1 Department of Education Presentation to Select Committee of Finance FFC Submission for the Division of Revenue: 2009/10 11 June 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By V Misser. INTRODUCTION financial record management; financial record management; monitoring and evaluating spending trends; monitoring and evaluating.
Advertisements

DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL VOTE 16: HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING Presentation to Select Committee on Appropriations 5 March 2010.
1 FUNDING OF SCHOOLS Policy issues and proposed amendments to the Norms and Standards Presentation by the Department of Education October 2004.
Linking NAPs to broader national strategies and processes.
Presentation to the 2014 International AIDS Conference
1 Alignment to the Local Government Turn Around Strategy (LGTAS)
Moving to a Unified Grants Process and a Single Monitoring Framework Jim Gray Acting Head of Community Planning, Corporate Services Dept, Glasgow City.
National Treasury Monitoring of Conditional Grants.
Post Provisioning Norms (PPN)
Australia’s Experience in Utilising Performance Information in Budget and Management Processes Mathew Fox Assistant Secretary, Budget Coordination Branch.
1 MINISTRY EDUCATION AND TRAINING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE In education Hµ Néi – 28 June 2006 NguyÔn V¨n Ng÷ Director Planning and Finance Department.
1 NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PRESENTATION ON THE FFC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DIVISION OF REVENUE 2011/12 17 AUGUST 2010.
IDP Conference 2004 “Developmental Governance in Action” SESSION 7: Integrated Governance: > Inter-Governmental Planning Framework (IGPF) – A National.
0 Kestutis Rekerta Strategic Planning Division, Government Office of Lithuania World Bank Workshop, Bratislava, September 6, 2006 STRATEGIC PLANNING IN.
IN YEAR MONITORING & BUDGET PREPARATION WORKSHOP PREPARED BY BUDGET OFFICE MAY
National Treasury Presentation of Appropriations Spending Report Standing Committee on Appropriations September 15, 2009.
MASS SPORT AND RECREATION PARTICIPATION PROGRAMME GRANT Select Committee on Appropriations National Council of Provinces 23 AUGUST 2011 Presented by: Intergovernmental.
ECOSOC GLOBAL PREPARATORY MEETING OF THE ANNUAL MINISTERIAL REVIEW(AMR) 28 APRIL 2011.
1 Intergovernmental Fiscal Review Presentation to Select Committees of Finance, Social Services, Education and Recreation 17 October 2007 DEPARTMENT OF.
PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT TREASURY REGULATIONS AND.
REPORTING, MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROVISIONS ON NON-FINANCIALS – 2013/14 1 MIG Quarterly Workshop 3 – 4 September 2013.
DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL VOTE 16: HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING Presentation to Standing Committee on Appropriations 26 February 2010.
1 Monitoring and Evaluation System Mr M Thibela by Director: Corporate Planning Department: Water Affairs (DWA) 18 August 2009.
1 FINANCIAL AND FISCAL COMMISSION Submission for the Division of Revenue 2008/09 Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Education 16 October 2007.
OBJECTIVES: Understanding what is a delegation Reasons/Benifits for delegating: Efficiency Capacitation Empowerment Expertise recognition Continuity.
ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN & ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN (APP) OF THE NYDA Presentation by: Musa Zamisa 14 August 2012 Research Unit 1.
ASSOCIATED BENEFITS OF mSCOA IN THE ASSET LIFE CYCLE
1 2009/10 DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL Presentation to Select Committee on Finance 24 February 2009.
Response to FFC submission for Division of Revenue 2011/12 Dept of Basic Education presentation to Select Committee on Finance 17 August 2010 Dept. of.
1 Presentation to Select Committee on Appropriation regarding sector analysis JULY 2014 BY MONGANA TAU.
Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act: Summary by: Mkhethwa MKHIZE Committee Section.
Older Person’s Bill Presentation to Select Committee – Social Service National Treasury 25 October 2004.
1 st QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT ON CUSTOMISED SECTOR.
Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Economic Development Department on the audit outcomes for the 2013/2014 financial year Presenter: Ahmed Moolla October.
I Public Works I Parliament I Cape Town 1 Presentation to the Standing Committee on Appropriation 10 November 2015.
RESEARCH UNIT INPUT ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL: PETITIONS.
Fair Go Rates System Dr Ron Ben-David Chairperson MAV Rate Capping Forum 26 November 2015.
Kathy Corbiere Service Delivery and Performance Commission
Financial and Fiscal Commission Submission on the 2011 Division of Revenue Bill Select Committee on Appropriations 22 March 2011.
1 Response to Financial and Fiscal Commission Submission for The Division of Revenue 2010/2011 Presentation to Select Committee on Finance 06 August 2009.
Title: Orientation Paper for SCoF Presenter: Simo Mncwango Fundisiwe Cwele Date: July 2014.
Business Plan and Budget for the Council on Higher Education (CHE) 2009/10 Presentation to a Joint Meeting of the Portfolio Committees on Basic Education.
1 FFC SUBMISSION ON THE DIVISION OF REVENUE 2007/08 PRESENTATION TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE _____________________ 17 MAY 2006.
FFC Framework for assessing Conditional Grants 16 March 2010 Financial and Fiscal Commission 1.
Estimates of National Expenditure 2003 NATIONAL TREASURY.
PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SPORT AND RECREATION MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT By Molatelo Montwedi Date: 14 June 2005.
Financial and Fiscal Commission Submission for the Division of Revenue 2009/10 Comments to Select Committee On Finance Cape Town Tuesday, 17 June 2008.
BRIEFING TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON AUDITOR-GENERAL MATTERS 1.
Page 1 The statutory framework for financial oversight Select Committee on Finance, 13 April 2010 Annexure B.
OVERVIEW OF PLANNING FRAMEWORK IN THE CONTEXT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA Strategic Planning Learning Exchange ‘fostering learning of the global.
1 FINANCIAL AND FISCAL COMMISSION Submission for the Division of Revenue 2008/09 Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Housing 10 October 2007.
Municipal Managers’ Forum Upper Limits for Senior Manager 10 June 2016.
1 HSRC EPWP SEMINAR 07 JUNE 2016 Presentation by Lulu Mdletshe EPWP Co-ordinator: Department of Transport.
The Standing Committee on Appropriations
Parliament and the National Budget Process
SALGA Comments on LG Grants Division of Revenue Bill, 2011
Financial and Fiscal Commission
National Treasury 28 January 2009
Division of Revenue Bill Conditional grants schedules, transfers to provinces, funds returned to NRF Media pre-budget workshop Presenter: Kenneth Brown.
5 April 2016 Briefing to the Higher Education Portfolio Committee on review of the draft APPs.
REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT OF PED REPORTING SYSTEMS
Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill [B 75–2008]
08 March 2016 Briefing to the Portfolio Committee of Tourism on review of the draft APP.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND RECREATION
SELECT COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 11 August 2010
Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act
FFC COMMENTS ON THE DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL 2006/07
Gauteng Provincial Legislature Money Bills Act Discussion
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENT UPDATE ON ACCREDITATION
SALGA Comments on the 2011 MTBPS Standing Committee on Appropriations
Presentation transcript:

1 Department of Education Presentation to Select Committee of Finance FFC Submission for the Division of Revenue: 2009/10 11 June 2008

2 Areas Addressed in the Presentation  Re-ranking of schools  Learner Transport  Performance monitoring framework

3 Re-ranking of Schools FFC Submission  Key findings - In poorer provinces: Schools previously assigned to Quintiles 2 and 3 have been reassigned to Quintiles 1 and 2 – receive greater funding than previously - In richer provinces: Schools previously assigned to Quintiles 1 and 2 have been reassigned to Quintile 3 – receive reduced funding and are re-ranked as fee-paying schools. - Use of wards to rank schools does not reflect poverty distribution of school or the profile of the community. - National driven re-ranking does not translate into same outcome as when the ranking was provincial specific.  Recommendation - Need to review method used to inform national quintile ranking of schools and should take into account the socio-economic circumstances of the learners (inequality and poverty).

4 Re-ranking of Schools Departmental Comments Comments on Key Findings  The Department agrees with the key findings that: In poorer provinces: Schools previously assigned to Quintiles 2 and 3 have been reassigned to Quintiles 1 and 2 – receive greater funding than previously; and In richer provinces: Some schools previously assigned to Quintiles 1 and 2 have been reassigned to Quintile 3 – receive reduced funding and are re-ranked as schools that can charge fees.  One of the key findings is that schools should not be disadvantaged as a result of reclassification. If a school is incorrectly classified, reclassification must take place. Such adjustment is normally a phased-in process. It is understood that the pro-poor policy changes may have unintended consequences. Where these have been identified corrective actions have been instituted.  The use of wards to rank schools is currently the best available measure, unless a better and more efficient method can be recommended. In terms of the norms, ranking can be measured against ground truth.  The FFC arrived at the finding that the National driven re-ranking does not translate into the same outcome as when the ranking was provincial specific. This is true and must be the result, since the National ranking ensures that the equally poor are similarly classified in all provinces. The 20% grouping per quintile is now done nationally and not per province.

5 Re-ranking of Schools Departmental Comments Comments on Recommendation  The Department maintains the view that the current method for the National quintile ranking of schools does take the socio-economic circumstances of the learners (inequality and poverty) into account.  Current policy makes provision for poor learners in higher quintile schools not to pay school fees through the exemptions policy.  The ranking of schools is based on data from Stats-SA which unfortunately could not be segregated to smaller units based on confidentiality involved in household income. However, the Department does provide for a reality verification and adjustments if needed. Provincial Heads of Departments have this power.  The Department is currently reviewing the quintile system and the Minister could consider revised policy before the end of 2008.

6 Learner Transport FFC Submission  Key findings - No specific national policy whilst a number of pieces of legislation refer to learner transport services. - No clear definition and division of responsibilities between education or transport at both national and provincial level. - Policies and practices between provinces differ (criteria and modes of transport).  Recommendations - National norms and standards for the provision of learner transport should be established. This requires clear assignment of responsibility. - Interim measure: all provinces should implement statutory provision that ensure learners are afforded opportunity of equal access to the right to education.

7 Learner Transport Departmental Comments Comments on Key Findings  The Department agrees with the key findings indicated by the FFC.

8 Learner Transport Departmental Comments Comments on Recommendations  It is accepted that there should be a clear assignment of responsibility on learner transport. Whilst this remains unresolved, poor learners especially in rural communities suffer. The Department undertook a study on scholar transport (the development of policy, norms, delivery and funding). Both HEDCOM and CEM have considered the draft documents. The Department of Transport has also been working on the issues and our two departments are aligning this work.  There are ongoing initiatives between the two National departments (i.e Education and Transport) to meet and agree on a common approach going forward.  Currently, the data on investment in learner transport is limited due to disparities between provinces, although expenditure figures are available in the draft learner transport report.  Sector initiatives have been that a budget line item for scholar/learner transport be provided in the standard chart of accounts to be utilised across all provinces. This is, however, not adhered to by all provinces.

9 Performance Monitoring Framework FFC Submission  Key Findings - Budget allocations to schools not reflected across all provinces DoRA requires that allocations per school be gazetted, but does not specify information for fee-paying and no-fee schools. Difficult to extract information on no-fee schools due to economic classification. - Data on learner transport (financial and non-financial) not available. Impacts negatively on planning, assessment and evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of service.  Recommendations - To assess pro-poor impact of school funding norms, the Department of Education should make publicly available and accessible the funding norms for no-fee and fee-paying schools in line with the 2008 DoRA requirement for indicative allocations by school. - Provincial Education Departments should be enabled to report on budgets and spending on learner transport.

10 Performance Monitoring Framework Departmental Comments Comments on Key Findings and Recommendations  In respect of the requirement for the gazetting of indicative allocation information per school, the DoRA requires that it be published by the provincial treasury. This is a new requirement and National Treasury is providing provinces with assistance in this respect.  Provision is, however, made in the National Norms and Standards for School Funding that provinces must gazette the resource targeting list which includes a list of schools with their EMIS numbers, names, poverty score and National quintile in which they are situated. The Minister annually also publishes a list of no fee schools per province, per location and per allocation – this is available on the Department’s web-site.  It should be noted that the compilation of budgets is an Intergovernmental Relations matter. Provincial treasuries have the final say on how the provincial budget statements are published.