Education in South Africa: Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) briefing

Meeting report

Roadmap to Education in South Africa: Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) briefing
The Chairperson explained that this meeting was held to raise the awareness and understanding of different initiatives and debates taking place around education. Although the different political parties had different education manifestoes, there was a need for synergy within the Committee to ensure that the education system improved. The Committee welcomed interaction with bodies such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), and hoped that Members would be able to achieve a higher degree of specialisation through such interactions. The Committee recognised that there were serious weaknesses in the Higher Education (HE) system, such as the very high dropout rates, and similar problems in the Further Education and Training (FET) areas, with only a 20% pass rate at some of these institutions. He noted that there were many young people who were unemployed, and many more who were unemployable, as noted in previous meetings by the Minister of Education, and in the State of the Nation Address of 2009.

Mr Graeme Bloch, Education Specialist, DBSA, tabled his presentation entitled The Education Roadmap: Taking Education Forward. He noted that the complexity of education change must not be underestimated. There was a need for a clear vision and plan, which must provide a sense of how people could come on board, and what could be expected of the higher education sector.

Mr Bloch noted that although universities had improved, there was still a large proportion of black South Africans who did not have financial, physical and educational access to these centres of learning. Transformation among lecturing staff, researchers and other teaching levels had been slow. Black students did not feel a sense of belonging. Mergers had not necessarily improved management or ability of the universities. Academic freedom and autonomy had meant that academics tended to comment as though they could not be part of the solution, and this must be remedied. Academics should be free to comment on the actions of the government without these comments posing a challenge to their funding.

Apartheid could not be used as an excuse for the current failings in South Africa’s education system. He stated that the focus should not be on allegations of victimisation, but rather on setting and achieving goals. However, he acknowledged that there were a number of critical historical problems in schools related to systematic discrimination, for example the critical shortage of maths teachers. There were some successes, such as the matric exam process, but also many problems. Despite the work done around the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs), the qualifications frameworks, the FET Colleges, learnerships and artisan training, and the limited work around workplace-based skills development, there was much work still to be done. There should be a focus on skills development to ensure that those who were not integrated into the university system still developed skills that were useful to them and to South African development.

Mr Bloch emphasised that there were three key levels that were holding education back, as set out in the Roadmap for Education. The first was the “in-class” level. There were number of problems in classrooms in both learner and teacher discipline, education and support. The second level was support to the schools, which covered the shortage of resources like textbooks and learning materials, pedagogical and administrative support, and lack of facilities. The third was the social level, which related to the way that societal ills such as violence, poverty, disease, poor parental education and poor transport related to problems with creating schools as a safe context for learning.

Mr Bloch highlighted that the Education Roadmap made three crucial points. Firstly, any attempt to fix matters must be done through a stakeholder-driven process, and must be based on society wide agreement. Secondly, there must be agreement on what priorities would be pursued. Thirdly, there was a need for a clear plan and a vision, real targets and a set of outcomes that could be pursued and measured.

The roadmap formulated a ten-point programme for dealing with education in South Africa. He outlined and briefly discussed the points.

Teachers must be in class, on time, and actually teaching. Teachers should be required to use textbooks in class. There should equally be support for principals and establishment of proper governance.

There should be focus on improving the quality of Early Childhood Development (ECD) education and primary schools, including implementing the “Foundations for Learning” campaign, emphasising the promotion of language and numeracy.

Mr Bloch commented that there was a need to conduct external tests for all Grade 3 and Grade 7 learners every year, and to provide the results to parents.

There was a need to ensure effective evaluation of all teachers, based on the extent to which learner performances improved, with results influencing Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) pay for teachers. There was further a need to enhance recruitment of quality teachers and to strengthen teacher development.

Management capacity to ensure the proper working of districts and schools must also be enhanced. This would involve bringing in capacity from the private sector, civil society and elsewhere.

There was a need to increase the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education, including audiovisual teaching materials in the classroom to supplement teaching and demonstrate quality teaching to learners and educators.

There was a need to improve National and Provincial Education Departments’ alignment and efficiency of education expenditure, through procuring textbooks nationally and allocating resources to improve district capacity. In this regard, the use of conditional grants was an important tool to ensure alignment.

Mr Bloch felt that there was a need to develop a social compact for quality education. This would include a National Consultative Forum dedicated to clarifying the “non-negotiables” and performance targets for key stakeholders, and the monitoring of these targets.

On the social side, there was also a broader need to implement poverty combating measures that would lead to improvement in the environment for learning and teaching, such as a nutrition programme (cross-cutting programme with health), basic infrastructure for schools, and social support for children.

Mr Bloch expressed the opinion that there was a party and policy space for the open discussion of these issues, as education was a priority for all parties. The DBSA had launched a series of conversations or dialogues on education involving stakeholders, with the aim of bringing people with skills together to discuss the problems and propose solutions. The dialogue in the Free State had taken place, and there would still be dialogues in the Western Cape, Gauteng and the Eastern Cape.

Mr Bloch noted that the stakeholders could not wait for Government to achieve everything, as there would be no progress. The DBSA believed that the current context of openness around education should be used to encourage participation around education, and he emphasised the shared responsibilities of all stakeholders. He praised comments made by the President in meetings with schools in KwaZulu Natal, and said that he felt that the President’s vision was a starting point for re-energising the nation around education. He was also excited to see this Committee taking its responsibility seriously, and looked forward to future cooperation.

Discussion:
The Chairperson said that the presentation and its analysis were in line with other presentations that had been made to the Committee recently, and that the Roadmap underpinned all of these presentations. Members addressed questions under each area of the presentation
Teachers in class, on time, teaching
The Chairperson said that there were some critical areas of concern in the Roadmap. He provided the example of the priority that teachers should be in class, on time, teaching. Commenting upon Mr Bloch’s statement that the successful matric examination process showed that the Department of Education (DOE) was improving, he said that this was not necessarily any indicator of great success, as this was merely one of the tasks which the DOE was in any event supposed to fulfil, and success of these exams was expected, not to be seen as cause for celebration.

The Chairperson agreed that teachers should be on time and teaching, and should be disciplined if this did not happen. He asked what had happened to teachers who failed to meet these criteria since the statements were made in the State of the Nation Address, what monitoring mechanisms were in place, and how realities were being measured.

Mr Bloch said that if meeting routine requirements was classed as an achievement, this was indicative of other problems. There was a need to understand the backlog and move forward. Some teachers did not have textbooks or know how to use them properly. Children also did not always have textbooks. Although some teachers may not have the content knowledge themselves, they should have textbooks that contained the entire curriculum, and should know by what dates they must cover particular chapters. This issue was linked to the organisation and leadership of principals.

Mr Bloch noted that there were problems in the foundations of reading. Although there had been much criticism of Outcomes Based Education (OBE), it should be noted that OBE did not say that children should not read and write every day. One of the problems noted in the Higher Education South Africa (HESA) Report was that University students could not write sufficiently well. There was a need for constant encouragement of basic learning skills like reading and writing, which had not been put in place in schools.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) said that the Committee must be of one mind about the importance of teachers arriving in class, on time and teaching. Everyone should be involved in this process, and should take action to ensure that learners also were in class. She said that it was important for all stakeholders to identify their specific roles and act, not merely discuss this at a theoretical level.

Ms N Vukuza (COPE) raised the issue that a number of slogans being used were problematic, and were rarely unpacked to find their meaning. The first dated back some years and was ‘the culture of learning and teaching’. The slogan ‘teachers in class, on time, teaching’ was being used currently. She asked for clarification on the meaning of these statements. She also said that the use of these slogans seemed to imply that particular achievements had already been made, whereas she was of the view that there was still much that had to happen. Whilst these were catchy and made for good politicking, they must be properly unpacked and their implications made clear.

Ms Vukuza also asked for clarity on who the ‘stakeholders’ were to whom Mr Bloch referred. She asked for all the stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities, to be shown in a diagram. She referred to the example of a visit by the MEC for Education in KwaZulu Natal to a school. Both the MEC and the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) were stakeholders. She asked how both the stakeholders’ needs could be addressed to achieve outcomes that would be positive.

Mr Bloch responded that there were a number of stakeholders who should all work together. This included government and leadership, as well as teachers. He said that teachers’ concerns must be raised and heard, because some were teaching in extremely poor conditions. Other stakeholders included the Department of Health, the police and citizens. He said that the ‘plough back’ movement should be encouraged, where graduates went back to schools and shared their knowledge. Conversations and public debate were very important, as every little contribution was important. Nonetheless, engaging with stakeholders did not mean that Government must stop leading.

Ms W Nelson (ANC) said that even in Model C schools, the standard of education was dropping, particularly in the area of discipline. In her recent visit to a Model C school in her area, she got the impression that the school was struggling and that teachers did not know how to deal with students. This was more so when the children came from difficult backgrounds, and who were sometimes better educated than their parents, which meant that there were also disciplinary issues at home. Often, the schools that were seen as ‘black schools’ were seen as having a poorer standard.

Mr Bloch responded that most children in Model C schools did have access to better facilities and that making these schools free schools could entail a deterioration in facilities. He believed these schools should remain Model C, supported by higher fees, and should remain as those where some black children could have good access to facilities. He said that whilst in some places there might be some resistance to the incorporation of black students in previously-white Model C schools, this was the norm. Model C schools must be held accountable for their admissions. He also said that there was also a problem with the number of black students who wanted to become teachers. This was a complex problem that needed debate, and young black people should be encouraged to teach in Model C schools.

Mr G Radebe (ANC) said that Model C schools must have integration and should not be allowed to pursue Afrikaans instruction. In his view there should be a standard across all schools. He added that Model C schools have better resources that they should be encouraged to share.

Mr Bloch agreed and said that more than charity was required of Model C schools, and they should be encouraged to share resources on a regular basis.

Mr Bloch commented on the discipline issue, and said that he did not believe that corporal punishment helped, because it did not address issues of poor discipline that did not involve actual punishment. He supported the banning of corporal punishment.

Mr G Boinamo (DA) said that all stakeholders should work together to ensure that all teachers were on time.

Principals, governance and support.
The Chairperson asked Members to address the issue of principals acting as managers.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) said that the governance issue had not been covered in the presentation. The role of school governing bodies should be considered and there should be some governance at that level. He said that parents should also be involved. He said that some of these problems must also be dealt with at a basic education level.

Mr Boinamo commented on Mr Bloch’s statements that schools were not able to teach what the students did not see at home. He agreed that if children were not disciplined at home they would not be able to be taught properly or learn at schools.

Mr Boinamo also noted that some schools were not receiving textbooks. This was the work of the DOE, and the Department should ensure that books were received in September or October of the year prior to that in which the books were needed for use. Teachers could not be blamed for this shortage.

Mr Boinamo was also concerned about the dangers posed in schools, saying that better security was needed in schools, and this Committee must ensure that both learners and teachers felt safe in schools.

Mr Radebe said that the Committee should look at the support being provided to institutions, and at cases where, for instance, SADTU was preventing access to schools. He felt that the Committee should not only be visiting schools that had shown problems, but rather that the Committee must be more proactive and make regular visits to all schools and exercise oversight, to allow them to make plans to solve problems in advance. In this way, student intake could also be monitored, to ensure that textbooks and learning materials were available. He said the support should include advanced planning.

The relevance of the legacy of Apartheid
Ms M Kubayi (ANC) welcomed Mr Bloch’s presentation. She said that one of the critical issues raised by the presentation was the importance of reflecting on the past to map out the future, and that this applied also to teaching.

Mr Boinamo said that apartheid was a bad system of government and had caused drawbacks, but he felt that it could not be blamed forever. He said that blaming apartheid for the Committee’s own failures would hold them back. He said that it was necessary to move forward.

The Chairperson commented that in fact apartheid attitudes were still found, and that there had been unequal treatment of learners in some schools as recently as 1993. Many black children received smaller bursaries.

Mr Bloch agreed with the Chairperson. He cited the effects of poor schooling as one of the main reasons why so few maths teachers were available. The critical shortage of maths teachers was a direct result of Bantu education. This would take between twelve and fifteen years to remedy, and the shortage would continue all that time. Importing maths teachers presented its own problems, and would not provide a sustainable solution to this shortage.

Mr Bloch also agreed that while apartheid was an unfortunate heritage that must not be forgotten, it could not be used as an excuse forever. There were some schools that still had extremely poor teaching conditions. There should be a holistic solution, and it would cost money. Some schools did not even offer their teachers a staff room, or textbooks, and he said that this would take time. It was necessary to achieve a balance in the situation and encourage learners to strive to do their best.

Access to tertiary education
Ms Kubayi agreed with Mr Bloch that access to institutions was a problem, which was largely attributable to their locations and the difficulties that black students, in particular, had in getting to them because of long travelling times, for instance, from Khayelitsha to Cape Town. The quality of teaching in some institutions was poor, and the students did not get the same quality that was achieved in the past. It was particularly difficult to find good institutions in black communities, and capacity was a problem.

Ms Kubayi agreed with Mr Bloch that mergers of universities had shown limitations. When she was a student, during the merger of Soweto Campus with Vista University, she had noted that the facilities at Wits University were vastly different from her own, although Wits was only one hour away.

Mr Radebe said that access was an issue and suggested that this might be because a transformative way of including students had not been found, or because the institutions themselves were not really transformative. He said that his own treatment at Pretoria Technikon was different from the treatment of white students, despite the fact that his academic performance was better than many of his white colleagues. The main challenge was not that black students did not have good qualifications, but was rather their ability to access and be accepted into these institutions.

Academic Freedom
Ms Kubayi said that she was glad that the issue of academic freedom was raised. She said that in South Africa there was a culture where academics raised issues as outsiders, rather than regarding themselves as participants and as part of the solution. The former Deputy President had raised this issue last year in KwaZulu Natal, and said that academics must become part of the solution rather than simply criticising the problem. The Committee needed to find a way to engage academics to find solutions.

SETAs and FET
Ms Kubayi disagreed with Mr Bloch that challenges within the skills development areas and the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) should result in their closure. In her view it was more important to look at the root of the problem, review the issues, and search for ways to address the problems. The institutions were still of importance. There were still students attending, no matter that there were drop-outs, which meant that the programmes and learnerships were still important and should not be closed. She suggested that an overview of the sector was required.

Mr Bloch said that only about three of the SETAs were working properly, and it was necessary to ask why Government was spending so much money on them. There needed to be a quality assessment measure developed, and consideration given to how monitoring would occur.

Ms Nelson noted that in many cases students had left FETs to attend learnerships with large companies such as Eskom, but that in some cases these learnerships were not well structured. They did not provide the students with enough work which meant that the students dropped out of the programmes. She believed that it was important for the Committee to look at these programmes and see how they could be fixed.

Mr Makhubele asked that if the DBSA was not already involved in the process of review of the SETAs, it should become involved.

Mr Bloch said that the artisan programme needed a re-think. Previously, around 50 000 artisans were produced per year, but the figure was now at around only 7 000 per year.

The Chairperson said that many teachers had a negative perception about FETs and only encouraged problem or ill-disciplined students to pursue that option. There was also a problem with the level of skills that were being provided. He agreed that there was a gap where artisan skills should be developed.

Visiting and monitoring schools
Ms Mushwana also suggested that schools should be visited to pursue monitoring. In her view, these visits should be unscheduled, to ensure that the real situation emerged, and to prevent the schools from mounting a façade situation to make it seem that everything was running smoothly. She said that the Committee needed to be involved, since all political parties shared the view that education was important.

Mr Bloch said that in the last month, the MEC for Education in KwaZulu Natal, Mr S Mchunu, and the Head of the Education Department in that province had attempted to make an unannounced visit to schools. They were prevented from entering the school gates by SADTU, who claimed that the Executive required its permission before entering the school.

Ms Mushwana responded that SADTU had not issued a statement at a national level that prevented visits to schools. The Union could not continue to act in this way, and the Committee should be taking action on this issue.

Ms Mushwana referred to page 8 of the presentation, noting that some peri-urban teachers spent only 3.5 hours in school per day, whereas teachers in suburban schools spent 6 hours per day in the school. The same educational laws applied to all, and the Committee could not let this issue go by unchallenged, as it was ongoing and was causing problems.

Mr Boinamo said that some schools did not have a single matric pass, which clearly indicated that district offices had failed in their jobs and had not been visiting these schools and identifying problems, as they should. He agreed that SADTU preventing visits by officials was also a problem.

Plan and vision
Ms Vukuza referred to Mr Bloch’s statements that a plan and vision were lacking. She said that she had not seen the plan and vision of the DBSA, and asked whether Mr Bloch could facilitate the formulation of a new plan and vision by the Committee in light of his insight into education.

Mr Bloch replied there was a need for a national debate on what the vision for education should be. In his view it would be along the lines of a learning nation striving for academic and intellectual excellence. He said that there was need for clarity on Government’s vision, as there were many contradictory messages at present. For instance, the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) leaders had recently stated that students should not pursue international studies. Mr Bloch disagreed, and said that students should be encouraged to pursue degrees at the best overseas universities, and then bring their skills back to South Africa. The ANCYL leader had also intimated to young learners that if the President had not achieved the higher standards of education, then the current learners did not needed to achieve in school. However, the President had stated the opposite and clearly placed a high value on education. If such mixed messages were being communicated to the society, it made it all the more difficult for this Committee to get a clear message to schools. He could not hold a brief for any political party, and the DBSA should not be responsible for the development of the education message. However, it was something that Government and leadership should address.

Mr Makhubele said that stakeholders should be involved and that a timeline for achieving certain aims should be at the core of that process. He said that a deadline for implementation of programmes was necessary. All stakeholders should be consulted and should provide a plan for implementation.

Societal factors influencing learners.
Ms Vukuza referred to Mr Bloch’s reference that HIV/AIDS was one of the societal problems facing learners, and that this was linked to child-headed households. She expressed interest in a study on HIV incidence at school level, because a number of students were being lost to HIV/AIDS. She asked if there was a way that the number of HIV positive learners could be tracked, particularly at a tertiary education level where they were most susceptible.

Quality education
Mr W James (DA) agreed that the issue of quality in schools was very important. During his involvement with University of Cape Town (UCT) he had become aware that UCT recruited its first year medical students without compromise, to ensure that they were of the best quality. It was interesting to note that the first year class was now composed of around 65% black students, which exceeded any affirmative action quotas. He said that there were arguments that it would take up to 30 years to fix the problems in the public school system in South Africa. However, in the meantime, the good students were generally sourced from Model C or private schools. He urged that the peri-urban schools must not be neglected. He asked for Mr Bloch’s comments on quality. He gave the example of schools in the United States of America (USA), where the pool of talented students was much larger, despite the USA’s failing public education system, which every USA President ad tried to fix. However, in the USA, the top universities actively searched for talent, using what was available to them. South Africa, whilst also trying to address its problems, should also be working actively with what was available at present.

Mr Bloch said that access and quality were important, and that it was necessary to look at public schools and universities.

Ms Nelson believed that, despite having policies and programmes in place, education was not really achieving what it needed to. Although it was good that some universities had achieved 65% black students, there were still too many young people not studying further after school.

Mr Bloch responded that was possible to become disheartened by looking at bleak statistics, but other countries had faced and had begun to overcome similar problems. Seventy years ago, the United Kingdom had discriminatory education for Welsh children, and a number of problems of access for working-class children. Overcoming the problems would take time, but was not impossible. If change did not start now, then the past would hold South Africa back.

Mr Makhubele said that the challenge at many universities was that learners were not sufficiently prepared or ready for that level. However, the quality of the learning materials that they were receiving at schools was good. He asked for an explanation, and whether the “good quality” at schools was questionable, since the same students who had passed matric and achieved a university entrance would then struggle once they got to university, which led to their unfair treatment.

Mr Makhubele said that the Committee must assess whether the goals were feasible within the budget, and adopt a holistic approach to problems. The overall cost implications of all plans should be checked. The Committee must be aware of the costs, but also bear in mind that issues not attended to timeously would end up costing more to fix.

Mr Boinamo said that the Committee needed to begin actively to fix education rather than complaining. Learners should be provided with a firm foundation, which began at Grade R, so that Grade 1 learners were prepared for school proper. Primary schools should prepare Grade 7 learners for high schools, which should in turn prepare their learners for university. 

Mr Bloch agreed and said that choices needed to be made about where to allocate money. If everyone agreed on education as the number one priority, people would be more likely to be willing to pay more for school fees, and would contribute to bursary funds. Many people had been suspicious that their funds would be mismanaged and abused by civil servants. It would therefore be necessary to make it clear that schools must account for their funds, and this was an issue that perhaps the Committee could investigate.

Mr Radebe agreed and said that issues of corruption must be dealt with.

National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS)
Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) said that the Committee had come to the conclusion, during its strategic planning session, that NSFAS was not accessible to students in remote areas, yet Mr Bloch had reported that NSFAS had been expanded. He asked for clarity.

Mr Radebe said that the issue of dropouts was often linked to whether resources and support were available. Many students who had good results remained unable to access bursaries or financial assistance, and thus dropped out. He asked whether the staff of universities made an effort to provide financial support for these students, stressing his view that they should do so.

Mr Radebe also said that when a student received a NSFAS loan, that student should be made very aware of its value, rather than seeing it as a burden that the student must pay back with interest. He urged a holistic approach to financial aid. He said that there was a needed to create a sense of ownership of the process. There was a need to examine ways to support students on NSFAS.

Mr Bloch said that working-class children should be able to get into university, regardless of the costs. He did not agree, however, that these students should not be obliged to repay their loans upon completion of university. Many of them would become extremely wealthy. The repayment of their own loans meant that other students would have an opportunity to attend university. He said that to let those students ‘off the hook’ would be a contradiction. Whilst Government could not afford to give “free” financial assistance, he thought that the bursaries offered should at least be large enough to ensure that students were able to complete university. Although around 30% of students were receiving NSFAS loans, he was aware of a number of lower middle-class students who did not have access to these loans.

Mr Radebe responded that he had not been suggesting that the loans should be provided free of obligation, but rather that he was concerned about interest being charged on the money lent, which he did not think was fair. In the private sector, many companies provided loans in return for service to the company. He thought that this could be an avenue that Government could look at. Their student debt was a burden on young graduates, who often had other family members to support in addition to their own financial needs.

Mr Bloch agreed and said that NSFAS must be looked at, and that a sense of national service needed to be stimulated amongst the youth.

Conclusion of Briefing
Mr Bloch said that it was also important to look at the students who had succeeded and that Government should not undermine the achievements that had been made, should acknowledge the excellence, but that the process of transplanting people into positions that they were not necessarily qualified for should be stopped.

The Chairperson said that the Committee Secretary would take note of some of the issues raised and that the Committee would focus on including these issues in its plans. He asked for the development of the relationship between the DBSA and Parliament.

Mr Bloch replied that the DBSA was largely an infrastructure bank that recognised that education was part of infrastructure. He noted that there was a link to service, citing the example that water could not be supplied without engineers, who could not become engineers without there being a good education system. He noted that he had had more success in dealing with provinces that were governed by the Democratic Alliance, because his queries were responded to more rapidly than his queries in ANC provinces. He said that he felt that there was a good relationship was present between the DBSA and the Committee, which the DBSA was keen to strengthen. He suggested that perhaps Parliament could become involved in the dialogues on education that DBSA was hosting at present. He added that the DBSA was largely funded by the National Treasury.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Bloch for his contribution, noting that the Committee broadly agreed with most of his perspective. It was necessary for the Committee to take up the practical considerations raised by this meeting and other studies, especially in relation to the school system.

Other Committee Business: Adoption of Minutes 10 July 2009
The Minutes of the meeting dated 10 July 2009 were tabled and adopted.

The Chairperson reminded Members of the need to encourage supportive relationships with other research or funding institutions, and asked Members to bring forward any suggestions they had.

The Chairperson also asked Members to think about how to implement issues that were raised in meetings, given that there was limited capacity in research, and that some members were sharing secretaries. Internship might be one way to access expertise without incurring vast costs.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would address the draft Workshop Report on 26 August, and that any input on the strategic plan be directed to the Secretary.

The meeting was adjourned.