Bantu Education in South Africa

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Views of Structural Functionalists on Education
Neo-Marxist Perspective on Education
Nature of Bantu Education
Criticism of Bantu Education
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Education is an important aspect of development in any society. It contributes towards societal development by preparing learners with the relevant skills, values and attitudes they require to take occupational roles in their future lives. This implies that educational systems play a vital role in determining the well-being of a country.

For many years, South Africa was exposed to discriminatory actions resulting from the apartheid system. This was extended to the education sector through the introduction of the Bantu Education. This Essay focuses on the nature of the Bantu education system and its shortcomings in the eyes of structural functionalists and neo-Marxist sociologists.

Views of Structural Functionalists on Education

There are different structural-functionalist approaches used in the study of sociology of education. However, the most important ones are derived from the works of famous sociologists Durkheim and Parsons. Until the late 1960s and early 1970s, sociological thinking on matters of education was dominated by structural functionalism. Functionalist sociologists of education look at how education contributes towards the well-being of the society.

The provision of social solidarity and value consensus is the strongest of the functional contributions that education makes to the society. Education as socialization is associated with transmission of culture, values and norms that enable people to stick together and facilitate social life in highly traditional social communities. Similarly, the modern education system is supposed to hold modern societies together.

This thinking is founded on the need to deal with the characteristics associated with the transition from simple traditional to complex and modern societies. Complex modern societies involve a change from a homogeneous life based on rural kinship into concentrated but heterogeneous populations in societies which live in urban areas and characterised by differentiated division of labor.

Mass education is a tool that can be used in such societies to instill proper rules and curricula in children that bind them and the new form of society together. This makes it possible for non-kinship -based, consensual and cooperative lives to be established. This was the argument of sociologist Durkheim (Martin 6).

After the establishment of industrial capitalist society, Parson advanced an argument that the function of education was to create a bridge between the primary socialization that took place at home and adult life preparation. He focused on the role of the school in equipping children with universalistic values as opposed to the particularistic ones obtained from the family.

Particularistic roles are the ascribed ones such as the role and status of an individual, such as his/her place in the family. Universalistic roles on the other hand emphasize the teachings that on the basis of birth, nobody is better than the other. According to structural functionalists, education is the basis of modern society where it socializes children and equips them with the necessary skills for adult life and to function in a modern society marked by universalistic values.

They also believe that education plays an important role in modernizing the society as opposed to mere transition from simple to modern. In addition, the role of education in helping the society adapt to changes in the broader environment such as the competitive advantage cannot be underestimated.

Neo-Marxist Perspective on Education

There are numerous neo-Marxist approaches to education but the most influential ones are those of Bowles and Gintis who argue that the education system leads to the production of a capitalist society. According to them, the purpose of education in a capitalist society is to reproduce capitalist relations of production meaning profit, capitalist power and capitalist control of power. They believe in a correspondence principle which explains how the school corresponds with work that serves this purpose.

Its function is to reproduce labor in the sense that it provides enough quantities of the different labor types capitalists need. In addition, it reproduces the right type of the labor required by capitalists since it dampens the desire towards class struggle and instead isolates pupils into the highly class-stratified roles they will occupy in the job market once they leave school. Ideally, the purpose of the school is to isolate and integrate pupils into the capitalist society (Blackledge and Hunt 136).

Neo-Marxists argue that for both capitalist and working class children, schools take over from families and socialize the child into the primary societal values, norms, roles and attitudes. The correspondence they talk of between the school and workplace is meant to prepare pupils to assume occupational roles. Schools are organised in a hierarchy and run along authoritarian lines. Learning is also extrinsically motivated rather than being intrinsically motivated.

These characteristics of schools the neo-Marxists argue that are replicated in the workplace where the workers follow the orders given by their bosses without questioning. There motivation is only an extrinsic one in the form of the wages they get.

While formal curriculum is mandated with the task of giving pupils the basic literacy and numeracy they require in their future jobs, the correspondence between school and work is a form of hidden curriculum that prepares them to politically and ideologically embrace life in a capitalist society.

They are prepared to be obedient, docile, passive and loyal to authorities and hierarchy. According to the neo-Marxists, the bottom line is that only a revolutionary transformation of the capitalist mode of production as a whole can lead to a transformed education system.

Nature of Bantu Education

After the national party came into power in 1948, the neglect and limitation that had characterised native education from 1910 paved the way for strict state control for black education. This control marked the disappearance of the mission school system which was faced by many challenges despite the fact that it was an important educational institution.

The national party government was committed to eliminate the tolerant laissez-faire perceptions towards black education. The Bantu Education Act of 1953 made it possible for the enactment of legislation that was aimed at promoting Christian National Education separate development.

Bantu Education in South Africa was intended at providing the ruling elites with a cheap and submissive labor. In addition, it aimed at resolving the urban crisis that had developed in the 1940s and 1950s due to industrialisation and rapid urbanisation. This was caused by the collapsing homeland agriculture and the expansion of secondary industrialisation after the Second World War. Transport, housing and wages were not enough for the increasing number of working class people who lived in towns.

The response to the breakdown of these services and poor conditions was squatter movements and the formation of trade unions. Radical oppositions to political activities became the norm, accompanied by the leadership of the African National Congress. The increasing levels of poverty became a threat to the physical productivity of the white elites. Social stability in the 1940s was either obstructed by the presence of education or lack of it (Hyslop 80).

Educationalists attributed the increase in crime rates and the defiant nature of youths to the lack of enough schools. They were afraid that political mobilisation was going to be on the increase. Bantu education was therefore ideally aimed at exercising social control over youth and especially those who were working. In addition, there was the need to socialize them in relation to the norms that were regarded as appropriate by the ruling elites alongside producing properly trained and trainable labor.

The uniqueness of Bantu Education was in its adherence to non-egalitarian and racist education. Intellectually, it was believed that such a system of education was important in spreading the idea that the mentality of a native made him suited for repetitive tasks. Such ideas were important in producing a mass education system that was characterised by constrained spending. Although Bantu Education was regarded as a racist-based cheap education, ironically, Africans were responsible for the costs.

They suffered additional taxation in order to fund the cost of African education. The contribution of the state was an annual grant that originated from the general revenue. Taxes raised were used in supplementing the grant where a small percentage was used to develop Bantu Education. The government policy of financing Bantu Education and the increase in the number of students affected the quality due to the worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio.

During the early years of Bantu Education, a lot of effort was made to use the wages earned by Africans as the basis of funding the education instead of taxing employers. Although the national party was not willing to endorse adequate academic training and skills training, the education served the interests and needs of the industry hence there was no ill relationship between capital and the state.

Anybody was in a position to tell that the educational policies of the government were intended at ensuring that black people secured very few opportunities with regard to employment. They were only prepared to render ready unskilled or skilled labor. This was the relationship between the Bantu Education and the industry (Ballantine 55).

Later in the 1950s, Bantu Education was compatible with the significant expansion of the capitalist economy. However, in the 1960s, the educational policies of the state brought about friction between the government and the industry.

The state used force to give its organisational and ideological interests the first over more particular interests of business and the industry. Under the guise of concentrating growth of secondary, technical and tertiary education in the homelands, the government succeeded in using the urban school system as a tool of influx control. Education was used to propagate apartheid policy.

Criticism of Bantu Education

The purpose of any educational system is to equip pupils with relevant knowledge that prepares them for future occupational roles and transforms the society as a whole. However, the Bantu Education that was practiced in South Africa was a faulty education system that could not transform the society.

In the eyes of structural functionalists and neo-Marxist sociologists, it was detrimental to the social and economic development of the country. The main focus of structural functionalists is to look at how education contributes towards the well-being of the society. It plays an important role since it forms the basis of modern society by equipping learners with relevant skills that prepare them for adult life.

However, according to structural functionalists Bantu Education was devoid of this important function of education. It was racist in nature and could not bring the society together. It was inspired by apartheid and instead of preparing the learners for a cohesive society, it led to more divisions. The system was aimed at ensuring that the black people did not get jobs that were regarded as white men’s. In this structural functionalist perspective, the education system was detrimental to the social and economic development of South Africa.

In the eyes of neo-Marxist sociologists, Bantu Education was still harmful to the social and economic development of South Africa. Education to them is supposed to equip the learners with the right attitudes, values and norms that allow them to thrive in a capitalist society.

However, Bantu Education was only interested in giving learners skills that could not allow them to thrive in a capitalist society. For instance, the skills that were being passed to them could only allow them to be used in the provision of cheap unskilled or semi-skilled labor.

Neo-Marxists also believe that education is supposed to equip learners with the right skills to provide various labor types required by capitalists. On the contrary, Bantu Education provided learners with skills that could only be applied in limited areas. It was even a disadvantage to the capitalists since they could not get skilled labor whenever they required it. The education system was therefore detrimental to the social and economic development of South Africa.

Conclusion

Education plays an important role in preparing children for their future occupational roles by equipping them with the right values, norms and attitudes. This enables them to make positive contributions in the society. Although structural functionalists and neo-Marxists hold some differing views on the purpose of education, they both share a common belief that education plays an important role in transforming the society.

However, the Bantu Education in South Africa was discriminatory in nature and prevented societal development. According to the two groups of sociologists, it was detrimental towards the social and economic development of South Africa.

Works Cited

Ballantine, Jeanne. The sociology of education: A systematic analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.Print.

Blackledge, David and Barry Hunt. Sociological interpretations of education, London: Routledge, 1985.Print.

Hyslop, Jonathan. The classroom struggle: policy and resistance in South Africa,1940-1990, Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1999.Print.

Martin, Ruhr. The Sociology of Education, Pretoria: University of South Africa, 2006.Print.

Click Here To Order Now!