South African Council of Educators 2009/10 Annual Report: Briefing

Basic Education

14 October 2010
Chairperson: Ms M Kubayi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The South African Council of Educators (SACE) presented its Annual Report for 2009/10. This indicated that the SACE had had substantial difficulties, particularly in relation to funding. One of its primary goals was to set up and manage the Continuing Professional Teacher Development (CPTD) system, as the national policy framework on teacher education and development. The Department of Basic Education had funded this for the past three years, had promised R7 million for 2009/10 but, due to its own cut allocations, was able to provide only R1.5 million. SACE had, in the belief that it would be paid the full amount, run up an account. Although the Department had signed an acknowledgment of debt to pay the outstanding amount, this had placed severe pressure on SACE’s own cash flow, with the result that it had to make arrangements with creditors, and had not paid PAYE deductions to the Revenue Services for two months. If it did not receive this money by the end of this financial year it would receive a qualified audit report for 2010/11. SACE had also tried to raise levies to fund both the CPTD programme and the purchase and refurbishment of a new building, but had, under pressure from stakeholders, eventually withdrawn that levy, fixed a new and lower levy and had sold the building purchased. It would still need to find alternative accommodation soon. Donor funding had been secured, but not yet paid, to tide the SACE over. Statistics were provided for achievements under each of the core mandates of ensuring registration of educators annually, ensuring promotion of professional development of educators, and dealing with professional conduct of educators. The target in respect of responses to complaints was reduced to 14 days, and the Code of Ethics and the disciplinary procedures were reviewed and revised, distributed to the profession and proposals for amendment were made to the Department. 413 complaints were received against educators, of which 150 were finalised. Allegations included 85 of sexual misconduct, 40 of fraud, 90 of corporal punishment and 138 of unprofessional conduct. It was focusing on wider communication outreach programmes.

Matters arising from the audit report were discussed. SACE was in future to categorise which members had paid the fees, and sort them into professional categories. Subcommittees would monitor the mandatory functions, including the administrative component, in light of the fact that earlier middle management vacancies resulted in incomplete monitoring. At the end of the year, it had a surplus of R2.7 million. It had increased its staff complement to 60, and would be addressing the challenges of a lack of formal methods for funding, accommodation issues, outreach and new strategic plans.

Members were concerned that the Department of Basic Education (the Department) was unable to inform the Committee whether and when National Treasury was implementing the increase of levies, and the fact that the Department had committed itself to providing funds that it did not have, while the SACE spent funds it did not have. Members enquired about the levy and the building, were worried both about the nature of the complaints, the fact that so many were still not addressed, the turnaround time for them, and whether SACE was being proactive in identifying possible sources of complaint and ensuring the safety of learners. Members sought clarity on the different categories of registration and the numbers of local and foreign educators, as well as the verification of qualifications. They noted that no reference was made to HIV/Aids, teenage pregnancy and safety at schools. Members discussed whether salaries should be decided as at present, and urged that SACE show no preference for any union. They queried why the Integrated Quality Management System did not seem to be working. They were concerned that in fact money had been available and questioned whether the surplus was merely under spending, and whether there were excess teachers, urging that retention strategies must be developed. Members asked if any complaints had emanated from the recent strikes. Members called for reports on teacher numbers, where they came from, and how these numbers compared across several years, as well as a written report on the failure to pay PAYE, and why there were ineffective monitoring systems, resulting in failure to adhere to strategic plans and the linked budgets. They also expressed concern that no corrective measures were taken to address issues highlighted in quarterly reports. The Committee outlined the importance of SACE to the profession and to learners, and called for a report from SACE on the levy and other matters raised, and for a report from the Department on its role and relationship with SACE, funding, and the role of the provinces. Another meeting would be arranged to discuss issues further.


Meeting report

South African Council of Educators (SACE) Annual Report 2009/10
Mr Rej Brijraj, Chief Executive Officer, South African Council of Educators, highlighted some of the key aspects of the 2009/10 Annual Report of the Council (the Council or SACE).

He noted that the 2009/10 year had seen some difficulties. SACE bought a building that it planned to refurbish but concerns were raised about the cost of R12 million and the cost of refurbishment of R40 million.  which led to the new Council resolving to sell that building, for R21 million, and deciding rather to build from scratch.

The projected costs of refurbishment prompted the previous Council to raise the levies from R6 per month per educator to R20 per month per educator for one year. Now the new Council set levies of R10 per educator per month to cover service delivery requirements and allow for future space requirements. However, the money was only due in 1 July 2010, causing cash flow difficulties. He suggested that in future SACE should be cautious before asking for increases. SACE experienced good cooperation from the top management of the Department of Basic Education (DBE or the Department), but there seemed to be a blockage lower down in the administration that was preventing the money being paid to SACE.

SACE had to set up and manage the Continued Professional Teachers Development (CPTD) system as the national policy framework on teacher education and development. The work had been done and funded for the past three years. In 2009/10, the Department had promised R7 million but paid R1.5 million, and SACE had presumed that the remainder would be paid, running up an account for the balance of R5.5 million, but was then advised that although the money was owed, it could not be paid. SACE therefore had to cut down on its work and would face a qualification in the audit report for the following year if the money was not paid. He appealed for assistance from the Committee in fast-tracking the payment. Because of the lack of documentation, there were matters of emphasis in the SACE audit report.

Apart from these challenges, SACE showed continuing support from stakeholders, the Minister and the Department, and functioned satisfactorily, including its help desk. Another 28 000 teachers had been registered. The CPTD system had been finalised and a pilot was ready for roll out in 144 schools, subject to receiving the money from the Department. SACE dealt with 413 complaints, Council dealt with 339 cases and14 educators were struck off the roll.

SACE had new branding, and had ensured that all stakeholders were on board. In future it would be holding many meetings with the unions and the Department, was increasing capacity to go out to teachers, and to raise the status of the profession, and to make registration more sophisticated and categorise it with professional designations.

Mr Themba Ndhlovu, Communications Manager, SACE, briefed the Committee on the activities that the SACE Council undertook during the 2009/10 financial year. It had three core mandates: ensuring registration of educators annually, ensuring promotion of professional development of educators, and dealing with professional conduct of educators. The total number of educators on the register was now at 533 739, with 28 723 local educators having been registered in the last year. Foreign educators were given provisional registration and registration was renewable annually.
The total number of educators on the register was 533 739.

The CPTD document was finalised and established all structures to facilitate the professional development of educators, and teachers and stakeholders were provided with the handbook and workshopped. CPTD research study was completed, the teacher assistance facility was established and the SACE research capacity was improved.

Over 15 000 teachers participated in the World Teachers Day celebrations throughout the country, which was important to foster appreciation of teacher efforts.

The target in respect of responses to complaints was reduced to 14 days, and the Code of Ethics and the disciplinary procedures were reviewed and revised, distributed to the profession and proposals for amendment were made to the Department. 413 complaints were received against educators, of which 150 were finalised. Allegations included 85 of sexual misconduct, 40 of fraud, 90 of corporal punishment and 138 of unprofessional conduct.

SACE focused on its communication outreach programme to ensure that SACE was accessible to all educators, and the various initiatives in this regard were described (see document). SACE intended to try to bring its services closer to the people, rather than merely operating from Centurion.

Mr Morris Mapindani, Chief Financial Officer, SACE, tabled the audit report. Previously, a weakness had been that SACE was unable to identify which individual members had paid their fees, but this had now been solved. Performance management and control difficulties had been addressed by appointment of subcommittees who monitored the mandatory functions, including the administrative component, and who checked performance against targets quarterly. He conceded that SACE, as set out earlier, had cash flow pressure, but was attempting to deal with it. He repeated that the earlier increase in levies to R20 had resulted in complaints, and that decision was rescinded in February 2010, which left the SACE without its anticipated funding for some months.

He tabled the financial statements and explained the notes to them, saying that note 2 related only to office equipment. The increase in current assets of more than R5 million was due to the CPTD programme, and the Department’s debt was included in the figure of R6 million. By the end of the year, it was able to have R1.6 million cash and cash equivalents, but the increase of R6 million under trade and other payables affected its ability to pay creditors on time, although the debt due to them was being honoured. An increase in revenue resulted from increased levies. The net result was a surplus of R2.7 million. Net assets comprised of the value of the property in Pretoria City, cash on hand and value of office equipment after depreciation.

SACE had increased its staff complement to 60, to deliver better on its mandate. It ensured that it implemented the equity plan. The SACE’s administration was sound. It was still accommodated in three different buildings, paying rent for two, but not paying rent to the third owner, the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC).

Challenges included the current lack of a formal method for funding the CPTD. SACE was working on a funding model and hoped this would solved by the end of the year. It needed to resolve accommodation issues urgently. It was not able at present to increase levies. Outreach to the profession and monitoring educational priorities, including professional conduct of educators, was a challenge due to lack of both human and capital resources. It needed support for full implementation of the CPTD system. New strategic plans would apply from the next financial year, inclusive of stakeholder input, with a focus on intensifying the research capacity, and more advocacy and outreach to the profession.

Ms Ntsetsa Molalekoa, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Department of Basic Education (DBE) commented on the levy increase, and the procedure that would be used. The increase to R10 had been approved by the Department in August, and although the Department had written to National Treasury to implement the levy increase, she did not know whether this had been done.

The Acting Chairperson asked whether the Department should not follow up on this.

Ms Molalekoa replied that she had asked an official to follow up on that but the status had not yet been reported back to her. National Treasury also had its own processes to follow.

The Acting Chairperson asked for a written report, to enable to the Committee to take this forward.

Ms Molalekoa agreed to do that by the following Monday. She then commented on the debt owed by the Department to SACE. The Department had submitted a bid to National Treasury for increased allocations, which was not approved and therefore the Department was struggling with its own reprioritisation, which involved a cut on certain other projects to raise money for CPTD. An acknowledgment of debt had been signed. It was considering where it could make savings and would be implementing cost cutting measures to enable it to release the outstanding amounts. For this year, donor funding was secured, and the Department had submitted a requisition for release of those funds, which was being processed.

Discussion
The Acting Chairperson said that essentially the Department had committed funds that it did not have at the time. The Committee would consider this issue. A Department should not commit to paying what it did not have, and in doing so the Department had incurred costs for SACE.

Mr N Kganyago (UDM) asked for clarity on the concerns raised about the levy.

Dr J Breed, Chairperson of the Finance Committee, SACE, said that when the increase of the levy to R20 was announced, it realised that there was substantial concern from the unions in particular. For that reason, SACE reverted back to its constituencies to discuss the reasons for the increase, and reconsider its options on the new building. This resulted in the decision to sell that building and to embark on a new process. After consultation with the various stakeholders, it reverted back to proposing a new levy of R10.

Ms A Mda (COPE) said the issue was not about the decision of the Council, but was raised to see whether it would address the current financial crisis. She suggested that perhaps a written report be submitted on various questions. She questioned why SACE was now selling the building, when it was complaining that it did not have sufficient accommodation.

Mr Lucas Maphila, Chairperson, SACE, confirmed that this was the decision of Council, based on stakeholders’ opposition to purchasing the building for R12 million and then spending R48 million on renovations.

Ms Mda expressed her frustration. The Portfolio Committee had good working relationships with the Ministries of Education, yet she could not understand why SACE levies had apparently been approved in August, but no feedback on implementation had been given by October. She insisted that the Department must appreciate the constraints under which SACE was operating. She insisted that a written report was needed by the following Monday. The Minister would probably be shocked to hear about this. The financial report of SACE was not painting a good picture, largely due to these problems. The Department must take its statutory bodies seriously.

Ms Mda said that although it must be difficult for the executive of SACE to operate in this environment, she wondered whether SACE had sufficient funds, and, if not, then certain programmes should have been prioritised. SACE was owed money, but in turn owed its creditors. SACE should equally not have continued to spend money that it did not have.

Ms Mda said that out of 413 complaints, 150 had been finalised, so almost 70% of cases had not yet been dealt with. That was a serious concern for SACE because it had to uphold the institutional values that it wanted its members to display.

Mr Z Makhubele (ANC) referred to broadening of registration to include Early Childhood Development (ECD), Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET), Further Education and Training (FET), Waldorf and Montessori sectors, and asked for clarification on the last two sectors.

Ms Ella Mokgalane, Professional Development Manager, SACE, said that the current system of registration applied only one category, but the new legislation specified qualifications that could carry certification according to the type of training. The SACE had come up with a central registration system, that was able to then determine the specialists in the categories. Montessori and Waldorf were two categories, reflecting members trained in those educational systems, mainly operating in the private schools. Although currently the Department did not recognise them for employment, they were nonetheless being employed in the private schools, and thus had to be registered with SACE. Currently there was a separate register for these teachers.

Mr Brijraj added that Waldorf was a private school system, which claimed to give a superior type of training, but whose training was not officially recognised. SACE granted conditional registration for Waldorf teachers to teach in Waldorf schools. Montessori schools, also independent, had a totally different philosophy of teaching, which offered more holistic teaching, and here again, the Montessori qualification was not recognised but conditional registration was granted.

Mr Z Makhubele (ANC) said that SACE must comprise teachers with AIDS, posing the risk of loss of teachers, yet nothing was contained in the report.

Mr Makhubele said that SACE should also surely be proactive around teenage pregnancy, rather than reacting to it when it occurred. This affected teachers across the board.

Mr Brijraj said that SACE placed great emphasis on HIV/AIDS, teenage pregnancy, and safety in schools, although he conceded that SACE had neglected to advise the Minister on that, as also the shortage of teachers. With increased funding, SACE would be able to concentrate on proper research and advise the Minister how best to deal with the issues.

Mr Makhubele noted that there was debate on whether salaries for teachers should be decided within the Bargaining Chambers or by SACE, and he noted that other professions tended not to toyi-toyi for increased wages.  

Mr Makhubele referred to the time taken to process applications, being around three weeks for South Africans and three months for foreign qualifications, and asked where the applicants were in the interim, and when in their careers their applications would be processed. He was worried that fraudulent information on qualifications might emerge only after the person had already been teaching.

Mr Brijraj responded that SACE was trying to reduce the turnaround times. It also wanted more research and information about foreigners’ employment, which it would attend to when there was more capacity. Schools might employ a teacher without SACE registration, which was contrary to the law, and whilst SACE had provision for rapid registration to allow for continuity of teaching to the learners, it would still then verify the qualifications.

Mr Makhubele said that the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) was supposed to be effective and corrective, but did not seem to be performing.

Mr Brijraj said it seemed that people had the impression that IQMS failed to meet its original intention, and were calling for integration and streamlining. He agreed that there was an overloaded bureaucratic burden on teachers, and other complexities. ELRC was enquiring into how it could be streamlined and align with the  work of SACE.

Mr Makhubele asked why SACE had to outsource the bulk scanning of the data capturing, rather than purchasing equipment.

Mr Maphila said SACE would consider that.

Mr Brijraj added that that was simply a capacity issue.

Mr Makhubele said that systems should be in place to avoid teachers being killed on school premises.

Mr H Smiles (DA) said that SACE complained that it did not have money, but the indicators were that there was sufficient money, but it was not being properly spent. The Committee and stakeholders should take action on some matters. Its Code of Ethics was vital, but the failure to attend to so many complaints meant that it was not servicing complainants or learners. He noted that it described 138 as “unprofessional conduct” but all other categories, such as fraud and corporal punishment, were also unprofessional. He urged that the Committee must take action on this.

Mr Brijraj responded that 413 complaints had been received and 339 cases were finalised and closed. Those cases that were still in the pipeline required due process. SACE had a turnaround time of six months to deal with all complaints. SACE had to approve the case outcomes if an educator was to be struck off. If there was likelihood of danger to learners, the Department could suspend the educator immediately.

Mr Smiles noted that IQMS was also a part of professional development, but queried whether there was value for money in it if teacher unions did not accept it, and what SACE could then do to assist with professional development.

Ms Mokgalane responded that IQMS, as a performance management tool, was the responsibility of the DBE. It was true that the teaching profession complained about it. After their evaluation, there was no full process of ensuring that they developed. The Teacher Development Summit last year resolved that there was a need to separate procurement for development from IQMS, for salary progression. The Department would now focus on IQMS for development, to ensure that the professional development of teachers was based on the proper needs that teachers had identified. IQMS for salary progression would be negotiated at Chamber hierarchy.

The Acting Chairperson queried why IQMS was the responsibility of the Department, yet SACE trained on it.

Ms Mokgalane clarified that IQMS was a performance management tool, and the first step was to ensure that teachers were evaluated. After evaluation, the needs were identified. Educators had difficulty in understanding IQMS Performance Standard 5, which spoke about participation in professional development. SACE, being the professional council, addressed those needs identified by teachers around their performance standard only, including training on what professional development was, creating awareness and understanding on how to participate in professional development, and participation in professional bodies.

Ms Mushwana said the IQMS tool was created to assist educators to be upgraded to the next level. A tool was needed that recognised good performance. She asked how SACE ensured that educators who had gone through IQMS used their qualifications.

Mr Smiles asked for a breakdown of how many teachers were inside and outside the system.

Mr Brijraj responded that SACE would be researching this. About 360 000 were in the public school system and about 30 000 in the private school system.

Mr Smiles urged that R2.9 billion spent on “excess teachers” was too much>

Mr Maphila said if it was true that R2.9 was spent on excess educators, it should still be remembered that South Africa was short of educators, and should be looking at how to retain those that it had.

The Acting Chairperson said Hon Smiles had picked up this figure from Departmental reports that indicated that where there were too many teachers at private schools, in comparison to enrolments, the teachers were not moved. This was, however, a matter for the Committee to decide upon.

Mr Maphila said the other side of the coin was the staff establishment that said there had to be educators at a particular school. Some schools needed, but did not get, educators. Provincial departments dealt with the numbers and whilst it might be true that some schools had excess teachers, others were suffering from lack of teachers. This could be dealt with at ELRC level. However, there was  need to investigate how many teachers were in the system, and their profiles, including the dates of retirement, to plan for the future.

Mr Smiles noted SACE’s opening remarks that it guarded professionalism, and ensured it was in good hands. He disputed that. SACE had yet to put out any public statements about the behaviour of the teachers unions. He saw a bias towards the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) and asked why the profession was in such a state if SACE was acting correctly as the professional guardian.

Mr Maphila responded that SACE had across-the-board representation. It would welcome being invited to activities by all stakeholders to participate fully.

Mr Brijraj added that SACE could not interfere in matters relating to labour legislation, such as the strike situation. However, SACE did insist that teachers must be adequately remunerated, and that schools must be adequately resourced for basic development to take place. If a teacher acted unprofessionally, in terms of the Code of Ethics, that teacher was subject to being disciplined; a strike did not give any protection.

The Acting Chairperson asked whether any complaints had been received around the strike.

Mr Brijraj replied that they had not. The union officials in SACE were very strict on professionalism. The investigators who charged teachers were union employees.

Mr Ndhlovu assured the Committee that SACE outreach showed no bias to any organisation, and indicated that the invitations extended to SACE to participate in activities were in the Annual Report.

Ms N Gina (ANC) was interested in the World Teachers’ Day Celebrations, which focused on the Northern Cape. She asked how much was spent, what was achieved, and why only 15 000 teachers participated.

Mr Brijraj agreed that the number of beneficiaries was too few. The focus was on Northern Cape last year, but activities were frozen for this year’s plans, in Western Cape, owing to SACE’s financial difficulties.

The Acting Chairperson queried whether there were any celebrations this year.

Mr Brijraj said there were no celebrations at all.

Mr Mapindani said that the Department should be participating in celebrating the work by teachers.

Ms Gina believed that too little was done about the complaints. She asked how SACE ensured that it reached communities, concentrating not only on professionals but also on parents.

Ms Gina asked for a comparison of numbers registered in different years. In view of the complaints of shortages of educators, she asked where new entrants to the profession came from, whether there were more or less entering the profession, and whether they were local or foreign. She wondered if some educators were being disadvantaged over others. She wondered also if teacher assistance facilities were really necessary, or were likely to be abused, and whether that was the core business of SACE.

Ms Mokgalane responded that the SACE Act and professional development mandate obliged SACE to provide teacher assistance facility to educators. Many approached SACE for advice on professional matters, including upgrading of qualifications and how to address challenges. SACE also had to deal with disciplinary issues, and took this opportunity also to refer educators for the necessary further development.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) said that if the cash flow was not attended to, then SACE would sit with its problems forever. She suggested that some other plans for direct funding were needed.

Mr Brijraj appreciated this suggestion that quicker ways for payment of the levy must be found.

Ms Mushwana said that CPTD was a good tool but there would need to be strong emphasis on advocacy, so that people owned and supported it, understanding why the deductions were made.

Mr Brijraj agreed that CPTD should be used as a marketing tool.

Ms Mushwana confirmed that SACE should not be singling out or favouring any one union. Members appreciated that unions reached out to educators, but should be careful how they acted.

Ms Mushwana was concerned with the six weeks for processing registration applications, noting that SACE did not seem to be on track, and suggesting that the time frames must be adhered to.

Ms Mushwana was also concerned that only 18% of the foreign educators were registered, asking whether SACE checked on the position in private schools, and could perhaps place them in such schools.

The Acting Chairperson asked for more detail around the non-payment of tax.

Mr Mapindani explained the non-payment of PAYE tax raised by the external auditors. SACE was under cash flow pressure at the end of last year. Staff bonuses were due to be paid in December, but SACE income could cover the monthly obligations, and therefore opted for what was not strictly legal, which was to put funds to staff members’ salaries, but not to pay over the November and December PAYE to South African Revenue Services (SARS). SACE then entered into negotiations with SARS in January to pay off the debt. This would be paid in full when SACE received the levy increases.

The Acting Chairperson was shocked that SACE did not even have funds to pay the employees’ tax.
She asked why there had been no systems in place for effective monitoring and reporting. Around 70% of what was reflected on the SACE strategic plan were not achieved, whilst other activities fell outside that plan. That required an explanation, because the activities must be informed by the resources made available to support the strategic plan. SACE could not plan, then claim there was no money. She noted that it had been unable to support certain claims with documentation.

Mr Brijraj responded that the presentation effectively spanned two financial years. During 2009/10, SACE was budgeting on the basis that it would get a R20 levy, but then did not receive it, meaning that work must be curtailed. Capacity was compromised, and this was evident from the audit report. It was correct, as stated in that report, that there was lack of competent officials and of sufficient reporting mechanisms. There were gaps in middle management, the anticipated funding for CPTD did not come through, and thus SACE had to take corrective steps, by minimising travelling and other expenditure. SACE was aware that it could not continue spending and must match its activities to the funding available.

The Acting Chairperson asked SACE to explain its quarterly reporting, and the fact that no corrective measures were taken after issues were raised.

Mr Brijraj responded that the lack of middle management meant that no one was available to follow up on corrective action. The internal auditors were now asked to play that role.

The Acting Chairperson had major concerns on the issue of the levies. The Committee understood the explanation and would engage with the Department. However, SACE was an institution falling under the Department. The fact that no documentation defined the relationship was in itself problematic, and she wondered how the Department took responsibility for ensuring correct functioning of SACE. It could not be subject to the mercy of unsure funding, especially since the bulk of its income came from levies. She understood that the additional R4 levy, on the original R6, would be deducted from July.

The Acting Chairperson asked for an explanation of why, despite the surplus of R2.7 million, there had been no spending on CPTD the previous year, since it was effectively an under spending.

Mr Mapindani explained that at the end of 2009, R3.6 million was deferred, as unpaid funding that would be used in the next financial year. It would be used this year.

The Acting Chairperson also expressed concern about the numbers of complaints and offences, and their nature, indicating that there could well be other unreported offences. She was not sure whether SACE had the capacity to deal with the challenge of even the reported cases. It was very serious if a teacher sexually abused a pupil who then had to face that teacher daily. The issues must be speedily addressed.

Mr Brijraj responded that not all complaints were of a sexual nature, but there was a focus on those. Serious offences committed by teachers actually amounted to less than serious offences in other professions.

The Acting Chairperson cited challenges and said the Committee should not be faced with such reports, year after year. SACE had to resolve the issues of finance, capacity, and how it functioned, to reflect the reality of education being a priority in South Africa. If quality education was important, then equally so was teacher training, and it was a priority for government to ensure that there was funding, that the teachers were in class and were teaching and were producing quality learners. It was seriously wrong if the institutions were relying on donor funding. Perhaps it would be better to have other teaching training institutions. There had been a public outcry about poor results being produced from learners, which related directly to teachers being properly equipped with and confident of their skills to teach. Continuous professional development programmes were important. SACE should be leading to ensure that teachers understood and were trained in the new curriculum, particularly since portfolios and continuous assessment were being reduced.   

The Committee, as a stakeholder of SACE, must ensure that learners had a better future, especially those who came from poor backgrounds and who desperately needed education to change their lives. The population could not depend on social grants for ever. The generation should be able to become economically active, which would happen through being given quality education to secure their future.  

Mr Brijraj said there was some confusion about CPTD. The current situation resulted from a national process, culminating in a National Integrated Plan for Teacher Development. A series of conferences and summits was held with all stakeholders, to unravel the complex plans, and decide on the role of the Department, the State and the unions. The Department was to fund, and had done so, albeit in an ad hoc and non-systematic way via the provinces. The Department accepted its responsibility, but there were administrative nightmares. SACE had to administer, oversee and be a guardian of teacher development, and had to quality assure the programmes’ activities, and award certificates. SACE was not a provider but must monitor the system. It was not correct that SACE itself must provide professional development for which it would be paid, as it was a custodian.

The Acting Chairperson asked what programme this funding would fall under.

Ms Molalekoa responded that the teacher development money was to be used in the provinces. A teacher development document had been prepared, and it would be useful for the Department to give a presentation.

The Acting Chairperson agreed that a follow up on teacher development and how provincial budgets catered for this would be useful.

Mr Brijraj appreciated the depth of the critique and the comments and questions.

Mr Ndhlovu said SACE had noted the concerns that the committee had raised. He assured Members that SACE was trying to attend to all matters speedily, especially disciplinary matters. Stakeholder outreach was crucial, both to the profession and broader society, so that society also assisted in curbing lack of discipline by teachers. He agreed that SACE must increase its capacity to investigate and deal with these issues.

Mr Maphila said SACE needed to change how it was working on some issues, and acted in terms of the relevant legislation.

The Acting Chairperson summarised that matters still to be addressed included the levy, on which the Committee must receive a report, a report from the Department on its role and relationship with SACE, the need to look at the CPTD programme, including getting a report on stakeholders and the Department’s stance. The Committee would do its own legal analysis of where the CPTD programme belonged, and who had primary responsibility for it, so that the Committee could provide guidelines on the budget and strategic plans. If this was a provincial function, then this must be outlined, together with the allocations.

She noted that there was a need to receive regular reporting, in addition to the Annual Report, and after the Committee had received what it had requested, it may require another meeting to deal with putting matters in place to correct the situation now, rather than at year-end. The Committee must ensure that SACE was a functioning institution.

The meeting was adjourned.


Share this page: