Analysis of Examination Results; Learnership Attainment Strategy: Department briefing
Basic Education
13 February 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
13 February 2007
ANALYSIS OF EXAMINATION RESULTS; LEARNERSHIP ATTAINMENT STRATEGY: DEPARTMENT
BRIEFING
Chairperson: Prof S Mayatula (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Analysis of Examination Results and the Learner Attainment Strategy
Department of Education Senior Certificate Technical Report 2006
available on www.education.gov.za
shortly
Audio Recording of the meeting
SUMMARY
The Department of Education briefed the Committee on the outcomes of the
2006 matric examinations as well as on the National Strategy for Learner
Attainment. Members’ concerns focused on how to improve the quality of education
especially to obtain more matric endorsements, gateway subjects, better focus
on foundation phase teaching, “no fee” schools and national examinations prior
to matric. Everyone agreed that success at matric level depended upon the
foundations laid in Grades R to 3. The Department pointed out that there was a
marked improvement in the performance of schools that had had a smaller than
20% pass rate in 2005. It emphasised
that their improvement was not due to more resources, but due to greater monitoring,
involvement and supervision.
MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the Committee’s first meeting of the
year. He expressed regret that the Committee was not allowed to attend that
morning’s media briefing by the Minister of Education. The Chairperson
suggested that, since Members had spent the first two weeks of the session
visiting schools, they should draw on their experiences on those visits to add
to the discussion.
Director General of the Department of Education’s opening remarks.
Mr Duncan Hindle, Director General of the Department of Education wished
the Committee well for the New Year. He reminded the Committee that although
for Parliament this was the beginning of the year, in education the year
started on 29 December. He apologised that the Committee had not been allowed
to attend the media briefing and undertook to make the media statement
available to the Committee as soon as possible. He said that many of the issues
that had been raised through questions there would have been very important for
the Committee and encouraged the Chairperson to take the matter up with the
Government Communication and Information Service (CGIS).
He said that the DOE had a number of issues that it would like to propose for
presentation during 2007, and looked forward to interacting with the Committee
in that regard. There was some legislation, including an Education Laws
amendment bill that the Minister was preparing. As indicated during that
morning’s media briefing, Minister Pandor was keen to, by July 2007, have
concluded the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) review process, which in
itself could lead to a wide ranging set of legislative amendments and the
Committee might be involved in that for much of the year.
That day’s interaction would focus on an assessment of the last year’s
activities of which the matric results, though not a perfect indicator was a
key factor. They would present the matric examination results and reflect a bit
on the learner attainment strategy and other strategies for improving the
system.
Presentation
Ms Penny Vinjevold, Deputy Director General of Education, made the
presentation which took members through national pass rates, examination
administration related issues, and matters related to the 2006 senior certificate
examination. She also talked members through the results which showed a marked
improvement from the previous years’ ones. The latter part of the presentation
focussed on the National Strategy for Learner Attainment (NSLA) which sought to
raise earner achievement from Grader R straight to Grade 12.
Discussion
The Chairperson pointed out that in the former Transkei high schools
only comprised Grades 10 to 12, whereas in the rest of the country they
comprised Grades 6 to 12. He wondered whether the DOE was aware of this
‘anomaly’ and queried whether it might not impact on the matric results in this
region.
Mr Hindle admitted that the situation in the former Transkei had been plaguing
the DOE, who had tried to make an assessment of the situation, for a long time.
Each possible model they tried to impose had to be abandoned due to one or the
other challenge (e.g. availability of classrooms). He said that “given the
complexities of where we are” it had been difficult to impose a particular
model and organisation of schools onto the system in that region. The
Chairperson’s comment had been heard and the DOE would return to the issue to
see if they could bring about more order. He also explained that there was no
reason that learners at a school catering for only grades 10 to 12, should do
worse in matric. Success at senior secondary level depended more on quality of
preparation earlier in the schooling process.
The Chairperson wondered whether the doing away of national certificates other
than the matric certificate, and thus the absence of a national assessment tool
at primary and junior levels, did not contribute to South Africa’s low
international rating. He wondered whether there was any possibility of
reinstating national examinations prior to matric.
Mr Hindle reminded the Committee that the DOE had made a commitment to
introduce a General Education and Training Certificate (GETC) at the end of
Grade 9. Early estimates had indicated that R 300 million would have had to be
spent on the administration of an external exam and certificates at that level.
Evidences of course also indicated that 99% of children today did not leave
school after Grade 9, but merely continued to Grade 10. The idea of an
expensive external exam to get you from Grade 9 to Grade 10 did not really make
sense.
He added that more what was of more importance to the DOE was building
standards towards introducing a GETC. To introduce such an exam one needed to
be sure that learners, teachers schools were prepared for it. The Department
had for the past 6 years been running the Common Tasks for Assessments (CTA),
which he was aware had caused some “discomfort”. The CTA had now been refined
and revised to much more acceptable approach and now had to be administered in
every single Grade 9 classroom across the country. The CTAs were aimed at
building expectations among teachers, learners and schools about what is
expected at the end of Grade 9 so that when South Africa did introduce the
GETC, as the Minister had indicated she wanted to do in the next year or two,
they would already have an idea of what the GETC would look like and what
standards it should be setting.
The DOE was now on a regular basis doing systemic evaluations of about 35 000
randomly selected Grade 3 and 6 learners. This systemic evaluation assessment
were being distributed to all schools, so that even if you were not part of the
35 000 sample, every Grade three teacher had a copy of the tests and new what
learners were expected to do. Following an analysis of the results of the assessments
the DOE provided feedback to the teachers in the form of booklets to show what
learners did well in and what they needed to improve on as well as how to do
so. This contributed to a common understanding of what standards should be. The
DOE was not simply doing the test but was also paying attention to ongoing
remedial action.
Commenting on South Africa’s apparent poor performance compared to other,
sometimes poorer countries, Mr Hindle explained that when dealing with such
statistics, it was important to consider how many of those countries’ students
made it through to matric level. Most of the testing for these statistics was
done at the secondary or perhaps an equivalent to Grades 10, 11 and 12. Many
other countries got a higher pass rate when studied by these researchers,
because a far smaller proportion of their learners moved from a primary to a
secondary stage. Many of them had already selected the top students that would
go through to secondary schooling and they were the ones that got tested.
85% of South African learners now advanced to matric – these included the good
and not so good learners. South Africa placed dual emphasis: access (getting as
many learners as possible through the system), and quality (making sure that
they did as well as possible). While other countries focussed on quality, and
were “prepared to abandon learners and the imperative for access in order to
get that so called quality.”
The Chairperson raised concerns about unprofessional teacher behaviour –
arriving at school late, leaving school early, and high levels of absence. He
thought it unfortunate that school governing bodies (SGB) did not feel that it
was their responsibility to address these matters, which ultimately impacted on
learner performance.
Mr Hindle agreed that teacher behaviour impacted on learner performance.
The schools that succeeded were the ones that worked harder and put in the
extra effort through morning, afternoon, Saturday and holiday classes for
instance. This indicated that the message of time on task was getting through.
Through the Education Laws Amendment Bill and whatever other instruments they
might need, the DOE would look at ways of emphasising the role SGBs played as
far as educational quality was concerned. Much more emphasis had so far been
placed on their role in terms of governance, financial management and
infrastructure, while their role in ensuring quality education had not been
clearly defined. This would be a long term process. One also needed to change
the understanding of what a good school was. He added that while much attention
was focussed on under performance, not enough was paid to acknowledging the
success stories of those schools that now had an understanding of what a good
school was.
Mr A Gaum (ANC) was concerned about the schools that achieved a below
20% pass rate. He felt that it appeared as though since 2003 a ceiling had been
reached. One could not be sure whether the DOE’s strategies were indeed
working, because the mechanisms in place did not really address continued under
performance. Though the quality and standard of the 2006 matric results were
commendable, little progress had been made as far as ensuring that learners got
endorsements, did science and mathematics and subjects on higher grade. He wondered
whether the DOE had any new strategies in the pipeline for improving
performance in these subjects as well as for improving literacy and numeracy
levels.
Mr Hindle pointed out that those schools that had a below 20% pass rate,
were not necessarily the same ones that had that rating the year before. As
indicated in the presentation 99 schools had improved their rating, 7 of which
moving from a below 20% pass rate to an above 80% pass rate. Evidence thus
suggested that these poorly performing schools did nit remain static but moved
out of that particular bracket. The successes could be ascribed to
interventions which saw the underperforming schools getting much more
attention, support and monitoring. He added that this support was not in the
form of more money or more resources.
He had the previous week appointed the former head of the Mpumelanga education
department, Dr Mashinini, to head up a task team that would work with the 130
odd underperforming schools. He would be visiting each one of them to determine
what kind of support they needed. The DOE was encouraged that various
organisations, including teacher unions, had offered to “adopt” some of these
schools to give them more support. The DOE would now have to ensure that such
support was spread among all the schools that needed it. The DOE would in 2007
provide a list of 130 schools that could be ‘adopted’ in this manner. It would
be wonderful if each member of the Committee could perhaps take responsibility
for just one such a school. The DOE was concerned about those schools that had
deteriorated.
Mr Hindle said that the DOE recognised that there was a concern around
endorsements and that the kind of progress they would like was not being made.
He believed that teachers’ quality of preparation and content knowledge, as
well as their distribution played a role. There were schools that offered maths
but did not have a qualified maths teacher, while there was a number of other
schools that had up to eight or none such teachers “locked up in one school”.
This was a consequence to the approach to appointments which were largely
managed by schools themselves. The Minister had asked the DOE to reconsider the
matter so that they could ensure that each high school had at east one
qualified maths teacher, especially considering that maths literacy was now a
compulsory part of the school programme.
Ms Vinjevold felt that while the DOE had to “deepen and broaden” some of the
things they did, there was no need for a new strategy. From studies they knew
that three things made a difference: time, teachers and textbooks. The DOE had
never before spoken so sharply about time and textbooks. The DOE would be doing
a survey of textbooks, and would insist that district officials monitor schools
and the time spent teaching. Teachers’ content knowledge was a medium and long
term strategy which the DOE tried to address through the teacher framework. The
DOE had developed a forty week work schedule aimed at giving teachers guidance
and direction. This would make it easy for the DOE and the committee to monitor
coverage and pace of teaching. In addition they were also issuing exemplars of
what the standards should be at the various grades. All of these supported
teachers.
Mr G Boinamo (DA) emphasised the importance of inculcating a culture of
learning in learners as well as teachers so that learners could be prepared to
pass and pass well from as early as Grade 1.
Mr Hindle responded that it was essential to start building from firm
foundations set as early as the pre-school Grade R level. This was where the
basis for later success as far as literacy and numeracy should be developed and
strengthened. In the end the firm foundations aid at these levels would make
success possible. The Minister put much emphasis on the literacy and numeracy
strategy.
Mr Boinamo felt that the doing away with colleges for primary school
teacher training had left a vacuum: university trained teachers were not
trained to deal with younger children, and thus failed to give them the firm
foundation needed to facilitate success.
Mr Hindle responded that the public perception was that the colleges had
been closed, when in fact they had been incorporated into universities.
Universities had historically focussed on high school teaching, but that had
since changed and they now focused on foundation phase as well as high school
training.
Ms P Mashangoana (ANC) commended the delegation for the support it had
shown the Minister at that morning’s media briefing. She wondered what short
term measures had been put in place to address textbook shortages. At one of
the schools the Committee had visited up to four learners were sharing one
textbook. She mentioned that in some areas learners had to travel long
distances so that they could do math and science subjects which were not
offered in the schools in their areas.
Mr Hindle said that the DOE was always presently surprised at the Minister’s
handling of media briefings. He agreed that textbooks were vital, especially in
the absence of a good qualified and prepared teacher. The DOE was dealing with
the matter at the moment. The Department had made a commitment to provide all
Grade 10s with the seven textbooks they needed, but had been unable to deliver.
He added that much of the scene for the remainder of the year was set within
the first few days of the school year. If teachers were not serious and
textbooks and other material were not available then it sends the wrong message
to learners. The Department was now giving serious consideration to the
production of learner workbooks, which they would aim to make available to all
learners or on before the first day of school. This would mean that all
learners would have the minimum requirements to pursue the subjects they were
doing, on their desks. These would not replace textbooks but would serve as a
minimum requirement until the textbooks became available.
Around the availability of science as well as other subjects, Mr Hindle said
that this pointed to the attention needed in terms of curriculum redress. The
DOE had to ensure that the curriculum offerings in matric were offered across
the country so that learners did not have to leave their homes or travel long
distances just to have access to the subjects they wanted to do.
Ms M Matsomela (ANC) wondered what had contributed to the closing of the
gender gap as far as the results were concerned.
Ms Vinjevold explained that both boys’ and girls’ performance had
improved, but that girls improved faster.
Ms Matsomela said that during school visits they observed that underperforming
schools were preparing a business plan and had to indicate their weaknesses and
strengths. She wondered what happened what interventions the DOE took once they
recognised what a school needed.
Mr Hindle said that every school was obliged to develop a development plan as
per the requirements of the SGB. Many of these plans spoke of infrastructure
that needed to be improved, while very few mentioned the need improving
learning outcomes, and get better quality. He said that a number of provinces
had indicated that they were becoming much more rigorous in the manner in which
they assessed development plans. This applied to all schools, not only the
under performing ones.
Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) noted that there was a large gap between rural and
urban districts. The highest performing urban schools were also mostly those
that had previously been for whites only. Rural districts performed the worst.
He wondered whether the DOE had a special strategy in place for addressing the
needs of these schools.
Mr Hindle agreed that rural urban differences were still a pattern al across
South Africa. The DOE had a ministerial committee on rural education and was
now working with the recommendations it had made. That Committee had concluded
that small, rural schools were neither financially nor, more importantly
educationally, viable. This situation was worse in the case of farm schools on
privately owned and where landowners did not sign Section 14 agreements.
In the Free State and the North West these very small rural schools were
amalgamated at central points and learners boarded there, going home at
weekends. While in principle the DOE was not really in favour of boarding
schools, they felt that these context provided the learners a better
opportunity at success. These schools were also more cost effective, and he had
no doubt that it was also educationally more effective. He added that there
would always be rural schools and the DOE would have to consider at what size one
simply lost all the benefits that one would normally gain from being at school.
Mr B Mosala (ANC) said that teachers who went to examination marking centres
often complained about the catering and accommodation there. Such bad
facilities impacted on the morale of the markers. He wondered whether the DOE
could deploy officials to monitor the conditions under which marking took
place.
Ms Vinjevold responded that both the DOE and Umalusi monitored all marking
centres. It was an ongoing problem but they were addressing it.
Mr Mosala wondered whether the DOE was satisfied with the system of
invigilation.
Ms Vinjevold explained that invigilators were trained every year as part
of the ongoing process of improving quality. It was only in the Western Cape
that community members were also involved in the invigilation. The DOE did
random spot checks to see that the invigilation went well. These processes were
improved on every year so as to ensure the integrity of the examinations.
The Chairperson said that’s some of the matriculants in his constituency
had wondered why their exam scripts had never been returned to them and why
they had to pay if they wanted their papers remarked. Some wondered why in this
“era of transparency” there was still some secrecy around the exams.
Ms Vinjevold explained that if there was no fee attached everyone would want to
have their papers remarked. The DOE had in the last few years tried to reduce
the fees; in some cases if the learner made a very strong argument the fee may
be waived. At this point the fee could not be taken away. With 850 000 learners
writing 6 papers each, returning the scripts would be a logistic nightmare.
Learners could apply to, for free, see their scripts in a supervised way. The
DOE kept papers for two to three years in case someone wanted to have theirs
remarked.
Prof Mayatula requested an update on the options available to learners who
failed Grade 11.
Ms Vinjevold said that there was approximately 860 000 learners in
Grade11 in 2006. In 2005 the DOE wrote into policy that if you failed and you
were an older person and did not want to proceed on the new curriculum, you
would have the opportunity until 2011 to write the exam on the old curriculum.
The most qualitative approach however would be for those learners who were
still young to proceed on the new curriculum. This was still the approach the
DOE promoted.
The DOE had opened up the opportunities to write exams on the old
curriculum. Those who wanted to leave school or wanted to do it part-time or
through the distance centres could to still write the senior certificate
progressively. They could also write the exams through the Further Education
and Training (FET) colleges, which now also offered bursaries or could get
involved in learnerships. She added that in 2006 approximately 180 000 Grade
11s failed. The provinces were dealing with schools individually to ensure that
no one was disadvantaged and that everyone was encouraged to continue with
their education.
Prof Mayatula raised a number of concerns related to no funding schools. The
biggest dilemma facing Quintile 2 schools, was that the money only became
available in April. According to the cat schools were not allowed to collect
fees. He wondered what transitional arrangements had bee placed to address
these schools financial needs between January and April. The Committee would
need a more detailed presentation on the matter. In the Eastern Cape on got the
sense that the “no fee” school budget “pushed down by the Minister, had not
landed”. Al these schools budget had to function on very small budgets.
Mr Gaum added that he thought that poorer schools were declared as “no fee”
schools yet he saw media reports of a school that had not applied to be
declared as such, having received that status.
Mr Hindle explained that it was National Treasury that made funds
available to the provincial treasuries. Many schools were in the position the
Chairperson had described. They would get money in April and in virtually all
cases it would be far more than they would ever have been able to raise in
fees. They would have their funding and would be able to manage the year far
better than before. The DOE had given instruction to every province to release
a “petty cash” amount to schools. Provinces were saying that they could not
release funds yet because until they did not have the results of the tenth day
survey they would not know how many learners would be attending the schools.
The DOE had advised to go ahead and release the money based on the previous
year’s figures, and to then reconcile figures at a later stage. Mpumalanga ad
done this already and the DOE would advise other provinces to do so too. He
added that because this was the first year there had been some problems –
schools would be expected to manage the allocation they received in April so
that it lasted until the following April. The Minster of Finance had picked up
on the concern and had indicated that he should be approached should there be
any serious problems. He added that the DOE wanted to be clear that the no fees
schools should be schools of choice and not just “some deprived and
disadvantaged” schools.
The DOE felt that all quintile one and two schools i.e. 40% of schools in the
country should be included. There was a very clear indication around how the
declaration of the schools was to take place. In the end provinces were given
discretion to move schools so that those schools that accommodated poorer
learners benefited. He added that provinces were obliged to consult with
schools before declaring them “no fee” schools.
He asked Members to if they became aware of schools that had clearly been put
in the wrong category they should let the DOE know, so that they could take it
up with the provinces. He believed that the system of “no fee” schools was a
valuable one, and the President had given direction that their number had to be
expanded.
The Chairperson said that he was surprised that in the Western Cape schools
were not familiar with “quintiles” - in Oudtshoorn not a single school or
official new what quintiles were.
Mr Hindle felt that is question would be better posed to the Western Cape Head
of Education. He could not believe that any school was unfamiliar with it.
Schools took this very seriously because the quintile they were in determined
how much money they did not get.
Mr Mpotshane wondered how influential unions were especially as far as the
appointment and dismissal of teachers was concerned. He referred to a case
where an undisciplined teacher had been reappointed out of fear that unions
would cause problems.
Mr Hindle said that he thought that the dynamic was shifting. The South African
Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) was very proud of how schools had performed
in the last matric examinations. A school in Khayelitsha had been in the below
20% category and in 2006 had a 97% pass rate. The principal of that school was
a SADTU official in the province. SADTU was one of the organisations that had
offered to adopt schools. He felt that while such occurrences might take place
at a local level, provincial and national officials would declare that such
behaviour was not tolerated. He urged Members to report such incidents.
The Chairperson requested the DOE to supply the Committee with the list of 130
under performing schools.
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.