Department of Basic Education (DBE) Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development (ISPFTED) in South Africa – Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities: briefing; Committee's Report on Basic Education Budget Vote 15: adoption

Basic Education

15 May 2012
Chairperson: Ms H Malgas (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Basic Education (DBE), The South African Council for Educators (SACE) and Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) presented the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development (ISPFTED) report. They emphasised and clarified the roles and responsibilities of the key players within the framework.

It was outlined that the Teacher Development Plan (TDP) was a result of collaborative work that took place after the Teacher Development Summit held in 2009. The evidence–based approach taken by DBE, Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), teacher unions, SACE, the Education, Training and Development Practices - Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP SETA), Services Sector Education and Training Authority (Services SETA), ELRC, and Education Development Fund (EDF) culminated in the joint launch by Ministers of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training on 05 April 2011.

The plan was developed to respond to challenges being experienced in teacher education and development. These included teachers' poor subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge; inadequate and weak system to accurately identify systemic and individual teacher development needs; insufficient numbers of teachers to meet system requirements; lack of support to teachers at the local level and teacher education system capacity constraints. Further concerns included the quality of teacher education programmes, poor coordination and lack of coherence in the teacher education and development system.

An outline was made of the outcomes and outputs of various programmes which DBE was currently involved. For example, in outcome one listed as improving the quality of teacher education and development, DBE was involved in the identification of individual and systemic teacher development needs. DBE was also supporting the initiative to increase the number of high–achieving school leavers into teaching.  Teacher support was being enhanced at the local level by Provincial Educational Departments (PEDs). An expanded and accessible formal teacher education system had been established by DHET.  Teacher support was being enhanced at the local level by PEDs while an expanded and accessible formal teacher education system had been established by DHET.

An overview was provided of the coordination and collaboration of various entities at national, provincial and district level involved in the Teacher Development Plan.

It was highlighted that the National Institute for Curriculum and Professional Development (NICPD) could be launched shortly.

A summary was made of the roles and responsibilities of DBE and PEDs. It was noted that DBE and PEDs were responsible for ensuring that the Plan’s objectives and outcomes were given full support through the mobilisation of support systems and financial resources. Collaboration with ELRC, SACE, PEDs, teacher unions was expressed through PEDs in consultation with the Council of Education Ministers (CEM), and Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM), and sub-committees.

A summary was highlighted of the funding support and activities in the various provinces.

The work place skills plan (WSP) budget for 2011/12 was then outlined indicating the provincial Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) report.

The role of DHET was to ensure that the national teacher education and development system developed the capacity to serve all education sectors with high-quality programmes for teachers and prospective teachers.

SACE’s role was to register educators, enforce compliance with the code of professional ethics and promote professional development. In addition, SACE would manage the Continuing Professional Teacher Development (CPTD) Management System with the support of the DBE, PEDs and other stakeholders.

A summary of 2012/13 SACE activities was outlined as follows:
Approval of the CPTD Pilot Status Report by the SACE and DBE principals
Follow-up on the CPTD Pilot Status Report Recommendations
Establishment of the Provider Forums in the nine provinces
Research on Provider Capacity
Implementation plan for roll-out would be completed

ELRC’s legislative mandate included its function as a bargaining council. Its functions included concluding collective agreements; enforcement of those collective agreements; prevention and resolution of labour disputes and performance of the dispute resolution functions referred to in Section 51 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA)

The key roles and responsibilities of ELRC included the establishment and administration of a fund to be used for resolving disputes; the promotion and establishment of training and education schemes; and development of proposals for submission to the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) or any other appropriate forum on policy and legislation that may affect the sector. Furthermore, ELDC also determined by collective agreement the matters which might not be an issue in dispute for the purposes of a strike or a lock-out at the workplace and conferring on workplace forums additional matters for consultation. Other functions of ELRC included the following: Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA); Job evaluation for office based educators; Education Management System (EMS); Establishing parity of notches of educators in basic education with notches of the General Public Servants employed by the State; Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL); Salary Structure; Research; and examination related matters

The role of trade unions was to help to raise the public’s opinion of the teaching profession and to attract talented new teaching recruits. In addition, trade unions could encourage their members to join Professional Learning Communities, and make the most of all professional development opportunities available to them and achieve their Professional Development (PD) point targets.

The role of universities in the teacher development plan was to ensure that their teacher education and development programmes were responsive to national and provincial priorities. Universities also had to ensure that the programmes were accessible to teachers, relevant and met their professional needs.

Members expressed satisfaction that DBE had abandoned that term 'educator' in its presentations. They also inquired about the status of the performance agreement for principals and deputy principals and areas of conflict. They expressed dissatisfaction with response provided by ELRC and DBE. Members asked for information regarding the location and distribution of the 140 District Teacher Centres and mechanisms put in place to monitor the funds allocated for teacher development at provincial level. They inquired why the schools level was not included under the framework and asked for information regarding which bodies at national, provincial and district level were either mandatory or voluntary. Members asked for clarification of the functions for SACE and Umalusi. They also asked for clarity on the coordination and accountability of each entity regarding the implementation of projects and resolution of conflict. They also asked for clarification on the use of research generated by ELRC, timeframes to the establishment of the National Institute for Curriculum and Professional Development (NICPD) and regulation of providers. Members also expressed satisfaction that teachers in Limpopo who were inappropriately involved with school children were served with notices. They stressed that DBE did not have to wait until students went on strike before making investigations.

Members deliberated and adopted with amendments the Committee's Report on Basic Education Budget Vote 15 dated May 2012. They expressed concern at the lack of progress in the implementation of the performance agreements for principals, and suggested a stakeholder meeting to discuss issues of conflict.

Meeting report

DBE on ISPFTED in South Africa – Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities
Mr Bobby Soobrayan, DBE Director General, introduced members of the delegation from DBE, SACE and ELRC. He highlighted that the Teacher Development Plan (TDP) was a result of collaborative work that took place after the Teacher Development Summit held in 2009. The evidence –based approach taken by DBE, Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), teacher unions, SACE, the Education, Training and Development Practices - Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP SETA), the Services Sector Education and Training Authority (Services SETA), ELRC, and Education Development Fund (EDF) culminated in the joint launch by the Ministers of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training on 05 April 2011.

The plan was developed to respond to challenges being experienced in teacher education and development. These included teachers' poor subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge; inadequate and weak system to accurately identify systemic and individual teacher development needs; insufficient numbers of teachers to meet system requirements; lack of support to teachers at the local level and teacher education system capacity constraints. Further concerns included the quality of teacher education programmes, and poor coordination and lack of coherence in the teacher education and development system.

Dr Francis Nzama, DBE Chief Director: Education Human Resources Development (EHRD), summarised the outcomes and outputs of various programmes. In terms of improving the quality of teacher education and development the listed outputs included the identification of individual and systemic teacher development needs which could be addressed by DBE.

DBE was also supporting the initiative to increase the number of high–achieving school leavers into teaching.  Teacher support was being enhanced at the local level by PEDs. An expanded and accessible formal teacher education system had been established by DHET.

The data informing systemic teacher development was outlined as matric exam results; Annual National Assessments(ANAs); teacher qualifications survey; Integrated Quality Management Systems (IQMS), WSPs, and National Education Evaluation and Development Unit (NEEDU) processes. A total of 3 000 underperforming secondary schools and 8000 feeder primary schools were being targeted. In addition, ETDP and Services SETA were contributing R41 million in 2012/13 to support the programme. The subject areas and priorities for the first five years identified included Maths, Science, Technology, Accounting, Multi-Grade, Inclusive Ed and Special Needs, Subject Advisors, School leaders, lead teachers, and Grade R/ECD.

A summary of the multi- faceted approach to expanding the formal teacher education was outlined. This included increasing enrolments in initial teacher education programmes to the maximum without compromising quality. In addition, universities were being encouraged to extend teacher education offering to additional and existing campus sites. Furthermore, the approach entailed the establishment of new sites of delivery (‘colleges’) which could be under the governance of existing universities.

An overview was given of the coordination and collaboration of the various entities at national, provincial and district level involved in the Teacher Development Plan.

In terms of the establishment of the National Institute for Curriculum and Professional Development (NICPD), DBE noted that it could be launched shortly. However, activities had already begun in the form of initiating collaboration programme with teacher unions for teacher development. In terms of the development and delivering of high content – rich, pedagogically sound Continuing Professional Development(CPD) courses for teachers, DBE had completed the Curriculum Assessment Policy State (CAPS) orientation with 130 000 teachers at foundation phrase and grade 10. In addition, a total of about 140 000 teachers had participated in priority subjects area courses.

For output two which involved attracting and increasing the number of high-achieving school leavers into teaching, a total of 8 892 bursaries were allocated in 2011 and approximately 11 650 bursaries would be allocated in 2012 for the initial teacher education.

Current progress in terms of output three listed as increasing teacher support at local level included the establishment of five Provincial Teacher Development Institutes (PTDIs) in Western Cape, Gauteng, Limpopo, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. With regard to the establishment of district teacher development centres (DTDCs) an audit and strengthening process was underway for 140 teacher centres. The target to implement and establish the Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) was scheduled for implementation in 2012.

In terms of output four listed as expanding and strengthening the formal teacher education system a qualification policy, the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualification had been gazetted on 15 July 2011.

In addition, Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM) approval had been obtained for the establishment of Provincial Teacher Education Committees. A total of R 141 million had been allocated to a programme  involving 16 universities which focused on research, programme development and materials development for foundation phase teacher education. In addition, the number of universities offering foundation phase teacher education programmes could increase from 13 to 20. Consequently, this could increase the number of foundation phase teachers being produced.

A summary was highlighted of the roles and responsibilities of DBE and Provincial Education Departments (PED)s. It was noted that DBE and PEDs were responsible for ensuring that the Plan’s objectives and outcomes were given full support through the mobilisation of support systems and financial resources. Collaboration with ELRC, SACE, PEDs, and teacher unions were expressed through PEDs-CEM, Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM) and sub-committees.

A summary was highlighted of the funding support and activities in the various provinces.

In terms of the WSP the Skills Development Act (SDA) (No. 97 of 1998) required employers to budget 1% of their total payroll for purposes of Skills Development. 10% of the 1% had to be paid over to the ETDP SETA for purposes of administration, while 90% of the 1% could be set aside for purposes of training and development of employees. Consequently, DBE was responsible in terms of the policy on the National Framework for Skills Development (NFSD) for monitoring and ensuring compliance of provinces to the Skills Development Act.

The WSP budget for 2011/12 was then outlined indicating the Provincial MTEF report.
The role of DHET was to ensure that the national teacher education and development system developed the capacity to serve all education sectors with high-quality programmes for teachers and prospective teachers.

Mr Rej Brijraj, SACE Chief Executive Officer, then presented the role of SACE. The role of SACE was to register educators, enforce compliance with the code of professional ethics and promote professional development. In addition, SACE would manage the Continuing Professional Teacher Development (CPTD) Management System with the support of the DBE, PEDs and other stakeholders.

The system expected teachers to maintain professional development portfolios and achieve a target number of Professional Development (PD) points. Teachers would go about it in three ways: through their own personal development efforts; by engaging with their colleagues in school-based activities including Professional Learning Communities; and by attending programmes offered by external providers. Only providers approved by SACE and whose programmes were endorsed by SACE would be allowed to offer programmes for PD points.  This ensured that providers offered programmes of high quality which equipped teachers with the knowledge and skills they required.

SACE’s professional development mandates came from Section 5(b) of the SACE Act (No.31 of 2000 as amended by the the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act (No. 15 of 2011) (BELA). This Section provides SACE with professional development mandatory and discretionary functions. Section 5(b) of the SACE Act prescribed the professional development mandatory functions in terms of:

promoting, developing and maintaining the image of the profession.
managing a system for promotion of the Continuing Professional Development of all teachers (CPTD Management System).
advising the Minister on various teacher education and development matters.
and researching and developing a professional development policy.

Some of the challenges encountered included that while SACE had clear pieces of legislation and policies for its professional development role, there existed conflicting views and different expectations regarding that role. The conflict existed between SACE providing professional development while also promoting professional development. These conflicting views and expectations had, to a large extent, compromised the implementation of the mandatory professional development functions such as advising the Minister, promoting the development of teachers and maintaining the image of the profession. However, the BELA Act  clarified and gave clear direction on these conflicting views

It was highlighted that while the SACE Act had room for provisioning of professional development it was not viable for SACE because of the amount of human and physical resources needed to perform this function adequately.  Furthermore, SACE had over the years attempted to focus on training programmes around professional development portfolios, ethics and values in education, ethics and legal training, and IQMS. The experiences on these training sessions had proven that very few educators benefited from them despite the fact that a lot of resources were spent on them.

Secondly, the SACE Act and NPFTED provides SACE with a new role of managing the Continuing Professional Teacher Development (CPTD) System and part of this process involved approval of providers to offer professional development programmes and endorsement of the submitted programmes and activities. Because of this new role and focus, SACE could not be a provider of professional development because it will be seen as a player and referee at the same time. Consequently, it was necessary that Section 5(b)(v) of the SACE Act be amended in the next round of the Basic Education Laws Amendment Processes.

A summary of 2012/13 SACE activities was outlined;  these included:
Approval of the CPTD Pilot Status Report by the SACE and DBE principals
Follow-up on the CPTD Pilot Status Report Recommendations
Establishment of the Provider Forums in the nine Provinces
Research on Provider Capacity
Provider Approval and Endorsement of PD Activities

Mr Mahalingum (Dhaya) Govender, ELRC General Secretary, summed up the legislative mandate of ELRC which included its functions as a bargaining Council. Its functions included concluding collective agreements; enforcement of those collective agreements; prevention and resolution of labour disputes; and performance of the dispute resolution functions referred to in Section 51 of the LRA

The key roles and responsibilities of ELRC included the establishment and administration of a fund to be used for resolving disputes; the promotion and establishment of training and education schemes and development of proposals for submission to the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) or any other appropriate forum on policy and legislation that may affect the sector. Furthermore, ELDC also determined by collective agreement the matters which might not be an issue in dispute for the purposes of a strike or a lock-out at the workplace and conferring on workplace forums additional matters for consultation.

The constitutional objectives of the ELRC included the promotion of collective bargaining in relation to all matters of mutual interest and to conclude and enforce collective agreements. In addition, ELRC was tasked with conducting research, analysis and survey education, nationally and internationally, in order to promote training and capacity building in education.

The role of ELRC was to manage the Teacher Development Summit process in collaboration with all stakeholders in education. In addition, ELRC was working on the TD Development Summit resolution on streamlining and rebranding the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS). The Council started work in 2011 to address issues on Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) and Education Management Services (EMS).

Mr Govender highlighted that activities of ELRC included Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA); job evaluation for office based educators; Education Management System (EMS); establishing parity of notches of educators in basic education with notches of the General Public Servants employed by the State; Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL); Salary Structure; Research and examination related matters.

The role of trade unions was to help to raise the publics opinion of the teaching profession and to attract talented new teaching recruits. In addition, trade unions could encourage their members to join Professional Learning Communities, and make the most of all professional development opportunities available to them and achieve their PD point’s targets.

The role of universities in the teacher development plan was to ensure that their teacher education and development programmes were responsive to national and provincial priorities. Universities also had to ensure that the programmes were accessible to teachers, relevant and met their professional needs.

Discussion
Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) expressed his satisfaction that DBE had abandoned the term 'educator' in its presentations and replaced it with 'teacher'.

Mr Soobrayan replied that these concepts could be used interchangeably.

Mr Mpontshane asked for the status of the performance agreement for principals and deputy principals.

Mr Soobrayan replied that the broad issue at hand was the performance management of principals and deputy principals. In addition, the aim was to implement existing legislation such as the South African Schools Act which empowered provinces to remove non-performing principals. He noted that KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng had served non performing principals with notices.

Mr K Dikobo (AZAPO) asked about areas of conflict on performance agreements for principals and deputy principals.

Mr Soobrayan replied that the ELRC was largely a secretariat and therefore was not in a position to comment on the negotiations and proposals being made by the various stakeholders.

Mr Govender reiterated that ELRC as a negotiator could not disclose the details of the negotiations.

Mr Dikobo commented that he was not satisfied with the responses and the matter should be raised as a matter for discussion at later date.

The Chairperson reiterated that the issue could be raised in a future meeting.

Mr Dikobo asked for a list stating the location and distribution of the 140 District Teacher Centres.

Mr Soobrayan replied that some of the districts had more than one centre. DBE aimed to ensure the establishment of centres in all districts. In addition, the list could be made available to the Members in writing.

Mr Dikobo and Mr S Makhubele (ANC) inquired how DBE monitored the 90% of the 1% of its budget which was allocated for teacher development at Provincial level.

Mr Soobrayan replied that while mechanisms were in place to monitor the utilisation of funds, laws also existed which made it mandatory for provinces to channel the funds to teacher training.

Mr D Smiles (DA) inquired why the slide on page five highlighting the coordination, collaboration and coherence of the different entities did not include school level.

Mr Soobrayan replied that school level, while being vital for the implementation of DBE projects, did not have significant institutions for the framework that was being highlighted.

Mr Smiles asked if the various bodies at National, Provincial and District level were either mandatory or voluntary.

Mr Soobrayan replied that experience had revealed that enforcement could not bring about the desired responses, but what was useful was to work with districts, provinces and unions in order to gain teacher buy-in on professional learning communities.

Mr Smiles asked for clarification on the roles of SACE and Umalusi Council as quality assurance providers.

Mr Soobrayan replied that, while their mandates were similar, what distinguished them was that SACE was concerned with quality assurance of facilitators while Umalusi was concerned with examination quality assurance.

Mr Smiles commented that he hoped ELRC spoke on behalf of the unions as the success of programmes implemented by the DBE was mainly dependent of their cooperation.

Mr Makhubele asked for clarification as to how the different entities were coordinated and were accountable to each other with regard to how programmes were implemented.

Mr Soobrayan replied that SACE’s function was to specify the points for each training programme  and mechanisms for registering points and assessment of providers. DBE’s function was to determine the demand while SACE set up the system and providers were set up by the Department of Higher Education and Training along with other private providers. While the three entities were speaking to each other the National Institute for Curriculum and Professional Development (NICPD) could enhance this coordination.

Mr Makhubele asked whether in dispute resolution, an area which each entity professed expertise, the different entities respected the recommendations made by the other. In addition, he enquired if a single process or mechanism was in place to coordinate the conflict resolution all the way up to an appeal.

Ms Soobrayan replied that, while accounting mechanisms and existing legislature existed, what was apparent was a weakness on the part of DBE during implementation. This in turn resulted in the relegation and overload of certain task to SACE. In terms of teacher performance it was up to principals to use the current legislation to serve non performing teachers and teachers who acted inappropriately with students with disciplinary charges or notice. The hope was that the NICPD could strengthen the coordination between the entities.

Mr Govender replied that the central issues were how to protect the child while ensuring that issues were not dragged on over extensive periods. Consequently the issue being discussed was the creation of a single hearing utilised by SACE, ELRC, and DBE on individual issues. In addition, ELRC was currently engaging with the Director-General of DBE to ensure that amendments to the current legislation were affected.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked for clarification of the uses of research carried out by ELRC.

Mr Soobrayan replied that research by ELRC facilitated relations between unions and employers. It was also a useful mechanism for policy generation. In addition, the research generated had assisted in wage negotiations and conditions of service.

Mr Govender replied that research done by ELRC had assisted in policy implementation and development. For example the research on HIV/AIDS had resulted in the establishment of intervention programmes such as Prevention, Care and Treatment (PCTA).

Ms N Gina (ANC) asked for the timeframe for the establishment the National Institute for Curriculum and Professional Development (NICPD).

Mr Soobrayan replied that he was not in a position to specify the timeframes. Nevertheless, while the institute could assist in defining demand, DBE was currently engaged in processes towards the attainment of the goal.

Ms Gina asked for information concerning the endorsement and regulation of education providers.

Mr Soobrayan replied that the regulation of providers was a matter of concern as in some instances providers used their own books which they sold to teachers. The way forward was ensure the implementation of a district wide strategic plan which could be translated at schools levels.

Mr Brijraji reiterated that the question of opportunistic providers could be mitigated by assessing and regulation of providers. SACE had put in place evaluators who could carry out physical checks of the providers while the training was taking place.

Ms Gina commented that she was satisfied with the first outcome which was aimed at improving the quality of teacher education and development. This was crucial for the development of a quality education in South Africa.

Mr N Kganyago (UDM) expressed satisfaction at the serving of notices to teachers in Limpopo  who were inappropriately involved with school children. He noted that DBE did not have to wait until students went on strike to carry out investigations.

Mr Soobrayan replied that he shared the sentiment that such incidences should be condemned by the communities and the DBE.

Committee's Report on Basic Education Budget Vote 15
 Members pointed out omissions and corrections.
Ms A Lovemore (DA) complained that the section on the Committee observations was not exhaustive, as omissions had been made regarding some concerns she raised on targets for teacher professional development and teacher absenteeism.

The Chairperson noted that the concerns could be included, also that the content adviser should take note.

Mr Dikobo expressed concern at the lack of progress in the implementation of the performance agreements for principals. He highlighted the need for Members to further engage with DBE regarding the issue.

Mr Makhubele commented that the mention of unions in resolving the delays in the implementation of the performance agreements of principals was not necessary given that the Members could only concern themselves with entities which account to them.

Ms Gina suggested the calling of a meeting to engage with all the stakeholders to discuss the issues of the conflict in the agreements.

Mr Makhubele argued that the last bulletin on the conclusion was irrelevant and should be removed.

The report was adopted with amendments.[Mr Dikobo moved. Mr Makhubele seconded.]

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: