Departments of Basic Education & of Higher Education & Training: Strategic Plans & Budget 2009/12

Meeting report

Department of Education: Strategic Plans and budget for each of Basic Education and Higher Education & Training
The Chairperson of the Committee, Ms F Chohan (ANC), noted that both the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and the Director General of the Department had tendered their apologies due to ill-health. She noted that the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education and the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training would be sitting together for the next two sessions. On the following Tuesday they would hold hearings on the four agencies falling under the budget vote to examine their performance.  In future, the presenters would be asked to give past and future predictions on the budget.  The budget would be adjusted in August when the adjusted appropriation was given.

Ms Vivienne Carelse, Acting Director General of Basic Education introduced the members of the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training. She expressed the Department’s desire to realise its commitment and goal of quality education.  She mentioned also the campaign targeting education role players to support commitments made at the Polokwane Conference and the Kliptown launch of the Education Campaign. The Campaign was meant to ensure that government supported schools, that teachers were present at school on time and teaching students, that communities made sure all children were attending schools, and that School Governing Bodies performed their functions and respected their teachers.  The reports previously presented to the earlier Portfolio Committee on Education had been tabled and served as a Parliamentary record.  Ms Carelse requested the support of members of the Committee in the Department’s efforts to meet its goals.  The Department desired future opportunities to brief the Committee on further development in their efforts. The upcoming presentation would give details of the Department’s Strategic Plans.

The Department noted that its overarching priority in human development was to contribute to South African human development in three ways: by strengthening the general education system for all; by improving access to high skills and a cognitively demanding curricula in schools and colleges; and by ensuring participation in relevant Higher Education programmes.  Ms Carelse also noted that the Department would need an opportunity for more sessions before the Committee to expand on the activities of the various branches in the Department.

Ms Chohan agreed that more sessions would be given to the Department to allow Committee members to hear about the work of the various branches.

Budget Presentation
Mr Philip Benade, Chief Financial Officer: Administration Branch, Department of Education, briefed the Committee on the budget. He said that although the former Department of Education (DOE) was now changed by the institution of two new departments, his presentation would be based on the previous vote using the old Department of Education (DOE).  The budget vote would change from 1 April 2010 to reflect the two new Departments of Basic Education (DBE) and Higher Education and Training (DHE), soon to be promulgated. For the remainder of the year, the two Departments would perform their work according to one vote under the budget and the Director General would take administrative responsibility for both Departments, while work continued to ensure the transition.  However in July, two votes would be submitted to National Treasury.  

Mr Benade continued describing the structure of the Department with its seven programmes and six branches that included Administration, System Planning and Monitoring, General Education and Training, Further Education and Training, Social and School Enrichment, and Higher Education. His presentation gave an overview of the allocation process for education, the funding of education in South Africa, and the allocation trends for the National and Provincial Education Departments, as well as the summary of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) requests for the Education Sector since 2007.

Mr Benade in particular noted that the funding of education was determined at the discretion of Provincial legislatures. At times, Provincial Education Departments did not receive the allocation amount recommended by the National Department, whilst others might receive more than the recommended amount.  Mr Benade continued to give a detailed description of the trends in the National Department of Education budget and addressed the evidence of underspending reflected within the budget. He discussed the MTEF policy options at the national level.  In some cases, for example, Information Communication Technology, funding requested was not received.  The reason for under funding was attributed to the economic crisis.  In other cases, over expenditure occurred in the field of the compensation of employees.

Discussion
The Chairperson requested clarification on what was included within the ‘baseline allocation’.

Mr Benade replied that it included the majority of the Department’s money, most of which became allocated as subsidies to different institutions. It included also money allocated to operations of the Department and the different services provided. The baseline allocation increased yearly with the different budget requests made in the MTEF process.  Thus it was not a static figure.

Mr W James (DA) asked what purpose the budget was meant to serve.  He was eager to understand how the Departments of Education would try to meet the needs of education for the 21^st century and how South Africa would prepare its children to participate in the knowledge economy. He also questioned how the over-expenditure in the budget occurred and who was responsible for it.

Mr Benade replied that the over-expenditure within provinces was treated as an overdraft on the Department’s funding for the subsequent year allocation.  This resulted in a negative impact on the following financial year, since less money was being provided.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) requested clarification on how the budget reflected the issue of poverty alleviation, especially dealing with the issue of School Nutrition programmes.

Mr Benade replied that Ms Ndebele could provide further information with reference to the National School Nutrition Programme.

Ms Gugulethu Ndebele, Deputy Director General: Social and School Enrichment, DOE, said that the extent of feeding for the National School Nutrition Programme was influenced by the budget and availability of funds. Currently, the Programme covered primary schools in Quintiles One, Two and Three and secondary schools in Quintile One.  She noted that there was a desire to expand the Programme in the following years to other Quintiles. 

An ANC Committee Member requested clarification on a diagram of the education allocations to local government.

Mr Benade replied that the diagram in question served to indicate the flow of funding from the National Revenue Fund to the various departments and had nothing to do with education as such.  

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) also requested clarification on why there was no allocation to Quintile Three for the 2009/10 year.  

Mr Benade said that Quintiles One and Two covered 60% of the schools in the system.  This was because Provinces used their discretion to determine which schools fell under the various quintiles. The goal to extend no-fee schools to Quintile Three was dependent upon receiving funding to do so. Currently, 60% of schools had been characterised as no-fee schools, though no funds have been received to extend this to 75%.

A Member questioned the failure to spend 0.8% in the 2007/08 financial year, and called for clarity on this.

Mr Benade noted that when Provinces under-spent, they would lose money unless they could explain the reason for the under-expenditure. If the reason was validated by National Treasury, the money then rolled over to the next year. 

The Chairperson requested that the Department should provide further details on expenditure trends that did not include conditional grants. 

Mr Benade replied that there had been information since the 1995/6 financial year. He noted that in the first ten years of democracy, there was growth in budget, but real growth after inflation amounted to 1%. Since then it had changed in the last two years due to a lack of growth in real terms and the persisting backlog in the system. 

Ms Chohan asked whether there was a plan to request more money for administration, since there would now be two Departments.

Mr Benade replied that currently the budget would remain as it had been outlined, but that plans were being made to divide the two new Departments, each with its own staff, for next year. In this financial year there was a need for some additional funding to the tune of around  R30million, and the additional funding would be requested to address additional administrative expenditures for this year.  For the 2010/11 year, the increase would be more substantive for two reasons.  Firstly, with the line function, new areas might need to be restructured and addressed within the new mandate given to Education.  Secondly, each Department would need its own full administration.  The financial implication would be addressed in the pending 2010/11 budgets. 

Ms Chohan asked the Department to keep the Committee informed of the requests made to National Treasury on the budget.

Ms N Vukuza (COPE) asked the Department to show the correlation between the money spent and the achievements made in the Department.  She was concerned with the need to see evidence of the work of the Department and argued that the Department ought to frame their priority in terms of “producing” rather than “ensuring” or “participating”.  She argued that the current output was very low.  

The Chairperson noted that Committee Members would have opportunity to discuss in detail such questions at the following sessions.

Programme 2 (Systems Planning and Monitoring) Presentation
Adv E Boshof, Acting Deputy Director General, DOE, briefed the Committee on Programme 2 and the role of the Department in that area.  He noted that the norms and standards for school infrastructure had been developed and were awaiting promulgation.  The impact of these norms and standards would initially focus on development of new schools, but were also a requirement for all schools in the long term. 

Adv Eben Boshof, Head of Legal Services, DOE, also noted other objectives of Programme 2, namely the strengthening of the Education Monitoring and Information System (EMIS) and the monitoring and implementation of LURITS, a system to conduct learner tracking, in the Provinces. Programme 2 also involved the analysis and reporting of education expenditure and investment and the development of funding norms and standards for all components of the education system, among other objectives. 

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the Committee would deal with this branch immediately. She requested that the Deputy Director General for Systems and Planning, Mr Firoz Patel, be informed that he would need to address the Committee on the Programme in question.  Mr Benade was asked to identify the sub-programs under Programme 2 with the greatest allocations and expenditure.

Mr Benade replied that the budget of Programme 2 was smallest, given that this Programme had the responsibility for planning but not implementation.  In the past the Programme had engaged in an audit of the entire school system that was funded externally. Primarily, its role was to plan for the education system and funding was later provided for implementation. 

Mr D Kganare (COPE) questioned the implication of norms and standards.  He also asked whether teacher colleges would be reopened, and if this was included as part of the budget for the current year.

Adv Boshof replied that the norms and standards made provision for what schools looked like at an infrastructural level.  He said that all new schools would need to have a basic standard of laboratories, libraries, school halls, and similar facilities. 

The Chairperson interrupted and stated that although the norms and standards existed, it was the Provinces that engaged with their implementation. She questioned whether there was an assurance in legislation or elsewhere that henceforth all schools that were built would accord with those standards.

Mr Boshof replied that there was already an amendment to the South African Schools Act in 2007/08, in terms of which the Provinces were to be kept accountable to the norms and standards by reporting on the progress made, or on deviations from those norms and standards.  Furthermore, schools that fell short would be encouraged and assisted by the Province to meet the standards.  However the norms and standards had yet to be promulgated. 

Mr G Boinamo (DA) expressed concern with how money was spent on education.  Learners, he argued, were the most important clients and their needs must be met.  The problem was that the Department of Education received a large budget compared to other departments, but many schools were still in poor condition and lacked facilities, that teachers were going unpaid, and students failed to get transport to schools far from their homes.  He asked when the Department would start taking these issues seriously.

Adv Boshof acknowledged that these issues had been identified, but as yet no documentation or policy had been put forward to address them. 

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) asked whether, in accordance with the State of the Nation Address, there were any initiatives in place to bring back pupils who had dropped out of schools and to support them. He also asked how the National Education Evaluation and Development Unit (NEEDU) would be initiated. 

Adv Boshof said that a Ministerial Committee had published a report on the NEEDU for comment, and a Bill was currently being drafted to address the initiative.  In the meantime, a unit within the Department had been identified to start dealing with the work of school evaluation. 

A Member raised the point that the Auditor-General had published a report on existing corruption in tendering processes.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would in the future look into the misappropriation of funds in education.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked if Provinces would be required to provide an implementation programme as to when and how they planned to get existing schools up to standards.

The Chairperson replied that there was a plan at the moment, and encouraged Ms Dudley to liaise with the Department on the issue.

Mr Makhubele enquired about the extension of no-fee schools to Quintile Three.

Mr Benade noted some corrections to the 2009 MTEF, and explained the reason for ‘Grade R infrastructure’ on the budget.  This stipulation was to ensure that schools were provided with the infrastructure necessary to hold Grade R classes. 

Mr Benade also said that allocations to quintiles depended on their status, such that higher quintiles received lower allocations.

Programmes 3 (General Education and Training) and 4(Further Education and Training) Presentation
Ms Penny Vinjevold, Deputy Director General: Further Education and Training, DOE, first addressed an earlier question posed by Mr James about bringing children up to speed with 21^st century developments, and the desired outputs. She acknowledged the desire of the Department to prepare South African children for the 21^st century.  This was being done first through an upgrading of the curriculum to help improve the cognitive levels, for example by enabling students to think more scientifically.  The Department was also looking to expand Grade R from the current level of 60%, and sustain the quality of education. The work of the Department also included ensuring that QIDS UP initiatives would be met, that students in Quintiles One and Two received the necessary infrastructure and resources, and that the curriculum would be the same across the board. Also, the Department was now conducting performance measurements at Grades 3, 6 and 9 levels. 

Ms Vinjevold noted that under Programme 4, efforts were being made to support the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement as well as the National Maths, Science and Technology Strategy through the Dinaledi Schools and the Technology Schools Re-capitalisation.  The Department was particularly involved in policy development through Teacher Training, which occurred in the Provinces, textbook screening and provision, and the upgrading of examinations.

Ms Vinjevold said that the Department was trying to support the growth of colleges and provide more student support within colleges. This was a key focus area.  This included training of lecturers, the upgrading and development of Information and Communication Technology, and monitoring of schools.  

Mr Benade gave an overview of the budget for the two programmes, in accordance with the figures set out in the attached document.

Discussion
Ms N Gina (ANC) questioned the Foundations for Learning Campaign. She suggested that the Committee discuss the budget for Further Education and Training and prioritise those programmes deemed important. She also raised the issue of inclusive education and Special Schools, and the need to prioritise them by monitoring them and helping them.

The Chairperson suggested that a separate report on Special Schools be presented, providing information on how to monitor and assist such schools.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) observed that nothing was allocated to district levels of education, and questioned whether an objective to ensure professional leadership at these levels would be feasible without financial allocations.

Mr James asked for clarification on the promotion of ICT at Dinaledi schools.

Ms Vukuza asked if there was a point of collaboration between the Programme 3 and 4 branches and the System of Planning and Monitoring branch.

Mr Kganare asked where career guidance fell within the work of the Department. He was also concerned about how inclusive education would be implemented without an allocation to the programme. He questioned also whether there was a programme to train teachers with laptops.  Finally, he raised the issue of equity colleges, and asked if there was a way to link students from these colleges to the labour market.

Mr Boinamo asked if the Department had teachers specifically trained to deal with Grade R programmes.  He was concerned also with the lack of provisions and facilities for students in Grade R.

An ANC Committee Member was concerned with the location of the Dinaledi schools and raised an issue about the possible lack of access to such schools by previously disadvantaged students.  The Member also suggested all schools should have equipped teachers.  She asked where the four technology schools were located, and what teachers were equipped and trained for in such schools.

Ms Vinjevold welcomed the comments and questions of the Committee Members and echoed the Department’s desire to continue improving. She acknowledged the need to improve in the area of exams and the need to continue training teachers.  She noted that while most Members were concerned with infrastructure, the branch that she had addressed dealt mostly with policy and planning for schools at district levels.

The Chairperson briefly interrupted and asked what capacities the districts had to perform their roles. She noted that this was an area of great impact, and would help teachers in their work.  She asked the Department to provide a report on the situation at the district level.

Ms Vinjevold agreed and said that in the July holidays teacher hearings would be held to attempt to understand the issues affecting them. 

The Chairperson agreed, and said that the way to turn the education system around was to address the issues that teachers faced. She stated that it was important for the Committee to determine where it desired to have the greatest impact.

Ms Vinjevold noted that with regard to Dinaledi, there was not yet adequate support and currently 33 disadvantaged Dinaledi schools had been selected for development.

The Chairperson noted that there were 500 Dinaledi schools that needed help with infrastructure to aid them in achieving a better learning environment.

Ms Vinjevold replied that efforts were being made to balance access with infrastructure at Dinaledi schools. Because of economic restraints, not all the 500 schools could be assisted at the same time through recapitalisation, and so 33 schools were being targeted.

The Chairperson requested the Department to provide the Committee with a list of the Dinaledi schools and the Special Schools.  She also raised the issue of the Reform Schools and asked if these fell within the scope of the Department. The Department was asked to provide information about such schools, where they were and the circumstances surrounding them and their activities.

Ms Vinjevold confirmed that the Department would provide the relevant information. 

Ms Vinjevold advised, specifically in answer to the point raised by Ms Vukuza, that the Department did indeed collaborate across branches. With regard to teacher laptop provision, she stated that the Department provided the necessary software, as well as training for teachers to use the laptops. 

The Chairperson expressed a hope that the rollout of laptops for teachers would take into account past lessons learned from previous initiatives.

Adv Boshof also clarified the laptop initiative and said that educators were given opportunities to purchase specific laptops in compliance with norms and standards.  They were also given funds to do so.

The Chairperson asked Mr Benade to address the budget for Programme 4.

Mr Benade took the Committee through the budget figures for this programme (see attached document for details).

The Chairperson asked what sub programmes could be moved out of Programme 4 to Higher Education. 

Ms Vinjevold replied that the sub programme for colleges would go to Higher Education and Training. 

Ms Mushwana inquired whether school visits were given priority by the Department. She also suggested that students be given access to computers to aid in computer education.

Mr M Hoosen (ID) asked whether there were any investigations into dropout ratios from primary to tertiary levels. Secondly, he asked if the LURITS system introduced could track performance of schools. He also asked if there were any plans to extend the National School Nutrition Programme to Grade R.

The Chairperson noted that the nutrition questions would be addressed later.

Ms Mashishi asked how the Department addressed challenges when it visited schools and districts.

Ms Vinjevold replied that the senior certificate reports provided an understanding of what was happening in high schools.  The Department also visited different schools, and was planning to visit about 1 000 in 2009/10, and asked different questions.  It would also try to target under-performing schools to ensure that there was good leadership. One observation during the visits was that teachers were often unsure of the core priorities.  

In regard to drop outs, Ms Vinjevold said that the major problem lay in retention of students at Grade 11, at which point student retention dropped to 65%.  Prior to that, the schooling system enjoyed a nearly-90% retention rate. She added that LURITS did not capture performance, but rather it showed retention rates in schools.

Programme 5 (Social and School Enrichment) Presentation
Ms G Ndebele highlighted the work of Programme 5, which included working to secure schools with high rates of crime and violence.  The Programme worked with teachers and principals to implement positive discipline.  The Programme also targeted learners to deal with conflict resolution and similar issues.  It aimed to address the issue of gender equity and especially the issue of sexual harassment and violence. This effort in particular targeted teachers. There was also work being done with teachers on the issue of teenage pregnancy. 

Ms Ndebele also mentioned the National School Nutrition Programme as a key aspect of the Programme’s work. The effort targeted the feeding of over 6 million learners. Currently there was a need to look at community based centres as a way of implementing the initiative. The NSNP was also being implemented in Quintile One secondary schools. Schools in other quintiles would be added as soon as was feasible. Of concern in this area was the issue of budgetary constraints at Provincial levels, which affected feeding.  There was also a need to strengthen monitoring and make sure that quality of meals was ensured.

Ms Ndebele also addressed the issue of health and HIV. She said that schools acting as the centres of care and support must be expanded.  There was a need for a broader strategy on HIV/AIDS since teachers were both infected and affected.  Additionally there was a plan to provide screening in Grade One for students’ eyes, ears and teeth.

Ms Ndebele discussed the importance of finalising a School Sport policy and the soon-to-emerge Draft White Paper on Adult Education and Training.  She noted that Adult Basic Education and Training too often focused on basic education, and thus needed to be expanded. 

Prof Veronica McKay, Chief Executive Officer of Kha Ri Gude Literacy Campaign, DOE, also presented a brief overview of the Kha Ri Gude programme.  There had been efficient use of the budget by the programme, given its financial constraints.  The entire budget for the last year was spent. In the current year, the campaign received less than requested, but had attempted to not compromise on the quality of the education.  The campaign occurred at no cost to learners and provided learners with all the necessary resources to learn. The campaign targeted learners everywhere, including those in prison. It also targeted disabled learners, using 100 blind educators working with a ‘seeing’ educator (sourced from volunteers) to teach them. 

Discussion
Ms Mushwana questioned how the Department could include production schools, for those needing employment, in the Adult Education and Training category.

Ms Ndebele replied that the Draft White Paper would address the issue of production schools.

Mr Mpontshane asked whether the Department had investigated the use of front companies in the school feeding scheme. He also asked if there was a relationship between school sports and the Department of Sports and Recreation.

Ms Ndebele confirmed that the Department did work jointly with the Department of Sports and Recreation on school sports. 

Mr Boinamo asked if the Department was making an effort to raise the level of campaigns on Kha Ri Gude in rural areas. He questioned the wisdom of supporting schools with high crime, rather than all schools, and suggested that the focus should be on prevention of crime. 

Ms Ndebele replied that only those schools that were ineffective because of the high level of crimes were being targeted at present.

Programme 6 (Higher Education) Presentation
Dr Molapo Qhobela, Acting Director General for Higher Education, DOE, briefly addressed the Higher Education programme.  This Programme had R10 million allocated for its operations, and R17 billion had been received for 2009. The key levers of the Programme included planning, funding, policy, legislation and quality.  In particular, there was a link between planning and funding. The presentation highlighted the way the programme was funded and the distribution through the MTEF from 2009/10 to 2011/12. It also addressed the efforts at student financial support and ongoing projects. (See attached presentation for details).

Discussion
Ms Vukuza asked if was there a correlation between the facilities of an institution and the salary of Vice Chancellors. She asked if the Programme aimed to provide specific universities for specific centers of study.

Mr James requested Dr Qhobela to comment on difficulties that universities were experiencing in meeting post graduate graduation projections and rates. He also asked what efforts were being made to look into animal health in education.

Dr Qhobela said that in regard to salaries of Vice-Chancellors, a policy had been drafted by former Minister of Education Hon Naledi Pandor. A list of salaries for Vice Chancellors and other administrative staff, and the draft policy,  could be provided.
 
Ms Makhubele expressed a desire to see more assistance provided to students for financial aid.

Dr Qhobela replied that the National Student Financial aid had been increased, but the main problem remained that demand outstrips supply.  He said that the Minister would, on 23 June,  address how the problem could be resolved. 

Ms N Mkhulisi (ANC) asked about school sports.

The Chairperson asked if the notion of a specialist university was feasible in the South African context.

Dr Qhobela replied that it would be difficult to specialise universities in the short term, as it would be problematic to grant access to all students equally.  He also noted, in response to Mr James, that the issue of animal health was being prioritised at the moment. For example, the University of Pretoria trained veterinarians.  He confirmed that with regard to accountability, the programme had an accountability framework modelled on the Public Finance Management Act to address this concern.

The meeting was adjourned.