DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION’S REPORT TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT TASKS
In October 2004 the President
requested that a series of papers be prepared discussing the challenge of
economic development and poverty eradication. The Minister for the Public Service
and Administration was requested to respond to the question “does the state
machinery have the required number of properly qualified, motivated and
resourced people dedicated to ensuring the success of our social and economic
development initiatives?”
It was found that lower-skilled
workers comprised half of public sector employment, while semi-skilled workers
made up 40%. Managers and skilled
personnel made up just 2% and 8%, respectively. This raised doubts as to whether the balance of skilled personnel
was commensurate with the skills profile required by a developmental
state. Progress has been made in making
the public sector more representative, but major challenges remain.
Skills shortages are manifested by
difficulties in filling vacant posts and are found in certain occupational
categories. According to departments’ skills development plans, financial and
computer skills were most needed, while literacy skills and skills for managing
projects, human resources and communication are all required. Skills gaps include transversal skills
(‘hard’ skills like project management skills or ‘soft’ skills like conflict
management or communication skills) and specific skills associated with
particular job profiles or occupational categories.
Remuneration of professionals and
other human resources management issues such as recruitment, succession and
career planning, employment equity, reward and recognition and employee
relations were also cited as factors. High-level skills in health, criminal justice,
education, local government, the South African Police Service, Trade and
Industry and crosscutting IT were identified as critical.
In respect of skills supply, it was
found that the higher education outputs were skewed in terms of race and gender
and the types of graduates produced.
The proportion of graduates (particularly Africans) in fields of study
that do not match the skills demanded is one of the major contributing factors
to current skills gaps. South Africa’s
high graduate unemployment rate indicates the need for a better coordination of
skills supply. Foreign expertise makes
up just 2% of the public service, and regulations generally discourage
employment of foreign nationals except where particular groups have been
targeted (e.g. doctors).
The capacity analysis found that the
public service had limited capacity for implementing integrated programmes: in
some municipalities there was no capacity and all service delivery had to be
outsourced. There were in-house shortages of “hard” skills such as engineering,
land-surveying and related disciplines.
However there was also a shortage of soft skills, including those that
assist government in engaging effectively with communities.
Horizontal integration and the
alignment of budgets between implementing departments was also a
challenge. External factors, such as
the capacity of the private sector to provide materials, were an inhibiting
factor. External service providers
often failed to transfer their skills to officials or emerging contractors. The capacity of communities to assume
responsibility for their own development was largely underutilised.
In the second part of 2005 the
G&A cluster assessed the capacity of the Health and Education Sector and of
the Departments of Constitutional Development and Justice and Trade and
Industry. The various sectors assessed
all have problems with recruiting and retaining the required number and quality
of professionals to be able to deliver their services.
The trend of departments spending
around 100% of their budget allocation on compensation of employees but still
showing a high vacancy rate is consistent across the sectors assessed. The above leads to the concept of “unfunded
vacancies”. This trend is due to either
the under funding of the department or a lack of credible organisational
structures that take the funding level and/or the appropriate service delivery
model into account.
The assessment clearly indicated
that there was limited use of delegations to institutional level and that this
impacted negatively on the effective functioning of these institutions.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED:
It is
implicit in the recommendations that where consultations are required in regard
to changes to policy and law, the necessary consultative processes will be
followed.
Some
recommendations are dependent on additional funding being made available and
estimates have been made.
In
implementing the recommendations, international experiences will also be taken
into account where relevant.
These
findings and recommendations were discussed with the Heads of Education
Departments Committee (HEDCOM) on 4 June 2006 and with the Council of Education
Ministers (CEM) on 5 June 2006.
Key recommendations (summarised):
1.
In regard to the
assessment of the roles and responsibilities of principals, norms and standards for education
leadership and accountability guidelines will be finalised by March 2007 and
implemented by September 2007. By March
2007, education officials will be made to play a greater role in the process of
recruiting and selecting principals. An education institution management
service similar to the Senior Management Service (SMS) in the Public Service
will be established, and a performance agreement system will be introduced at
the same time, by June 2007. An
increased, and flexible, salary package will be made available by 1 April 2008.
By June 2008 most principals will have a choice as to whether they want to
teach or not, instead of the current mandatory teaching requirements, and
special measures will be required for principals of schools that have fewer
than three teachers. By March 2007 it will be made mandatory for new entrants
to the post of principal to have a special qualification in educational
leadership. Funds will be set aside for programme development and for the
training of principals. An assessment will be undertaken to determine whether
an institute for education management should be established, initially for
research and programme development (for managers at schools, districts and
education head offices).
2.
In assessing the roles
and responsibilities of circuit and district managers it is proposed that a national
framework on the form and function of districts should be developed, which
would lead up to a white paper by March 2007. The role of districts, provincial
education departments (PEDs) and the DoE will be clarified. An audit of the functions of districts will
be initiated, phase one of which will be completed in December 2006 and the
final phase, in July 2007. Appropriate personnel and non-personnel resources,
including the training of staff and the building of their capacity, will be
made available by 1 April 2008.
The circuit managers will be the primary link to schools,
and the span of control will be reduced from the current 30 to 60 schools to
between 10 and 20 schools. Circuit managers will be given increased powers and
functions, and increased resourcing, so as to be accountable for quality
education and management in schools under their control.
3.
In regard to norms and
standards for support staff at schools and for administrative, management and
educator staff at offices, including district staffing and capacity, post provisioning norms will be
developed. These norms would favour poorer schools, with 25 000 posts to be
established by 1 April 2007. Based on current levels and ideal levels, the
norms and standards for office-based personnel indicate that some provinces
will need more personnel.
4.
The SMS Capacity gap
analysis in PED’s
indicates that the skills of existing personnel should be improved, that vacant
posts should be filled through a recruitment and succession plan programme, and
that additional posts are required for the PED’s to fulfil their functions satisfactorily.
5.
The IQMS system is being
improved through targeted and focussed intervention. A stringent and rigorous
moderation process that takes learner and school performance into account is
being developed. Capacity is being increased at all levels of the system. The
IQMS system and processes are being audited with a view to improving them and,
especially, linking them to learner performance. A national education
evaluation unit will be established. Its form and structure will still be
determined; however, it will be nationally driven and at arm's length to the
bureaucracy. The unit will measure teacher performance, taking into account
learner achievement, through full-scale inspections at all schools in a cycle
of three years.
WIDER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The roles and
responsibilities of principals and the development of an Education Institution
Management Service
a. The roles
and responsibilities of school principals are articulated in a number of
documents and processes – for example, the job descriptions for principals in
the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) and in the Integrated Quality
Management System (IQMS) instrument used for assessing teachers. In spite of the existence of various guidelines
and instruments, there was no clear policy on standards expected of principals.
The Council of Education Ministers has approved a policy on the South
African Standard for Principalship (SASP).
This standard will serve as a basis for establishing the core
competencies, roles and responsibilities of school principals and will serve as
a basis for providing input for the training programme for principals.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The DoE will (1) finalise the policy on standards for school
principals, which includes undertaking the necessary consultations by March
2007, and (2) put into place systems and processes for the implementation of
the policy by September 2007.
b.
Currently there is no clear division between the managerial and the
governance roles of the principal and, therefore, these roles are often
conflated. It is difficult to discern the line of accountability of a principal
in regard to his or her responsibilities of managing the school, especially in
respect of improving learning and teaching. Part of the problem also stems from
the processes according to which school principals are selected. The school
governing body (SGB’s) selects and recommends the school principal, and the
provincial head of education appoints the candidate even though the provincial
education authority does not play a role in the selection process. This is one
of the key reasons for the confusion in the lines of accountability of the
principal. The process is also open to abuse, nepotism and the selection of
unsuitable candidates.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The DoE will, by March 2007, develop guidelines on how principals can
be held more accountable in regard to their roles and responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATION 3: In order for the provincial head of department to make an appointment,
he/she will need to be satisfied that the process followed in the
recommendation is fair. It is therefore recommended that the education
authority plays a greater role in the process of selecting school principals.
Education officials will be included in the school panel dealing with the
recruitment and selection of school principals. This includes advising on the
requirements of the post at advertising stage, and involvement in the short
listing and interview process. Where current law allows for immediate action,
PEDs will take the necessary steps. Where there is a need for amendments to
existing laws the DoE should initiate the process. This action should be
completed by March 2007.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The DoE will consider using the current legislation and/or agreements,
such as the Employment of Educators Act (EEA) and the South African Schools Act
(SASA), to give effect to the guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of
principals. It may be necessary to amend legislation and/or agreements in this
regard. Where there is a need for amendments to existing laws, the DoE should
initiate the process. This action should be completed by March 2007
RECOMMENDATION 5: In order to assist principals in carrying out their increased
responsibilities and to monitor their delivery, their conditions of service
need to be amended with a commensurate improvement in their remuneration
packages. Retention of good people is imperative and their packages need to be
more attractive. The DoE will make proposals on restructuring of the packages
of principals, in terms of both flexibility and substance, by August 2006.
RECOMMENDATION 6: To further strengthen the accountability of principals, an education
institution management service similar to the SMS will be introduced.
Principals will be required to sign a performance agreement, which will be
managed by the employer; there will also be flexibility in deployment and
assignment. The relevant legislation will have to be amended to give effect to
this by June 2007.
(It is noted that the Minister for the Public Service and
Administration has determined the extension of flexible remuneration packages
to middle managers in the Public Service.
The Minister of Education has extended such packages to office-based
educators and will consider their extension to school-based educators – mostly principals – after in the implementation of the above
recommendations. The Minister of Education will also need to consult with the
Minister for the Public Service and Administration to extend the measure to
principals who are on salary levels lower than those already determined.)
c.
On the issue of the teaching responsibilities of principals, a question
has arisen: should a principal be expected to teach? Many believe that, as
instructional leaders, they should at least be in touch with the operational
aspects of their work. Others believe that, even though they are currently
required to teach minimally, the nature of their work makes it difficult for
them to do justice to their teaching.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Principals should not be
compelled to teach. It will be made optional and the decision will rest with
the principal. However, their decision should not affect their role of managing
the school and providing instructional leadership. The DoE will amend the
teaching load provisions to make teaching optional for principals. The post
provisioning model will also be amended to exclude principals from the
allocations. Special consideration will have to be given to the situation at
small schools, especially in one-person schools where the principal has no
option but to teach. The measures will
be finalised by June 2007.
d.
Principals are often ill prepared for managing and leading schools. Therefore, they will be required to be
qualified in managing and leading a school. A qualification has already been
developed and some principals will receive funding to take the course in 2007.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The DoE will make it
mandatory for every principal to undergo specialist training on entering this
occupational class. Where the education system is funding the training; it will
be restricted to personnel on managerial level. Measures will be finalised by
March 2007.
RECOMMENDATION 9: In addition to the
currently available qualification, the DoE will design an intensive
experiential training programme and will partner with providers, in the main
targeted tertiary institutions, to provide these DoE-branded programmes.
Capacity will be built at the DoE to design the “branded” programmes and
material. It is also envisaged that currently–serving, high-performing
principals will be utilised to facilitate the training. Begin April 2007.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Consideration for the
development of an education management development institute for programme
development, research and evaluation will be finalised by September 2007. This
will have a funding implication if its implementation is approved.
2.2 The
roles and responsibilities of district and circuit managers
a. The participation of the Indian consultants
is in the process of being finalised. However, the assessment by the education
sector has already been completed. The assessment is based on a number of
reports, audits and operational handbooks produced from 2003 to the present.
The roles and responsibilities of districts are not clearly defined and,
therefore, a number of systems have evolved. There is a multiplicity of
functions being performed by different jobholders and it would be difficult to
find two districts in two provinces organised in a similar way.
Districts are not
clearly defined in national legislation, which has led to an increasing
divergence of the role and functions of district structures and organisational
structures in PED’s. This has resulted in a lack of focus and uncertainty about
what the purpose of a district is. The uncertainty is mainly in the area of
which education functions need to be performed to improve learning and
teaching. There is also lack of conceptual clarity on decentralisation,
devolution and delegations (deconcentration). There is confusion about the
roles of districts in respect of whether they are regional arms of the head
office that are there to perform administrative tasks or whether they are
accountable for quality learning and teaching in the schools for which they are
responsible. While clear public service delegations are available, education
delegations have not been sufficiently exploited. Because of a lack of skilled
staff, sufficient posts, proper and adequate facilities, and technology,
systems and equipment, many districts are unable to fulfill their core
functions.
There has been a
proliferation of the names given to the persons responsible for education
functions. For example, the person responsible for a group of schools was
previously known as a circuit manager, but this term has very negative
connotations associated with it. While recognising that the provinces have
developed their own nomenclatures, there is a need to standardise on the
nomenclature.
RECOMMENDATION 11: A national framework in regards to districts will be developed.
There will be a common structure for education districts across the country,
and this structure will allow for provincial flexibility (non-rigid structure).
This would lead to a
white paper on the organisation, systems, staffing and funding of districts. A
white paper will be drafted for public comment by March 2007.
The role of districts
will be to deliver the key objectives of the education system.
The DoE should play a
policy, oversight, support and monitoring role, while PED’s should interpret
policy, coordinate, monitor and evaluate.
A common national
framework of nomenclature for functions and jobs will be developed.
Districts will also need to be
aligned to municipal and local government boundaries, and it would be necessary
to map districts and schools to ward structures, as these structures become
sites of public participation.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The functions of the
education system will be mapped out and those functions that can best be
performed at the level above the school will be delegated to a district
manager. It is proposed that an exercise be undertaken immediately to develop
detailed education delegations. A process engineering exercise will be
undertaken in mapping service delivery requirements to form, functions and
structure. The exercise will be
conducted in phases, with the first phase being completed in December 2006 and
the final phase in July 2007.
RECOMMENDATION 13: Districts will need to be
appropriately resourced in terms of facilities, equipment, systems, administration,
logistics, technology and human resources. District managers should be
appointed at appropriate levels, and district staff numbers should be
increased.
RECOMMENDATION 14: Development programmes
for district staff similar to the one for principals should be undertaken,
starting in April 2008, at a cost of R40m.
b.
For lack of a better term, Circuit Manager (CM) will be used for the
person responsible for a cluster of schools. There is a lack of clarity about
the role of the CM. The various provinces utilise them in different ways. CM’s
are not sufficiently resourced and often do not have clear accountability
responsibilities. In some cases they are overloaded with work – sometimes, work that has nothing to do with improving
learning and teaching. Their remuneration and level of appointment are not
commensurate with their expected role. Many also lack the necessary competency
to perform their functions. There is a multiplicity of officials with varied
processes and projects interacting with a school, and there is no clear line of
authority between the school and the education authorities.
RECOMMENDATION 15: The CM must be
recognised as the primary link to the school and must be held accountable for
the learning and teaching performance of a group of schools. All interactions
with the school should be transacted through him/her. The role of the CM will need to be transformed from that of
messenger to that of accounting officer, especially in terms of learning and
teaching in the cluster of schools. The process of consultations and
negotiations on the CM's roles and responsibilities and on performance
agreements should be finalised by June 2007.
RECOMMENDATION 16: The new role and responsibility
of cluster managers (Circuit Managers) calls for appropriate resourcing and
remuneration. The implications of
upgrading the posts to at least Chief Education Specialist level will be
explored. Costing proposals should be developed by August 2006. Preliminary
indications are that a ratio of one CM to every 10 schools instead of the
current one CM to between 20 and 60 schools will require additional posts.
RECOMMENDATION 17: Resourcing in terms of systems,
processes, offices, administrative staffing, technology and equipment needs to
be improved so that effective support, development, monitoring and evaluation
can take place.
RECOMMENDATION 18: The knowledge competencies of
district and circuit managers should be improved through targeted and focused
capacity building. The strategy proposed in respect of school principals
regarding programme design and materials and modes of capacity building will
also be followed in respect of circuit and district managers and staff.
Starting in April 2008.
2.3 Norms and standards for
support staff at schools and for administrative, management and educator staff
at offices, including district staffing and capacity
a.
There is currently no post-provisioning model for school-based support
staff. The current levels of provisioning differ from province to province and
from school to school. Previously advantaged schools continue to be well
staffed with publicly-funded posts.
RECOMMENDATION 19: Post provisioning for
support staff at institutions should be based on a combination of factors, such
as: (1) minimum posts for administration, general services and security, (2)
additional posts for size of the school facility and enrolment distributed on
the basis of the poverty targeting list. The poverty component in respect of
support staff should be 30% for Q1, 27.5% for Q2, 22.5% for Q3, 15% for Q4 and
5% for Q5. The rationalisation of
excess staff in less poor quintiles should be phased out through national
attrition and transfer incentives.
b.
Provinces spend different proportions of their budgets on office-based
educators, management and administrative support personnel. There are no clear
norms and the basis of post establishment is determined by provincial
requirements. There are common education functions and these functions require
an appropriate level of resourcing. While the different organisational
structures and development needs of the various PEDs currently make it
extremely difficult to determine a norm that is input driven, there is still a
need for a national benchmark.
RECOMMENDATION 20: For the immediate term,
a benchmark norm for office-based administrative, management and educator staff
will be established through (1) a benchmark for minimum staffing required at
all PED’s for fixed and essential functions, (2) variable posts for variable
functions, where effort increases owing to the number of learners in the
system, and (3) determination of national average of the current provisioning
ratio to serve as a benchmark.
Flexibility will have to
be allowed, so that provinces will be able to perform functions efficiently
with staffing below the norm. Benchmark norming will also express the staffing
levels as ratios, so that current staffing can be measured against the
benchmarks. In other words, the norm will also reflect the proportion of posts
that are administrative, management and educator professional. Provinces that are under-performing in terms
of education outputs could be allowed to move towards the norm if they are
understaffed. The benchmark norm would
then be adjusted on an ongoing basis.
2.4
SMS Capacity gaps
a.
A service provider was tasked to undertake a skills gap analysis in the
PED’s for the SMS level. The assessment points to gaps in the skills of
existing personnel, the challenge of filling certain posts and the inadequacy
of the number of funded posts established.
RECOMMENDATION 21: A capacity- and
competency-building programme, recruitment and succession planning programme
and the allocation of additional funded posts are proposed.
2.5
IQMS improve systems implementation processes
a. The DoE met PED officials to assess the
blockages in the implementation of the IQMS relating to teacher appraisal,
assessment and evaluation. An action plan for improving implementation in 2006
has been approved by HEDCOM and is being implemented. It was agreed that the
Circuit Managers (CM’s) should play a major role in the implementation and will
be accountable for the success of the system.
b. An audit and evaluation of the
system is to start in September 2006.
c. Capacity at the DoE is being increased.
d. Meetings are to be held with unions to share
improved recommendations and consider amendments.
e. Systems for data collection and data and
information flow are to be improved.
f. A moderation procedure has been
proposed:
i.
School management team to moderate scores per supervisor batch, based on
internal school-based performance scores and on position of school on circuit
performance log. Adjustments to be made by supervisors in their Developmental
Support Groups (DSG’s). Correlation between
scores awarded be per post level and performance.
ii.
Circuit manager to moderate scores of schools in circuit based on
performance of school on circuit log as well as district log correlated to
aggregate of educator performance scores per post level. A purposive (random) sample of schools to be
visited, namely, outliers. Scores to be adjusted within expected medians. All
educators who qualify for grade progression to be moderated and visited by
district. Circuit managers to verify
school-based moderation.
iii.
District managers to moderate scores of circuits as above and verify
circuit moderation processes.
Sample-school-based validation. Districts can adjust scores within
expected medians.
iv.
PED to moderate scores of districts as above and verify district
moderation processes.
Sample-school-based validation. PED’s can adjust scores within expected
medians.
v.
DoE to verify moderation processes and can sample districts, circuits
and schools for both moderation and performance evaluation on sample basis.
vi.
Where any score is adjusted lower, the adjusting authority will have to
provide development.
M RECOMMENDATION 22: To establishing an IQMS Directorate in the DoE and
for the national moderation process.
There is no objective
process or agency that overseas performance and measures performance of
teachers against a predetermined standard. This is an imperative for
improvement of the quality of teaching and learning.
RECOMMENDATION
23: A national
education evaluation unit will be established. The form and structure are still
to be determined; however, it will be nationally driven and perhaps needs to be
arm's length to the bureaucracy. International practice in this regard is being
considered and will be taken into account in the final form. The unit will link
strongly with current processes, such as the IQMS, in terms of both teacher
performance and evaluation and whole-school evaluation. The unit will serve as an inspectorate to
moderate teacher performance, assess school learner performance and undertake
full-scale inspections of all schools in a cycle of three years.
2.6 Remuneration of educators (DPSA to
report)
While this process is being led by the DPSA, the DoE is involved in the
task team. A strong recommendation needs to be made to Cabinet that we need a
dramatic shift in teacher salaries, to recruit and retain the best.
Is teacher remuneration too high or too low?
Are they paid enough? What
international and national comparisons or benchmarks are available?
Is it a factor in the low uptake to the profession?
Do we need to consolidate the packages (accelerated grade progression,
career pathing, incentives, performance rewards, etc.)?
How do we deal with attracting teachers to hard-to-teach subjects?
Can we guarantee new entrants in pre-service training a position? What are the cost implications?