South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Budget and Strategic Plan: briefing

Meeting report

Strategic Plan

Mr Joe Samuels, Deputy Executive Officer (EO) SAQA, informed the committee of SAQA’s current context. With the election of President Zuma and the appointment of his cabinet in May 2009, two Departments of Education had been formed: the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education. This split had meant that SAQA’s annual strategic imperatives were now formulated in the context of two separate departments.

The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) had been implemented by the new administration on 1 June 2009. Although clarity had been gained in some areas of implementation, it was predicted that instability would remain for the next 12 to 18 months during what was seen as a transitional period. The Strategic objectives of SAQA had been formulated in line with the NQF.

The QCTO would be launched in March 2010, and discussions were underway on which responsibilities would still fall under SAQA mandate. The SAQA board was to remain in place until October 2010 when it would be restructured and the board reduced from 29 to 16 members.

SAQA’s five strategic imperatives for 2010/11 were discussed. Importantly an effort to “advance lifelong learning through the NQF and mechanisms such as Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and Career Advice Services (CAS)” was identified. In order to further the CAS programme a helpline was introduced which individuals could phone for solutions to their enquiries. There was a need to “create the climate and conditions for effectiveness through advocacy and excellent service delivery to the public in the new NQF environment”. The need for advocacy on behalf of the NQF by SAQA was especially highlighted, and brand ambassadors would be employed for this.

This strategic plan was, however, based on a number of assumptions. These included that SAQA would continue to be recognised by government and stakeholders as the oversight and leadership body of the NQF; that handing over of functions to the QCTO would take place from 1 April 2010 and that SAQA would receive sufficient financial support to deliver on its mandate.

A number of risks were identified in implementing SAQA strategic objectives. Different interpretations of the NQF and new legislation especially posed a threat. Apart from this a lack of resources and funding as well as management and staffing issues during the transitional period were highlighted as risks.

Overall strategic objectives included: the registering of qualifications and part-qualifications; the need to recognise Professional Bodies and register professional designations on the NQF; evaluating and providing advice on foreign qualifications and the further development of the National Learners’ Records Database (NLRD) as a key national source of information.

In summation the core strategy was therefore to “develop and sustain policies, procedures and infrastructures for the NQF, while being actively supported by the key stakeholders in education and training”.

In order to achieve this core objective four programmes were thus to be launched:
- Programme One was to encompass the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and Career Advice Services programmes (CAS) as well as the NQF advocacy campaign.
- Programme Two would undertake the Recognition of Professional Bodies and registration of Professional Designations.
- Programme Three the populating and positioning of the NLRD.
- Programme Four would encompass the foreign qualifications evaluation and advisory service.

Budget

Mr Samuels handed over to Mr M Albertyn, SAQA chief financial officer (CFO), to discuss the 2010/11 budget outline.

Important assumptions that the budget was based upon were outlined for the committee. These included: that the budget was based on SAQA’s new mandate in terms of the NQF Act, with an implementation date of 1 June 2009; that inflation on income would be around 6%, except for DFQEAS revenue that would increase by R2 million due to a DPSA directive; that the funding from government would be at least R 41,3 million; that extra project funding would be sought for clearly defined and discrete projects and that not all objectives in the strategic plan would be implemented unless further funding or grants were obtained.

It was therefore presented to the committee that the total medium term revenue of SAQA would be around R69 million – a 5.7% increase on the previous year’s budget. The total medium term expenditure was estimated at R67 million with R45 million, or 67%, allocated to staffing and compensation of employees.

The budget had been drawn up with the assumption that the QCTO would be in operation from the 1 April and that the board would have been restructured by this time. Since the downsizing of SAQA was now only to take place in October 2010 (at which point the QCTO would fully take over a number of SAQA responsibilities) it was currently operating as underfunded.

Mr Albertyn asked whether the Chairperson would prefer to go through the ways in which funding would be implemented in each of the four programmes. The Chairperson declined, stating that members of the committee could look through this part of the presentation themselves.

Discussion

The Chairperson referred to the transitional period SAQA was due to the repositioning which had taken place. Which strategic issues could be identified as preventing the objectives from being achieved? What had been presented to the committee on the RPL at previous meetings at the end of 2009 did not seem to be different from what was presented to the committee now, how could the implementation of the RPL programme be accelerated in the existing transitional environment without “making mistakes”? It was not enough to have a plan that would be implemented at the end of the financial year 2010/11, but needed to be implemented now in this financial year.

Mr G Boinamo (DA) agreed that what was said in this presentation did not seem to be all that different from what was said in the past. He then asked how SAQA benefited learners in poor rural areas and what mechanisms were used to assist rural people in accessing the services SAQA offered? Furthermore, in how many poor rural areas did SAQA have a permanent presence? If a person had been working in a court of law for 10 or more years, could this person be evaluated by SAQA and issued with a relevant qualification? SAQA spending 67% of its revenue on “staffing” was not feasible for any setting.

Ms N Magazi (ANC) asked for clarity on the assumption that SAQA needed to receive adequate funding in order to fulfil its strategic imperatives. What caused SAQA to depend solely on funding to achieve objectives? Were there not other means to achieve these aims? SAQA had outlined one of its objectives as implementing projects to monitor and evaluate education and training. There was, however, a national monitoring and evaluation committee in place. What steps had SAQA taken to “link-up” with this national monitoring body? What targets had SAQA set itself in terms of the National Learners’ Records Database?

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) asked about the R45 million spent on the compensation of employees that accounted for 67% of the budget, what informed this ratio of expenditure? Furthermore, in the medium-term revenue estimate the “tax revenue” column had been left empty. Surely by not including this in its estimate SAQA could run the risk of over or under-spending?

Dr W James (DA) stated that university admission officers often informed him that students were unaware of what their choices were in terms of academic programmes and how these affected their future careers. There was not enough information that students had on their choices regarding academic programmes. The issue of career guidance was quite fundamental and SAQA was to be commended on its progress. Secondly, the minimal role of the state was to provide funding and to evaluate the quality of academic institutions. SAQA, in its regulatory role, played a fundamental part in this function of the state. However, there was no “universal law” or measure in assessing the quality of academic offerings. Usually how “employable” graduates from a certain institution were, was used as a measure of quality. This question was especially important in light of state support for independent universities. What were SAQA’s views on the issue of assessing quality?

Mr Samuels said SAQA had met with the portfolio committee in August or September of 2009, and had, at the request of the committee, addressed certain issues – including the NQF Act and the RPL programme. Since then SAQA had formulated a strategic plan to deal with the issues raised. What had just been presented was what SAQA aimed to undertake in the next year, and was not simply a rehash of what had been put to the committee previously. However, the Chairperson was right in pointing to this issue as there was no additional funding for the RPL. This was to be rectified, as in a meeting with the Minister of Higher Education the Minister undertook to endorse the strategy around this.

More specifically however, the Minister was also to endorse SAQA’s aim to deal with issues raised by individuals through the hotline. If, for example, a student in a rural area was to possess certain qualifications, he could phone in and the specific problem he had raised would be dealt with. SAQA had requested the provisional funding necessary in order to deliver on the promises made by such a hotline.

In terms of staffing and compensation: SAQA had compared its compensation with a number of similar bodies and undertaken benchmark studies. It was found that staffing usually fell in at around 60% to 70% of the budget for most institutions, and was therefore not a distorted ratio to put forward. With regards to the tax revenue being shown as zero: SAQA was exempt from income tax and therefore all revenue that was not government funded was shown under “non-tax revenue”.

SAQA stated, at the request of the Chairperson, it had simply shown a summary of its deliverables and had therefore not gone into detail on every target. However, in the detailed strategic plan it was outlined that a database of private higher institutions was to be 60% set up by the end of this financial year (March 2011). 

There were a range of different factors to be considered in assessing the quality of qualifications of Higher Education facilities. The key issue from SAQA’s perspective, however, was to keep undertaking extensive analysis in this area and to allow debate to take place on what the best manner was in which to implement such measurement – there was always scope for improvement in this regard.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) asked for SAQA’s advice on how to provide qualifications to individuals who had acquired extensive experience but no formal certification of their knowledge. For example, farm workers acquired much knowledge through practical implementation of their skills but had no proof to verify this, and could therefore not receive financial assistance from the government or banks. Was it in any way possible to accredit such people?

Mr Samuels said in previous instances SAQA had worked with certain industries in order to verify the competencies of workers and provide accreditation. For example, in working with the construction sector, SAQA had managed to implement a number of RPL exercises in which workers were tested against set standards and received recognition of their learning. However, while it was possible to do so, it was important to note that a number of difficulties had arisen in implementation of such programmes across many other sectors.

The meeting was adjourned.