Integrated Quality Management System Implementation: Department briefing
Basic Education
20 June 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
20 JUNE 2006
INTEGRATED QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
Chair: Prof
S M Mayatula (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Report on the
implementation of the IQMS
SUMMARY
The Department of Education informed the Committee on the implementation of
the Integrated Quality Management System. It explained the challenges that the
Department was facing in schools and how it was being dealt with. Members felt
that the development and performance of teachers needed to be separated and
dealt with by two different systems.
MINUTES
Presentation by Department of Education
Mr F Patel, Deputy Director-General: Systems and Planning, Department of
Education, addressed the Committee as in the document attached.
Discussion
The Chair thanked Mr Patel for the presentation. He asked for an explanation of
the other documents that they had received.
Mr Patel explained that the documents were the tools that were used in the
Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS). He pointed out that performance
standard 1 was the creation of a positive learning environment. He explained
how the scoring would be done in this case. The observers would look at the
effort that the teacher had made to create a positive learning environment in
the class and rate the teacher against this. The other document was an audit
tool that the provinces could use to check at which level IQMS was implemented.
Mr R S Ntuli (ANC) said that the documents were long and he was worried about
the time factor involved in the implementation of the system. He asked if the
system was piloted and if the system had been tested. He emphasised the
involvement of the district office as they had to give guidance in the whole
process. He wanted to know how teacher development was monitored and measured.
Three teachers from each school were trained and were expected to pass down the
information to the others. He felt that this was not sufficient as teachers’
workloads were great. The training of principals needed to be given more
attention.
Mr Patel said that the documents were long, but that these were the agreements
that had been reached between the various stakeholders. The actual instrument however
was a checklist which was simpler to use. The system had been tested and had
taken a long time to finalise. It had taken four to five years to get
agreement. There was a process underway which would ensure that districts
played a greater role in the process. The Minister had also indicated that she
was keen for this to happen. Referring to teacher development he said that the
school had to put a development plan in place once all assessments were done.
Circuits and districts were then expected to put their own development plans in
place based on the various school development needs. He added that training
three teachers per school was sufficient. He did feel that more could have been
done in the training of principals.
Mr G Boinamo (DA) said that the assessment of teachers could not take place in
isolation. It needed to take all the other stakeholders into account as well as
district teams, provincial departments, the national department, parents and
learners. He added that in most cases, learners concentrated on their rights
and not on learning. This caused problems for educators. The involvement of
parents was also important. It was also important to remember that one could
not judge educators on their management of the classroom. In some cases, the
ratio was 1:65. In this case, educators could not control the classes. It was
therefore important not to hold educators responsible alone for the management
of learners.
Mr Patel agreed that evaluations were the responsibility of all. Teachers
however were 95% in charge of learning in the classroom. The contextual
factors, such as infrastructure, the type of community, etc was taken into
account when evaluations were done. He said that a ratio of 1:65 should not
happen. If this was still happening, it should be reported. If it was the fault
of the management of the school, it should be dealt with. If the problem was
the fault of the province or district, this would need to be attended to.
Ms P Mashangoana (ANC) asked what the role of the unions was in the whole
process of IQMS. She also wanted to know whether the teachers were given a
chance to get feedback on their evaluations.
Mr Patel said that it was important to get the unions involved. The Department
had engaged them all the way in the process. They were not involved in the
implementation but were involved in the training however. They had provided
valuable input in the system. Educators were given a chance to get feedback on
their assessment. The challenge however was to get educators to agree on given
scores. There was however a dispute process if educators were not happy with
their assessment.
Ms J Matsomela (ANC) pointed out that the document referred to critical success
factors that had to be present for the system to work. She asked if these
things were in place before the process began. She questioned the effectiveness
of the moderation by the school management team and the circuit manager. She
felt that the consequences of poor performance were very clearly spelt out. The
benefits of an educator performing well however were not very clear. This
needed to be emphasised more than the negatives.
Mr Patel said that they had the choice to wait for all the critical success
factors to be in place before the system was implemented. Many of these efforts
were school based and were out of the Department's control. The decision was
therefore to start. There was sufficient documentation for the process to
proceed and for schools to provide everything that was needed. The development
needs of teachers created a big challenge for the system. Teachers did not want
to show up their development needs. They felt that their rating would be low
and that although they would be getting development, they would not get an
increment in their salary. This was an issue that had to be taken up with the
unions again as the objectives if IQMS was being lost. The rewards however were
very clear. If the educators did not perform satisfactorily, they did not
receive the 1% increment in their salary. If their rating was good three years
in a row, they would get 1% each year plus 2% in the third year. It was now
possible for teachers to move from one grade to another even though they might
not be in a promotion post. It would therefore be possible for a teacher to be
earning the salary of a deputy principal without being in that post.
Ms Matsomela (ANC) added that the rewards were clear. She felt though that the
emphasis had to be on the rewards for teachers and not on what would happen to
them if they did not perform.
Mr A Gaum (ANC) said that he saw that there was reward for good performance and
consequences for bad performance. Teachers had been in the privileged position
where there had been no consequences for poor performance. He wanted to know
how the system actually worked in practice. Referring to the external
moderators, he asked what their role was and how this could be done without
being involved directly. He also questioned whether the evaluation indicators
were scrutinised by lawyers as some of these could be difficult to evaluate
objectively. He wanted to know whether there were any plans for the NEED unit
to be implemented at provincial and district level. He also asked what the
linkage was between IQMS and the Whole School Evaluation system.
Mr Patel thanked Members for their comments which he found helpful. The
implementation was a learning process for the Department. He explained that the
process involved a self-evaluation by the teacher. They then chose a peer that
would observe them in the classroom and be part of their support group. They
are given feedback and a personal growth plan is developed for the teacher. The
school development team takes all the plans to draw up a development plan for
the school. Once this baseline assessment is done, a summative assessment is
done. He emphasised that this assessment only measured input and not learner
performance. The summative assessments are submitted to the district office. If
the teacher has achieved a satisfactory rating they will get a 1% increment in
their salary. The various school development plans would be used by the
district to develop a district development plan. This part of the process
however was not happening yet. Mr Patel explained that the Whole School
Evaluation was used to assess the system and targeted the worst 20% of schools.
A thorough evaluation would be done including management, resources,
performance etc. There was not much movement here however as the process was
very resource intensive. These schools are then monitored to see if there is
any improvement. In the case where a school was not doing well at all, closure
of that school would be considered. This would involve transferring teachers to
other schools and re-opening the school with new teachers.
Mr B Mthembu (ANC) said that he appreciated the effort made by the Department.
Evaluations and teacher accountability was a difficult area to work in. He had
a concern however that the Department was using one instrument for teacher
accountability as well as teacher development and pay incentive. He was
concerned that in the process of integration, teacher development may be
comprised. The instrument used the minimum standards which were pre-determined
in order to have uniformity. This meant that there was not enough focus on
quality and it also promoted mediocrity. For quality education the move had to
made from minimum standards to a higher level of education. The instrument
would therefore not improve education. The instrument had to be uncoupled so
that there would be one for accountability and one for teacher accountability.
The system at present was good for accountability but not for development. At
the operational level there were problems such as dishonesty and capacity.
There were cases where people had moved notches without going through the whole
process. Even principals were guilty of this.
Mr I Vadi (ANC) said that in the old regime, the Department had decided on the
instrument to be used. Teachers had no say in what it would be. The inspector
would decide on everything such as whether a teacher would be permanent or not
and whether the teacher would get a merit notch. The same inspector could make
things difficult if the teacher was involved in politics. The whole system
therefore tended to be negative. He understood the new system to have a
self-evaluation, a peer evaluation and then a classroom visit by the school
management team to confirm scores given. This would then go to the district
office. The primary concern in the process had to be development. When this was
linked to remuneration or promotion, the same mistakes would be made as in the
past. He suggested that an outside agency be used to assess teachers for
promotion or remuneration. This should not be the responsibility of the
district office.
Promotions at the moment were based on interviews. He suggested that the
assessment tool be sent with the teacher's application from school to school,
so that it could be used for promotion purposes. Merit notches were done on the
basis of recommendations in the past. He felt that if a teacher felt they were
worthy of a merit increase, they should be able to ask an outside agency to
come and evaluate them for this. Schools however were not taking the present
system serious and were just doing it as routine. It was therefore important to
separate the function of development and accountability. The district should be
focused on development while an outside agency dealt with promotions.
Mr Patel agreed with Members that there were problems in the system. He agreed
that separation of the functions was required. The Minister had suggested that
an outside structure be used to do assessments. This was still at a conceptual
stage at the moment. This would be a national body while provinces would be
responsible for development. The Department has been over ambitious and would
need to open the debate once again with the unions. This would be a challenge
for the Department to work on. Despite the problems, it was important to
remember that for many years teachers were not assessed; yet they received
their increments.
Ms L Maloney (ANC) said that evaluations were not a private matter. The
community should also know what was happening. She suggested that a notice
board be put up outside the school to show the teachers that were performing
well.
Mr Ntuli (ANC) stressed once again that principals were crucial in the process
and many times caused problems. It was important to make them more responsible.
Mr Patel said that the Department was dealing with the issues around
principals. New standards around leadership and principalship were being
investigated. The teaching time of principals was also being looked at. Circuit
managers and district managers’ roles were also being examined. Announcements
around this would be made soon. The Council of Education Ministers had already
approved a draft document which spelt out criteria around leadership for school
managers. This would be going out for public comment soon.
Mr Gaum (ANC) asked if IQMS was the system that was being used now as there had
been quite a few systems that had been used.
Mr Patel explained that there had been about four or five systems that had
developed separately. The Development Appraisal system was not linked to
performance reward, but was more focused on development. The unions had
indicated that the Department was neglecting this issue of reward. The
Performance Management System was then introduced. The Whole School Evaluation
process was then introduced to measure schools. This looked at all facets of
school such as management, resources, context etc. A fourth system, Systemic
Evaluation, was focused on learner performance. It was in this context that the
IQMS came about which sought to link everything. It was focused on teacher
development and performance.
The Chair said that he would like to know what percentage received the 1%
increment. He also wanted to know what was being done in Limpopo and the
Eastern Cape, where there had been problems.
Mr Patel said that in Limpopo capacity had been a problem and that this was being
dealt with. In the Eastern Cape there had been labour problems which had been
difficult to sort out.
Ms Maloney (ANC) said that she was not happy that schools would be closed. The
Department should rather look at getting good teachers into schools that were
not performing.
Mr Patel said that the closure of schools was not a Department policy. It was
only mentioned as a possible mechanism. The closure did not mean that the
school as a physical structure would close. The staff would be redeployed and
then re-opened the next day with a new staff and new vision and mission.
The Chair thanked the Department for the presentation. The meeting was
adjourned
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
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.