Extended Curriculum Programmes (ECPs) in South Africa aim to address educational disparities and promote equity in higher education. However, their structure may unintentionally perpetuate stigma and disadvantage, raising questions about their implementation and impact.
I. The ECP Paradox: A Lifeline or a Label?
A. Introducing Extended Curriculum Programmes (ECPs) in South Africa
Extended Curriculum Programmes (ECPs) in South Africa represent a significant systemic intervention within the higher education landscape. Supported by the national Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), these programmes are explicitly designed to improve graduation and throughput rates for students identified as “educationally disadvantaged, underprepared, unprepared, and at-risk”. Their historical roots trace back to the 1980s, when various academic support or bridging courses emerged. These initiatives were later formalised in the early 2000s with the clear objective of promoting access and success for students who had been historically denied entry to quality higher education, a legacy of the apartheid era. A common feature of ECPs is the extension of the standard degree duration; for instance, a Bachelor’s degree typically completed in three years might be extended to four, allowing for the incorporation of foundational academic support.
The institutional rationale behind ECPs is firmly grounded in principles of social justice and equity. They aim “to create the curriculum space needed to enable talented but underprepared students to achieve sound foundations for success in higher education”. In a post-apartheid South Africa grappling with deep-seated educational disparities stemming from decades of unequal schooling, ECPs are conceptualised as a crucial mechanism for redress. They signify an institutional acknowledgement of the systemic inequalities that persist in the primary and secondary education systems, and an attempt to level the playing field at the point of entry into university.
B. The Inherent Tension: Good Intentions, Problematic Structures?
Despite the laudable goals of equity and enhanced access that underpin Extended Curriculum Programmes, a fundamental tension arises from their very structure. While ECPs are intended to be supportive lifelines, the central argument of this analysis is that the act of separating students into distinct ECP streams and, consequently, labeling them as “ECP students” can generate unintended and significant negative psychological consequences. This separation, often based on perceptions of academic deficit, may inadvertently create new forms of disadvantage.
This concern is not merely speculative. Critical observations have been made that “ECPs, as they stand, may further perpetuate racial differences as opposed to creating equal opportunities for success at university”. This suggests that the mechanism of differentiation, even if well-intentioned, can reinforce existing societal cleavages. The paradox, therefore, lies in the methodology: a programme designed for inclusion and to advance social justice might, through its operational reliance on separation and labeling, foster experiences of exclusion and psychological harm. This challenges the core mission of ECPs, suggesting that the way “support” is conceptualized and delivered—if predicated on a distinction that itself becomes a source of stigma—may be inherently flawed. The very “social justice” framing of ECPs creates an immediate ethical and practical dilemma if the chosen method undermines the psychological well-being of the students it aims to serve. This points to a deeper question about whether the underlying model of support is based on a deficit view of students which, by its nature, leads to “othering” and its associated negative impacts, regardless of the programme’s stated intentions.
II. The Weight of a Label: Stigma and the Psychological Scars for ECP Students
A. Documented Experiences of Stigmatization
The designation “ECP student” is not a neutral identifier within the university environment; it often acts as a potent social marker, carrying with it a significant burden of stigma. Research indicates that students enrolled in ECPs frequently report experiencing stigmatization, primarily from their peers in mainstream programmes, and sometimes implicitly from the institutional environment itself. These experiences include being perceived as academically inferior, less capable, or, as some students articulate, still operating at a “high school level”. Such perceptions contribute to profound feelings of exclusion, alienation, being underrated, and a diminished sense of belonging within the broader university community.
This stigmatization is not merely a series of isolated interpersonal incidents but appears to be a systemic issue rooted in the programme’s structural distinctness. The label “ECP” becomes a visible signifier of difference, one that is often interpreted negatively within the university’s social ecosystem. The problem is recognized beyond student experiences; even academic staff facilitating ECPs have noted “stigmatisation and lack of confidence” among their students. Furthermore, the challenge of “information asymmetry” regarding ECPs—where students and potentially others lack a comprehensive understanding of the programmes’ nature, criteria, and objectives—can create a vacuum that negative stereotypes readily fill. When the purpose and function of ECPs are not clearly communicated and understood, the institutional act of separating students can be easily misinterpreted by others as a definitive signal of deficiency, irrespective of the institution’s supportive intent. This ambiguity allows negative perceptions, such as that of ECP students being “academically inadequate,” to flourish and become entrenched.
B. The Psychological Fallout: Stress, Anxiety, and Diminished Self-Worth
The social experience of being labeled and stigmatized translates into tangible psychological distress for many ECP students. The constant navigation of an environment where one might be perceived as “lesser” contributes to a range of negative emotional and cognitive outcomes. Studies and student reports highlight increased levels of stress and anxiety, a negative self-perception often manifesting as students “feeling stupid” compared to their mainstream counterparts, pervasive insecurity, and diminished motivation.
These psychological burdens are not indicative of individual failings or inherent weaknesses. Rather, they are understandable responses to a challenging and often invalidating social and academic milieu. Research points to “consistently high levels of mental health issues” among students in extended programmes, noting that these students, already dealing with “self-esteem and capability challenges intensified by peer and institutional attitudes, might face heightened susceptibility to mental health issues”. The environment created by the ECP structure, intended to be a scaffold for academic success, can paradoxically become a source of chronic stress that erodes students’ confidence and overall mental well-being. The feeling of being an “outcast” or not truly belonging can be deeply corrosive to a student’s academic journey. This psychological distress is likely a critical mediating factor between the ECP label and its associated stigma, and the adverse academic outcomes, such as high dropout rates, observed among these students. It suggests that the difficulties faced by ECP students extend beyond their initial “underpreparedness”; they are also actively navigating an environment that can make them feel inadequate, which directly impacts their capacity to engage, persist, and succeed.
III. Through Luhmann’s Looking Glass: How We “See” ECP Students
A. Luhmann’s Second-Order Observation: An Accessible Explanation
To understand the complex dynamics of how ECP students are perceived and how they, in turn, perceive themselves, the sociological theory of Niklas Luhmann, particularly his concept of “second-order observation,” offers valuable insights. In essence, second-order observation is the act of observing how others observe. It moves beyond a direct, first-order observation of an object or event (e.g., “this student is in an ECP”) to an observation of the observation process itself (e.g., “how does the institution/mainstream student observe and categorize this ECP student, and based on what distinctions?”). It involves “watching the watchers” and understanding the assumptions, distinctions, and frameworks that shape their perceptions and constructions of reality. Luhmann’s theory posits that all social systems, including universities, construct their social reality based on such observations of observations. This lens allows for an analysis that goes beyond simply stating “stigma exists” to dissecting how the social system of the university, encompassing its structures, staff, and students, collectively constructs and perpetuates the meaning attached to being an “ECP student.”
B. The “ECP Student” as a Systemic Distinction
Social systems, according to Luhmann, operate and make sense of the world by drawing distinctions. A distinction creates a form with two sides: the “marked” side (that which is focused upon) and the “unmarked” side (the background or the norm). Within the South African higher education system, the ECP/mainstream divide functions as such a primary distinction. This act of differentiation “marks” ECP students, rendering them observable as different from their “mainstream” counterparts.
The institution, as a system, typically makes a first-order observation of these students through the lens of “underpreparedness,” “at-risk,” or in need of foundational support due to “the poor quality of their previous educational experiences”. This initial observation and the subsequent categorization are fundamental to the ECP’s existence. The ECP label, therefore, is not a neutral descriptor; it is a powerful systemic marker. It signifies that the student has been observed by the system according to a particular set of criteria (often related to prior academic performance or socio-economic background) and placed into a distinct category. This categorization then shapes how these students are perceived, resourced, and interacted with within the institutional environment.
C. The Vicious Cycle: Observing the Observation
The psychological impact on ECP students is significantly amplified through their own engagement in second-order observation. They are not passive recipients of the “ECP” label; they actively observe how the institution (including lecturers, administrative systems, and support services) and their mainstream peers observe, categorize, and treat them based on this distinction. They perceive what others say, and critically, what they do not say or how they act, in relation to their ECP status.
When ECP students observe that they are being “observed as lesser,” “different,” or “remedial” by others , this awareness reinforces and internalizes the stigma and feelings of alienation. The very structure of ECPs—separate classes, sometimes different campuses or administrative processes, extended programme durations—functions as ongoing communication from the institution that constantly re-affirms this distinction. This is analogous to how systems in other specialized fields, like special education, take responsibility for and categorize individuals based on observed differences, thereby shaping their experience within that system.
The university system, by creating the distinct category of “ECP student,” may unintentionally develop a “blind spot” concerning the impact of this categorization process itself. The institutional focus tends to be on the “marked” student—the individual perceived as needing assistance—potentially obscuring how the very act of marking, labeling, and separating becomes a significant part of the problem. The system’s primary distinction (ECP vs. mainstream) becomes a potent social signal, communicating difference in a way that can contribute to the very issues (such as low self-esteem and alienation) it aims to mitigate. The focus remains on the student’s perceived deficit, rather than on the system’s role in constructing the social meaning and consequences of that perceived deficit.
Ultimately, the university as a social system communicates “ECP status” as a meaningful category. This meaning is not unilaterally imposed but is co-constructed. The institution defines it through its policies, structures, and resource allocation. Mainstream students interpret and enact this meaning through their interactions and attitudes, often leading to stigmatization. ECP students, in turn, internalize this socially constructed meaning through their lived experiences and their second-order observations of these institutional and peer dynamics. Thus, the “meaning” of being an ECP student—often laden with negative connotations of deficiency—becomes a social reality with profound and tangible psychological consequences, shaping identity, self-worth, and the overall university experience.
IV. The Numbers Don’t Lie: Academic Precarity and the Dropout Dilemma
A. Examining ECP Dropout and Throughput Rates
The assertion that ECP students drop out at significantly higher rates than their mainstream counterparts warrants careful examination of available data. While a precise, system-wide figure confirming ECP students drop out at “twice the rate of mainstream students” is not directly substantiated by the provided information for the entire South African higher education sector, the existing evidence paints a concerning picture of academic precarity for students in these programmes.
General statistics for South African higher education already indicate low throughput and high attrition. Reports suggest that “less than 50% of those who enrol for a degree… never graduated” , and other sources indicate that up to 50% of students do not complete their qualifications, with dropout rates being particularly high in this range.
More specific data on ECP outcomes, though often institution-specific, reveals significant challenges. A quantitative evaluation of a STEM ECP at one research-intensive South African university (for cohorts from 2010-2016) found an overall graduation rate of 48.9% for Bachelor’s degrees. While this figure itself is below ideal, what is particularly alarming are the persistent racial disparities in dropout rates within this ECP. The study reported that higher percentages of Coloured (48%) and Black African (54%) ECP students dropped out compared to White ECP students (38%). Most strikingly, Xhosa-speaking ECP students within this cohort experienced a dropout rate of 69%. In another context, a Health Sciences ECP at the Central University of Technology (CUT) reported that for the 2007 cohort, 58% graduated within the extended timeframe, while 21% of those who articulated to mainstream eventually dropped out.
A DHET report from 2020, which aimed to compare dropout rates for regular 3-year programmes and ECPs for the 2013 cohort, presents a table (Table 5 in the document) that unfortunately lacks the specific ECP dropout figures for the years displayed, only providing data for “Regular 3 Year” programmes (e.g., 19.9% dropout in 2014, 26% in 2015 for the 2013 cohort). This data gap at a national comparative level makes a comprehensive, direct comparison challenging based on the available materials.
The following table, derived from the study of a STEM ECP at a research-intensive university , illustrates the stark internal disparities in dropout rates within that specific programme:
| Student Group (within STEM ECP, 2010-2016 Cohorts) | Dropout Rate (%) |
|---|---|
| Coloured | 48% |
| Black African | 54% |
| Xhosa-speaking (subset of Black African students) | 69% |
| White | 38% |
This data underscores that even within programmes designed to offer enhanced support, significant inequalities in outcomes persist, particularly affecting students from historically disadvantaged racial and linguistic backgrounds. This suggests that the ECP model, as currently implemented, may not be uniformly effective in mitigating pre-university disadvantage and, in some instances, might interact with other systemic factors to reproduce inequitable outcomes. The lack of readily available, clear, and comprehensive comparative data on ECP versus mainstream dropout rates across the entire South African HE system is itself a significant concern. Such data is crucial for a thorough evaluation of ECP effectiveness nationally and for advocating evidence-based systemic changes. Without this overarching data, the true extent of the problem may be masked, hindering efforts to drive large-scale policy reform.
B. Connecting Psychological Distress to Academic Outcomes
The psychological burdens carried by ECP students—stigma, low self-esteem, anxiety, and feelings of alienation—are not isolated from their academic trajectories. There is a strong basis to argue that these psychosocial challenges are key contributing factors to the observed high dropout and low throughput rates. A student who is constantly battling feelings of inadequacy, exclusion, and the weight of a negative label will inevitably find it more difficult to engage fully with their academic work, persist through challenges, and ultimately succeed.
Studies note that the difficulties ECP students face, including stigmatization, can negatively affect their academic performance and their perception of how their current studies relate to future success. The heightened susceptibility to mental health issues, intensified by peer and institutional attitudes towards their ECP status, logically impacts academic persistence. Even when ECP students show gradual improvement in performance, as noted by some facilitators, this often occurs alongside initial negative attitudes towards being in the ECP, implying a psychological struggle that requires substantial support and resilience to overcome. The academic precarity of many ECP students cannot, therefore, be solely attributed to their initial levels of academic “underpreparedness.” The ongoing psychological impact of being labeled, separated, and often stigmatized within the university environment likely plays a crucial, and deeply detrimental, role in their academic journeys.
V. Re-Coding Success: Towards Truly Inclusive Higher Education in South Africa
A. The Argument for Systemic Re-evaluation
The evidence suggests that the dominant model of Extended Curriculum Programmes in South Africa, while born from a commitment to equity, warrants a fundamental re-evaluation. By focusing on identifying, separating, and labeling students based on a perceived deficit model , these programmes may inadvertently contribute to the very psychological and academic challenges they aim to ameliorate. The act of distinguishing students as “ECP” communicates a difference that is frequently interpreted negatively within the university’s social system. This can perpetuate a cycle where the label itself becomes a barrier, fostering stigma, diminishing self-worth, and ultimately impacting academic performance and persistence.
Critiques have pointed out that “ECPs, as they stand, may further perpetuate racial differences as opposed to creating equal opportunities” and that a more effective approach would be to see “all students as having different learning needs”. This perspective challenges the notion of “underpreparedness” as an inherent characteristic of the student, shifting focus towards the educational system’s capacity to respond to diversity. Early academic development work in South Africa recognized the limitations of approaches based on “remediation and its associations of inferiority,” yet deficit-oriented views can persist. The solution, therefore, may not lie in merely tweaking existing ECP structures but in rethinking the foundational approach to supporting student diversity and addressing educational disadvantage across the higher education sector.
B. Exploring Alternatives: Flexible Curricula and Universal Design
Moving beyond models that risk stigmatization requires exploring alternative approaches that embed support and inclusivity within the mainstream educational experience. Two promising avenues are flexible mainstream curricula and Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
Flexible mainstream curricula involve designing courses and programmes to be inherently more inclusive and responsive to a diverse range of learning needs from the outset. This means building in varied teaching strategies, assessment methods, and support mechanisms that benefit all students, rather than singling out a particular group for separate intervention.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers a comprehensive framework for creating learning environments, materials, and assessments that are accessible and effective for everyone, thereby reducing the need for separate “remedial” or “extended” tracks. UDL principles advocate for providing multiple means of representation (how information is presented), multiple means of action and expression (how students demonstrate learning), and multiple means of engagement (how students are motivated and involved in learning). The relevance of UDL to the South African higher education context, characterized by significant student diversity and educational inequalities, is increasingly recognized as a means to foster genuinely inclusive learning environments.
Broader Academic Development (AD) initiatives also play a crucial role. These encompass a holistic approach focusing on student development, staff development, curriculum development, and institutional development, all aimed at enhancing the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning, with a particular focus on equity of access and outcomes. Such approaches shift the focus from “fixing the student” to creating more inherently inclusive, supportive, and effective educational systems for all learners. This represents a fundamental shift in the observation of student diversity: instead of viewing difference primarily as a deficit requiring separate remediation, these alternatives observe difference as a normal and valuable aspect of any student cohort. Consequently, the responsibility shifts to the system—the curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional structures—to become flexible and accommodating.
C. Concluding Call to Action: A Luhmannian Re-Coding
The challenge for South African higher education is to move towards models of student support that are truly empowering and equitable, without inadvertently creating new forms of marginalization. This requires a systemic re-evaluation of how student diversity and preparedness are understood and addressed. From a Luhmannian perspective, this means fundamentally changing the “codes” and “distinctions” that the educational system uses to make sense of its student population and to organize its operations.
Instead of the dominant ECP/mainstream distinction, which carries inherent risks of stigmatization and negative psychological consequences, institutions should actively explore and implement ways to “re-code” support as an integral and invisible part of a flexible, universally designed, and high-quality educational experience for every student. This involves fostering institutional cultures that value diversity not as a problem to be managed through separation, but as a strength that enriches the learning environment for all. Educational anti-stigma interventions are also crucial to challenge and correct misinformed perceptions about students who may require additional academic pathways or support.
Successfully implementing such systemic changes—embracing flexible curricula, embedding UDL principles, and de-emphasizing separate, potentially stigmatizing programmes—is not a simple task. It necessitates a significant cultural shift within higher education institutions. This includes substantial investment in ongoing academic staff development to equip educators with the pedagogical skills and inclusive mindsets required. It also demands a concerted effort to challenge and dismantle entrenched “deficit discourses” about students, which can be deeply ingrained in institutional practices and attitudes. Furthermore, it requires a critical look at resource allocation to ensure that inclusive mainstream models are adequately supported.
A true commitment to equity and student well-being requires moving beyond models that, however well-intentioned, may reproduce the very inequalities and psychological harms they seek to overcome. The ultimate goal is to create a higher education system that is more observant of its own impact on students and more adaptive to the diverse needs of all learners, without resorting to labels that can wound and exclude. This is not merely a technical or structural adjustment but a call for profound institutional and cultural transformation, ensuring that every student has the opportunity to thrive, both academically and psychologically.
