THE SACE RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK ON TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In responding to the newly proposed National Policy Framework on Teacher Education and Development (NFTED), the South African Council for Educators (SACE) will be dealing with various issues at conceptual, implementation, technical and editorial levels. We believe that these levels complement and inform each other.

 

 

Furthermore, it is important to note that the Council has been discussing and debating both the Initial Professional Education of Teachers (IPET) and Continuing Teacher Professional Development (CPTD) issues for quite some time as part of its core business on professional development. As part of these discussions, SACE developed solid IPET and CPTD resolutions that shaped its work on these issues but also provided Council with direction in terms of influencing the NFTED process and shaping the final product. In the light of this, the SACE response will also provide some suggestions on both the IPET and CPTD conceptual and implementation issues that are in line with the adopted Council resolutions.

 

 

SACE welcomes the release of the much-awaited NFTED by the Minister of Education. While SACE acknowledges that the Department of Education took some time to develop a national framework that guides the country on teacher education and development issues, we want to applaud it for taking a huge step of coming up with a framework that has already generated much interest and created valuable dialogue in the education sector and public at large. For the first time, the country has a guiding document that assists South Africans in talking about and contributing meaningfully to issues that are central to teacher training and development with the ultimate goal of benefiting learners, schools and the entire education system.

 

 

SACE welcomes the addition made to the title of the framework. When the idea of developing this framework came into being a few years back, it was called “the National Framework on Teacher Education”. There is a school of thought that argues that the usage of the term “teacher education” appears to be paying attention to the initial teacher training issues and is not inclusive of teachers’ ongoing development. This might be seen to be undermining the initial teacher training and continuing teacher development continuum.  While this argument seems to be correct, we also want to highlight the fact that the usage of these terms also depends on the kind of teacher education and development literature one reads and where it comes from. Despite various arguments put forward in the teacher education and development literature, SACE welcomes the new title “National Policy Framework on Teacher Education and Development”.

 

 

The framework is driven by the principles of teachers taking responsibility for their own development. This resonates well with what SACE adopted in 2002 as a slogan and principle that drove its Professional Development Portfolio (PDP) Project – “taking responsibility for my own professional development”. It is imperative that teachers as professionals take initiative and drive their own professional development. Professional development should also be an inherent part of their professional lives. However, it is equally important that these principles and slogans be understood within a broader context of adequate resources and ongoing teacher support structures. We are also raising this point particularly with regard to the proposal made on the funding of teachers’ CPTD activities where teachers are supposed to pay for the CPTD activities that are not compulsory (We deal with this issue in detail later in the report under the CPTD System).

 

The policy framework uses the concept of “teacher” mostly throughout the document.. Is it for all the school-based teachers (from Public and Independent Schools) only? Or does it also cover all educators as defined in the Employment of Educators Act of 1998 and the South African Council for Educators Act of 2000 or in terms of educators in schools, Department of Education offices, Further Education and Training (FET) institutions, Early Childhood Development Centers, and Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) centers? In the light of this, there is a need for clarity in terms of who the policy framework is intended for?

 

IPET SYSTEM

 

It is important to note that SACE took some resolutions on the IPET System. As Council, we want to propose that some of those resolutions be incorporated into the framework to strengthen it. Firstly, SACE welcomes the two routes to the initial professional education of teachers – Bachelor of Education (BEd) and first degree plus Advanced Diploma in Education (ADE). We want to make an addition by proposing that these IPET qualifications should be developed, amongst other things, in line with the SACE professional standards. The South African Council for Educators Act no.31 of 2000 requires that SACE advise the Minister on matters relating to the education and training of educators, including the minimum requirements for entry to all levels of the profession and the standards of programmes of pre-service and in-service teacher education. The Council resolved that it would develop standards descriptors of teacher competence that will guide SACE’s recognition of teacher qualification for professional registration. Persons with new qualifications which are not compliant with these descriptors will not be registered as educators in South Africa. Timeous warning of the date of inception of this ruling will be given.

 

 

 

SACE will work collaboratively with the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), SAQA’s relevant Standards Generating Body (SGB), Department of Education (DoE) Qualifications Evaluation Sub-Directorate, teacher unions, and the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) on the standards development process.

 

 

The BEd option proposes one year equivalence of supervised teaching practice. For us this calls for proper supervision by both the lecturers concerned and the relevant teachers in schools. In terms of supervised teaching experience, SACE argues that in most cases senior teachers supervise student teachers during teaching practice time in schools. Sometimes they do this without the necessary skills that may be required for such a task. As a result this is compromising the quality of newly qualified teachers expected to teach in schools. SACE therefore proposes short courses in mentorship that will result in a certificate for those who have completed the full course. The course has to be endorsed/approved by the SACE and may be provided by any service provider who has been endorsed by SACE. The course will be linked to the continuing professional teacher development (CPTD) system, and therefore, those teachers who complete the course would earn the necessary points in line with the CPTD system. We are recommending that all senior teachers, master teachers, and any other teacher who mentor student teachers during school experience time should go through an endorsed mentorship course/ programme so that they could do justice in terms of mentoring and coaching student teachers during the school experience time. It also suggested that, in order to strengthen the workplace learning experiences, the Department of Education should have school-based assessors who will work collaboratively with the mentors and teacher educators from Higher Education Institutions in assessing, developing, and supporting the student teacher.

 

In terms of the second option (1st degree plus ADE), it is important to indicate that the ADE can only come into the picture once the Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) is finalized and approved. Coupled with this, is the finalization and approval of the 10 levels NQF. The country has been waiting for these two processes for quite some time now and we are not sure when they would be completed. All these will have an impact on the implementation of the second option. The ADE qualification is a new qualification that is likely to fit into the 10 levels NQF and HEQF. What would be the difference between the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) and ADE in terms of content, PGCE being a certificate/and ADE diploma, NQF credits, and NQF levels? It is difficult to clarify these issues until there is clarity on the HEQF.

 

 

SACE opposes the three year diploma option because it takes the country back in terms of perpetuating the previous teacher education qualifications inequalities. Although the framework provides some reasons behind this third option, it might send wrong signals and unintended messages to the potential student teachers and the profession as a whole. While SACE is opposing the diploma route, it also wants to indicate that it will support the Department of Education in contingency matters to deal with the urgent supply and demand issues when the time arrives. We want to emphasise that whatever contingency plan the Department of Education comes up with, it needs to lead to the acquisition of the four years qualification at the end. We are also calling upon the Department of Education to take teacher supply, utilization and demand issues seriously. There is a need to work on good and strategic recruitment campaigns and retention strategies.

 

 

CPTD SYSTEM

 

We want to begin this section by stating that the successful implementation of the proposed CPTD System depends on a number of factors.

(a)                Funding of Teachers’ CPTD Activities

 

In dealing with the funding of teachers’ CPTD activities, SACE moves from the premise that all the employers have an obligation to develop their employees. Teachers have the responsibility to drive their own professional development and they need to be supported on an ongoing basis. While we want to leave the responsibility of driving one’s own professional development in the hands of the teachers, we cannot allow a situation where teachers are expected to pay for every professional development activity that is not compulsory. If we allow this to happen, then we may not succeed in our quest to develop our country’s teaching force.

 

 

We also need to remind ourselves that the issue of funding has always been one of the major reasons why the professional development policies and agreements such as, the Developmental Appraisal System (DAS) and the Integrated Quality Management Systems (IQMS) were implemented without much success. . In most cases teachers would identify their professional development needs through the IQMS process, but there would be little or no follow-up, from the employers, in terms of ensuring that resources are availed to address those needs. This situation is still prevailing in many provinces with regard to the implementation of the IQMS. Because the professional development component of the IQMS is not given the serious attention it deserves, the IQMS is beginning to be viewed as an instrument for getting a 1% salary increase and if “I am not interested in the 1% salary increase then I will do it for the sake of submission” (these are the views of some of the teachers we interact with on the ground). We are suggesting that one of the major roles of the proposed National Education Evaluation and Development (NEED) Unit should be to coordinate the needs identification processes in line with the required professional development activities. Furthermore, there is a need to clarify the role of the NEED Unit and how it relates to the existing Department of Education units that deal with IQMS, Quality Assurance and Teacher Development matters.

 

 

Given this background, we want to emphasise that there is little or no teacher professional development taking place in terms of where the needs are identified through the skills audit and IQMS processes. We have already indicated that in most cases teachers are identifying their professional development needs but there is little or no follow-up, from the employers, in terms of ensuring that resources are availed to address those needs. Provinces are budgeting for 1% skills levy fund. To what an extent are they using the budgeted skills money for the ongoing development of teachers in particular?  In the light of this background,

 

  • We call upon the Ministry and the Departments of Education (national and provincial) to allocate more financial resources to the teachers’ chosen CPTD activities and not limit it to the compulsory ones. We do acknowledge the available limited bursaries and donor funding earmarked for teacher professional development. Most of these bursaries cater for the qualifications driven professional development and the NFTED focuses on different types of professional development. In most cases donor funding is earmarked for certain or specific professional development activities.

 

  • It seems provinces are not utilizing the budgeted 1% levy fund adequately for the professional development of teachers. We are proposing that all the provincial departments of education and national department of education should be made accountable for the utilization of the budgeted 1% skills levy, especially with regard to teacher professional development activities. In addition, we propose that the CPTD stakeholder forum (coordinated by SACE) be given the responsibility to monitor the utilization of the budgeted levy for teacher professional development.

 

  • In order to make the above submission concrete, we call upon the Minister to decide on a percentage, of 1% budgeted skills levy that should be allocated to teacher professional development and be accounted for on an annual basis.

 

  • The ETDP SETA should use its mandate to ensure that the provisioning of adequate teacher professional development takes place and be funded accordingly through the skills levies.

 

  • While we argue that the 1% skills levy fund should be used for teacher development activities, we also suggest that the Department of Education should have separate funding earmarked for professional development with the view of augmenting the skills fund.

 

  • We are proposing that these suggestions be factored into the NFTED document so that it can begin to clear funding issues and not avoid funding issues by being vague.

.

(b)                Relations with Other Professional Development Systems and Policies

 

We start this sub-section by acknowledging that there are other teacher education and professional development systems and policies existing currently. For example, Norms and Standards of Educators, Skills Development Act, ELRC Resolutions on workload in terms of 80 hours of professional development time, career pathing, and IQMS, and many others. All these systems and policies have a direct or indirect bearing on the implementation of the CPTD System.

 

 

For the purpose of this stakeholder input process, we want to focus on IQMS, Skills Development Act and the 80 hours INSET time. Firstly, it is important that teachers’ CPTD activities be informed by needs - individual, school, and national needs. The existing policy environment accommodates these through the IQMS and the Skills Development Act. Teachers, Schools and the Departments of Education identify professional development needs through the IQMS process and come up with the Professional Growth Plans (PGPs), School Improvement Plans (SIPs), and District Improvement Plans (DIPs). We are currently not sure of the extent at which all the DIPs feed into the provincial levels and provinces to national level so that we have provincial pictures and a national picture. Secondly, needs could be identified through the skills development act processes in terms of the processes of developing Workplace Skills Plans (WSPs), Sector Skills Plans (SSPs), and the National Skills Development Strategy. The question is, to what extent are the needs identification processes of the IQMS and Skills Development Act coordinated and speaking to each other in various departments of education? Or even worse, the majority of teachers and schools know little or nothing about the Skills Act processes. Then the question is what informs the development of the WSPs and SSPs in the education sector? This might also explain some of the reasons why the skills development funds are not utilized accordingly for the ongoing development of teachers in provinces. The overwhelming majority of teachers and schools know about the IQMS but its implementation is faced with many challenges.

 

 

We are raising these issues because we believe that these two processes are at the heart of enlightening teachers, schools, and the entire education system about the professional development needs and taking informed decisions in terms of which CPTD activities to choose and which CPTD activities to provide. If these CPTD activities are not informed by the needs, skills audit and national priorities we will end up with a situation where teachers do professional development as a paper exercise for purposes of compliance and earning points. Ultimately this will lead to a system of points chase at the expense of well-informed and meaningful professional development activities.

 

 

In terms of the 80hour INSET time, we think clarity needs to be given in terms of its co-existence with the NFTED and the CPTD System in particular. This is necessary to avoid the implementation confusion that might be created on the ground.

 

(c)                 Types of CPTD Activities

 

The framework is silent on CPTD activities that are initiated or driven by the teachers themselves. That is the non-provider driven or self-directed CPTD activities. It appears to be emphasizing CPTD activities that are provider driven. This seems to be sending a message that CPTD is always about attending something from various providers. We are proposing that the non-provider category of CPTD activities be included in line with the principle of taking responsibility for one’s own professional development. As part of self-directed professional development activities, SACE will request teachers to accumulate a portfolio of CPTD activities from both endorsed service providers and any other CPTD activities which the teacher wishes to include. Teachers will also be requested to participate in community pastoral citizenship roles for inclusion in individual CPTD portfolios.

 

(d)                Rewards and Sanctions

 

We note with interest that the framework is vague and not decisive on matters pertaining to the incentives and it leaves the decision and responsibility on this matter to SACE. Section 77 of the framework states that “teachers registered with SACE will be required to earn a specified number of PD points per three years cycle”. Those who succeed will be appropriately recognized by SACE. The document does not spell out what it means by rewards or appropriate teacher recognition. We therefore request the Department of Education to make clear what it means by the notion of rewards. It is also interesting that the framework is clear in terms of what needs to be done in as far as non-compliance is concerned, that is re-registration.

 

 

First, it appears from this that the framework provides SACE with the responsibility to determine and provide teachers with the appropriate rewards. Does this mean SACE will carry the financial implications of rewarding teachers who comply? If this is the case the employers will have to assist SACE in terms of the financial implications of these rewards. Alternatively, SACE can come up with various forms of rewards and work collaboratively with the employer and employee parties, in the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), in terms of coming up with a resolution that will bind employers to reward their employees for compliance.

 

 

Secondly, the document links non-compliance to re-registration. What does re-registration mean in the context of the framework? Unless, it is unpacked and clarified we are not going to assume that it refers to “licensing”. Currently any teacher who has M+3 years, and is also fit and proper to teach in relation to the SACE Code of Professional Ethics can be registered or even re-registered with SACE. Unlike other professional councils, SACE does not license teachers in a sense of offering them professional designation once they have gone through some form of competency assessment. It would therefore make no sense to link registration to licensing and re-registration to re-licensing. As Council, we are not ready to implement re-registration in a sense of re-licensing. However, this does not stop the profession and Council from engaging in a dialogue on these issues. There are various suggested ways of dealing with non-compliance:

 

 

Option 1

 

In terms of the SACE Act, the Council has an existing de-registration mechanism in terms of one of the sanctions given to teachers who contravene the Code of Professional Ethics. Furthermore, the sanction regarding non-compliance of teachers on CPTD activities is already captured in terms of section 7 and 9 of the SACE Code of Professional Ethics as follows:

 

 Section 7 (Conduct: The Educator and the Profession)

 

7.1   Behaves in a way that enhances the dignity and status of the teaching profession and that does not bring the profession into disrepute;

7.2   Keeps abreast of educational trends and developments;

7.3   Promotes the ongoing development of teaching as a profession; and

7.4   Accepts that he or she has a professional obligation towards the development and induction into the profession of new members of the teaching profession.

 

 

Section 8 (Conduct: The Educator and the Council)

8.1   Co-operates with the Council to the best of his or her ability; and

8.2   Accepts and complies with the procedures and requirements of Council including but not limited to the Registration Procedures, Disciplinary Procedures of the Council…

 

Sub-section/clause 8.2 would also cover the CPTD System requirements. The Code could be amended to cover the CPTD System requirements specifically. As Council we are of the view that this could be one of the mechanisms for dealing with the sanction issue.

 

Option 2

 

We may want to link the CPTD System to the IQMS System, existing Career pathing processes (Education Specialist, Senior Teacher, Master Teacher), and promotion procedures. Section 5 (b) of the SACE Act, states that “SACE must advise the Minister on the requirements for promotion within the education system” .

 

Option 3

 

While the Council might follow sanctions where necessary, it is important that the implementation of the CPTD System adopt a formative or developmental approach for the benefit of teachers and for purposes of minimizing sanctions where possible. This option needs ongoing formative monitoring and evaluation, comprehensive support structures, ongoing self-reflection by teachers, and huge resources (financial, technological and human). Assuming that all systems, structures, and processes are in place and we are ready to implement:

 

 

First Year of the Three Year Cycle

 

  • SACE informs registered teachers about various endorsed CPTD activities and providers available on the database through various publicity and communication strategies;

 

  • All registered teachers engage in CPTD activities in the first cycle (first three years) based on their developmental needs;

 

  • After a teacher has completed the CPTD activity, it will be the responsibility of the provider to send the teacher’s information (in terms of the CPTD activities and number of points earned) to SACE;

 

  • SACE will register teachers’ CPTD points on its database.

 

  • SACE will provide each teacher with an updated report on his or her CPTD activities and points at the end of the first year of the cycle;

 

  • Teachers will take their first year reports from SACE and use their professional development portfolio (ready made portfolio template from SACE) to reflect on their involvement in CPTD activities. Remember teachers will be driving their own professional development and will be able to identify challenges they are faced with. This reflection process should be able to assist teachers in monitoring themselves. It will also inform the bigger implementation process on an ongoing basis;

 

  • Still in the first year, SACE will have to generate a comprehensive status report based on the first year of implementation. The report should also be able to provide a national picture in terms of where teachers are in relation to where they are supposed to be;

 

  • The teachers’ reflections and SACE’s status report should be able to highlight the challenges. On the basis of this, teachers who are experiencing problems should be given the necessary support, direction, assistance and guidance depending on the nature of their challenges. All the stakeholders would have to be involved in different ways in terms of providing ongoing support.

 

Second Year of the Three Year Cycle

 

·         The second year should be used to monitor the process, and provide ongoing support;

 

·         Teachers should be provided with updated report on their CPTD activities and points at the end of second year. By this time, they should be having an indication of whether they will be able to comply with the CPTD System requirements for the first cycle;

 

·         There should be a production of national status reports for the second year and projections of compliance and non-compliance. It should also be analysed in comparison to the first year.

 

 

Third Year of Three Years Cycle

 

·         At the end of the third year, teachers should receive individual full reports of their CPTD activities and points, and compliance status;

 

·         Teachers’ reflection process should take place;

 

·         Teachers should be getting learning experiences in terms of having Regional or Provincial CPTD Review Sessions / Workshops to deal with challenges, support structures, CPTD resources, database linkages, communication with teachers, reporting of individual points, providers, Compliance and Non-Compliance in the first three years, CPTD activities, endorsement issues; 

 

·         The review sessions should also look into the CPTD System’s implementation inhibiting and enabling factors;

 

·         The learning experiences coming from the review sessions should inform the implementation process for the next cycles / three years.

 

·         There will be no sanctions for non-compliance.

 

Second Cycle

 

·         Implementation of the system will be more or less the same as for the first cycle in terms of formative monitoring, providing update reports to teachers, developing national reports, teachers’ reflection and self-monitoring.

 

·         There will be a national review session

 

Sanctions in the Second Cycle

 

·         Given the fact that teachers would have been supported along the way, updated on their compliance status throughout the cycle, the Council could apply sanctions as follows: (or in some other non-punitive way)

o        Reduce one’s full registration status to provisional status for a period of three years (that is in the next cycle)

o        Allow teachers an opportunity to be assisted further for a period of three years with the view of assisting them to re-gain their full registration status

o        If compliance fails again in this cycle, then this should be dealt with through the SACE Code of Professional Ethics and Disciplinary Procedures and process.

o        Each case will be treated on its own merits in terms of SACE Disciplinary Processes and Procedures.

 

We have dealt with this section in details so that some of the implementation and technical issues we are raising can begin to inform the policy and conceptual issues. Sometimes policy issues are difficult to resolve or be dealt with in a proper way because we have not thought through the implementation implications.

 

 

NFTED AD HOC Committee

 

SACE proposes that we should have a NFTED Advisory Committee and not an ad hoc committee. This advisory committee will be convened by SACE and its role will be:

(a)                 as per the brief in the current NFTED documents;

(b)                 to work on unresolved policy issues and advise SACE on the implementation plan and sub-policies; and

(c)                 to provide advice on ongoing formative monitoring and evaluation.

 

 

Conclusion

 

We call upon the Ministry of Education not to delay this framework further in terms of protocols and processes that are necessary to declare this NFTED policy. As SACE we strongly believe that teachers are undoubtedly our nation’s greatest asset. The country needs quality teachers to ensure that we deliver quality education and address the nation’s educational, economical and political priorities. The NFTED has great potential to do that, particularly if we take into account valuable issues raised by the teaching profession and the public at large. Internationally and nationally we need more quality teachers to achieve the quality education in South Africa. We also need quality teachers to achieve the 2005 International Labour Orgnasiation (ILO) declarations adopted in Pretoria, and Education for All (EFA) Goals agreed upon in Dakar, Senegal in 2000 and the Millennium Development (MDG) Goals declared in the same year. For both the EFA and MDG goals to be accomplished successfully by 2015, South Africa and the international community need more and more quality teachers. According to the United Nations we need approximately 15 million teachers to achieve these goals.

 

It is also to note that the 2006 Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report, commissioned by UNESCO on behalf of the international community, has been released. One of the key message sent out by the report is that “time is running out to meet the EFA goals of 2000. This also means the international community is lacking behind in terms of reaching the 2015 EFA and MDG targets. The other interesting recommendation coming from the report is the consideration of shorter initial teacher training for purposes of addressing the looming teacher shortage. The Educational International (EI) and other international communities have slammed this recommendation. In criticizing the recommendation on shorter pre-service training, the Secretary General of EI Fred van Leeuwen, said:

 

“this is in direct contradiction of the 2004 report, which urges government to avoid the temptation to lower standards of teacher training. We can never expect to create quality public education systems without giving teachers access to high-quality professional education. With all of the increasing challenges facing public education worldwide today, reducing teachers’ training is definitely not the answer to the looming teacher shortage”

 

 

The NFTED document came at an opportune time when South Africa will be hosting the Commonwealth Council of Education Ministers (CCEM) Conference in December 2006. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to engage in a dialogue with the Commonwealth education community on the NFTED proposals.