Schooling 2025 An Action Plan for Improving Basic Education

1. Schooling 2025 An Action Plan for Improving Basic Education Presentation to the Portfolio Committee 4 May 2010

2. Topics to be covered • Introduction • Purpose of the Schooling 2025 action plan • Structure of the plan (goals, indicators, targets) • The desired educational quality outputs • The desired grade attainment outputs • Our framework for improving schools • Interventions and related goals

3. > Introduction • Currently, plan for plan exists, but still some steps away from a first version. A few specifics currently proposed however, especially with respect to output goals. • To a fairly large extent Schooling 2025 is about consolidating existing public commitments, but also some new commitments.

4. > Purpose of the action plan • Must obviously help in improving the schooling system. Cannot be planning for the sake of planning. • Need for long term planning within sectors explained in Green Paper on national strategic planning. Green Paper very clear that this must go together with new mindset and(1) a very clear focus on outcomes and outputs, (2) a more evidence-based planning approach. • In practical terms plan must (1) guide planning in provinces and schools, (2) provide a basis for holding the sector accountable (Presidency has strong interest here), (3) instil confidence in the public and in the global arena that SA has a plan to deal a key developmental stumbling block, i.e. poor quality schooling.

5. > Purpose of the action plan • Plan must obviously be dynamic, and be revised from time to time on the basis of new evidence. As advocated by Green Paper, process must be the right mix of bottom-up work (e.g. learning from provinces) and top-down work (national leadership). • In an international comparison it is clear that SA has the basic building blocks as far as policy is concerned. There are some serious flaws in the existing policies, but the need is more for fixing and elaborating on policies that exist than completely re-inventing them. Relative policy stability is thus not only desirable but justifiable.

6. > Purpose of the action plan • A critical part of the Schooling 2025 process will be better sector-wide monitoring, on a regular basis, in a better structured manner, at the national level. Department is increasing its own monitoring capacity, but collaboration with other organisations also necessary. • Effective communication strategy is critical. Two versions of the plan needed: (1) Comprehensive technical version. (2) Abridged ‘popular’ version.

7. > Structure of the plan (goals, indicators, targets) • Around 15 output goals would be central. Essentially two types of output goals: (1) those dealing with improvements in learning outcomes, (2) those dealing with improved access to education. In addition, no more than 45 goals dealing with input and process matters. Concrete proposals for the 15 output goals to be presented here. • Ideally each goal has one indicator and annual targets stretching to 2025. • Nearly all national targets are aggregations of nine provincial targets – the latter to be made explicit in the plan.

8. > The desired educational quality outputs • Why learning outcomes so important for poverty reduction and economic development to be made very clear. • In dealing with educational quality outputs, it is important focus both on (1) improving results at the bottom of the distribution and (2) improving overall average (i.e. every school should push its performance up). Problems at the bottom end should not blind us to the fact that even the top end of SA’s distribution does not do well.

9. > The desired educational quality outputs • Importantly, all figures subject to revision, substantial background notes to the figures will be made available.

10. > The desired educational quality outputs

11. > The desired educational quality outputs • Desired speed of improvements benchmarked against the best improvements seen in other countries. Targets are thus ambitious but arguably do-able. • Annual National Assessments programme will be key for monitoring progress. But how will ANA bring about improvements? Essentially four mechanisms. (1) Teachers will be exposed to better standards and assessment techniques. (2) Provinces/districts will be in better position to devote special efforts to the right schools. (3) Schools that make an effort will enjoy recognition of these efforts. (4) Learning outcomes will be addressed in a more informed manner within the SGB.

12. > The desired educational quality outputs • Support from province/district where school performs poorly must focus on remedies within the relevant policy frameworks, e.g. linking teachers to right teacher development programmes, improving accountability of principal, making a special effort to fill vacant teaching posts, etc. Clearly a situation should be avoided where performing poorly in ANA is seen as a way of securing additional resources. • Recognition of good school performance should focus on (1) year-on-year improvements and (2) a high average relative to other schools facing similar obstacles (e.g. within same quintile and province).

13. > The desired educational quality outputs • How will ANA results be distributed? Averages from national down to district level to be made publicly available. Each school (principal and SGB chair) to receive school average with historical trend and with comparison to district, province, national averages (each of which broken down by quintile). • Value of publishing lists down to the level of the school must be carefully assessed. This is done in a number of developing countries, but is this beneficial in current SA context? • Grade 12 results to be used in a similar way to those of ANA.

14. > The desired educational quality outputs • SA will participate in TIMSS 2011 and SACMEQ 2012. Should continue beyond these years.

15. > The desired educational quality outputs

16. > The desired grade attainment outputs

17. > The desired grade attainment outputs

18. > The desired educational quality outputs • Grade R. Drawing a distinction between formal and non-formal pre-school (something done in the Annual Survey) seems like a good way of taking quality into account. • Age and grade. The proposed indicators relatively easy to track using household data. Outer targets envisage reaching 5% repetition rate across all grades (by 2025). A critical planning and monitoring matter will be dealing with the tension between improving ANA results and improving grade promotion rates. Vital not to allow ANA pressures to result in holding back of learners. • FET enrolments. A difficult area where there has been insufficient planning, consultation and analysis. Clearly schools, FET colleges (public and private), entry into higher education and employment must be viewed holistically.

19. > Our framework for improving schools Diagram obviously more illustrative than comprehensive.

20. > Interventions and related goals • At this stage goals, indicators, targets relating to interventions (as opposed to outputs) deliberately left rather loose. Clearly, considerable consultation and technical work still needed here. The following points refer to some possibilities. • Teacher supply. Increasing inflow of younger teachers is vital and suggests some obvious indicators (e.g. average age of teaching force). Activities include strengthening Funza Lushaka but also improving conditions of service and status of teachers. • Distribution of teachers. Reduction in prevalence of large (40 learners +) classes and number of unfilled posts (especially in poorer rural areas) should receive attention.

21. > Interventions and related goals • Teacher development. A policy area requiring perhaps the greatest degree of innovation in future years. Programmes via e-Education must become more prominent. Testing samples of teachers to assess e.g. subject knowledge now seen as do-able and important. On the input side, monitoring time spent by teachers on teacher development, or enrolments in specific programmes, are possibilities. • Teacher accountability. At high level, a social contract (QLTC and what it can become), at more operational level systems of accountability and reward (IQMS, with major revisions). Time management indicators important here, including overall contact time and completion of learning programmes within the year.

22. > Interventions and related goals • Textbooks and workbooks. Workbooks will raise new challenges for defining appropriate indicators. SA has arguably never tracked indicators like learner/textbook ratios effectively. Need for emphasis on availability of materials from the start of the year. • School governance and management. Key challenges here include strengthening the lines of accountability between principals and Department and a more massive approach to management training as key ways of securing more functional schools. Given centrality of the school principal, a large number of indicators in Schooling 2025 will be linkable to the principal.

23. > Interventions and related goals • School funding. Existing evidence suggests a need to track whether sufficient funds are transferred to the bank account of the school. Overly bureaucratic controls by province over school funding must be removed. Emphasis on e-Education creates new needs in schools that will need to be funded. • School infrastructure. The substantial work currently occurring in this area must be integrated into Schooling 2025 and assessed with respect to the sector’s output targets. • Learner well-being. Current commitments towards more school feeding and better use of schools as avenues for access to health care will need to be tracked.

24. > Interventions and related goals • Inclusive education. Increase in the number of full-service schools (and in some provinces special schools) should receive attention. Number of referrals from ordinary schools should perhaps also be tracked. • Support by district offices. New emphasis on assessments is providing new responsibilities for districts. Indicators of support must be based on a clear and holistic framework that includes recent policy shifts. The value of district support should partly be based on ratings provided by those who receive the support.