Matriculation results of 2008: assessment by Department

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the presentation would look at the 2008 matriculation examination as a whole and not only at the results as had been earlier anticipated.

The Technical Report on the National Senior Certificate Results presentation was undertaken by Ms Penny Vinjevold Deputy Director-General: Further Education and Training. She was accompanied by Mr D Ngobeni, Director, and Ms V Carelse, Deputy Director General.

Ms Vinjevold pointed out that it was important to look at the entire 18 month cycle of the National Senior Certificate Examinations. She elaborated on the various facets of the cycle from the registration of centres of education up until the release of the results by the Minister of Education. She pointed out that the Department did not set the exams. An independent examination panel was tasked with the function. Umalusi monitored the exams and declared the results valid and reliable. The revised 2008 curriculum consisted of 29 subjects. The names of most remained the same whereas others were changed to reflect the content and international trends.

The 2008 matric examinations had ended on the 4 December and had been completed without any leaks or problems. Marking of scripts had been completed on the 12 December whilst the standardization process had taken place between the 19 - 22 December. Umalusi had made its statement on the 23 December and the results had been provided to schools, the media and the public on the 30 December.

Ms Vinjevold emphasized that the National Senior Certificate was in essence a three-year programme which started in Grade 10. All candidates had to do seven subjects and had to pass six in order to matriculate. The minimum requirement was that candidates had to obtain 40% in three subjects and 30% in the three remaining. The final mark consisted of 25% school based assessment whilst the remaining 75% was from the final examination itself.

There were 560 000 learners who sat the 2008 matric examinations. It was 150 000 more than in 2003 and 28 000 more than in 2007. There were no repeaters and no part-time learners and there were more female than male candidates.  Ms Vinjevold said that there were interventions  that had impacted positively upon the 2008 results. Systemic interventions were increases in funding, more teachers, improved infrastructure and more learning materials. Assessment interventions included appointment and training of examination panels in 2006, language editing, selection and training of markers.

She continued with facts and figures of the overall results for 2008 as well as a breakdown of results per subject. Performance as per category of education centre was also elaborated on. These were all done by graphical illustration. The figures as at the end of December 2008 showed that of the 533 561 candidates who wrote, in excess of 333 000 had passed. The rest had either not made it or had qualified for supplementary examinations. Five of the provinces managed to score over the national average pass rate, the remaining four provinces were below.

As far as performance in specific subjects was concerned, Ms Vinjevold felt that the common perception that students often opted for easier subjects was completely untrue. The figures showed that students went for difficult subjects like physical science. She did feel that the pass rates for mathematics and the agricultural sciences could have been better. She felt that the socio-economic background of a student was key to his or her success at school. This was illustrated by the fact that the richer schools had better pass rates than the poorer schools. The consequence was that poverty impacted upon learning outcomes.

She concluded by stating that there was an internal and external investigation into the causes behind the results of 26 000 candidates being outstanding when the results were released on 30 December. By the end of January 2009 the outcome of those outstanding results should be known. Ms Vinjevold noted that there had also been issues raised over the perceived quality of the 2008 mathematics examinations. The Minister had appointed a panel to look into the matter. The issue would also be resolved by the end of January 2009.

For detail on the aforementioned facts and figures please refer to the attached presentation.

Discussion
Ms H Lamoela (ANC, WC) commented that she would have liked to have received the presentation document some time prior to the meeting and not as the meeting commenced. She expressed her disappointment in the manner in which the matric results of 2008 had been handled. She pointed out that every year promises were made that more was to be done to assist poor and rural schools, yet the suffering continued and asked the Department for comment. Ms Lamoela asked if there were any irregularities during the 2008 matric examinations. She referred to internal marks not being timeously presented and asked why it had not been properly monitored. She also asked what strategies the Department had in line with the amended SA Schools Act. What were the minor adjustments referred to in the presentation?

Ms Vinjevold proposed that a written response be forwarded to Ms Lamoela, given the volume and complexities of the questions asked. She would nevertheless try to address some of the questions.

Ms Lamoela agreed that a written response would be best.

Ms Vinjevold said that there were no “real” irregularities. There had been some administrative irregularities. For example, the work exam papers were handed out to students. There were at most 700 cases where investigations had to be initiated to look into whether candidates had cheated because cell phones or pieces of paper had been found in their possession during exams. These investigations could only be initiated now that the school year had commenced.

Ms Vinjevold said that the Department was concerned about rural learners and that investigations into underperformance by schools were being conducted in certain rural parts of the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and the Western Cape. The Minister had called for a report on what was to be done in 2009 to address the problem.

Ms N Madlala-Magubane (ANC, Gauteng) asked why some results were outstanding. She also asked why the percentage pass rates in home languages were so low. The number of teachers being recruited from overseas seemed to be increasing. She asked what the Department was doing about training SA teachers instead of importing skills.

Ms Vinjevold replied that results were only still outstanding in Mpumalanga. More and more results were being made available daily. The Department had a strategy to improve the quality of SA teachers by way of training. There were some teacher shortages in mathematics and the sciences hence the recruitment of foreign teachers. This was however a temporary measure.

Ms Vinjevold pointed out that the pass rate in home languages was 90%. It was over 95% in African languages. She did note that the majority of these learners did English as a second language.

The Chair referred to successful learners who had qualified to apply to tertiary education institutions but nevertheless were refused admission due to higher benchmarks set by universities. Higher benchmarks were common in the fields of medicine and engineering. He felt that the students were being fooled. He said that there was a need for synchronization.

Ms Vinjevold responded that it would be difficult to synchronise as different degrees have different requirements.

The Chair said that he understood the difficulty but that there should be some degree that the students should be allowed to do.

Ms Vinjevold said that students were continually informed that achieving the bare minimum was not good enough. Students should try to excel in their studies. She said that perhaps the minimum requirements for admission to universities should be looked at.

Mr Malcolm Mulcahy, Special Advisor to the Minister on FET, responded that the current requirements were an acceptable level agreed upon by universities. Students applying may not get accepted for their first choice of study but had alternatives from which to choose.

The Chair said that there was a huge disparity between schools, that is, those for the rich and those for the poor. He found it to be unacceptable. Students did not have different genetic material and if schools were run properly students would perform. It was an issue of resources. If schools were properly resourced, the performance of students would increase.

Ms Vinjevold stated that if one looked at any country in the world, the poorer schools did not perform as well. The Department was in agreement with the Chair that it should not be so. The Minister had asked for the disparity to be looked into. Increased resources and support to poorer schools was considered to be the solution.

The Chair also felt that students who did not write their exams in their mother tongue were unfairly disadvantaged. The provision of mathematics and science in mother tongues would boost the performance of students. He asked what was being done about Dinaledi schools. Decisive intervention was needed from the Department as underperformance was a recurring problem.

Ms Vinjevold said that the problem lay with the fact that often schools do not offer lessons in the mother tongue of students. She noted that the apparent home languages of some students in school were their second language at home in reality. The issue concerned the Department. The aim of the Department was for every school to have a qualified mathematics and science teacher. She stated that monitoring teams were being put in place in Dinaledi schools. She re-emphasised that the 2008 examinations was a demanding one. On the 29 January 2009 the nine provincial heads on education were scheduled to meet. The Department would furnish the Committee with a report on the outcome of that meeting.

The Chair asked if teacher training colleges were going to be opened.

Ms Vinjevold replied that she was not aware if it was part of the Department’s plans.

Ms Carelse said that there was an ANC resolution dealing with the issue and she wished not to comment on the issue any further. She pointed out that in October 2008 the Minister had launched a campaign on quality learning and teaching and that it would gain momentum within the next few months. The Department had a range of efforts to identify and focus on under-performing schools. There was a commitment to quality at schools.

A female ANC member said that often parents were excluded in the education of their children. The influence of certain obstacles like teenage pregnancy and television were often overlooked. She asked what the Department was doing to get rural schools on par with urban schools.

Ms Vinjevold replied that there was a huge backlog on the rural school issue but that work was ongoing. 

Ms Lamoela asked why teaching colleges had been closed in the first place. If media reports were to be relied upon, it was believed that by 2012 there would be a shortage of 90 000 teachers. She added that teachers often complained that they were burdened with too much administrative work.

Ms Vinjevold agreed that parents did have a role to play in the education of their children. Parents should be more involved. She felt that the figure of a 90 000 teacher shortage to be incorrect. Students were being encouraged to enter the teaching profession. The teacher training colleges had been closed down because the quality of training of teachers at that time was a concern. She referred to the perceived increase in the administrative workload of teachers and said that the Assessment Protocol had been introduced in 2006. Like all things new, the protocol would initially be felt to be a burden. She nevertheless said that concerns by teachers that the administrative burden on them was too great would be addressed.

The Chair referred to a radio broadcast that stated that Pretoria University would only be increasing its annual fees by 9% and not 10%. The impression was given that the university was reducing its fees. He asked whether there was some way in which to track learners after matric in order to check on how far they had come. He asked if the delay in matric results could possibly be due to schools not submitting the 25% year marks of students timeously. He asked what the Department had done about the issue if there were such instances. The Chair referred to the 2009 school year and asked if there was no mechanism in place to ensure that teaching took place on the first day of school. He asked for assurances that schools had received textbooks and stationery.

Ms Vinjevold said that when costs increased then the universities also increased their fees. Given that subsidies to universities had been increased, the fees increase at Pretoria University was kept to 9%. She noted that the tracking of learners would be useful. Higher Education SA was doing a benchmark. The Department tried to track learners at equity colleges. The late submission of year marks by schools was part of the investigation that the Department was doing. The outcome of the investigation would be available by the end of January 2009. A report would be furnished to the Committee.

Ms Carelse said that the Education Ministry had instituted a learner tracking system in 2008. It would be fully functional by 2010. It would track the learner from Grade R up until Grade 12.

The Chair thanked the Department for the presentation and adjourned the meeting.