is pulling on the wrong levers to manage its budget. According to McCallum, “the policy erroneously assumes that approving only one textbook will reduce the cost of supplying textbooks. Longer print runs are indeed cheaper than short print runs – but only up to a point. A paper by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) on the provision of LTSM points out that the cost savings plateau is at around print runs of 35,000 – 50,000 copies. Above this the cost benefit is marginal. The report continues to say that only small population countries could derive significant cost benefits from single monopoly textbook policies designed to reduce costs, but that most countries have sufficient school enrolments to provide a choice of alternative competing textbooks at economic prices.
McCallum goes on to write that the Department should rather take another look at VAT as a cost-saver. Most countries have a zero VAT rate or a reduced rate on books.
According to McCallum, frequent changes of curriculum and accelerated implementation are also expensive. “The shortfall of textbooks in provincial budget allocations that has been experienced in recent years is more a result of the frequent changes of curriculum and the accelerated pace of curriculum reform than the prices of textbooks.”

Smaller chance for selection equals no risk-takers
Mpuka Radinku states in a recent article that “The publishing industry as we know it will be decimated. Very few publishing companies will develop books in a context where only one textbook will be selected. For those that do choose to participate, there will be huge financial losses should their books not get approved. The likelihood will be that many publishing companies do not develop books.”
In the current system, the DBE chooses eight books per subject, a number that is already the result of a massive concession made by the publishing industry a couple of years ago. Before that, any number of textbooks might have been approved for sales to schools.
PASA has made a submission to the department for the national catalogue be open, and for fair and transparent submission and evaluation standards and processes. “Right now, we have a few dozen educational publishers, dominated by about five big ones (Pearson, Oxford, Macmillan, Via Africa, Cambridge). Within two or three years, publishers who don’t get to sell their textbooks would go out of business. Publishers I’ve spoken to reckon there would be space for three or four publishers, and only if they have owners with deep pockets to help them weather years with no government sales,” comments Arthur Attwell, a vocal member of PASA on his blog.

Gap between quality and perceived quality of state and private schools
The concept that this LTSM policy will redress the inequalities of the past is difficult to understand, as private schools will continue to buy whatever textbooks they choose. They would benefit from any choice that was still available in a diminished industry, and have the ear of those publishers that survive. “This would further increase the gap between the quality and perceived quality of state and private schools,” says Arthur.
“We’re only beginning to figure out how best to create and distribute digital textbooks. To evolve great systems, we need a diverse environment, a constant churn of solutions adapt-or-dying, funded by risk-taking angel investors. A one-textbook policy would kill that process in an instant and set digital textbooks back years.”
“In South Africa, the vast majority of publishing revenue comes from the government purchase of textbooks. This revenue cross-subsidises the less lucrative publishing of fiction, children’s books, and reference books like dictionaries and atlases. And educational publishing – despite many weaknesses in this regard – supplies most of our country’s book-publishing skills. As a country we’ll pay a terrible price if our educational publishing sector shrinks,” concludes Arthur.

Teacher’s right to choose their own textbooks
In McCallum’s piece, she writes that unlike many other countries, South Africa’s teaching corps is exceptionally diverse in its background, teaching ability, language ability, and content knowledge. “A single book will not address all these differing needs. Part of professional development for teachers is assessing material and choosing what is appropriate for their classes language level and ability. To remove from teachers the professional decision as to which “tools” to use is to diminish their professional capacity and to exclude an important area of skill and growth.
The teachers unions have also had a lot to say about the policy. The South African Democratic Teachers Union (Sadtu)’s general secretary, Mugwena Maluleke told the Mail & Guardian that the department is stereotyping teachers, who have formally had a range of choice on offer that they could procure from publishers via booksellers. The deputy general secretary Knosana Dolopi said it supported efforts to undo past injustices, but that it was “unfair” to take away the privileges of teachers and schools to decide which textbooks were appropriate.

In the rainbow nation, one size definitely doesn’t fit all
“A single textbook will not meet the widely differing needs of the South African school population. Students aiming at university entrance need books that cover the subject comprehensively, teach higher order skills, and prepare them for university entrance. At the other end of the spectrum, struggling students in poorly resourced schools, learning through a medium of instruction that is not their home language, require a more basic coverage of content and significant language support. Students in additive bilingualism classrooms require a different language approach altogether. A book that meets the needs of the top 30% of students will be inappropriate for the remaining 70%; if it is aimed at the lower-performing 50%, it will not meet the needs of the higher-performing 50%, who will be disadvantaged. Indeed, a paper on American states which have a single approved textbook system, note that the system has resulted in a dumbing down of textbooks to the lowest common denominator” continues McCallum.
The International Publisher’s Association also weighed in with an open letter to the department, saying “From experience, the IPA knows that the designation of a single textbook per core subject and year will not lead to the best possible educational outcome. Firstly such a process raises the stakes for individual publishers. A winner-takes-all process is conducive to corruption. It does not allow innovative approaches to be tested, does not allow books to be catered for specific pedagogical styles, regions, genders, cultural or social backgrounds. It favours large established providers and makes it very hard for young, inexperienced and innovative providers to grow and develop. In practice the lack of choice for teachers and students reduces the effectiveness of the teaching process. Books go to waste where they are determined, for a variety of reasons, to be unsuitable by the teachers. Ultimately it hurts the educational outcome.”
In his submission, Rob Siebörger, deputy director of the University of Cape Town’s School of Education, explains: “The availability of multiple copies of textbooks provides teachers with the opportunity to choose the language level and approach that they feel is most appropriate to their school/classes.”
The list of submissions is endless and damning. We can only hope that as the Department reviews the comments, it takes heed of the voice of the nation. Ultimately, it is evident that the proposed Single core textbook policy will destroy the textbook market.
Kate McCallum concludes her piece by asking “Is the benefit of ostensible cost-savings through a single-choice approval system worth the cost of damage to educational outcomes?” And the answer: “I think not.”

Single Textbook Option Slammed
Single Textbook plan for all Schools
arthurattwell.com
Morebooks.co.za
More damage predicted for educational outcomes the case against approving only one textbook