Teacher Education and Training Colleges: Departmental Progress report

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that this meeting had been called as a follow up to the reports on service delivery and a request by the Department of Basic Education for public hearings. She noted that some Members served on more than one Committee.

The Chairperson noted that a new AZAPO Member would replace Mr M Mangena, who had represented AZAPO for some time on the Committee.

Mr W James (DA) suggested that the Committee should send a letter of appreciation to Mr Mangena.

The Chairperson agreed to draft a letter on behalf of the Committee.

The Chairperson noted that in the previous week this Committee had agreed to have a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, to discuss shared interests and agree to cooperation, to deal with young people who were detained.

He then tabled a letter received from the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, which emphasised the overlap also between that Committee and this, and proposed attendance by members of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training at meetings scheduled for 12, 19 and 26 May 2010.

He stated that he had held an ad hoc meeting with the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, where they discussed service delivery and the role of the Department. He proposed that a delegation attend the Science and Technology meetings of 19 and 26 May, and that there should be an informal meeting between the two Chairpersons to discuss co-operative arrangements.

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) said that the letter received from the Secretary could have caused confusion, as it indicated that Members were definitely expected to attend the proposed meetings. Members required more clarity and better communication.

Mr James welcomed the initiatives. There were clearly areas of mutual interest.

The Chairperson asked the Secretary to check with him before letters were sent out. He obviously could not excuse the members of this Committee for the other Committee meeting today.

Re-establishment of Teacher Education and Training Colleges: Department of Higher Education briefing:
The Chairperson requested that the Director-General reflect on the restructuring of the Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) landscape.

Ms Mary Metcalfe, Director-General, Department of Higher Education and Training, said that the flight of Dr D Parker, Chief Director of Teacher Education, had been delayed but that she would be joining the meeting later.

She noted that the Minister of Higher Education had reminded the National Assembly and this Committee that the landscape of the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) had been extended for one year, as was the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS). The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET or the Department) needed more time to conclude the consultations around the SETA landscapes and administrative arrangements, and to start the new financial year with the restructured landscape. She referred Members to the Department’s website for further information in this regard.

The Chairperson interjected to request clarity regarding the integration of some of the SETAs, for example the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services SETA (MERSETA). She asked if this was not to be implemented now.

Ms Metcalfe responded that there was a process of consultation. The Government Gazette gave a time-frame for submissions. The National Skills Authority (NSA) would advise the Minister and had requested comment.

The Chairperson said that he understood that this was a draft report, open for submissions. There would be a process of public participation. The information was on the website. The Committee had a process of public hearings on landscape restructuring. Sectors and society would speak to Parliament at the appropriate times. This process was scheduled for June or July 2010. He noted that a sub-committee, consisting of Mr S Makhubele (ANC) and Ms N Vukuza (COPE), would be formed to look at public entities in the SETA landscapes vis-à-vis public entities in Parliament generally, including questions around the requirements of Parliament. Input would be sought later from the Parliamentary Legal Advisors.

The Department continued with the presentation. A National Teacher Development Summit held in July 2009 was a very important event in the history of education in South Africa, at which key issues were thrashed out and resolved at a senior political level, with wide representation.

The preparation work was chaired by the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General of Higher Education. Teacher Unions, key structures and experts had participated. The Summit, much of which was devoted to commissions, produced a working document of 10 pages on the way forward. The Joint Summit Declaration called for the development of a new, strengthened, integrated plan for teacher education and development in South Africa. Management structures and processes were put into place to develop the Plan.

The Progress Report was submitted to the Minister in October 2009. The first formal report on the Plan was submitted to the Teacher Development Advisory and Steering Committees on 31 March 2010. That Report still had to go the Minister and was a work in progress.

The Steering Committee included the South African Council of Educators (SACE), the Education and Learning Resource Council (ELRC), the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the Department of Basic Education (DBE).

The Development Plan proposed an organisational structure of two Councils for Education Ministers. Basic Education and Higher Education would therefore each have their own HEDCOM and Council of Education Ministers (CEM).

The respective responsibilities of the DHET and the DBE must be defined. The DHET was an employer and therefore needed to look at issues such as conditions of service and the purpose of teaching. It should consult the DBE and principle stakeholders.

The response of Higher Education (HE) had been the DHE Qualifications Framework.

An Advisory Committee was set up to provide broader representation and to bring in expertise from officials and academics, for example the Deans’ Forum. There were four working groups, supported by a Secretariat, and each was linked to a Declaration Statement arising from the Summit. These statements concerned institutional arrangements, needs and programmes, support structures and priorities and funding. It was agreed that there was a need to strengthen the system to provide quality teacher education and development, including exploring opening colleges, strengthening existing Higher Education Institutions (HEI) provisioning, and finding alternative models. There was also a need to identify development needs, recognise competence and prior learning (RPL) and set up quality programmes to meet the needs. Streamlined and strengthened Department of Education and Provincial Education Departments and district structures must support teacher development. All current funding streams must be identified and re-examined, and mechanisms proposed to improve funding.

Dr Diane Parker, Chief-Director: Teacher Education, DHET, said that the working group had still to produce a report that identified where the Teacher Education and Development (TED) had been, where it currently was and where it would like to be. A Teacher Development round–table was scheduled for 8 June 2010, to look at the recommendations and to work towards an overall Plan.

The preliminary Report, which was handed to the Advisory and Steering Committees on 31 March 2010, dealt with an integrated institutional landscape with increased capacity and capability, support for initial education and continuing professional development. An ICT based system should be used to identify teacher needs and provide access to quality programmes. This Report would be used to develop the Plan. It would be a twenty to thirty year vision, with cycled planning, as distinct from the ad hoc and uncoordinated planning in the past. The time schemes were more realistic. This would include focussed and prioritised use of all funding, to meet the needs identified in the report, but she cautioned that additional funding would be required.

An integrated institutional framework to bring together all aspects of the Plan was recommended. This included producing new teachers and utilising existing support mechanisms. There was a difference between capacity and capability. The goal was to produce and support more teachers, but also to strengthen capability, and this would require quality research.

The issue of re-opening training colleges, where appropriate, was integrated in the thinking. The Department might need to open new institutions offering teaching education.

A co-ordinated response from different interest groups, who would be working at all levels, was needed.

Some of the key assumptions were set out. The recommendations were based on local and international research. Teaching would continue to be promoted as a graduate profession, following international trends. The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development (NPFTED) had to be developed. There was sound reasoning behind incorporating the colleges into the Higher Education environment. The continuing professional development system was linked to the National Policy Framework, and this system would be maintained by SACE, with teachers being rewarded for continuing their own professional development.

Dr Parker said this model was largely built on existing structures and DEHT would use existing working elements, while improving their strength and coordination.

Dr Parker then outlined the key principles that informed the institutional Model and Plan. There must be capacity and capability to produce and support teachers. The aim was to uplift and improve quality across the system. There should be increased access to initial teacher education opportunities, particularly for students in deep rural areas. Quality teachers must be developed. The Plan should assist in reducing inequality and social transformation. There would not be a single type of institution, but different institutions must rather work together. All kinds of programmes produced by institutions must be relevant to teaching. Finally, there should be educational and economical viability.

Dr Parker then outlined the recommended Institutional Model. This would have to work at sections of the system – at National, Provincial and District level. It involved setting up a Continuing Professional Teacher Development Management System (CPTD-MS). It would initially be piloted across four provinces. SACE created an ICT platform. Teachers would be recognised for teacher-driven activities, school-driven activities and profession-driven activities. SACE would endorse providers who offered programmes of quality and relevance.

In order to improve national and provincial co-ordination and planning, and ensure strong collaboration between the DBE and the DHET, a National Teacher Education and Development Commission (NTEDC) should be established. It would serve as an advisory structure to the national education departments. It would assist in maintaining the Plan for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa (the Plan) and assist in constructing cyclical TED sub-plans.

A National Centre for Professional Development (NCPD) should be established to develop and maintain a system that allowed individual classroom based teachers to identify their development needs. It would then bring together experts to develop standards, assessment tests, continuing professional development courses. These must be pedagogically sound, content rich, quality assessed (the various bodies were described) and must develop curriculum competence. The NCPD must also develop and maintain an ICT platform to share and deliver resources.

The diagnostic system would be phased in.

Dr Parker said that it was imperative to build strong links between this system, and to provide courses through endorsed providers at provincial and district level, and the SACE CPTD Management System (SACE CPTD-MS), to ensure quality and relevance of the programmes and to recognise teachers’ professional development. All accredited public providers of formal TED programmes must be drawn together into a nation-wide accessible network, under the auspices of DHET.

All HEIs currently offering TED programmes would be encouraged and supported to increase and give better resources to existing and potential delivery sites. In particular, they would be encouraged to set up or recapitalise decentralised, rurally located, or residence-based campuses, including any under-utilised sites of former colleges and current Further Education and Training (FET) colleges. New, dedicated teacher education colleges should be established where educationally necessary, as well as to establish those dedicated to producing and developing special needs teachers. FET colleges who were already offering Early Child Development (ECD) practitioner development programmes would be supported to partner with HEIs.

Dr Parker said that Teaching Schools were similar to teaching hospitals, and would allow for the study of practice, and to strengthen teacher development programmes.

At provincial level, a Provincial Teacher Development Institute (PTDI) would be established in each province, to enable provincial delivery of continuing professional development programmes and to be accredited delivery sites. A Provincial Teacher Development Co-ordinating Committee should be formally constituted in each province. Its funding and composition was outlined. These would identify provincial needs, ensure that these were relayed to the national level, monitor provincial implementation and ensure that the demands made on teacher education in the province were reasonable, sequenced and manageable.

At district level, it was proposed that District Teacher Development Centres (DTDCs) should be established. They would serve as sites for delivery of continuing professional development programmes. They would be managed by their PTDI and should be fully resourced with appropriate teaching facilities and staff.

A network of Professional Practice Schools (PPSs) would then be identified, with primary consideration given to functional schools. Teachers would be placed there to do the practical component of their programmes, to observe other teachers and to develop school-based mentors. These schools will form hubs for the development of professional communities and would act as centres of support and induction for initial teachers.

A possible risk for the Model was that not sufficient funding would be obtained.

The benefits of the proposed model were fully outlined (see attached presentation for detail). Primarily, it would lead to better coordination and better planning and monitoring at all levels. There would be increased capacity for qualification programmes, and thus better access to education qualifications and short courses. The Model would produce economies of scale and streamlined procedures.   

Dr Parker said the DHET was now completing a fully integrated and developed draft National Plan. There would be an initial bid to increase the Funza Lushaka Bursary Scheme. This year there had been 30 000 applicants for 2 000 bursaries. Only 10% of applicants did not meet the required standards. It was necessary to set criteria for increasing bursaries. The DBE would also prioritise funding in the system.

It was necessary for the system to strengthen its capacity to produce Foundation Phase teachers. Immediate priority within the system should be given to increasing the capacity of current institutions to provide these teachers. It was hoped that they would increase from 13 to 18 in three years.

Norms and standards were being developed for each institution. By June 2010 a single, fully integrated and fully costed draft national plan for teacher education and development would be ready for approval. A Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) bid to Treasury for additional funds for implementation of the Plan from 2011 to 2016 period would be submitted by the end of June 2010.

The Draft Report should be considered by members of all stakeholder groups, and it was hoped that they would create forums to discuss recommendations. A National Round-table to discuss the Plan with all stakeholders would be held on 8 June 2010. From July 2010 provincial workshops would be held to ensure broad-based understanding and buy-in.

Discussion
Mr W James (DA) suggested that there was a need to look at the language used when speaking of teachers, who often felt undervalued and disrespected. He noted that teachers were not “produced” but were “educated”.

Ms Metcalf agreed that something should be done about the language surrounding education and teachers.

Dr Parker said that the word “training” was not used any more for teachers, rather “education and development”.

Mr James said that when universities housed teacher training facilities, they did not regard them as “academically respectable” and regarded them as a burden. He agreed with the idea that a student should, for instance, graduate in science, then add on an extra year of teacher training.  

Dr Parker agreed that at some universities, for example, University of Cape Town (UCT), teacher education was not well developed. Dr Parker noted that 25 colleges had elected to remain open and were incorporated into universities. 13 universities had taken on colleges, and these had large faculties of education, had a strong research focus on teacher education and produced a large number of teachers. It was necessary to look at how the system was levered, and at the international example.

Mr James stated that the teacher training colleges had been very focussed and some, including Hewitt Training College in Athlone, was very good, but they had been racially segregated.

Mr James referred to the Scarce Skills List compiled by the Department of Labour, noting that in 2008 there was a shortage of 40 845 teachers. He questioned how this was being met. He said that if extra funding was needed for teachers, it must be provided.

Mr James said that he had questioned the Minister of Basic Education as to how many teachers currently teaching science were not qualified to do so, and was astonished and alarmed to hear that many teachers were not qualified to teach at all.

Ms Metcalf referred to the National Scarce Skills List and quipped that she had problems with this document as it also claimed that there was a shortage of politicians. She said that Members must realise that there was a serious shortage of maths and science teachers. There was a historical denial of opportunities for teachers in these areas, with long term consequences.

Dr Parker also commented on the shortages. Many numbers had been given. The Department had researched the issue of supply and demand. There seemed to be a real shortage of 20 000 teachers, but in terms of the labour market less teachers should actually be produced, due to South Africa employing teachers across the borders, teachers going overseas and movement within the labour market. She said there was currently a need to produce between 15 000 to 18 000 new teachers every year. However, the real extent of the skills shortage was not known. The type of teachers being produced had been highlighted by the Funza Lushaka Bursary System, which had sparked teacher education and increased interest, but had been focussed specifically around scarce skills areas, such as maths and science. As a result there were now fewer teachers of arts and culture and history, and these subjects were also important. 50% of teachers were currently being trained in science and maths, but only 5% in arts and culture. She commented that there was also a shortage of teachers at certain types of school, for example, it was hard to get teachers into rural schools.

Dr Parker commented on unqualified teachers, saying that there were currently 45 000 teachers out of 400 000 who were unqualified to teach. 20 000 of these were graduates, but lacked the professional teaching qualification. 5 000 were Grade R teachers and 5 000 had completed matric. The rest were older teachers with different qualifications.

Mr James noted that out of about 25 000 applicants, only 2 000 had been awarded bursaries. This was absurd, especially since the National Students’ Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) had a surplus.

Mr G Boinamo (DA) said that he did not agree with the Director-General’s statement that the colleges had been closed “for good reasons”. He felt the closing of the colleges had been a mistake and enquired what the reasons were. South Africa had a shortage of teachers, and had to look beyond its borders to employ them.

Mr Boinamo thought there was nothing wrong with using the name “College”. It was more important to consider what those institutions were offering, and the level of education of teachers.

Dr Parker said that the word “college” did not mean that a College might not be part of the university. Every faculty of education within universities should be a fully fledged faculty, with funding earmarked for teacher education and a focus on funding and research.

Mr Boinamo said there seemed to be a fear that if too many colleges were opened, this might affect the quality of teachers produced. The number of teachers should be determined by the country’s needs. If the structure was not correct, this would affect the quality of the colleges.

Ms Metcalf said that she was aware that there had been uneven quality in Teacher Training Colleges. Some had been poor, while others had been exemplary. She said that much work had been done into the closure and there were good reasons why the education of teachers, which was formerly a provincial function outside the Higher Education framework, was moved to a national function within Higher Education. She said that there had to be a single quality system of education. Members understood the National Qualification Framework (NQF) which provided that persons with post-matric qualifications immediately fell under the sphere of Higher Education. Registration at a university was required.

Dr Parker said it was correct that there were not enough teachers, but also that there were not enough quality teachers being produced. She admired the work of the stakeholders. It would be a quick solution to re-open the colleges but this would not solve the problems. It was important to get the wisdom of the stakeholders.

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) said that the number of bursaries should be increased, especially in rural areas. In Gauteng the need for teachers could be filled within the province, if there was sufficient funding. There should be support for continuing training for teaching.

Ms Kubayi questioned the viability of HEIs to provide teacher training, and asked whether the education faculties were not just burdens to universities. She believed that universities were not coping with the demand. If the training colleges were not to be re-opened, she asked what was being done to address supply and demand, within the teacher chain.  There needed to be integration between what Basic Education needed and what Higher Education could provide.

Ms W Nelson (ANC) asked whether the Plan addressed the challenges of rural schools adequately, as there were major problem in the rural areas. There was some information that those qualifying for Funza Lushaka bursaries, especially with scarce skills such as maths and science, were not being employed in the education system, and she asked for comment on that.

Ms Metcalf agreed that there were challenges in rural schools. The Model addressed this by providing continuing professional development, especially at local and district level, where the school was situated. It was linked to the Funza Lushaka scheme, which had to work with districts in the rural context and identify applicants for bursaries in rural areas.

She acknowledged, as discussed earlier, that there was a serious shortage of teachers, but said that 10 000 teachers produced by Higher Education were not effectively employed, and were not finding posts. These included recipients of Funza Lushaka bursaries. The challenge was to employ new teachers. A Co-ordinating Committee would be set up. DHET had as a human resource function the employment of new teachers. Access to a database of new teachers would be provided to enable targeted employment.

Dr Parker referred to Ms Kubayi’s suggestion to increase the number of bursaries available. She reiterated that a bid would be made to National Treasury for additional funding. I regard to capacity, the Department needed to look at strengthening existing universities. A post-graduate certificate in education would feed the FET sector. New institutions would be opened on the basis of need, specifically in the Higher Education framework.

Ms Metcalf announced that the Department would be having system-wide regular meetings across the Education Departments. Teacher education was very important. She said that although Dr Parker had touched on the complexities of teacher supply and teacher development, there was also a need to address how teachers were being used by the provinces.

Mrs N Vukuza (COPE) said that the mere fact that the colleges were to be re-opened did not imply that it had been incorrect to close them. She said that the needs of the country must be considered; it was a noble idea to have colleges servicing the country.

Ms Vukuza pointed out that the Plan was still unfolding. Although it looked good and responsive, it must be seen to work. Dr Parker had mentioned funding as a risk but she thought that there must surely be more risks, and she enquired what these were.

Ms Vukuza asked what kind of a child needed this kind of teacher development, and what the Plan implied for the children. This Plan would ultimately determine what kind of society was created.

Ms Vukuza was concerned at some aspects, particularly that there was to be a national Plan and agents at three levels. A similar hierarchical system had killed the education system in the past.

Dr Parker said that there was no hierarchy. Issues would be dealt with at all levels, with delivery taking place at the lowest, district level. In the first year funding would be prioritised, to meet the needs of specialist teachers, support for curriculum, principals needing support and curriculum advisers needing support. The Funza Lushaka Bursary System would be strengthened, and then all the others would follow. DHET would start with identifying well-functioning Provincial Development Institutes and District Development Centres, and would work with these to develop norms and standards.

Ms Vukuza thought the Department must also give a time-frame for the implementation of the Plan.

The Chairperson also asked for the time frame of the Model at national, provincial and local level.

Ms Metcalf reiterated that the proposed time frames were still only part of a set of very strong proposals. The report had not yet been sent to the Minister, HEDCOM or CEM.

Dr Parker said that the time frames were incremental. Each five year period there would be an increase, so that everything would be achieved within the in the 20 to 30 year time frame. Every aspect of the system would be aligned with the Basic Education Sector Plan for 2025. It was necessary to look at the whole system.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) said that he was happy with the presentation, especially the time frames. He said it was important to stick to the time frames. Regarding the teacher shortage in rural areas, he said that it was necessary to look at the conditions of those teachers, and ask what was being done to keep them in those areas.

Ms Metcalf said the problem in the rural areas was not just the shortage, but also where certain people were willing to teach. She proposed that there be very close work with the DBE on this issue.

Mr Lekgetho questioned the part of the strategy that dealt with opening colleges when appropriate, and asked who would determine “when appropriate”.

Ms Metcalf said that the Polokwane resolution at the ANC Conference had stated that colleges would be opened “where appropriate”. She said it was necessary to understand the statement and the reasons for placing colleges within the Higher Education framework. The correct model and the issue of appropriateness would be seen from the new Integrated Plan.

The Chairperson said that it was not the first time the Committee had received a Draft Plan, which now had to go through the normal structures and executive processes. He agreed with the strategies around participation.

The Chairperson asked what happened to the 20 000 people who were qualified, but were not accepted for bursaries, and whether this was not a contradiction. He questioned what the State’s role was, and whether people in rural areas qualified for teacher development but were unable to get bursaries. The question was how to and how the machinery would operate. He said that although this was a twenty to thirty year strategy, it was necessary to know what would happen three years down the line.

The Chairperson noted that there might be agreement on the strategy but some discomfort with the implementation process when this was rolled out. The Report dealt with both quality and quantity. He said that if the Department was aware of any document or current information referring to the flight of teachers out of South Africa, it should be sent to the Committee.

The Chairperson also noted that an evaluation of the critical risk factors of the Plan, and any obstacles to delivery, must be done.

Ms Metcalf noted that the current concerns were initiated by the former Department of Education, but now a complex way forward was being worked out by two Departments. She suggested that the next meeting be a joint meeting of both Committees on Basic and Higher Education. It was very important to know what both departments were doing. She had informed the DBE about the presentation today. Certain elements would be taken by each Department, but it was necessary to maintain cohesion. The input of the Portfolio Committee was also very important.

The Chairperson agreed.

Committee Report adoption
The Chairperson tabled the Committee Report on the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Strategic Plan

Ms Kubayi said that the report did not specify who had attended.

The Chairperson asked Members to confirm who had been present.

Subject to amendment, the Report was adopted.

The Chairperson tabled the Committee’s draft Report on the Council for Higher Education Fund and National Student Financial Aid Scheme.

The Chairperson referred the Committee to page 4 of the report, where reference was made to channelling through universities, and said that certain proposals or suggestions were made by Dr James and were not proposals of the Committee.

Ms Kubayi proposed some minor amendments of a technical nature on pages 5 and 6 of the report.

Mr James said that his suggestion was never that funding applications should not be channelled through universities, but they should not go exclusively through universities.

The Chairperson was otherwise satisfied with the recommendations and resolution.

The Report was adopted, as amended.

Other business
The Chairperson said that the Committee had received all the SETA reports and responses, and Members would soon be receiving them. The various SETAs would also come individually before the Committee to discuss their annual reports. The Committee required some capacity to do the necessary analysis and would send out a request to the various universities. He asked that the Committee Secretariat put this in place.

He noted that it was difficult to analyse the responses. Some appeared to be hiding information and some were not giving full information. Satisfactory answers must be obtained. This would lead up to the Committee’s analysis of the landscape and it was important to get the input of the public to assess the SETAs and to obtain comment on their future and repositioning.

Ms Kubayi requested that the Secretary send an outline of the full programme for the term. She enquired if a workshop would be held this term.|
 
The Chairperson replied that the Chair of Chairs had not yet replied to him on this point, although he had requested a workshop to give two hours for discussion with each of the SETAs. That was originally planned for the following Wednesday but there were some problems with the date.

He referred to the issue of under-expenditure at Parliamentary level, as raised by the Speaker. Most Committees had the problem that a request for more oversight was rejected. A discussion on support to Committees in their oversight responsibility was to be held. It was not necessarily a question of allocating more money, but deciding what could be done in the existing framework.

The meeting was adjourned.