ONLY HALF OF METRO ADULTS FEEL THAT SA’S QUALITY OF EDUCATION IS GOOD
ONLY HALF OF METRO ADULTS FEEL THAT SA’S QUALITY OF EDUCATION IS GOOD
ONLY HALF OF METRO ADULTS FEEL THAT SA’S QUALITY OF EDUCATION IS GOOD
Only half of South Africa’s metro dwellers feel that the quality of education in this country is good. This is according to a survey released by TNS Research Surveys, South Africa’s leading marketing and social insights company.
TABLE 1: Perceptions of primary and secondary education in South Africa. %
Quality of primary education is good
Gauteng Johannesburg and environs
Johannesburg excl Soweto East Rand West Rand Soweto
Vaal Triangle/South Rand Pretoria
MIXED FEELINGS
The quality of education is under the spot- light. Whilst the matric pass rate amongst full-time learners rose, it is generally agreed that the foundations begin at primary school level. With this in mind, TNS asked people to agree or disagree with two state- ments:
The quality of primary education in South Africa is good
n Agree – 54% (black – 60%; white – 42%; coloured – 50%; Indian/Asian – 43%
n Disagree – 36% n Don’t know – 10%
The quality of secondary education in South Africa is good
n Agree – 50% (black – 53%; white – 39%; coloured – 54%; Indian/Asian – 43%
n Disagree – 38% n Don’t know – 13%
Younger people are much more positive:
Agree that quality of primary education is good
n Under 49 years – 56% n 50 years and over – 44%
Agree that quality of secondary education is good
n Under 49 years – 51% n 50 years and over – 41% (especially those aged 60 and over – 36%)
Bloemfontein
There is little variation in the results for those having children at home compared with those who do not.
THE TAKE OUT
Amongst the black language groupings, those whose home language is Sotho were more positive about primary education (67% feel it is of good quality compared with 54% of those whose home language is Xhosa), whilst Zulus are more positive about sec- ondary education (57% say it is good quality compared with 44% of Tswana speakers).
DIFFERENCES BY AREA
There are quite notable differences by area on the primary education results with Gauteng (especially the Vaal Triangle and the South Rand) being more positive than Cape Town, Durban and the Eastern Cape. People in Bloemfontein are also quite positive.
On secondary education, differences are much smaller with the West Rand the most positive whilst Pretoria and the Eastern Cape are the most negative.
It is of concern that the metro population is so ambivalent about the quality of our education system. South Africa contributes 25% of Africa’s GDP to education and already has a major skills shortage. It needs a steady supply of well-educated people who can make a difference. The results of this study suggest that there is relatively little confidence in the education system – over a third of metro adults feel that the quality of education is poor. This does not augur well for people seeking employment based on matric results only, as employers may not take results at face value. Further, South Africa cannot afford the cost of a third of full-time students failing matric and either ending up with a lack of qualifications or having to re-write their examinations.1
1 TNS Research Surveys (Pty) Ltd, 2010. Perceptions of primary and secondary education in South Africa.
www.tnsresearchsurveys.co.za
Cape Town Durban
Eastern Cape
Port Elizabeth East London
59 61 60 62 53 57 74 50 48 49 44 43 47 63
Quality of secondary education is good
50 53 52 55 60 50 50 39 48 52 44 46 40 50
TECHNICAL NOTE
The study was conducted amongst 2 000 adults (1260 blacks, 385 whites, 240 co- loureds and 115 Indians/Asians) in the seven major metropolitan areas: it has a margin of error of under 2.5% for the re- sults found for the total sample. The stud- ies use probability sampling techniques and are fully representative of the major metro- politan areas. The study was conducted by TNS Research Surveys (Pty) Ltd as part of their ongoing research into current social and political issues.
www.ed.org.za
www.ed.org.za
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123