Department of Education Presentation to Select Committee of Finance FFC Submission for the Division

1
Department of EducationPresentation to Select
Committee of FinanceFFC Submission for the
Division of Revenue 2009/1011 June 2008
2
Areas Addressed in the Presentation

• Re-ranking of schools
• Learner Transport
• Performance monitoring framework

3
Re-ranking of SchoolsFFC 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 SchoolsDepartmental 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.
• - 2008 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 Departments 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.