Status Report on ECD Migration: DBE & DSD briefing; with DSD Minister & DBE Deputy Minister

Basic Education

09 March 2022
Chairperson: Ms B Mbinqo-Gigaba (ANC) and Ms N Mvana (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In this virtual meeting, the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Department of Social Development (DSD), briefed the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education and the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the updated Status Report on the Migration of Early Childhood Development (ECD) to DBE. The Minister of Social Development, the Deputy Minister of Basic Educations and MECs and HODs from across the different provinces were in attendance.

Members were informed that the migration to the DBE was premised on the best interests of the child.

The focus will be on the delivery of an integrated, aligned service delivery model that will ensure access to quality early learning and development opportunities for all children, which will build on the gains instituted by the DSD and to which DBE and DSD will jointly work towards.

On 1 April 2022, DBE Minister Angie Motshekga would be responsible for the ECD function. At the same time, all the funding would be transferred to the DBE. There would be no fundamental changes from the first month. The DBE would maintain what the DSD had been running. The DBE would phase-in improvements that needed to happen. It had identified the areas it thought was possible. In these areas, it would look at “low-hanging fruits” and how it could bring about improvements.

The DBE will become responsible for paying the subsidies exactly the same as how the DSD has been doing. ECD programmes should therefore still submit their business plans and apply for funding through the normal process, so that the DBE can continue with the payments from next year on wards.

Since the largest majority of ECD programmes are owned by nongovernmental organisations, communities and private institution rather than the DSD, they will not be affected by the function shift. Rather, the DBE will become responsible to support, subsidise and regulate the programmes according to the specifications in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of the Children’s Act.

If an ECD programme is registered with the DSD, their registration status will be transferred automatically to the DBE. If an ECD programme’s registration status lapses in 2022, they will need to renew their registration with the DBE. If an ECD programme is unregistered, they will need to register with the DBE. The DBE will follow the Vangasali registration process for all new registrations.

A total budget of R3,3bn will be transferred to the DBE. This amount can be disaggregated as follows; Cost of Employees (CoE) – R 238,9m; Goods and Services – R 85,8m; NPO funding – R 2,3bn; and Capital Assets – R 18,5m. This has been tabled before the Technical Committee for Finance as well as the Budget Council for the transfer of funds for the 2022/23 financial year. The function shift was subsequently tabled in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement in November 2021.

The Committee congratulated both Departments on the work they had done in ensuring this function shift would finally happen this year. They noted it had been a difficult process, there would be some challenges, but hoped and trusted that both Departments had the capacity to handle whatever challenges arose.

Members welcomed the presentation; it was substantial and clarified many of their questions.

Questions were asked about the recognition of ECDs, processing of the Second Children’s Amendment Bill, the ECD Presidential Stimulus Relief Fund, the inclusion of ECDs in the national school nutrition programme and what would happen to ECD practitioners with no qualifications. Members wanted an assurance that staff members or practitioners who were moving to the DBE were not going to be worse off after the transition.

Meeting report

Chairperson Mbingo-Gigaba took over from Chairperson Mvana, who had been experiencing connectivity challenges.

Chairperson Mbingo-Gigaba requested a roll call, as this was a joint meeting between two Committees, the Committee on Basic Education and the Committee on Social Development.

Chairperson Mvana took over the roll call.

(Department of Basic Education) DBE Deputy Minister’s Input
Dr Reginah Mhaule, DBE Deputy Minister, said that both DBE Minister Angie Motshekga and Department of Social Development (DSD) Minister Lindiwe Zulu were in a Cabinet meeting and would join the Committee Meeting later if they were able to.

Deputy Minister Mhaule said she would represent both the DBE and the DSD at the meeting. She said that the DSD Deputy Minister had not been well, so would not attend. Both the DSD and DBE DGs were present in the meeting.

The Early Childhood Development (ECD) migration process had started with the President who had said that ECD needed to be migrated to the DBE. The DBE and the DSD had been working together on this.

The date for the migration had been set for April 2021, but this had not been possible as some processes could not be finalised by then. The DBE and DSD had then sent a request to Cabinet and both Portfolio Committees to move the date to 1 April 2022.

The migration could not happen instantaneously, as it required the cooperation of other Departments, including the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), the Department of Health, and the Department of Home affairs, among others.

The DBE was now sure that the migration process would start on 1 April 2022.

There were many expectations from the people who were moving to the DBE, thinking that they would have to become teachers. This was not a change of the DSD’s processes, rather it would be a continuation. Partners in the sector would continue as they were. The DBE was pushing for the administration of ECD to migrate to it. This did not mean that the DSD would stop being involved in ECD from 1 April. The DSD would be working together with the DBE on matters concerning children.

The DGs from DBE and DSD were present. Deputy Minister Dr Mhaule said that one of the DGs would lead the joint presentation.

Attendance and Apologies
Chairperson Mvana thanked Deputy Minister Mhaule for “paving the way” forward with her political overview of the ECD migration process.

Apologies from the DSD Committee Members included: Mr D Stock (ANC) who would join after 9:30am; Ms L van der Merwe who was at the Portfolio Committee for Home Affairs meeting. DSD Minister Lindiwe Zulu indicated that she would join late, as she was attending a Cabinet meeting. The DSD DG, Mr. Linton Mchunu, was out of the country and had nominated Ms Brenda Sibeko as the Acting DG.

DBE Minister Angie Motshekga sent her apologies as she was attending a Cabinet meeting.

There were a number of MECs not present: Northern Cape MEC for Social Development, Ms Nontobeko Vilikazi; Western Cape MEC for Education, Ms Debbie Schäfer; Eastern Cape MEC for Social Development, Ms Siphokazi Mani-Lusithi; Eastern Cape MEC for Education, Mr Fundile David Gade.

The Western Cape HoD for Education, Mr Brent Walters sent his apologies. He had nominated an acting WCED HoD.

Deputy Minister Mhaule said the only apologies on the DBE’s side were from the Ministers who had said that they would come to the meeting if there were no pressing matters at the Cabinet meeting. The team which was supposed to be present was at the meeting.

MECs present included: KZN MEC for Social Development, Ms Nonhlanhla M Khoza; KZN MEC for Education, Mr Kwazi Mshengu; North West MEC for Education, Ms Wendy Matimela; Free State MEC for Social Development, Ms Mamiki Qabathe;

Mr Mathanzima Mweli, DBE DG was also present.

Ms D van der Walt (DA) interrupted Chairperson Mvana to say that she thought that this was an important meeting and that both Ministers should be in attendance. This was a migration from a large Department to another large Department, and there were many urgent concerns that the Committees wanted to discuss. She requested that in the future, joint meetings on ECD not be scheduled on a day that both Ministers could not be present.

Chairperson Mvana said that this meeting had been planned in advance, but that Ms van der Walt’s concern had been noted. If the DBE Deputy Minister, HoDs and the DGs from both Departments were present, then the meeting could proceed.

Ms Nozibele Makanda, Portfolio Head for Health, Community Services and Inclusivity at the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), apologised for SALGA President Mr Bheki Stofile’s absence. She noted that provincial colleagues from SALGA were also present.

From the chat: Mr M Mhlongo, Acting DDG: Institutional Governance, Coordination and Support for the Limpopo Department of Education, said that he was standing in for Dr K Mphahlele, Limpopo DDG: Curriculum Management and Delivery.

Chairperson Mvana said that Chairperson Mbinqo-Gigaba would take over if she experienced any further technical difficulties. She recognised that loadshedding could pose a problem.

Adoption of the updated agenda
The updated agenda for the meeting was considered and adopted.

Briefing by the DBE and DSD
Ms Brenda Sibeko, Acting DG, DSD, said that the DSD was almost ready to migrate the functions of ECD. The leadership had helped with the challenges. From the DSD’s side, it had done a lot of work and had confidence that it would be ready by 1 April to complete the work and hand over the functions of the ECD. The DSD still had work to do to protect the children of South Africa.

The DSD and DBE would be presenting jointly on where both Departments were. She acknowledged all the work the DBE had done. Ms Isabella Sekwana, Acting DDG: Social Welfare Services, would lead the presentation for the DSD. The DBE would then present.

There was a misunderstanding from Chairperson Mvana who thought that the presentation was over. She asked for the provinces to provide their input.

Chairperson Mbinqo-Gigaba clarified this. She also added apologies from the Mpumalanga MEC for Education, Mr Bonakele Majuba.

Ms Sekwana said that she would lead the presentation from the DSD and that Ms Janeli Kozte, DBE DDG: Research Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation would present from the DBE.

She indicated that this presentation gave a national picture of the progress of the ECD migration. The presentation would cover progress that had been made at the national and provincial levels. The DSD and DBE had been working together on all levels. There were coordinating structures to enable the sharing of progress. Provinces had been sharing progress reports – progress at both the national and provincial levels.

[At 09:40am, the meeting was hacked].

[The meeting re-started at 10:36am].

Ms Sekwana continued her presentation from where she had left off before the hacking interruption.

She highlighted what will be expected after the function shift. The focus will be on the delivery of an integrated, aligned service delivery model that will ensure access to quality early learning and development opportunities for all children, which will build on the gains instituted by the DSD and to which DBE and DSD will jointly work towards.
This will be done by:
– Increasing access through an upscaling model;
 – Strengthening the focus on integrated nurturing care, early stimulation and learning, and universal curriculum provision;
 – Strengthening collaboration with the other Departments to ensure the holistic support and development of the child; and
 – Reviewing the current funding models to evaluate whether lessons can be learnt from the schooling sector

She reported that by the end of September 2021 both National and Provincial Proclamations were signed by the President and Premiers respectively and gazetted.

National and all provinces have finalised their National Macro Organisation of Government (NMOG)/ Provincial Macro Organisation of Government (PMOG) submissions:
 – Ringfencing of staff to be transferred has been completed;
 – Consultation with affected staff and Organised Labour commenced in terms of Public Service Act, Public Service Regulations, Labour Relations Act as well as NMOG/PMOG requirements; and – Budgets and assets to be transferred have been identified.

The function shift and post relocations from DSD to the DBE organisational structure is a standing item in the Departmental Bargaining Chamber.

A Cabinet memorandum on the function shift has been prepared and was approved by the Social Protection, Community and Human Development (SPCHD) Cluster on 9 February 2022. It is expected that the Cabinet memorandum will serve in Cabinet in March 2022.

A total budget of R3,3bn will be transferred to the DBE. This amount can be disaggregated as follows; Cost of Employees (CoE) – R 238,9m; Goods and Services – R 85,8m; NPO funding – R 2,3bn; and Capital Assets – R 18,5m. This has been tabled before the Technical Committee for Finance as well as the Budget Council for the transfer of funds for the 2022/23 financial year. The function shift was subsequently tabled in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement in November 2021.

The ring-fencing of posts was concluded in all provinces at the end of August 2021, after which the labour consultation process commenced. Labour consultations have been progressing productively in all provinces, with Provincial Task Teams having been established in all 9 provinces. All provinces have also been consulting with the affected staff and the lists of staff for transfer have been finalised. All provinces are also in the process of confirming office accommodation for the affected staff. Challenges with office space have been identified in Gauteng (2 districts) and Western Cape. The provincial departments have agreed on interim solutions in these cases.

Ms Janeli Kotze, DBE DDG: Research Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation, said the two Departments will continue working together post 01 April 2022. The governance structures that have been overseeing the function shift process will continue to meet in the 2022/23 financial year to ensure that there is a smooth transition. Some provinces will enter into MOUs to ensure that outstanding administrative processes are finalised and to enable other arrangements like sharing of office space. DSD and DBE will enter into an MOU to continue with the use of the Vangasali registration system whilst the new system is still under development. Handover reports from National and Provincial DSD will be submitted on 15 March 2022.

DBE PMTs (National and provincial) will be kept in place as a transitional arrangement for the first twelve (12) months. Monthly engagements between the two departments with Ministers, MECs, DGs and HODs will continue. A 100 days report will be produced to provide feedback on activities.

The competency of ECD practitioners and educators directly determines the quality of ECD programmes. Over the next year, the DBE will develop an ECD Human Resource Strategic Workforce Plan that will include:
-Articulating the qualifications at different levels;
-Continuing professional development and in-service training, including recognition of prior learning;
-Guidelines for early learning and development (caregivers);
-Registration with SACE for ECD educators and practitioners; and
-Norms for admin and other support staff.

Since March 2021, DBE and DSD has co-led the Technical Task Team for the Second Children’s Amendment Bill. The Technical Task team has been incorporating the public comments received.  The intention is to have the revised Second Amendment Bill finalized by end of March 2022 so that it can be further processed through the Parliamentary process in the 2022/23 financial year. The technical team has also embarked on reviewing the regulations, norms and standards. This process will unfold into 2022.

Since the largest majority of ECD programmes are owned by nongovernmental organisations, communities and private institution rather than the Department of Social Development, they will not be affected by the function shift. Rather, the DBE will become responsible to support, subsidise and regulate the programmes according to the specifications in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of the Children’s Act.

If an ECD programme is registered with the DSD, their registration status will be transferred automatically to the DBE. If an ECD programme’s registration status lapses in 2022, they will need to renew their registration with the DBE. If an ECD programme is unregistered, they will need to register with the DBE. The DBE will follow the Vangasali registration process for all new registrations.

Come 1 April 2022, the DBE will become responsible for paying the subsidies exactly the same as how the DSD has been doing. ECD programmes should therefore still submit their business plans and apply for funding through the normal process, so that the DBE can continue with the payments from next year on wards.

See attached presentation for further information.

Discussion
Ms L Arries (EFF) asked about the staff members or practitioners who were moving to the DBE and if the DSD could assure the Committee that the staff were not going to be worse off after the transition.

On staff being ringfenced, how many staff did this include?

It was mentioned during the presentation that the ECD staff would remain independent. Ms Arries asked for clarity on this.

ECD practitioners were like teachers, they were professionals. They studied to receive their qualifications to be ECD practitioners. When it came to their salaries, they earned very little, since the ECDs relied on funding.

Would ECD practitioners also be registered with entities, like SAQA, just as educators were?

There were ECDs, but there were no real benefits to the practitioners.

Chairperson Mbinqo-Gigaba apologised for not asking the provinces to provide their input. She asked for the provincial MECs to indicate whether they agreed with the presentation and to provide further input if required.

DBE Deputy Minister Mhaule clarified that this was a joint presentation from both the DBE and the DSD. Both Departments had been working with the provinces at an administrative level. The provinces and MECs could attest to the information presented.

Inputs by the Provincial Departments of the DBE and DSD

- EC: Not present
- FS: Mr Tate Makgoe, MEC for Education said that his Department was covered.
- GP: Mr Panyaza Lesufi, MEC for Education was attending a Cabinet meeting.
- KZN: Mr Nkosinathi Ngcobo, HoD for Education, said his Department was covered by the presentation. He
said that the MEC, Mr Kwazi Mshengu had been present.
- LP: Ms Kgomotlokoa Maibele, Director: Restorative Services at LP DSD, said her Department was covered.
The MEC and HoD were not available currently.
- NC: Not present
- MP: Ms Lucy Moyane, HoD for Education, was covered.
- NW: Ms Stephinah Semaswe, HoD for Education was covered. The MEC was in the meeting but was having connectivity challenges.
- WC: Dr Robert Macdonald, MEC for Social Development, was covered.

DSD Minister Lindiwe Zulu entered the meeting.

Discussion (continued)
Ms B Masango (DA) said that the presentation had covered “quite some ground” on clarifying questions that the Committee had had. Her questions were historical.

The levels of preparation to communicate the ECD migration process to the Committee had been substantial. She was grateful for this. A project was only as good as its level of communication.

During the public hearings on the Children’s Amendment Bill B18-2020 in the Free State, many ECD practitioners at the meeting did not support the Bill because of their grievances with the process.

She was encouraged by the fact that the presentation had mentioned that there had been summits, as had been promised during the provincial public hearings. This had done “some good” in keeping the ECD practitioners on board with the process.

Last week, the Committee on Social Development had met with SALGA which had briefed the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the function shift. She asked the presenters to clarify why SALGA had not been contacted, as it was part of the stakeholders that had been meeting regularly.

In the timelines that had been presented, SALGA was not mentioned specifically, while the ongoing stakeholder engagements had been mentioned. Where was SALGA in this process, as they were an important stakeholder in ensuring technical aspects were implemented?

In the DSD’s presentation, it was mentioned that R3.3 billion would be transferred and divided over different areas. Since this process was going to occur over a period of time and the rolling out would be gradual, would there be staff/officials at the DSD working on this? Would the budget for their salaries and related costs be staying with the DSD? What would happen to the people who were employees at the DSD but were working on this project until the handover to the DBE?

Ms S Hlongo (ANC) said that the presentation had indeed clarified many questions.

On transferring DSD social workers to the DBE, would this not affect the DSD? Currently, communities were complaining about the unavailability of DSD social workers when they were needed.

In the provinces which used their own application systems to enrol learners, would this system also apply to the ECD learners? Would this not be too much for the DBE, as parents already experienced problems with registration at the beginning of every year.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) apologised for logging into the meeting at the end of the presentation, as she had been attending the Committee on Health meeting.

On the capacity and inclusion of the small operators that had come out in the public hearings, she said that one of the biggest concerns brought up by ECD practitioners was the difficulty in being registered, among other administrative challenges. This hampered the practitioners’ ability to get compliance.

What was being done by the Department to increase capacity to respond to service providers and the ECD sector?

In the President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA), the President had put particular emphasis on stimulating economic development, specifically regarding SMMEs. Had any adjustments been made after SONA to accommodate stimulating growth within the ECD sector? The education sector was “ripe with opportunities and possibilities”.

This was moving away from the technical aspect of the presentation, but it would be good to know whether these high level priorities were being considered and whether there were adaptation strategies that had already been considered.

Ms A Abrahams (DA) said that throughout the public hearings, the majority of ECD practitioners had asked what had been happening with the ECD Presidential Stimulus Relief Fund. In slide 27, the DBE had said that the ECD stimulus fund would be supported.

What did the DBE mean by ‘supported’? Was the DBE saying that should the DSD not fulfil payment by 31 March 2022, the DBE would be taking over the verification and payment of these ECDs for the stimulus fund? She did not believe that the DBE had the capacity for this.

What was going to happen to the millions in funding after 1 April 2022? This needed to be made clear to the ECD sector. Would the sector still be receiving the Presidential Stimulus Relief Fund?

On funding, Ms Abrahams’ understanding was that there was no additional money from Treasury for the ECD migration.

If the Committees wanted to see an improvement in learning outcomes, how would the Committees see this improvement without added resources? Could the DBE presenter include in the presentation or put in writing her statement on every child being subsidised with R17? Certain provinces paid different subsidy amounts.

Could the DBE reassure the Committees that it would pay ECDs on time and in full? During lockdown, the DSD had been in court over the non-payment of ECD subsidies.

Was it R17 per child in every province? This needed to be committed in writing.

On the national school nutrition programme and the integrated schools’ health programme, by noting this in the presentation, was the DBE saying that ECDs would also be included in these school nutrition programmes?

Would the ECD conditional grants also be transferred? None of the DSD Provincial Departments had spent their full allocations last year. The DBE was also struggling with its own conditional grants.

Was underspending not putting the ECD sector at risk? During the public hearings, most of the ECDs had complained that they had been struggling with infrastructure and conditional registration.

On streamlining the registration process, was the DBE reviewing norms and standards? Had the DBE heard the ECD sector on the registration model not working? Was the DBE considering this in their planning, when they reviewed the norms and standards?

The Committees did not want to see further alienation of ECDs, particularly in rural and informal settlements. These ECDs would never be able to meet the current norms and standards, the high costs of zoning and clearing certificates. Registration was not just excluding these ECDs from government funding, but also from private sector funding and funding from private donors.

Ms Abrahams said that she would submit her more technical questions in writing via the Social Development Committee Secretary for the DBE and DSD to answer.

The DBE had said that ECDs would remain private businesses. The DBE would respect the ECDs’ independence. Since the country was still under the Disaster Management Act and there were still regulations in place, would ECDs still be recognised as independent business or as schools?

If South Africa experienced another crisis or pandemic, where would ECDs be categorised: as private businesses or under schools?

The DBE’s vision for ECD was very similar to the DSD’s plan. It would be interesting to see how, going forward, the DBE achieved what the DSD had not been able to. The improved funding and access under DBE was crucial, along with the qualifications of the ECD practitioners. It would not be ideal for the same systems to continue, just under different Departments and with different Ministers to be accountable.

Mr D Stock (ANC) said that on the work that had been presented to the Committees, he had experienced something similar in his constituency in the Northern Cape.

He noted that throughout the State of the Provinces Addresses, most Premiers had made pronouncements on the function shift being effective from 1 April. A lot of work was being done.

He expressed gratitude for both Departments, their Ministers and Deputy Ministers, for the work the DBE and DSD had done and for demonstrating their political leadership in ensuring that the functions would be transferred swiftly and without incident.

In the previous joint Portfolio Committee meeting, he had had some concerns on the technical and legal frameworks of the function shift. The presentation today had been quite elaborate and detailed. His concerns had been covered, including on the jobs of people being transferred from the DSD to the DBE.

Chairperson Mbinqo-Gigaba congratulated both Departments on the work they had done in ensuring this function shift would finally happen this year. It had been a difficult process, but had been managed well. This would assist in the future. There would be some challenges, but she hoped and trusted that both Departments had the capacity to handle whatever challenges arose.

Deputy Minister Mhaule left the meeting.

Chairperson Mbinqo-Gigaba asked if DSD had any ECD practitioner training and development in the past two years? How did the DSD strengthen the capacity of caregivers in understanding the legislation and implementation of the 0-4 year old curriculum? How had the DSD made improvements to the early learning regulatory and compliance system? How far was the process of the Second Children’s Amendment Bill?

To the DBE, on the funding that would be transferred to the DBE, how would it be allocated to the early learning programmes, particularly to cater for the caregivers?

There were home-based care and ECD playgrounds that had not been formalised. When the shift to the DBE happened, there would be some formalities. Had the DBE taken these practitioners into account?

On formal and informal education, how would the ECD practitioners with no qualifications be recognised for years of experience? There were practitioners with many years of experience doing ECD work, without qualifications. These concerns would be brought to the DBE.

Were social workers and health practitioners going to visit the provincial ECDs? This was not a shift that automatically happened all at once on 1 April. It would take time. Were such plans in place?

Ms E Siwele (ANC) sent in his question to Chairperson Mbinqo-Gigaba. He asked about the partial care certificates and how it would be handled. To date, it was difficult to obtain these certificates.

DSD Minister Lindiwe Zulu requested the DSD officials to respond to the Members’ questions.

On SALGA, Ms Sekwana explained that there were structures established using current ECD policy (approved by Cabinet in 2015) and the collaborative interdepartmental structures to address service delivery challenges. SALGA was part of that structure. This structure met on a bi-monthly basis and had been engaged on the function shift.

There was also an inter-sectoral forum with civil society and government departments. All the Departments and stakeholders, including the inter-sectoral forum, had been fully informed of the function shift.

On the transfer of social workers to the DBE, her presentation had said that this was going to affect the DSD. There was a shortage of social workers, an increase in social ills, and the impact of COVID-19 on South Africans. The DSD was at the forefront of ensuring it dealt with programmes such as psycho-social support. There was no doubt that the DSD had been affected.

The DSD had to ensure the transfer of staff, as matters concerning children and ensuring the best interests of children were also critical. The resources had to follow the function.

The DSD was preparing a strategy to ensure it dealt with the shortage of social workers and recruitment of social workers in a coordinated manner. When the DSD spoke on matters about social workers, it was not only the DSD’s responsibility. Other Departments also had a mandate to care about social workers.

As the core Department, the DSD had been coordinating and creating a strategy to deal with this. The DSD currently had a rough strategy in which it was going to involve other Departments.

On the ECD registration process, the DSD recognised that it was “cumbersome”. The DSD saw the finalisation of the Children’s Second Amendment Bill as the ultimate solution. Currently, the DSD had come up with initiatives. The DSD was working in collaboration with other Departments and municipalities.

The DSD acknowledged the fact that a “one size fits all” solution would not apply to all ECDs. On the development of the registration framework, the DSD had begun to categorise the registration into different levels.

The first level, which looked at the bare minimum for registration, was the Bronze category. This was followed by the Silver and Gold categories. The Bronze category took into account circumstances that surrounded the ECD.

On the ECD stimulus package, even though the question was posed to the DBE, this was one of the programmes which the DSD was passionate about. When the question of the ECD stimulus package had first come up, the DSD had debated extensively on the eligibility of the ECDs.

According to the Children’s Act, an ECD that was not registered, was not recognised. After discussing with the DSD Minister and Deputy Minister, it was realised that the reality was that most of the children in unregistered ECDs were in deep rural areas. The DSD needed to accommodate these children.

The DSD had come up with a policy that said that it was administering public funds. The DSD discussed how best it could ensure that it put control measures in place to properly explain to the Auditor-General.

One of the critical challenges was that ECDs needed to have a bank account. The DSD could not give funds to individuals. It would be challenging for the DSD to account for this. This was one of the challenges involved in finalising the stimulus package.

The second challenge was staff verification, as opposed to the national population register. The DSD had found that some of the people who had been included as part of the ECD staff (most of whom were employed by Government) were on PERSAL [the Government system].

The DSD had tried to do site visits, but could not as these ECDs did not exist.

The fourth challenge was that some of the applicants had not been rendering ECD services. Even though staff information had been corrected, with IDs, this had been failing.

Were these staff in existence? Were these ECDs in existence? These questions would paint a picture that would make it seem like the DSD was not doing what it was supposed to be doing.
The DSD had been able to pay more than 54 600 staff who had qualified for the stimulus package.

These ECDs kept failing verification on the above critical areas. This had delayed the consolidation of the project.

The DSD had put measures in place to ensure that it supported these ECDs. It had made calls for the ECDs to come forward. It had put the help desk into place, and put DSD staff at these help desks. Some ECDs did not come forward and those that did, sometimes gave the incorrect information.

The DSD was passionate about the ECDs. The DSD was calling for those in the ECD sector to come forward so that the DSD could work collaboratively with the ECD sector.

On whether the Department had been doing development training, the ECD policy was very clear. Even though the DSD was currently responsible for ECDs, on role clarification, it had always been the DBE’s responsibility to develop curricula for all age categories of children in ECDs.

The DBE had always been responsible for developing curricula, ensuring ECDs had been trained, and ensuring that there was continuous development. The fact that the DBE had also been constrained in some areas meant that this did not happen.

On the process of the Second Amendment Bill, the legal team would be requested to deal with this question. The legal team had been working with both Departments to ensure alignment.

On the transfer of funds, all the DSD knew was that the budget came from the DSD and was being transferred to the DBE to fulfill the ECD function.

On allocating the budget, this would be the prerogative of the DBE. The DBE also needed to be guided by what the allocations were for.

On home-based care not being formalised, home-based care went back to the rules and responsibilities of different Departments. Child-minding had always been the role of municipalities concerning the policy. The DSD needed to strengthen collaboration and coordination, so that every part of Government played its role.

This was very much an informal sector.  The DSD needed to come up with a very clear plan on how to best to assist ECDs in formalisation. The DSD was not supporting its ECDs to ensure that they were formalised. The DSD saw the ECDs as businesses, but what came first were the best interests of the child. The ECDs were regulated using the Children’s Act.

On health and social workers monitoring ECDs, part of the social workers’ (whom the DSD had transferred to the DBE) responsibilities was to monitor ECDs. There would be no social workers from the DSD moved to the DBE given the mammoth task of dealing with social ills that the DSD was faced with.

Ms Simone Geyer, DBE DDG: Delivery and Support and Acting DDG: Office of the DG Branch, said that the DBE awaited the function migration on 1 April 2022. The DBE had been planning ahead on what exactly would happen when the DBE received the ECD function.

The DBE was aware of the anxiety from the ECD practitioners and DSD staff. The DBE had been consistent in saying that what would happen on 1 April 2022 would be a transfer of funds and a legal transfer of the function’s location.

On 1 April, DBE Minister Angie Motshekga would be responsible for the ECD function. At the same time, all the funding would be transferred to the DBE. There would be no fundamental changes from the first month. The DBE would maintain what the DSD had been running.

The DBE would phase-in improvements that needed to happen. It had identified the areas it thought was possible. In these areas, it would look at “low-hanging fruits” and how it could bring about improvements.

The DBE had a very well-developed data system that it ran within its schooling sector. This data system could easily be transferred and absorb the ECD centres and registration. The DBE had been studying various appropriate means for this to happen.

The Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) section, which ran various databases for the DBE, including SA School Administration and Management System (SA-SAMS), Lurits, and EMIS, had been looking at that and working with the DSD to understand its system and to see how the DBE could transfer and synchronise it. That process would continue after the ECD transfer.

The DBE would take all the stakeholders, ECD centres, and staff that would be affected by the transfer on board, once it introduced new additions and was able to synchronise both systems.

On registration, the DBE would introduce new measures down the line. This would not happen immediately. The DBE needed to understand what was possible before making improvements.

The DBE’s aim was to maximise what it currently had in the schooling system and extend it into the ECD space. The DBE ran a well-established nutrition programme and it maximised on economies of scale.

The information the DBE would receive form the DSD and the further research and discussions that would take place when the function is transferred to the DBE would look at the extent to which the DBE could extend the nutrition programme that was currently run in DBE into the ECD space. This would not happen immediately, as not all the information had been captured from the DSD systems.

The DBE would have to better understand the circumstances. It had started a discussion inside the DBE around this and another discussion with Treasury on including a third component of the conditional nutrition grant and how the DBE could extend this. The DBE would have to look at the value of the conditional grant per child and how it could extend improvements on what the money was spent on.

Where the DBE could absorb this through different funding, where there were already systems in place at the Department, it would do that. The advantage of this would be that the Department could free up the funding that was currently allocated per child. If it was able to maximise on the economies of scale that it had in its current system, it could direct this funding for much-needed improvements.

One of the things the DBE wished to work on after the transfer was to build on minimum resource packages for 0-4-year-olds. This would include materials, resources and toy libraries that needed to be provided to young learners to stimulate learning at an early age. The DBE would see if some of the transferred funding could be allocated or ringfenced to introduce the minimum resource package.

This would be used in all areas of ECD, not just in ECD centres, but also in home care and play groups. The home care and play groups were not necessarily practitioners. The DBE would ensure that all people involved were trained on stimulating young learners in a uniform way across the country.

These were very large programmes and could not happen in one year. The DBE would look at a phased-in approach. In the later years, the DBE would indicate how it would be building this system, so that it “took everyone along with it”.

There was a misinformed expectation from many that the ECD practitioners would become teachers. This was not possible. ECD practitioners had a specific development programme to get to NQF Level 7. It was only at NQF Level 7 that qualifications could be translated.

There was a very clear translation into a teacher. The DBE had looked into translating practitioners at NQF Level 7 into teachers (this had occurred even before the ECD function shift). These practitioners were then able to teach at a public school as teachers.

There was a difference between an ECD practitioner who had not reached that level and an ECD practitioner who had met those standards and had been able to translate.

The DBE had had discussions with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and there was a new career path that DHET had established, which did not necessarily translate ECD practitioners into teachers.

The DBE encouraged the ECD practitioners’ learning and development, so that this translated into a career path that matched what was required in an ECD space. This was not necessarily a degree. It could be a diploma, or something specialised for that area.

This was not only for those who were teaching the learners or the curriculum. This would also develop other career paths for those who cared for the learners.

Over the coming years, the DBE would develop a very clear career path for ECD. The sector would have conditions of service and salary scales that could be created within the sector. This would be specific to the ECD space. The DBE would look at getting additional funding for this.

ECD centres could be run just as independent schools were run. Many ECD centres were on private property and had been established as a running business, just as independent schools were. The DBE would need to develop a model that worked with independent schools on how to capture data, allocate EMIS numbers, and allocate information on staffing components, levels of different occupations within that centre, and the norms and standards in HR matters, along with educational and care & support matters. The DBE would also look at how these centres should be run and the compliances going forward.

There was a large area of work that still needed to be done. The DBE had already done a lot of the initial work. It had a concept document on its vision on what it wanted to do. This could not happen on 1 April. There were funding aspects that had been allocated to this.

The DBE had started looking to maximise what it currently had on offer, which it could now absorb. This would free up additional funding in the current allocations in ECD that the DBE could redirect for new improvements.

On the area of qualifications, the DBE acknowledged that there were currently many staff in the ECD space without qualifications but had years of experience. The DBE had been mapping out career paths so that not everyone felt forced into being an ECD practitioner.

Just like in the schooling space, there were not only teachers, there were also other employees that helped run the system. In the same way, the DBE had envisaged that those who had years of experience in ECD and had given their lives to looking after children, would still be able to continue with their work. The DBE would not force them to become practitioners.

The DBE would offer training programmes and opportunities for employees in the ECD space to build skills and qualifications.

The DBE was looking forward to taking over the ECD function on 1 April. It would continue to provide information and how it could improve the ECD space. This could only happen once the DBE received confirmation from Treasury that it was allowed to do this and approval from Treasury for additional funding.

Chairperson Mvana reconnected.

Ms Abrahams noted the DSD’s response to the ECD stimulus package and said that it did not answer her question. What would happen to the money on 1 April 2022? Would the ECD staff still be paid that money? Would the funds remain for this purpose or would the funds be lost?

Ms Makwena responded that the intention of the DSD, if it was in the DSD’s power, was to consolidate this project before the end of the financial year.

The dependencies were also on the sector. If the sector did not come forward, or came forward with incorrect information/information that had failed verification, then this had major implications on questions of staff members and the ECD centre actually existing.

The consolidation would not happen if the DSD did not get cooperation from the ECD sector.

The DSD would ask Treasury if a roll-over was possible, because it would have verified if the ECD centres existed. Unfortunately, this would happen near the end of the financial year.

The DSD would work together with the DBE to ensure that all the projects were consolidated to ensure that the ECDs were not disadvantaged.

Ms Arries asked about the Cabinet Resolution of 2018. [The Cabinet resolution taken in 2018 affirmed that Social Workers need to be appointed by all departments that require social workers, with a specific lead from Departments such as Social Development, Basic Education, Health, Defense and Correctional Services]. Had the DBE appointed social workers? Why had these social workers not been deployed to help the ECDs? This was keeping in mind that the DSD had a huge shortage of social workers.

Ms Geyer said that when there was a function shift, the DSD could not send the function without sending some staff members to do the function. Currently, those employees were in the DSD. If these staff were working in the ECD space, then they had to move with the function.

It was up to the DSD to identify those staff members – those who worked in the ECD space and those who had to follow the function to the DBE. If they were social workers, then the DBE would receive the social workers to work in ECD. If they were public service staff, then this would be the allocation.

This had been identified in the P-MARG (spelling unconfirmed) and the N-MARG (spelling unconfirmed), which were legal documents that covered the process of the function shift. This allocated how many staff members would be transferred, included their job descriptions and what they had previously done.

The DBE welcomed all staff members, whether they were social workers or public servants. It had not specified the category of the workers, as it had left it to the DSD to decide. The DSD had formally allocated this in the documents submitted to Cabinet.

The DBE was then receiving social workers. It had a lot of social care and support work, so welcomed the skilled employees from the DSD. The DBE and the DSD worked collaboratively and as sister Departments. The functions of both Departments were all in the space of looking after children.

Minister’s Closing Remarks
DSD Minister Lindiwe Zulu thanked Chairperson Mvana for inviting her and DBE Minister Angie Motshekga to the Committee meeting.

Minister Zulu indicated that from the time she had joined the DSD, Minister Motshekga had already been with the DBE. On the decisions that had been made for the ECD migration, she had done her best, together with the DSD, to ensure that it implemented the decision that had already been made.

It was important to recall that this migration to the DBE was premised on the best interests of the child. When she had first started, she found the reasons for the migration difficult to understand. After the process had been explained to her, particularly on the importance of preparing a child for school, the DSD had decided to push for this process.

The DSD could assure the Committees that the ECD function would migrate to the DBE on 1 April.

The presentations had shown what the DSD and DBE have been working on, including the seven key elements that were presented. The provincial level task teams had been established in all nine provinces and this had also been adequately covered.

During the medium-term budget policy statement, the Minister of Finance had tabled the function migration. This had also been covered adequately.

The two Departments (DSD and DBE) continued to work on ensuring the funding was received timeously by the ECD sector.

Minister Zulu thanked the Chairpersons and Members of both Committees for their relentless guidance, and the Provincial MECs, without whom the progress achieved to date would not have been possible in the provinces.

This was one government, so the migration should not be seen in isolation of the overall plan and the proper coordination between the Departments. It was in the interests of government to ensure children were ready for school. These were children who were going to be future scientists, doctors, engineers. It started when they entered school, not when they started matric or university.

She said that Minister Motshekga would have said the same in closing, as both Departments had been working very closely together on this project.

Chairperson Mvana thanked everyone for attending the meeting and apologised for the hacking that had occurred earlier, which had been her first experience of hacking.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: