Report of the Portfolio Committee on
Basic Education on Budget Vote 15: Basic Education, dated 12 April 2011.
The
Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, having considered Budget Vote 15: Basic
Education; together with the Strategic Plan for 2011-2014 of the Department of
Basic Education and its Statutory Bodies, reports as follows:
1. Introduction
1.1
The budget review of the Ministry and Department of Basic Education was
undertaken on 29 – 30 March 2011 and the budget review of the statutory bodies
accountable to the Portfolio Committee was undertaken on 22 and 31 March 2011.
1.2
The budget briefings also served to acquaint the Portfolio Committee with the
mandates and programmes of each unit in the Department and the named statutory
bodies.
1.3 Those who appeared before the
Portfolio Committee included a delegation from the Department of Basic
Education: Hon E Surty - Deputy Minister for Basic Education, Mr B Soobrayan -
Director-General, Ms V Carelse - Deputy Director-General: Strategic Planning and
Reporting, Ms G Ndebele - Deputy Director-General: Social Mobilisation and
Support Services, Ms P Tyobeka - Deputy Director-General: Teacher, Education
Resources and Institutional Development, Dr S Padayachee - Acting
Director-General: Planning, Quality Assessment and Monitoring and Evaluation,
Mr E Mosuwe – Acting Deputy Director-General: Curriculum Policy, Support and
Monitoring, Mr G Coetzee – Director: Strategic Planning and Reporting, Ms N
Molalekoa – Acting Chief Financial Officer, Mr P Njobe – Director:
Director-Generals Office, Mr R Van Den Heever – Parliamentary Liaison Officer:
Office of the Minister and Ms K Mohoebi – Parliamentary Liaison Officer:
Director-Generals Office.
1.4 The Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education
and Training (Umalusi) was represented by Dr M S Rakometsi – Chief Executive
Officer, Mr J Thomas – Chief Financial Officer and Ms E Rabe – Chief Operations
Officer. The South African Council for Educators (SACE) was represented by Mr R
Brijraj – Chief Executive Officer, Mr M Mapindani – Chief Financial Officer and
Dr J Breedt – Councillor: Chairperson – Financial Committee. The Education
Labour Relations Council (ELRC) was represented by Mr M Govender – General
Secretary, Mr M J Moshakga – Chief Financial Officer and Ms G Neewat –
Provincial Manager
1.5 This
report gives a brief summary of the presentations made by the Department and
its statutory bodies to the Committee, focusing mainly on the Department’s 2011
– 2014 Strategic Plan, the 2011 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (METF) allocations
and an overview of allocations per programme. The report also provides the
Committee’s deliberations and recommendations.
2. Overview of the Strategic Plan
2.1 Address by the Deputy Minister –
Hon E Surty
The Deputy
Minister thanked the Committee for the opportunity and tendered the apologies of the
Minister of Basic Education, the Hon Angie Motshekga, who was on an official
long standing visit to the
In his strategic policy overview,
the Deputy Minister stated that the Strategic Plan for 2011 – 2014 was designed
to fulfil the legal obligation of the Department. It also served to inform all
education stakeholders of the strategic direction of the Department. Government
had agreed on twelve outcomes as a key focus of work between 2011 and 2014,
placing education and skills development at the centre of this administration’s
priorities.
The Strategic Plan articulated the
over-arching goal of improving the quality of learning and learner achievement.
The Department had a crucial monitoring, policy making and leadership
responsibility in improving the quality of learning. For each strategic
priority, a set of strategies, outcomes and deliverables have been developed
for the period 2011-2014. The strategic priorities were informed by the
Government’s Programme of Action, the Delivery Agreement signed by the Minister
and the Action Plan to 2014: Towards the
Realisation of Schooling 2025. Clear measurable targets have been set out
in the Action Plan in terms of the
strengthening of learner achievement at key stages of the schooling system.
Government had identified key
challenges that reflected on the state of basic education. Significantly, it is
widely recognised that the country’s schooling system performs below its
potential and that improving basic education outcomes is a prerequisite for the
country’s long range development goals. These challenges focus on the issue of
quality and include the quality of learner outcomes across grades, the quality
and quantity of learner and teacher support materials, the quality of
school-based tests and examinations, and the quality of support for schools.
The President has emphasised the
vital role of the education system in improving productivity and competitiveness
in the economy. The President made it clear in the State of the Nation Address
this year that the emphasis in improving quality education should be on the Triple Ts: Teachers, Text and Time. The
Deputy Minister further pointed out that through this Strategic Plan, the
Department committed itself to undertake its activities effectively and timeously
in order to produce the four agreed-upon outputs as set out in the Delivery
Agreement. Through the achievement of these outputs, the Department aims to meet
Outcome 1 of the Delivery Agreement: “Improved
quality of basic education”. These outputs are:
·
To
improve the quality of teaching and learning
·
To
undertake regular assessment to track progress
·
To
improve early childhood development
·
To
ensure a credible outcomes-focused planning and accountability system.
The Deputy Minister further informed
the Committee that the Strategic Plan reflects five key interventions in order
to ensure that enabling conditions for quality learning are established in all
schools across the country. These include:
·
Strengthened
Teacher Development
·
The
provision of quality learner support
materials
·
The
institutionalisation of Annual National Assessments in literacy and numeracy
·
To
strengthen District Development and ensure increased support to schools
·
To
advance the Accelerated Schools’ Infrastructure Delivery Initiative (ASIDI) in
order to ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure
The Department committed itself to
strengthen reporting on the state of basic education through the publication of
frequent reports emanating from the monitoring and research work of the
Department.
2.2 Overview
by the Department of Basic Education
The Director-General (DG), Mr B Soobrayan,
expanded on the Minister’s overview, providing further details. He reflected on
Education as an Apex Priority with Outcome 1 being the improved quality of
basic education as central to the Strategic Plan. Key challenges identified by
the review of the state of education included:
·
Quality
learner outcomes were not optimal across all grades.
·
The
quality and quantity of learner and teacher support materials were not adequate
to sustain quality learning.
·
The
quality of school-based tests and examinations was not of the required standard
and was not being moderated or benchmarked.
·
The
quality of support from districts and specifically school support personnel had
not been constructive nor responsive to the needs of the schools’ management.
The Strategic Plan reflects the commitment of the
Department to undertake activities effectively and timeously to produce the
agreed-upon outputs that will in turn contribute to achieving Outcome 1. The Director-General
touched on the key interventions identified in
response to the President’s call in the 2011 State of the Nation Address
emphasising the need for more focus on the Triple T– Teachers, Text and Time
– and explained how this would be
done differently.
The Director-General then spoke to the
detailed strategic objectives including the strategic outcome oriented outputs
and sub-outputs. The outputs and sub-outputs of the delivery Agreement have
been aligned to the budget programmes (including key departmental improvement
strategies). The five strategic goals are as follows:
·
Improve the quality of Teaching and Learning, Curriculum Policy, Support and Monitoring
·
Undertake regular assessment in order to track progress
·
Improve early childhood development
·
Ensure a credible, outcomes-focused planning and accountability system
·
Improvements in the capacity of the Department of Basic Education
The Director-General then took the Committee
through each of the programmes in the Estimates of National Expenditure and explained
what each aimed to achieve:
·
Programme
1: Administration
·
Programme
2: Curriculum Policy, Support and Monitoring
·
Programme
3: Teachers, Education Human Resources and Institutional Development
·
Programme
4: Planning, Information and Assessment
·
Programme
5: Educational Enrichment Services
3. 2011 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Allocations
The Director General (DG) touched on the focus
over the medium term for the Department and the distribution of the budget. He
also spoke to the additional allocations over the MTEF period. The Director-General
informed the Committee that expenditure increased from R4.8 billion in 2007/08
to R10 billion in 2010/11 and is expected to continue growing over the medium
term to reach R20.4 billion in 2013/14. Over the MTEF, the Department receives
new allocations to its baseline of R6.4 billion in 2011/12; R8.5 billion in 2012/13;
and R11.9 billion in 2013/14. Important figures supplied included the
following:
Allocations for the 2011 MTEF:
|
2011 ENE ALLOCATIONS FROM TREASURY |
|||
|
|
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
|
|
R'000 |
R'000 |
R'000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baseline allocation |
7 549 812 |
8 099 316 |
8 544 778 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to baseline: |
6 368 678 |
8 510 541 |
11 919 186 |
|
Funza Lushaka Bursaries |
- |
200 000 |
396 000 |
|
Curriculum Review |
80 000 |
- |
- |
|
Attaining full functionality in newly
established department |
20 000 |
26 000 |
29 000 |
|
Improved conditions of service |
9 200 |
9 500 |
9 800 |
|
National Curriculum Statement: examinations
and assessment |
14 197 |
18 857 |
19 854 |
|
Curriculum and Professional Development Unit |
3 000 |
5 000 |
6 000 |
|
School Infrastructure Backlogs Indirect Grant |
700 000 |
2 315 000 |
5 189 000 |
|
Expanded Public Works Programme: |
43 981 |
53 013 |
62 787 |
|
Educational Infrastructure Conditional Grant |
5 498 300 |
5 883 171 |
6 206 745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: |
(50 356) |
(51 921) |
(54 340) |
|
Baseline efficiency savings |
(9 197) |
(7 857) |
(7 854) |
|
Further savings effected by Cabinet |
(39 144) |
(41 948) |
(44 254) |
|
Function shift to Department of Higher
Education and Training: |
(2 015) |
(2 116) |
(2 232) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 ENE ALLOCATIONS |
13 868 134 |
16 557 936 |
20 409 624 |
Allocations Per Programme for 2011/12 Compared to 2010/11
|
PROGRAMMES |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
Percentage |
|
R’000 |
R’000 |
increase/ decrease |
|
|
Administration |
244 390 |
301 740 |
23.5% |
|
Curriculum Policy, Support and Monitoring
(1) |
1 355 932 |
1 835 137 |
35.3% |
|
Teachers, Education Human Resources and Institutional
Development |
505 223 |
521 989 |
3.3% |
|
Planning, Information and Assessment (2) |
163 597 |
6 387 529 |
3 804.4% |
|
Educational Enrichment Services (3) |
3 897 058 |
4 821 739 |
23.7% |
|
Total |
6 166 200 |
13 868 134 |
|
Allocations Per Programme over the 2011 MTEF
|
Programme |
2011/12 R’000 |
2012/13 R’000 |
2013/14 R’000 |
|
Administration |
301 740 |
320 787 |
339 977 |
|
Curriculum Policy, Support and Monitoring |
1 835 137 |
1 901 347 |
2 013 482 |
|
Teachers, Education Human Resources and
Institutional Development |
521 989 |
747 195 |
973 163 |
|
Planning, Information and Assessment |
6 387 529 |
8 405 342 |
11 614 737 |
|
Educational Enrichment Services |
4 821 739 |
5 183 265 |
5 468 265 |
|
TOTAL |
13 868 134 |
16 557 936 |
20 409 624 |
Allocation Summary for
2011/12 Compared to 2010/11
|
SERVICE |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
Percentage |
|
R’000 |
R’000 |
increase/
decrease |
|
|
Compensation of Employees |
199 910 |
245 532 |
22.8% |
|
Examiners and Moderators |
13 830 |
16 660 |
20.5% |
|
Transfers to Public Entities |
441 350 |
467 831 |
6.0% |
|
Other Transfers (1) |
12 348 |
11 066 |
(10.4%) |
|
Conditional Grants (2) |
3 931 371 |
10 546 380 |
168.3% |
|
Earmarked Funds |
1 454 314 |
1 601 828 |
10.1% |
|
Departmental Operations (3) |
65 119 |
928 361 |
1 325.6% |
|
Projects |
47 958 |
50 476 |
5.3% |
|
Total |
6 166 200 |
13 868 134 |
|
Allocation Summary over
the 2011 MTEF
|
SERVICE |
2011/12 R’000 |
2012/13 R’000 |
2013/14 R’000 |
|
Compensation of Employees |
245 532 |
264 975 |
282 525 |
|
Examiners and Moderators |
16 660 |
17 490 |
18 440 |
|
Transfers to Public Entities |
467 831 |
691 223 |
914 240 |
|
Other Transfers |
11 066 |
11 614 |
12 250 |
|
Conditional Grants |
10 546 380 |
11 330 555 |
11 953 735 |
|
Earmarked Funds |
1 601 828 |
1 628 085 |
1 724 642 |
|
Departmental Operations |
928 361 |
2 559 263 |
5 446 286 |
|
Projects |
50 476 |
54 731 |
57 506 |
|
Total |
13 868 134 |
16 557 936 |
20 409 624 |
The Director-General
concluded with the following:
•
The Action Plan to 2014 and the
Delivery Agreement have served as useful instruments to improve the credibility
of our Strategic Plan.
•
The link between planning,
budgeting, implementation and monitoring and evaluation is improving
progressively across the system.
•
The Strategic Plan (including
budget allocation decisions) reflects how the DBE has concretely
operationalised its role in the sector as contemplated in the Action Plan and
Delivery Agreement.
While the
challenges remain great, there were reassuring indicators that show that the
system is responding positively to the outcomes-based approach.
Committee Observations
The Committee was concerned whether
the national Department had any plan in place to assist the provinces to
improve their financial management capacity and internal controls, particularly
the serious weaknesses in leadership; financial and performance management; and
governance as indicated by the Auditor General South Africa (AGSA) in the
2009/10 financial year. With the infrastructure challenges encountered over the
last three years and minimal delivery on the infrastructure backlog, the
Committee needed the Department to outline its implementation programme,
including comprehensive plans of provincial education departments in respect of
how they intended to spend the Schools Infrastructure Backlog Grant and how the
Department intended to address capacity concerns in certain provinces.
Although the Department was making
progress on the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) and recognizing
that curriculum issues were critical to teaching and learning, the Committee
questioned whether there was adequate system preparation and whether the CAPS
would be able to address the existing curriculum gaps.
The Committee expressed the need for greater progress in the
area of education for learners with special education needs. As in the past two
years, the Committee expressed its concern with regard to the delay in
finalising the development of the Funding
Norms for Inclusive Education and
The Committee
requested further documentation and follow-up responses to matters not covered
during the review. The matters that require further responses and submission are
as follows:
·
Submission on indicators in respect of schools vs. administration expenditure
·
A report on the Funza Lushaka Bursaries – a breakdown of
expenditure, statistics and tracking systems in place
·
A report on interventions – findings and recommendations
·
Quarterly performance reports based on targets set in the
Strategic and Annual Performance Plans – including performance of individual provinces
·
A report on all unsafe structures (mud, prefabricated, wood
etc) nationally
·
A report on the pilot study in respect of the new Post Provisioning
Norms
·
A report on progress made in achieving the Millennium
Development Goals
·
A Report on Early Childhood Development
·
A Report on the Integrated Plan on Sport
·
Technical Schools Recapitalisation Plan
The Department should submit the
above reports within 7 days of the adoption of the budget vote to Parliament.
The
Portfolio Committee requested and received a focused presentation on the
following:
3.2.2 Post
Provisioning Norms (PPN)
The PPN was regulated in terms of
the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998. These regulations determined that the
MEC had to create a pool of posts annually in accordance with funds available.
Unions were consulted from June to August of every year to share information on
the process. Schools received their post establishments by the end of September
for the following year. In eight of the provinces, with the exception of the
The
The post provisioning model
attributed weights to learners and distributed available posts proportionally
among schools. The principal was entrusted with deciding how posts would be
utilised in the school in accordance with their curriculum offerings.
The proposed new Post Provisioning
Norms Model intended to
•
address problems that persist in relation of large
class sizes but also to improve the response to curriculum needs and the appropriate
utilisation of teachers;
•
address the needs of poorer schools by allocating
redress posts as part of the original distribution;
•
Deal with post-provisioning in small and multi-grade
schools by allocating them more teachers
•
Address the management of staffing turbulence created
by annual learner number fluctuations;
•
Manage class size through linking the allocation of
posts to physical classrooms.
The new model was being tested with
data that was presently used with the current model to determine the effect on
each school. The primary focus was that schools PPN should lead to quality
learning and teaching. The testing included running scenarios with existing
funding and with additional funding. The testing would help to ensure that the
revised PPN would deliver the intended outcomes and was financially viable.
The post provisioning model together
with funding available, determined the educator/learner ration as follows:
|
Data |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Educators |
361 651 |
369 119 |
366 153 |
371 449 |
386 587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learners |
11 862 316 |
11 941 822 |
12 041 220 |
11 873 162 |
11 828 747 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
Learner: Educator |
32.8 |
32.4 |
32.9 |
32.0 |
32.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum
Leaner: Educator |
34.4 |
33.4 |
33.2 |
36.4 |
37.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum Learner: Educator |
31.1 |
29.7 |
29.1 |
30.4 |
28.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2.3
The programme was designed to contribute
to teaching and learning by working with provinces and districts to provide
nutritious meals and promote sustainable food production initiatives in schools
in order to develop skills. The three pillars of the programme are:
·
School Feeding
·
Nutrition Education
·
Sustainable Food Production in Schools
The programme provided meals to over
8 million learners with priority to Quintile 1-3 primary and Quintile 1-2
secondary schools. Quality nutritious meals were provided on all
schools days. The Department hoped to expand the programme to Quintile 3 secondary
schools. The aim of nutrition education was to create awareness on healthy food
choices in school communities as well as to develop material to support the curriculum
to address learning outcomes in Life skills, Life Orientation and Arts &
culture. It was important to establish and sustain food production in schools
in support of curriculum in collaboration with other stakeholders.
The following table illustrates the
evolution of the NSNP:
|
|
Past |
2010/11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Menu |
Cold Menu |
Cooked Menu |
|
|
|
|
|
Quality |
Uneven |
Improving Quality |
|
|
|
|
|
Selection |
Targeting Learners |
Targeting Schools (lower quintiles |
|
|
|
|
|
Coverage |
Primary Schools |
6 539 271 million learners in Q1,
Q2 & Q3 Primary and |
|
|
|
|
|
Note-Worthy Achievements |
|
Annual Reports, Best Practice
Booklet, Recipe Book, Inaugural NSNP Best Practice Awards 2010 Budget: R 3.7 billion Preparation Allocation (equipment
and utensils) |
|
|
|
|
Figures for Expenditure and
Allocation per province are as follows:
|
Province |
Expenditure (as at Feb 2010) |
Allocation (2011/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 per cent |
845 166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 per cent |
105 116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 per cent |
227 433 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 per cent |
509 798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 per cent |
305 935 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
93 per cent |
244 699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 per cent |
829 669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 per cent |
1 070 013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
91 per cent |
440 923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
4 578 752 |
Planning for 2011 includes:
•
Rigorous monitoring in collaboration with relevant
Directorates/Branches and stakeholders- quality
•
Provision minimum allocation to procure
utensils/equipment
•
Plans and capacity for progressive implementation of
decentralised model (transfers)
•
To explore project management model for all grants
•
To align NSNP activities with curricula
•
To strengthen partnerships to improve areas of need
e.g. recognising excellence and best practice.
3.2.4
Accelerated
School Infrastructure Delivery Initiative (ASIDI)
The focus of
this initiative for 2010 – 2014 was to provide basic services to bring schools
to basic safety functionality. The aim was also to replace all 395 mud schools
in the
The
conditional grant was a specific purpose grant-in-kind
(Schedule 7) administered by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) that may
be transferred to a province. The grant would cover the following:
•
60% (R420m in first year) allocated for mud schools in
the
•
40% (R280m in first year) allocated for basic services
•
Business plans to be submitted to DBE for assessment
and approval and monthly progress reports
•
Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) to budget for
furniture and maintenance of facilities
Allocations
|
Name |
Province |
2011/12
allocation |
|
|
|
R'000 |
|
School Infrastructure backlogs grant |
|
520 679 |
|
|
22 273 |
|
|
|
6 656 |
|
|
|
46 218 |
|
|
|
41 653 |
|
|
|
38 270 |
|
|
|
8 002 |
|
|
|
11 056 |
|
|
|
5 193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
700
000 |
A
procurement strategy had been developed through the assistance of the
Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). The strategy proposed the
following:
For
the 2011/2012 financial year projects be clustered according to type as
follows:
Category A:
•
Construction of buildings and
non-waterborne toilets:
•
Replacement of 50 mud schools
•
Construction of non-waterborne
toilets
Category B:
•
Water supply: Borehole water /
rainwater harvesting
Category C:
•
Electrical supply and wiring of
buildings
The
programme will be overseen by a Programme Support Unit located in the
Department of Basic Education.
Progress
to date includes the first batch of 50 mud schools having been identified and
costed in the
•
Water and sanitation: As part of a
transversal contract with the Department of Human Settlements and as part of
the Rural Household Infrastructure Programme (RHIP). This programme will be run
in conjunction with the Departments of Water Affairs(water) and Human
Settlements(sanitation)
•
Electricity: A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) is in the process of being finalised with Eskom, which will be
responsible for the electrification of schools. This programme will be managed
with the Department of Energy.
•
Planning for 2012/13 and 2013/14 to
commence with the verification of the backlogs. Terms of Reference for a
service provider to do project preparation are being finalised. This will
entail verification of backlogs, compilation of project business
plans as well as preparation of a proposals and procurement plan for
implementation.
A
Summary of Projects: Basic Services – 2011/12
|
Province |
Sanitation
|
Water |
Electricity |
|
Projects |
Projects |
Projects |
|
|
|
161 |
305 |
104 |
|
|
13 |
43 |
31 |
|
|
21 |
0 |
2 |
|
Kwa-
Zulu |
60 |
60 |
0 |
|
|
38 |
26 |
21 |
|
|
5 |
9 |
66 |
|
|
17 |
6 |
0 |
|
|
18 |
10 |
0 |
|
|
21 |
3 |
7 |
|
Total |
354 |
462 |
231 |
The
Department currently uses the Infrastructure Reporting Model
(IRM) to monitor progress on projects and expenditure on those projects. The
following will be implemented to enhance monitoring and reporting:
·
Enhance the IRM and customise it to
the sector in order to better report on schools infrastructure delivery
·
The gazetting of Table B5 of the
provincial Budget Statements
·
Aligning Table B5 to IRM planning
project list
·
A schedule of quarterly site visits
to compare what is being reported on against actual delivery
·
To increase capacity in DBE to
ensure that data reported by PEDs is thoroughly analysed and accurate reports
of what is actually being delivered in provinces is produced.
4. The Council
for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi)
The Chief
Executive Officer, Dr M.S Rakometsi, opened the presentation with a brief look
at the Umalusi Mandate, Vision,
·
Improving and maintaining the
system for quality assuring assessment for certification
·
Establishing and implementing a
system for evaluation and accreditation of providers
·
Establishing and maintaining a
system to certify and quality assuring qualifications and curriculum
·
Researching, diagnosing and
reporting on quality in general and further education and training supported by
statistical analysis.
·
Developing and maintaining
management support structures and governance
·
Ensuring that Information
Technology systems are established, maintained and improved
·
Ensuring that finance, human
resources and administrative support systems are maintained and improved.
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr J Thomas, took the Committee
through the Executive Summary on Finances. The statement of financial
performance as at 28 February 2011 indicated a net surplus of R 4 531 759 with
110 per cent of the budgeted revenue from operations being recognised. He
mentioned that 100 per cent of the grant from the Department of Basic Education
had been received while 76 per cent of the budgeted expenses were incurred to
date.
Mr Thomas also touched on the statement of the financial position, cash
flow, debtors and investments as follows:
·
Total Assets - R 47 397 032
·
Invoiced Debts collected to
date - 93 per cent
·
Cash Available - R
688 018
·
Investments - R 26 392 075 (attracting interest of
5.50
per
cent per annum
The following charts/graphs were used to illustrate the Budget:
·
Comparative Total
Expenditure to Date vs. 3 Year Average
·
2010/11 Revenue Budget vs.
Actual (Current)
·
2010/11 Expenditure Budget
vs. Actual (Current)
·
Statement of the Financial
Position as at 28 February 2011
Members also received the 2011/12 Budget (Forecast), showing the current
budget and the 2011/12 forecast - for the following programmes (with
motivations):
-
Quality Assurance of
Assessments: There was a 13 per cent
increase due to the increase in Moderator costs as per the Ministerial approval
and also an increase in moderation/monitoring sample sizes.
-
Evaluation and
Accreditation: A 19 per cent increase due to an increase in the number of
institutional site visits, etc
-
Qualification, Curriculum
& Certification: A decrease of 4 per cent due to the need to capacitate the
unit before the role out of qualifications and curriculum work was increased.
This will be implemented in 2011/12 and an additional budget for human
resources was allocated in its place.
-
Statistical Information and
Research: The 16 per cent increase was budgeted to give effect to the formal
mandate of research as a Quality Council (QC) and which now includes an
extension of the research work in respect of the standard setting and
qualifications development.
-
Management Support
Structures: A decrease of 2 per cent in the budget was proposed as most Council
members were office bearers and required less allowance. More capacity was
required in Public Relations - thus a look at increasing the Human Resource
(HR) budget.
-
Corporate Services:
Information Technology – A 9 per cent increase was required due to the increase
in computer costs - mainly for replacement of hardware and software. No
increase in SITA costs were effected over the last two years.
-
Corporate Services: Finance
– An 8 per cent increase forecasted for buildings, which was more maintenance
orientated and supply chain costs for purchases such as stationery, etc
-
Corporate Services: Human
Resource Management and Development – A 21 per cent increase due to additional
posts required as per the Human Resource review done and approximately 5 per
cent towards cost of inflation increases
Mr Thomas concluded his presentation with the following graphs:
TOTAL INCOME
2000/1 (ACTUAL) TO 2013/14 (BUDGET)
|
YEAR |
INCOME |
BUDGET |
DBE GRANT |
GRANT % |
|
2000/01 |
R 6 150 786 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
2001/02 |
R 7 027 948 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
2002/03 |
R 13 757 861 |
|
R 1 513 000 |
11 |
|
2003/04 |
R 18 076 902 |
|
R 3 050 000 |
17 |
|
2004/05 |
R 23 547 626 |
|
R 12 869 000 |
55 |
|
2005/06 |
R 28 603 979 |
|
R 7 690 000 |
27 |
|
2006/07 |
R 32 972 345 |
|
R 10 286 000 |
31 |
|
2007/08 |
R 36 013 566 |
|
R 12 652 000 |
35 |
|
2008/09 |
R 46 434 369 |
|
R 16 044 000 |
35 |
|
2009/10 |
R 52 442 731 |
|
R 16 494 000 |
31 |
|
2010/11 |
|
R 68 812 141 |
R 17 350 000 |
25 |
|
2011/12 |
|
R 78 861 400 |
R 18 391 000 |
23 |
|
2012/13 |
|
R 91 644 338 |
R 19 311 000 |
21 |
|
2013/14 |
|
R 101 650 807 |
R 20 469 660 |
20 |
3 YEAR
BUDGET FORECAST
|
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
|
R 68 812 141 |
R 78 861 400 |
R 91 644 338 |
R 101 650 807 |
|
The 2011/12 Budget was submitted in September 2010 and a response received
in January 2011. Thus a revised budget was submitted on 18 January 2011 and
the Ministry of Basic Education approval was pending. |
|||
|
Y/Y
Percentage Increase |
|||
|
28% |
15% |
16% |
11% |
Dr Rakometsi concluded the Umalusi presentation with the following
challenges:
•
The financial sustainability
of the organisation through increased funding – Umalusi had been through the
processes of applying and requesting an additional allocation. Umalusi had met
with the Department and Treasury on the matter.
•
A move from certificate fee
structure to a quality assurance levy
•
To increase baseline
allocation of the grant
•
Umalusi mandate contestations
•
Reputational risk as addressed
through the media
Committee
Observations
There remained issues to be resolved
with the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) as they intended to
take over the N-courses and then delegate them back to Umalusi – the issue was
still being debated. QCTO, which was provided for in 2008 in the amended Skills
Development Act, was not fully established and lacked the necessary capacity.
The Committee would continue the debate on the unfunded mandates. The Committee
congratulated Umalusi on receiving a clean audit in the 2009/10 financial year.
The Committee was concerned that there seemed to be little progress on the
issue of a move from ccertification fee to a
quality assurance levy? The Committee was also concerned about the scarcity of
moderators and how to deal with this. The Committee further requested the
following reports:
·
A status Report tabled by the Minister for discussion and
consideration
·
The Report on the Foundation Phase
·
The Report on the State of
5.
South African Council for Educators (SACE)
The South African Council
for Educators (SACE) is a professional council that has been established in
terms of the SACE Act no.31 of 2000. In
addition, the National Policy Framework on Teacher Education and Development
(2007) mandate SACE to manage and implement the Continuing Professional Teacher
Development (CPTD) system. SACE’s goals are first to regulate the teaching
profession by:
·
developing and maintaining standards of entry into the
profession;
·
managing a register of professionally qualified teachers;
and
·
managing the code of professional ethics, complaints and
discipline within the profession.
Furthermore it develops the
profession through managing and implementing the CPTD system,
·
identifying the needs
of the teaching profession, promoting teaching as a profession,
·
setting and monitoring standards of teacher education and
development, and
·
advising the
Ministers of Education.
In realising its mandate and goals
it needs to work collaboratively with the Ministry of Basic Education and other
Education stakeholder in achieving government’s outcome number one – Quality Basic Education.
Focus Areas for 2011/12 are:
•
Registration
•
Professional Development
•
Ethical Standards
•
Policy and Research Coordination
•
Communication and Advocacy
•
Administration
Figures for the 2012 Budget were as
follows:
INCOME
Registration fees
1 140 000
Reprint of certificates 120 000
Subscription fee 50
880 000
Interest receivable 1 100 000
Sundry income 180 000
CPTD grant (non guar.) 0
53
420 000
EXPENDITURE
Registration 1
200 000
Professional Dev. 2
300 000
Publicity & Comm 1 800 000
Code of Ethics 1 400 000
Office rental 1 400 000
Future accommodation
/operation Reserve 13 104 000
Admin expenses
32 216 000
TOTAL
BUDGET 53 420 000
Registration - To register all educators and maintain and sustain the credibility of
the educator data system. Registration programmes for 2012 include facilitating the registration of all
practicing and non-practicing educators through sectoral and electronic
registration. Standards of entry into
the profession include a review of current registration minimum
standards in line with the current legislation and developments.
Professional Development - To
facilitate the professional development of educators and promote and enhance
the image of the profession. Programmes include the CPTD System, Educator Professional Assistance Facility, Induction and
Professional Designation, Teacher Recruitment and Retention and the Celebration
of Teachers and the Profession.
Code of
Ethics - To develop, maintain, enforce and review
the Code of Professional Ethics to ensure that alleged breaches of the Code of
Professional Ethics are investigated in accordance with procedures determined
by council. Programmes include Standards of Professional Ethics and Management
Cases.
Policy and
Research Coordination - To coordinate SACE
policy matters and contribute to the national policy making processes and
legislation. This programme also ensures that SACE engages in medium and
long-term planning that is informed by sound research and information. SACE
also undertakes research on professional matters for the purposes of informing
and advising the Ministers of Education, Council, and the teaching profession.
Programmes include Policy, Research, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation,
Research Reports and Publications and Resource Centre.
Communication
and Advocacy – This programme covers
national and international relations, media relations/image building, media
production and publication and website management
Administration
– This programme covers Human Resource
Management and Development, Secretariat Services, Registry and Postal services,
Procurement Service, Information and Communication and Financial
Administration.
Committee
Observations
Due to an incomplete Operational Plan, the Committee further requested a
full/complete report. SACE was also requested to supply the Committee with a
report on the status of all cases (a breakdown of the type of cases and how
long they have been pending). The Committee was concerned that
the issue of accommodation was not yet resolved. Members were concerned about
capacity constraints and the number of cases of complaints that had not been
dealt with.
6.
Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC)
The
strategic goals of the ELRC were to promote and maintain labour peace –
preventing, facilitating and resolving disputes. The ELRC also promotes
collective bargaining and provide skills training. The core
business of the ELRC was primarily dispute management and collective bargaining
services. In 2008 the ELRC expanded the
scope of its constitution to include bargaining and dispute resolution for the
FETC sector. On the 17th February 2009 Collective Agreement 1 of 2009: Further
Amendment of the ELRC constitution as certified by the Registrar of Labour on
25th April 2007 and as ratified by Collective Agreement 6 of 2007 was
signed. The Founding Agreement: Further
Education and
The facilitation of teacher development and participation by the ELRC in
QLTC further brought new challenges for the Council. The budget has been
increased to support additional activities in the areas of Research, Training
and Development, subsidisation of the FETC sector, capital expenditure and
associated support services. Strategic
Plans and Annual Performance Plans have been developed to accommodate the above
developments.
The budgeted income for 2011/2012 was based on a
levy of R10, the same as in the previous year. Income
for the FETC sector was insufficient to meet their expenditure, consequently the
Basic Education sector subsidises the deficit of the FETC Bargaining Unit.
ELRC programmes are as follows:
—
Dispute
Management Services
—
Collective
Bargaining and Related Services
—
Executive Services
—
Corporate Services
—
Capital Expenditure
The following were areas that the ELRC identified
for intervention:
—
Suspensions
that are over the statutory 60 days
—
Promotion
disputes dragging over 180 days due to party delays
—
Placement
of displaced educators
—
Ensuring
effective grievance resolution committees in provinces
—
Annual
consultation on post provisioning leading to the annual placement of educators
declared additional to their schools’ staff establishments
—
Placement
and payment of temporary educators
—
Promotion
of labour peace through proactive and requested facilitation
—
Prevention
of mutual interest disputes through facilitation.
7. Conclusion
7.1
The
reviews have presented a picture of where government stands in the provisioning
of access to education, enabling the Committee to ascertain progress and
challenges faced.
7.2
This
session has presented an opportunity to deliberate on issues with the aim of
finding practical ways of coordinating efforts in moving forward with an
efficient machinery of delivery.
7.3
The
Committee further commits itself to strengthening its oversight role through
visits to schools, stakeholders and its statutory bodies.
7.4
The Committee is thus focusing on the implementation of service
delivery, building and strengthening capacity; developing human and financial
resources and developing the necessary skills required in implementing
government programmes.
7.5
The Committee thanks
parties concerned for the progress made so far and conveys its appreciation to
the Department and all the statutory bodies for their participation and
co-operation in the reviews.
The
Committee recommends that the House endorse Budget Vote 15: Department of Basic
Education.
Report to be considered.