REPORT ON LEARNER TRANSPORT to the

1. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPORT ON LEARNER TRANSPORT to the Portfolio Committee of Education 19 February 2008

2. Objectives of the study • The DoE undertook a study on learner transport schemes in provinces in 2006/7 • The study gathered information on existing learner transport schemes both internationally, nationally and sub-nationally. • Purpose was to evaluate the current status and to develop alternate strategies to improve access to schools • The study also included a formulation of a national framework on learner transport assistance schemes, which was provided to PEDs.

3. Report • International good practice • UK: provision of learner transport allocated in law as a local government function – provision is free – and norms and standards are developed/ • USA: Local Education Board is authorized to operate school buses. State regulates bus design, even as far as colour goes – Yellow buses. • Brazil: No legal authority, their education plan is vague about scholar transport – it alludes to provision of learner transport to/in/from rural zones, if necessary • Indonesia – Jakarta free learner transport from in 2006 • India – Tamil Nadu Free transport from school 1 to school year 12, this includes private schools • Zambia – Pressure on state is mounting to introduce learner transport.

4. The learner transport issues in SA • Nelson Mandela Foundation study highlighted issue as acute in rural areas. • Human Rights Commission raised matter in its reports. • Ministerial Committee on Rural Education also pronounced on the lack of learner transport. • StatsSA National Household transport study provides facts and figures on learner transport

5. National Household Travel Survey by Department of Transport (2003) • 76% of learners walk to school (almost 100% in rural areas and 70% in urban areas) • For 30% (3.6 million) of learners their travel time to school is more than 30 minutes. • KZN high percentage of walkers and to lessor degree in EC, MP and NW

6. National Household Travel Survey by Department of Transport (2003) • 25% of primary school learners walk for longer than 30 minutes (1.8 million learners) • 560 000 learners walk more than one hour one way. • Currently only 200 000 learners provided with transport

7. Role of National and Provincial Departments of Transport (PDoT) • PDoTs do not carry costs of provision except in NW; in LP they administer contracts for PED. • Most PDoT aware of and are moving to establish operator registers and managing legal, regulatory and safety requirements. • Transport planning a function of Local Government – there is little integration with learner transport evident. • National DoT and PDoT mention learner transport as a special category of need and provide bicycles through the Shova Kulula project. • In theory learners can travel on contract services subsidised by NDoT through Provinces BUT dedicated learner transport was removed from timetables

8. Provincial Education Departments • Formal policies in PED: EC, GP, MP, NC, WC • Informal policies in PED: FS, LP and KZN • In NW managed by PDoT • Where learner transport is provided it is through operators, except in WC where travel allowances are also provided through transfers to households • Contract terms vary – fixed rates, per km rate, per learner per km rate. Procurement and contracting challenges are evident. • Allocation varied in 2006/07 from R2m in LP to R120m in WC (per capita R1 300 to R4 000)

9. Some issues • Contract rates not sustainable • Overloading, freeloaders because of lack of learner access control • Some conditions on contractors onerous • Poor coordination with PDoTs • Lack of knowledge by PED in managing transport programmes • Unreliable services

10. Strengths of providing transport • Access is supported including timeliness especially for poor • Safety (crime, inadequate roads and pavements) • Conserves learner energy and saves time for effective learning and social interaction • Bicycles could reduce some of the negatives when motorised transport not feasible

11. National Policy and Legislation • SA Schools Act – MEC must provide school places, education is compulsory therefore free transport should be provided at least to the poor who have to walk long distances to access education. • Education school funding norms implicit in terms of provision of learner transport. National School Funding Norms says if travel time is longer than 1.5hrs (180km by car, 3-5km if walking) children should be targeted for hostel places. • White paper on national transport policy 1996

12. National Policy and Legislation • Action agenda 1999: DoT • National Land Transport Transition Act 2000 • National Land Transport Strategic Framework • CSIR research • Shova Kulula Project • Operators regulations

13. Principles for the Road ahead • Current state “a long and winding road” – PEDS must be responsible to provide adequate and reasonable access • Walking and cycling are healthy BUT over safe roadways and over reasonable distances. • Alternatives: Provide adequate schools, hostels, travel allowances, boarding allowances • Inter-governmental coordination required NDoT, NDoe, PED, PDot, LG • Transport should be free of charge to eligible learners from poor households • Need improved procurement, management, funding, contract management • Need to pay for quality, safe and sustainable solutions to ensure investment by private sector. • Zoning of schools may also be more efficient in some cases.

14. Proposed Roles and Responsibilities • National policies, guidelines, legislation, regulations, monitoring frameworks required (NDoE and NDoT) • Provincial policies, guidelines, legislation, regulations, strategies, plans and implementation, contracting, registration and licensing (PED, PDoT) • Beneficiary Identity – access control (PED, Education Districts, Schools) • Service Design and its monitoring (PED, PDoT,Education. Districts, Schools) • Muncipal transport, road and pavement conditions, traffic safety. (Local Government)

15. Structures • Service level agreements between PED and PDoT defining roles and responsibilities • Horizontal coordination required between NDoE and NDoT and between PED and PDoT. • Supply chain management to be strengthened. • Proper physical resource planning required. • Muncipalities, road authorities and local education structures to play a role. • Vertical coordination – DoE, PEDs, Education, Districts, school principals, SGBs and transport operators

16. What the policy should cater for: • Priority for poorest, walking longest distances to nearest public school, primary over secondary, special needs over ordinary. • Transport allowance to be provided if household is poor, • Provide hostels where travel time more than 1.5 hours, • Free transport to home periodically and during holidays. • Transport assistance only to learners and supervising teachers. • Curriculum choice and school preference will only qualify for free transport in exceptional circumstances. • Principals to identify learners, PED to verify • Beneficiaries need identification to avoid “free-loading”.

17. Guidelines • These provide for: • Principles • Roles and responsibilities • Structures • Beneficiaries • Appropriate modes of transport • Provisioning standards, Safety and health standards, service standards • Procurement means, registration of contractors, contracts, process matters, period, penalties, services, payment, monitoring • Costs • Code of conduct for learners and operators

18. Costing models • Current spend R440m for 200 000 learners plus NW R50m (Between 2-3% coverage)) • If coverage increased to 33% of learners (4 million) then it requires R3bn • If limited funds available, transport should be phased in to starting with those learners who are youngest and those travelling the longest time.

21. Way forward for 2008/9 MTEF • NDoE will finalize discussions with NDoT on the the report and bring PDoTs and PEDs into the process of considering the options, roles and responsibilities. • Capacity assessment of Provinces/National to manage to be undertaken. • If decentralised system inefficient and if it detracts from core function of education then consider making it a national government service unit • A position paper will be published • Thereafter policy and national norms and standards will be drafted and consulted. • Funding bid for 2009/10 MTEF

22. Thank you