Presentation on theme: "PRELIMANARY RESPONSES TO CAPACITY ASSESSMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND GOVERNANCE AND ADMIN CLUSTER AND NEW CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR EDUCATORS."— Presentation transcript:
PRELIMANARY RESPONSES TO CAPACITY ASSESSMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND GOVERNANCE AND ADMIN CLUSTER AND NEW CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR EDUCATORS 29August 2006 Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Education in the National Assembly
PROCESS JANUARY 2006 CABINET LEGOTLA DECISIONS DPSA capacity assessment task team DoE task team established Provincial participation – workshop and DOE task team Consulted HEDCOM 4 June 2006 Consulted CEM 5 June 2006
ASSUMPTIONS Recommendations to be made to Cabinet are broad, statutory consultations will be undertaken where necessary before policy or legislative changes are made. Some of the recommendations will require additional funding, indicative amounts will be included in the report to Cabinet and DPSA will lead finalisation of the funding with NT by September International and national best practice will be taken into account in the implementation.
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of District and Circuit managers and offices (with the assistance of the Indian Government) : The Indian consultants participation to be finalised, however our assessment is complete. The assessment is based on: –“Education Districts at a Glance 2003 – a report of current status of Education Districts” –“Towards a model for District Management: A report of the audit of the six effective districts in South Africa” – September 2005 –An operational handbook for District Directors –A public service commission report on a guideline on School District Management –DPSA investigation on Batho Pele principles and Service Delivery in the Public Service – with a focus on education districts
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of District and Circuit managers and offices (with the assistance of the Indian Government FINDINGS Districts not clearly defined in national legislation Increasing divergence of District office structures and organograms among PEDs. Lack of focus and conception of functions of Districts. Lack of conception of what education functions need to be performed Lack of conceptual clarity on decentralization, devolution and /or delegations (deconcentration) Districts unable to fulfill core functions due to lack of skills, resources, facilities, personnel, technology, equipment and funding Multiplicity of interventions that are not co-ordinated and therefore loss of accountability
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of District and Circuit managers and offices (with the assistance of the Indian Government) FINDINGS Nomenclature of manager of a group of schools varied – erstwhile “circuit manager” = “CM”. Varied interpretation of the role of “circuit manager” and “district manager” in relation to schools – “post office” – which allows for ad-hoc responsibilities to be added to their work loads – negative impact on service delivery. Multiple interventions at schools – causes confusion of the role of the “CM”. Lack of clear line of accountability of “CM” in regards to improved learning and teaching at schools. While job roles and responsibilities are documented, no clear and uniform systems and processes in place.
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of District and Circuit managers and offices (with the assistance of the Indian Government RECOMMENDATIONS Imperative that a common national framework in regards to Districts be developed. This could lead to a White Paper on the organization, systems, staffing and funding of districts. White paper to be approved for public comment by March –Clarify the functions and work division between the provincial education head office and district office. Standardise on nonmenclature for officials. –Clarify the roles and functions of districts with devolved powers, undertake an Education System functions mapping exercise to ensure accountability for learning and teaching –Districts to execute policy – implement, Provinces to interpret national policy, National to develop, support and monitor policy. –Align to municipal, local government and even ward boundaries –Appropriate resourcing, facilities, equipment, systems, human resources –Districts are not all the same, need a developmental approach
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of District and Circuit managers and offices (with the assistance of the Indian Government) RECOMMENDATIONS – DRAFT POLICY MARCH 2007 FINALISE JUNE 2007 “Circuit Manager” to be the primary link to school and MUST be held accountable for learning and teaching for a cluster of schools. District and “Circuit Manager” to be appointed at appropriate levels. Improved enabling systems, processes, conducive offices, technology, equipment, administrative personnel Competencies of CMs to be improved
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of principals and the development of an EIMS FINDINGS Proliferation of roles, responsibilities and job descriptions of principals. Up to recently no standards on principalship. No comprehensive development programme that is driven by the system. Dual role and accountability: management versus governance. Principals are required to teach but are not teaching, both learners and management suffering.
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of principals and the development of an EIMS RECOMMENDATIONS – JUNE 2007 CEM has agreed on the “South African Standards for Principalship”. Qualification in “principalship” to be made an entry requirement to the post. Education system will develop branded programmes for development of principals, this includes content development, materials, mode of delivery, assessment processes and support. “Institute for programme development and implementation” Accountability of principals to education authorities will be clarified and strengthened.
Conducting an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of principals and the development of an EIMS RECOMMENDATIONS – JUNE 2007 Extend flexible remuneration package to all principals. (DPSA consultations needed for extension to salary levels 8-10) Performance agreements system to be introduced to allow for enhanced service delivery and to provide a mechanism for redeployment of principals. Increase size of package for increased work load, accountability, redeployment risk and enhanced service delivery. Inclusion of provincial officials (district) in short-listing and interviewing panels for principal posts. Principals will not be compelled to teach, (to be optional). Special measures required for small schools.
Developing staffing norms for school based support personnel, office based educators, management and administrative support. FINDING: There is currently no post-provisioning model (PPM) for school based support staff. The current levels of provisioning differ from province to province and also from school to school – favouring the advantaged schools. RECOMMENDATIONS (April 2007) : PPM to be based on a combinations of the following factors: –Minimum Admin, General services, Security and Support functions at a school –Additional posts for size of the school facility and enrolment –Additional posts to be distributed according to poverty of school community: Q1-30%, Q2-27,5%, Q3-22,5%, Q4-15% and Q5-5%. –The rationalization of excess staff in less poor quintiles should be phased out through natural attrition and transfer incentives.
Developing staffing norms for school based support personnel, office based educators, management and administrative support. FINDING: Different provinces spend different percentages of their budgets on these personnel. Lack of clear norms, no common functions RECOMMENDATIONS (April 2008): Staffing norms to be linked to: –Minimum functions of a PED –Variable functions based on size of province in terms of number of learners and support needs of learners. X number of Subject Advisors per school. CM to manage Y number of schools. –Comparison to national average – which will serve as a benchmark –Provinces to be required to lower the norms where efficiency gains can be shown.
Implementing the IQMS, sharing good practice, improving systems and establishing a National Evaluation and Development Unit IQMS (IMMEDIATE) “Post mortem” conducted with PEDs on previous process Action plan has been adopted by HEDCOM for improving implementation. Agreed that “CM” to play a major role in implementing, supporting and monitoring IQMS. An audit and evaluation of implementation of the system is being planned so as to improve systems and processes. Capacity at DoE to be increased Meeting to be held with unions to share improved recommendations and consider amendments
Implementing the IQMS, sharing good practice, improving systems and establishing a National Evaluation and Development Unit Systems for data collection and data and information flow are to be improved. Strengthened moderation procedure being proposed. Circuit manager to moderate scores and process across circuit taking school performance into account and adjust scores where necessary District managers to moderate scores and process across district taking district performance into account and adjust where necessary PED to moderate scores and process across province taking provincial performance into account necessary (Where scores adjusted downwards, moderating authority to ensure development plan in place) National to moderate process across sample of schools, districts in all provinces
Implementing the IQMS, sharing good practice, improving systems and establishing a National Evaluation and Development Unit NEED UNIT (APRIL 2008) National Education Evaluation Unit to be established Form and structure to be determined, international experiences being investigated. Possible arms length “authority” with linkages to IQMS and Whole School Evaluation processes.
Conducting a skills gap analyses in regard to SMS in provincial education departments and making recommendations to address them. 363 SMS posts from Director to DDG in all 9 provinces have been analyzed. The skills gaps in terms of: –(1) competency of existing personnel –(2) nature of hard to fill posts and –(3) adequacy of the number of funded posts on the post establishment. RECOMMENDATION: Implementation from April 2007 subject to funding
Conducting an assessment of the remuneration system in the Public Service. DPSA Teacher remuneration, is it too high or too low? Are they paid enough – what international and national comparisons/benchmarks available? Is it contributing in low uptake to the profession? Do we need to consolidate the packages? (A number of improvements ad-hoc (1% progression, accelerated progressions, career pathing, performance rewards and incentives.) How do we deal with teachers in subjects where there are shortages? DPSA managing through service provider – report imminent – DoE on reference team
Assess the need for and source additional funding to give effect to the staffing norms.. DPSA After all recommendations considered by cabinet, DPSA will lead process with National Treasury on this aspect – by September 2006.
Conduct an assessment of the application of the SMS performance management system and develop recommendations for improvements. DPSA This process was being led my DPSA across government. Findings that management of performance management a challenge. DPSA to improve compliance and efficacy of PM
New employment conditions for educators In November 2004, the Minister of Finance, Mr Trevor Manuel, announced that R6, 9 billion has been allocated over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework for improvement in teaching conditions, recruitment and systems for managing educator human resources. Out of the R6, 9 billion, R1, 7 billion was used in the 2004/5 financial year for the payment of “ backlogs ” which left an amount of R4, 2 billion to be used over three financial years starting 2005/6.
New employment conditions for educators The respective amounts set aside were: R600m for 2005/6, R1, 4 billion for 2006/7 and R2, 2bn for 2007/8. After 2007/8 the R2, 2 billion would be inflation adjusted annually. The agreements make provision for payment to be made effective from 1 July The agreement signed on the 4 May 2006 by the Minister of Education and the teacher union ’ s deals with the utilisation of the R2, 6 billion. New school grading norms, accelerated notch progression and grade progression to level 9
New employment conditions for educators The remaining R1, 6 billion will be disbursed through a sets of agreements aimed at improving educator renumeration. Performance rewards Incentives for remote schools and hard to teach subjects/areas. The system will make provision for cash awards to educators who perform at an exceptional performance level. In addition, comprehensive research has been undertaken with regard to the implementation of incentives to cater for the following the teaching of scare subjects particularly Mathematics and Science and to teach in remote areas where qualified teachers are hard to find.
New employment conditions for educators The consequence of new school grading norms agreement is firstly that a principal salary grade will be adjusted to a higher grade in proportion to the number of public established educator posts at the school and secondly that the maximum grade a principal can be graded at is increased from grade 11 (R pa) to grade 12 (R pa).
New employment conditions for educators An accelerated notch progression means that an educator receives more than one notch increase in a year. Instead of a one notch increment, an educator can progress three notches, but limited to the maximum of the particular salary level on which he/she is. An educator will receive such acceleration once he/she had achieved a good performance assessment for the third year, within a period of not more than five years, and had served at least 12 months on the current notch. Once an accelerated notch progression had been received the educator next qualifies for such an accelerated notch progression after another three good assessments.
New employment conditions for educators A grade (or level) progression means that an educator is allowed to progress from one salary level/grade to the next applicable level/grade subject to an assessment of good and having served at least twelve months on the maximum notch of the current salary level. The maximum annual salary applicable to salary level/grade 7 is R and the minimum of annual salary level/grade 8 is R Thus if an educator grade progresses from 7 to 8 the annual increase would be R7644 (about 7%). An educator, who is on the 16 th notch of a particular salary level and at the same time qualifies for accelerated progression, will only receive grade progression and will qualify for the next accelerated progression after another three good performance assessments.