Funza Lushaka Bursary Scheme: Department of Basic Education briefing

Meeting report

Briefing by Department of Basic Education (DBE)

Mr Themba Kojana, Deputy Director General, DBE, led the Committee through a presentation on the action plan for an end-to-end solution on the Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme (FLBP). The goal of the action plan was to unpack its problem statement and highlight specifically what the DBE wanted to achieve with the programme.

The Funza Lushaka implementation protocol had been improved to strengthen the management of the FLBP at the provincial level, and to improve the monitoring of students and universities. Some of the responsibilities for provinces included involving higher institutions, participating in conjunction with the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), and providing students with information and employment opportunities. The bursary agreement with students had been strengthened, and
management of the FLBP had been improved.

Mr Gerrit Coetzee, Director: Initial Teacher Education, DBE, explained that approximately 14 000 bursaries, with a value of R 991 084 000, would be awarded to students during 2015, of which more than 10 000 would go to returning students.

Recruitment for 2015 had been district based. First priority had gone to district and community-based applications. There had been a steady growth in amount of money received from National Treasury, but there had also been an increase in tuition and other costs which had affected the number of bursaries awarded. The Foundation phase specialisation was African languages.

For the number of district-based students registered at higher education institutions (HEIs), there had been a drop between the award of promissory letters and registrations at HEIs. The solution had been a broader recruitment strategy that went beyond school-going youth, in order to reach out-of-school youths who had not yet had the opportunity to study at HEIs. There would be a set ratio of school-going and out-of-school youths, depending on the province. In 2014, out-of-school youths were recruited from communities in Modjadji, a rural community, and Gauteng. There had been 4 827 graduates that needed to be placed in 2015, and as at the end of March, 62 percent had been placed. The DBE hoped to reach 100 percent placement by the end of June.

The action plan’s key deliverables were determining the demand for teachers, management of the FLBP,
a declaration of post establishment, the profiling of vacant posts, the profiling and matching of Funza Lushaka bursars, and an induction programme.

Discussion

Mr D Mnguni (ANC) asked about bursary holders. What would happen to students who failed a year? Would they be considered again? Regarding placement, was the DBE considering accommodation as a benefit? Mr Mnguni also referred to the bursary agreement form and asked for clarification about the section on repayment of loans. He asked if there was any consideration of having the Department of Higher Education run the annual practical training twice a year. Lastly, he asked about the issue of bureaucracy, as it seemed to take long for the Department to approve bursaries even after the 90 days had elapsed. How long would this process really take?

Ms A Lovemore (DA) said she was shocked that the total number of bursaries that were awarded were not just first year bursaries. They should not count as a new bursary every year.  She asked the DBE to identify the priority areas. Why had Funza Lushaka bursaries not been given for Grade R qualifications? Why were they not given for the Afrikaans language? There was a vacancy in Afrikaans schools, and Afrikaans was just as much of an African language as any other language. Also, in identifying who were given bursaries in terms of critical skills, the DBE must train teachers to address those particular skills so that the skill vacancies could be filled in South Africa. She commented that the Committee had received complaints on the late allocation of money. That was a major problem. She had talked with the Minister of Basic Education about looking into students being required to enrol at UNISA and being an intern elsewhere. Was that being looked at?

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) expressed concern about teachers who were trained at UNISA or through distance learning. These students did not have one-on-one learning. How was it ensured that there were quality teachers who were effectively and well trained? He was happy that the DBE would place teachers where they were needed, bypassing the open and closed lists, and the undesired influence of unions. Regarding the announcement that Mandarin was going to be a compulsory language in schools, did the DBE have enough well trained teachers for this subject to be taught? The same went for the subject of History. Regarding the placements in Gauteng, what had informed the DBE’s decision to choose this province first, because Gauteng seemed to be a well-resourced? Finally, on training, did the Department have the correct lecturers at the universities?

Ms J Basson (ANC) asked about placement. With recruitment, when there were surpluses that were outstanding, what happened if these teachers were placed in the wrong field – one that they had not been trained for? What if a post then became available that fitted that particular teacher, but it was too late because that teacher was already placed?  What happened with that teacher?  She expressed concern about the large number of teachers who were still not placed at this time of year. The DBE’s follow up did not seem clear. How would it keep in contact with these people? Also, what was the remedial action for those who did not want to go to those places they were earmarked for? Regarding the induction process, how did the Department support these colleges? Was accommodation included? Could the DBE not tell the students which colleges to apply for, and then direct them to the colleges that had been reopened? Regarding the curriculum, the DBE should take charge in giving universities the curriculum that was needed for teachers.

Mr D Khosa (ANC) wanted clarity on placement. Recruitment was based on need, so why was there a challenge at the end of the process for placement? Was the selection process effective in terms of set standards? How were they being monitored? What about the challenge of nepotism? Why was there no centralised system of recruitment, such as looking at the application of a person only, without knowing details about that particular person? Regarding the 20 percent placement in the Eastern Cape, what was the process for dealing with the challenges?

Mr T Khoza (ANC) congratulated the North West province for their surplus of placement. Regarding the request to use the extra accumulated amount, how had extra money been accumulated when that money was supposed to be budgeted for students anyway?

The Chairperson congratulated the DBE for its integration and involvement with other sectors, including higher education, the community, and the Department of Labour. She said that the DBE should strengthen these partnerships. She liked the ratio in recruitment between the community and district level involvement.

The Chairperson asked the DBE to indicate when it would return to the Committee to provide updates and timeframes. She emphasised that the DBE must implement what it had listed in the action plan. It could not merely stay on paper.

Regarding the issue of targeting out-of-school youths, this seemed to be especially important in the light of certain problems like xenophobia.  Also, the Department of Labour had provided a list of scarce skills in South Africa. Was the DBE incorporating this? What action would the DBE be taking regarding the Education Expo?

The Chairperson mentioned that at the University of Cape Town, there was a conversion course. Was that happening elsewhere? How would the DBE deal with out-of-school youths transitioning to university courses, or changing from one profession to another?

Mr Kojana responded that the DBE could not deal with the bursary programme without talking about human resource-related matters. There were three interventions it had taken up to indicate that it had integrated these matters. On partnering with higher education universities, uniformity was the main issue the Department wanted to focus on, as there was no uniformity between the programmes the universities offered. He said that there needed to be input from both the Department of Higher Education and the DBE to improve practical teaching and to go forward with recommended actions to address certain challenges.

Regarding incentives and rural areas, the DBE wanted to ensure that accommodation was provided. Each province differed in its needs, so the DBE dealt separately with each province’s challenges.

In district-based recruitment, it was the district itself that provided its need, and the DBE’s recruitment was then based on those needs. There was also management needed, because sometimes teachers moved to different schools. There was still a shortage in teachers for mathematics, and that was one of the programmes’ challenges.

Regarding the profiling of teachers, this was done so that the DBE could get sense of how many teachers were teaching what subjects and their competencies, so that the areas that needed more teachers could be identified.

The DBE had learnt a lot of lessons from its partnership with the Independent Schools Association of South Africa (ISASA). They were very experienced in terms of management and delivering curricula. The DBE hoped to transfer that knowledge base into the public schools.

Mr Kojana also said that changes in curricula influenced how the DBE structured the bursary itself. For example, if history or Mandarin were introduced as compulsory subjects, then they had to be supported. That was why there had been a focus on African languages at the foundation phase.

In response to the question on whether or not the lecturers were familiar with the curriculum, it was a difficult question to answer, because the DBE had not assessed the lecturers. It was important that the DBE engage with higher institutions themselves to ask this question.

On the ineffectiveness of programmes, and the issue of spill-over, the DBE agreed that there needed to be another programme, so they proposed to work with the Department of Higher Education.

Mr Coetzee responded to the question on the bursary agreement form’s reference to the repayment of loans. Repayment would happen only when the students were able to repay when they were fully employed.

Regarding the issue of the administrative burden of allocating the bursaries within 90 days, the DBE knew that if it were to deal with this itself, it would be a huge administrative burden. Thus, the end-to-end solution sought to highlight the role that provinces could play to help.

In response to the question about the letter from the National Treasury on rollover funding, Mr Coetzee said that this instance occurred when students had been selected, but before the bursary agreement had been signed, they withdrew. It could also happen if the fee was lower than what had initially been budgeted for. One of strategies the DBE had raised with National Treasury was to use the rollover funds to help pay for the period from January to March, because the FLBP paid in April, so that period was especially hard for first time applicants. For second and subsequent year applicants, the DBE told the students that they had to manage their bursary money properly, so that they could pay for subsequent years of registration. 

On the issue of UNISA, there was a NSFAS programme that introduced a new system of paying money to students. This had caused some administration issues for the DBE. Many students were unhappy with the way the system had impacted on their freedom to use the bursary how they wanted. The DBE recognised this as a good thing in some ways, because there were restrictions on how the money was used. The bursary fund was allocated to students through vouchers, which the students had to cash out at Shoprite. The DBE could ensure that the bursary money was used for what it was meant for, despite the fact that this was causing unhappiness among the students. This was the DBE’s way of addressing the issue of students misusing bursary money. The DBE would try to get NSFAS to join them in presenting to the Committee.

Regarding the question on why Gauteng had been chosen for community-based recruitment, the Department had worked in both Gauteng and Limpopo because it had wanted the two dynamics, of both a rural and high-density area. It was also more cost-effective for the DBE to focus on Gauteng.

Mr Coetzee said that in the first four years of the bursary programme, the DBE had not been that strong and had allowed the universities to dictate selection. Recently, the DBE had taken the lead in the selection process and was now very much involved in it. Therefore, it would not allow nepotism, favouritism or manipulation. The selection was informed by academic requirements that had to be met for the bursary programme.

He added that the DBE was represented on the National Evaluation of Programmes Committee, which met every month at the Department of Higher Education,. It evaluated the teacher training programmes to ensure they met the minimum requirements for the teacher education qualification policy. This had really tightened up the minimum standards for teacher practice, and had helped deal with inclusive education and alignment of the curriculum. The DBE made sure that there was alignment with the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS).

One area that was lacking was profiling. The DBE needed to know that those selected made up the numbers that were required in the system. The end-to-end solution addressed that.

Mr Kojana said that the DBE would look into the issue of Grade R, to see how it was supported. The Department had taken note of the question and would investigate so they could provide a proper response. The DBE knew that Afrikaans was an African language, but the areas of needs were based on what the provinces reported on.

Regarding the issue of out-of-school youths, the DBE would note this issue as well and respond.  

On the question on expos, the DBE would make sure it had its own gazebo and own information to share. It would involve other departments as well, however, and strengthen its advocacy.

Mr Mnguni again asked what happened when a student failed.

Mr Khoza noted that on the issue of the community recruitment in Gauteng, there seemed to be bias in favour of urban areas over rural areas.

The Chairperson commented that Members could see that the DBE had tried to include both rural and urban areas, but she did recognise that government’s bias needed to be towards rural areas.

With regard to the letter from the National Treasury, the Chairperson proposed that the DBE should not ask for more money.  It should try to stay within its own budget allocation.

Mr Coetzee responded to Mr Mnguni’s question about what happened when a student failed. The student was given another opportunity if they failed, but then had to prove themselves. They were not funded for a year, and if at the end of year the student showed they were back on track and could complete their degree, they could again receive money.

On issue of grade R, the diploma let that teacher teach only in grade R itself. The FLBP would have more value for money by investing in qualifications that enabled teachers to teach at multiple levels. Also, grade R was not an initial teacher qualification, it was an upgrading qualification. The FLBP did not fund upgrading qualifications.

Mr Kojana said that the DBE has noted requests to look into what the lessons learned from ISASA were. It would provide that information going forward.  

Mr Mpontshane asked if the DBE had data on the number of students who had applied and qualified, but had been denied a bursary because of the lack of funds.

The DBE said it did not have that information at the moment, but it could be obtained. It was a considerable amount, since there were 70 000 applications and only a maximum of 14 000 bursaries were awarded. 

Adoption of Minutes

The minutes of the 17 March meeting on the budget review were adopted. The attendance would be corrected. There was one grammatical error on page 4.

The minutes of the 24 March meeting were adopted.

The minutes of the 14 April meeting on the South African Council for Educators (SACE) budget review were adopted. Ms Lovemore noted that the concern that she and her colleague from the IFP had raised about the mandate from the ANC, was not in the minutes and she would like it to be.

The meeting was adjourned.