Division Of Revenue 2008/9: Department of Education Response to FFC Recommendations
Budget Committee on Appropriation
22 August 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
JOINT BUDGET & FINANCE SELECT COMMITTEE
22 August 2007
DIVISION OF REVENUE 2008/9: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RESPONSE TO FFC
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chairperson: Mr T Ralane
(ANC, Free State)
Documents handed out:
Response of
the Department of Education to the recommendation of the Financial and Fiscal
Commission (FFC) on Division of Revenue for 2008/9
Audio recording of
meeting
SUMMARY
The
Department of Education presented its response to the recommendations of the
Fiscal and Financial Commission (FFC) on the 2008/9 Division of Revenue Bill
(DORB). Most of the suggestions made by the Commission were endorsed. These
included recommendations that all provincial education departments accept the
National School Nutrition Programme, that it be
extended to all primary schools and that its implementation be improved. The
Department cautioned that these recommendations had serious financial
implications. Some of the areas raised by the Commission, such as procurement, involved processes outside the Department. At
a national level there was improved monitoring and evaluation. The Department
was seeking increased funding in the Medium Term Framework for immediate
implementation of increased feeding. The Department endorsed the suggestion
that there be effective coordination of planning for provincial and municipal
infrastructure grants. The Department answered some of the Commission's
concerns on what was included in Learner Support Material, and confirmed that
budgets did already make distinctions between categories. It supported the recommendation that
Provincial Equitable Share (PES) should reflect the socio-economic profiles of
learners, and the need for norms and standards that indicated the level of
knowledge and skills that learners were expected to acquire at various ages and
stages. It further agreed that there were negative impacts arising from
re-demarcation of some provincial boundaries, and suggested that requests for
movement of funds should be coordinated through National Treasury. The
Commission's comments generally on the desirability of moving to a seven-year
planning cycle were also supported. A further sector meeting would take place
on 19 September.
Members' questions related to the need to improve administration and flow of
information, the problems around maintenance, the setting up of guidelines for
transfer of assets, the definition of learner support materials, the balance
between financial resources and outcomes of education, and the need to improve
delivery of textbooks. Those questions falling outside the response to the
Commission's recommendations would be referred to the relevant Portfolio and
Select Committees. |
MINUTES
Department of Education (DOE) Response to recommendations of Financial and
Fiscal Commission (FFC) on the Division of Revenue Bill 2008/09
Mr Phillip Benade,
Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education, apologized that the Director
General was unable to attend. He noted that in his presentation he would
address comments made by the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) on the
Division of Revenue Bill (DORB).
In relation to the National School Nutrition Programme
(NSNP), Mr Benade stated
that he fully endorsed the FFC recommendations, which in summary had been that
all provincial education departments adopt the programme
as their responsibility, that there be full coverage to all primary school
learners, that the implementation be improved, particularly in no-fee schools,
that there be national norms developed and that there be improvements also to
procurement procedures, equipment and facilities, monitoring and evaluation and
budgeting. However, he cautioned the Committee that all the FFC recommendations
had serious financial implications. There were provincial specific
circumstances and challenges, mostly related to funding because most of the funding
of NSNP was through the conditional grant. The Committee should also note that
some of the areas raised by the FFC, such as procurement, involved processes outside the
Department. He added that at a national level there was improved monitoring and
evaluation.
Mr Benade indicated that
the Department would like to ask for increased funding in the 2008 Medium Term
Budget Framework, in order to provide an immediate implementation of increased
funding for meals for learners, from R1,53 to R1,84,
and for increased number of feeding days from the present 154 days to 198 days.
A later proposal would be made to address feeding in no-fee secondary schools
over a period of three years. The proposed increases were tabled, split across
the various areas (see attached document).
In respect of the recommendations on the financing of school infrastructure and
education outcomes, FFC had recommended that the conditions of the Provincial
Infrastructure Grants should specify the requirement for provinces, and that there
be effective coordination of planning for provincial and municipal
infrastructure grants. The Department endorsed that recommendation. The
Department commented that better data was needed to estimate the impact of
infrastructure requirements and this would become clearer once the update of
the School Register of Needs was complete. There were human rights and equity
arguments for improving infrastructure. The Department had strongly championed
and implemented pro-poor funding of education inputs, and the FFC
recommendations on infrastructure would be incorporated in the policy
development and review. It agreed that there must be effective coordination of
planning.
With regard to Learner Support Material (LSM), FFC had stated that this needed
to be more clearly defined. Mr Benade
said that the current definition of LSM included textbooks, stationary,
teaching material for teachers, boards, chalk and teaching guides. The
Department endorsed the FFC recommendation that the LSM should be broadened to
ensure alignment with international trends. However, the provincial budgets
already separated out the LSM requirements, and the provincial departments had
to report to the national department on their spending. Maintenance, repairs and
equipment were separately budgeted.
For the no-fee schools, the FFC had recommended that the Provincial Equitable
Share (PES) should reflect the socio-economic profiles of learners. There
should also be norms and standards that indicated the level of knowledge and
skills that learners were expected to acquire at various ages and stages. The
Department noted, supported and endorsed the FFC recommendations.
FFC had commented also on the fiscal implications of re-demarcation of
provincial boundaries, suggesting that the provincial equitable share and the
local government equitable share should be revised to take changes into
account, and that if there were additional costs these must be funded through a
once-off allocation. Mr Benade
said the Department supported the FFC recommendation. Re-demarcation had in
practice negatively impacted on budgets of some of the provincial departments
of education. There was a need for an improved process to determine the amount
to be shifted with functions. The Department was therefore suggesting that
official requests should be coordinated by National Treasury, rather than inter
provincial agreements. The equitable share should be influenced more strongly
by poverty index.
In respect of its analysis of the spending performance of provincial departments,
FFC had recommended that the aim should be seven year budget allocations,
rather than a three year cycle. Policy prioritization should be supported by
over-average annual budget growth rates, and best practice should be
encouraged. Service delivery programmes should be
defined by and report on actual and targeted beneficiaries, personnel and
budget and current items and capital assets used for service delivery. These
comments were supported by the Department. There was a uniform budget programme structure for the education sector, annually
agreed sector priorities for the MTEF, agreed performance indicators and a National budget
monitoring and support office was established.
Mr Benade finally tabled
the sector priorities and budgets allocated, and noted that a further sector
meeting was scheduled for 19 September. The additional funding request, broken
down across sectors, was tabled (See attached document).
Discussion
Ms D Robinson (DA, Western Cape) commented that she was encouraged by
increased spending in the Department of Education but there was a need to
improve administration and flow of information to centres
of learning and teaching.
Mr Benade indicated that
there were administrative challenges in Provinces and the intention of the National
Department was to increase personnel to support the functioning of schools.
The Chairperson enquired whether there was a special intervention for rural
schools in relation to learner support material. including
maintenance and repairs, electrification and sanitation. He further sought
clarification on the sphere of government that was responsible for assets
transfer.
Mr Benade acknowledged that
maintenance was a serious challenge and it tended to be sidelined by other
priorities because every year the Department was expected to submit only four
priorities to the National Treasury. The Department had finalised
its infrastructure plan and this would be presented to the Cabinet for
further input and finalisation because it had serious
cost implications. Provinces had funding available to deal with electrification
and sanitation in rural areas but the Department acknowledged that there were
practical challenges because construction companies had moved to the cities to
take on bigger projects, due to the construction sector economic boom. In
addition there were clear administrative guidelines for the Department on
inventory of assets and the handing over process for assets, and Provincial
Departments were aware of the guidelines.
Mr E Sogoni (ANC, Gauteng) expressed concern that the NSNP only focused on
no-fee-schools,
excluding community poverty, and felt that this classification
might be skewed. He also sought clarification on the definition of LSM and
asked whether provinces had a standardised method of
measuring socio-economic levels. He sought the view of the Department on
whether the outcomes of education were commensurate with the financial
resources that were invested in the education sector, in comparison to other
developing countries. He also sought the views of the Department on whether the
recovery plan might not require more financial or capacity resources.
Mr Benade indicated that
the query about the outcomes of education against the financial resources
invested was valid, but this was a broader debate which included substance
issues in education, that in turn were related to capacity and not financial
resources. The recovery plan was presented in May 2007 but the public sector
strike interrupted the implementation of the plan.
Ms A Mchunu (IFP)
enquired whether the Department was using retired teachers to encourage
teacher-to- learner interaction. She also commented on the fact that every year
the delivery of textbooks was a chronic problem which affected teaching and
learning at schools. She asked if the Department was intending to take over the
responsibility of delivering textbooks, to ensure efficiency.
Ms Robinson concurred with the comment on quality of education but her concern
was related to the quality of teachers, their working conditions, ethical
conduct and whether the Department had any plans to resolve the issues.
The Chairperson, in his closing remarks, indicated that some questions had not
been responded to because they fell outside of the FFC recommendation, even though they
were valid. The Committee would therefore refer the questions to the Portfolio
Committee and Select Committees dealing with Education for further
clarification and explanation.
The meeting 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.