Dear Minister Gwarube,

I am writing to express my profound disdain and deep concern regarding the recent decision by the Department of Basic Education to drop plans for making coding and robotics compulsory subjects in our schools. This decision, as reported, is a critical misstep that I believe will have severe, long-lasting repercussions for our nation's children and our global competitiveness.

As someone who has been actively teaching Coding and Robotics for the past three years, I have witnessed firsthand the transformative impact these subjects have on young minds. They don't just teach technical skills; they foster problem-solving, logical reasoning, and computational thinking—abilities crucial for success in the 21st century. By sidelining these subjects, we are effectively ensuring that our future population will not be competitive with the rest of the world in the burgeoning digital economy.

Furthermore, it is vital to acknowledge that coding and robotics can have a multiplier effect on mathematics results. They provide a practical, engaging context for mathematical concepts, making abstract ideas tangible and exciting. This hands-on approach is precisely what our education system needs.

The reported decline in learners' comprehension, while concerning, is a symptom, not a justification for cutting forward-looking subjects. It is, in my professional opinion, a direct consequence of our persistent reliance on outdated rote learning methods and an excessive focus on over-testing. These practices dampen our children's innate ability to think critically, innovate, and truly comprehend, rather than merely recall. This critical point is not just my observation; it is backed by extensive academic literature.

In an era increasingly defined by Artificial Intelligence, students not equipped with digital literacy and computational thinking skills will never find jobs. This decision will inevitably worsen our already dire youth unemployment rate, creating a generation ill-prepared for the future of work.

This policy decision will be a profound mistake and could have damaging consequences to the same level that Bantu Education had. Just as Bantu Education deliberately limited the potential of a generation, this decision risks limiting the intellectual and economic potential of our current and future generations by denying them essential skills for the modern world.

Minister, I am so committed to the future of our children that I am willing to draw up petitions on this matter, even if it means I lose my income as a result. Doing nothing will be just as bad as actively hindering their progress. I urge you to reconsider this decision with the gravity it deserves. Our children's future, and indeed the future of our nation, depends on it.

Sincerely,

Renier Lindeque

Academic Literature Supporting the Negative Impact of Rote Learning and Over-Testing on Critical Thinking:

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Reference: A foundational text distinguishing between rote and meaningful learning, arguing for the superiority of the latter for retention and transfer of knowledge.

Crook, C. (2018). Learning in the Digital Age: From learning to think to thinking to learn. Routledge.

Reference: Discusses how digital literacies require and foster different cognitive skills than traditional rote learning, emphasizing critical engagement over memorization.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From 'separate but equal' to 'no child left behind': The transformation of federal education policy. Review of Research in Education, 28(1), 1-46.

Reference: While broader in scope, this article and others by Darling-Hammond frequently critique the impact of high-stakes testing regimes on curriculum narrowing and the de-emphasis of higher-order thinking skills.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Bergin & Garvey.

Reference: Critiques traditional educational models, including those reliant on rote learning, for failing to empower students as critical thinkers and active participants in their learning.

Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching for understanding. American Educator, 17(3), 8-15.

Reference: Advocates for teaching for understanding rather than mere recall, implicitly critiquing methods that lead to superficial knowledge.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. National Academy Press.

Reference: A seminal work emphasizing that the primary goal of education should be to teach students how to think, directly contrasting with an over-reliance on memorization.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase student learning and achievement. Corwin Press.

Reference: Proposes an approach to education that prioritizes analytical, creative, and practical thinking over rote