Committee Report on Department of Higher Education and Training Budget

Meeting report

The Committee’s Content Adviser said that the purpose of Programme 4 was to plan, develop, implement, monitor, maintain and evaluate national policy, programme assessment practices and systems for technical and vocational education and training. The programme had five budget sub-programmes. The sub-programmes were:

• Programme Management;
• Technical and Vocational Education and Training;
• Technical and Vocational Education and Training System Planning and Institutional Support;
• Programmes and Qualifications;
• National Examination and Assessments and Financial Planning.

The objective of Programme 4 was to eradicate the backlog of certification processes in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges, as this was the major concern of the Portfolio Committee and the Department. However, it would be difficult for the Committee and the Department to measure the success of this programme, since there were very few impact indicators that had been stipulated. The Department would need to ensure that all the outputs that the Department delivered were directly linked to the impact indicators.

The Chairperson said that it had previously been indicated that a ministerial committee needed to be established to look into the funding of TVET colleges. A ministerial committee had then been established in 2014. However, her main concern was that there had been no mention in the progress report as to what had happened to the committee, and what it had achieved so far. It was not clear if the ministerial committee was still functional or operating. There had been no mention of its progress in the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) which was released in June 2016. Minimal progress had been made in the building of the six TVET colleges that had been a target in the 2014/15 financial year. The report released last year had stated that the TVET colleges would be completed by December 2015. The reporting of the Department on targets to be achieved was not as clear-cut as possible, and there seemed to be discrepancies in the report.

The Chairperson said that there was a target which was focused on improving the qualifications of TVET lecturers, as this was a big problem. The identified provinces were supposed to develop an intervention programme, but it seemed as if these provinces had instead developed a business plan. The Department was supposed to be issuing the certification three months after examinations, and this had been an indicator contained in the MTSF. However, the report was now saying the issuing of the certificates would be after 12 months. The Committee should interrogate as to why this target had been moved from three to 12 months. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) had been given a target to clear the backlog by January 2016. There were currently over 120 000 candidates who were waiting for their certificates. It would be impossible for some of the learners to get employment if they could not get their certificates, and this once again proved that the inputs were intrinsically related to the outputs.

Ms J Kilian (ANC) believed that the Committee should closely monitor the progress of the DHET, because of its importance. The reality was that the Committee was often presented with a nice and detailed report, but this was often not complemented by what was observed during oversight visits. It looked like the Department was constantly changing its objectives year on year, and this was creating further confusion. The Department was changing its objectives so that Members could not have a baseline to track the objectives, and this was deeply concerning. The Department played an important role in the education sector, which could change the skills base of the country. The Committee should make a special motivational report to the Budget Office, as this would be very helpful on the way forward. The Committee should also look at what the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) was saying in regard to the performance of the Department. The reality was that the last form of accountability was oversight of the Department, and not the presentation that was being made. It was good to hear the Department saying the Committee should be conducting better oversight, as this was indeed critically important.

Ms Kilian said that South Africa was at a very sensitive phase of its democracy. There were expectations out there, and the youth was legitimately becoming restless. There had been lack of oversight of the DHET’s critical role. A total of 80% of the Department’s budget was consumed by the universities, and therefore there was a need to change this sector around. The Department had inherited colleges that had not been part of its budget, as this had previously been a provincial responsibility. There were now 38 000 people working in the TVET sector, and this had the potential to present its own challenges in respect of the salaries to be paid. In essence, the Department was inheriting all the debts that had accrued over time, while at the same time there was no additional funding available. There was a need to make TVET colleges an attractive option for the youth. The Department would need to take a new look at the internal reallocation of resources, and the Committee should arrange a workshop on this matter. The Committee also had to look at the matter of inputs and outputs, and ensure that there was a level of accountability in measuring the two. The reality was that the Department had already received a 9.3% budget increase, which was higher than the other government departments, and therefore it was impossible to expect another increment. The Department should sit down and work on the reallocation of internal funding.

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) suggested that the Committee should first look at the seven reports that the Treasury had already gone through on public school education funding in the country, which had been introduced by the DA and EFF. The Committee should circulate these reports so that Members could look at them, as they also made reference to National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), and other funding models to be explored. The TVET colleges should be allocated more funding, as they were terribly under-funded. There was a lot of money available, but it was often squandered through unbridled corruption. The Department would need to deal with the fact that many students who were enrolled at universities often failed, and therefore a lot of taxpayers’ money was often spent on students who were not going to succeed. The reason for so many students failing in universities was because of poor schooling. The solution perhaps was to set a threshold at which students should be allowed to enroll at universities and colleges.  

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) agreed with the points that had been raised by Dr Bozzoli, especially on the matter of funding TVET colleges, as this was something that the DHET would need to deal with. The Department seemed to neglect workplace-based training, as this was becoming extremely important in an era where what much of what one learnt in three years became irrelevant. It would be difficult for the Department for motivate for additional funding dedicated to TVET colleges when there was such a lack of productivity within the sector. There was a general consensus that there should be more funding allocated to TVET colleges in order to improve teaching and skills training, as this was a long term investment to achieve the goals that were stipulated in the National Development Plan (NDP). There were macroeconomic aspects that would need to be changed in order to deal decisively with the under-funding of TVET colleges. 

Mr E Siwela (ANC) said that the information that had been provided at the meeting was meant to assist Members to look into the report that had been presented to the Committee. The general feeling was that the problems within the sector could not solved simply by allocating more money. The DHET would first need to deal with the effectiveness of the sector without dealing specifically with under-funding. There were structural problems that the Department would need to deal with within the TVET colleges. The limited resources that were being allocated to the sector should be utilised effectively.

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) also concurred with the sentiments that had been expressed by Members, especially about improving the quality of TVET colleges. The Committee had already raised the matter of the certification backlog in previous engagements. The Department was not doing badly in achieving the goals that were stipulated in the NDP, although it appeared as if it was slow in achieving some of the objectives. A review of the curricula of TVET colleges was also critically important, so that students could get employment based on solid and credible qualifications.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said the report should be clear that the curriculum that was delivered in TVET colleges was outdated, and this was discouraging young people from enrolling in these programmes. The reality was that private colleges were flourishing, and this showed that there was a real problem with the TVET colleges. The report should clearly state that Members were concerned about the future of TVET colleges, and the fact that they were no longer the first choice for young people. The report should also highlight that the administration of NSFAS was not running smoothly, as there were students who were still waiting to receive feedback from it. 

Ms Kilian felt that the Committee sometimes failed to address the real core issues that needed to be resolved. It was in the process of formally considering the report, and Members should avoid a situation where the report highlighted some issues and failed to mention others. There was a general consensus that the sector was not as effective as everyone would like. The DHET was facing the challenge of having to hold other institutions accountable, although it was not fully in control of them. The fact of the matter was that the Department could not just throw money at TVET colleges without looking thoroughly at the issue of how to make these colleges more effective. The TVET curriculum was indeed outdated, and needed to be looked at again. The Committee should be provided with cogent reasons as to why there had been delays in the building of additional colleges.

Dr Bozzoli said that the Committee was responsible for conducting oversight over the Department, and not the other way around. Members were entitled to highlight issues that were bothering the Committee. The Department had itself indicated that various universities in the country were under a severe financial stress. The Minister could not tell the Committee what to do, as Members were entitled to come up with suggestions on the way forward. The way the Minister had approached the Committee last week was if he was the one offering the advice.

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) said that the report had already flagged the issue of the quality of TVET colleges, and this was an issue that needed to be taken into consideration. There was a general agreement that the recommendations that had been made in the report were generally good, as they were a reflection of what Members had discussed. Members who were good at editing and fixing grammatical errors could forward those to the Secretary of the Committee.

Mr M Mbatha (EFF) said that Members should be the ones advising the Department on the way forward in dealing with challenges facing the universities. There was a growing number of privately-owned universities in the country at the expense of the public universities, and these were matters that the Committee should worry about.

The Chairperson supported Members suggestions that the Department should be invited to clarify some of the outstanding issues. The Committee should not put everything into the report, but try to include those issues that were critically important.

Ms Kilian proposed that the report should include the recommendation that had been made on the approval of the departmental organogram. The Department should also improve its oversight over entities like NSFAS.

The Committee adopted the report, with amendments.

The DA reserved its position on the report.

Adoption of minutes

The Committee adopted the minutes for the meeting on 15 March 2017 and two meetings on 3 May 2017 without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.