Date: 03/03/2003
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Release of report on cost of education in public schools
STATEMENT TO THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF THE REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE FINANCING, RESOURCING AND COSTS OF EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROFESSOR KADER ASMAL, MP, Pretoria, 3 March 2003
The significance of the report on the Review of the Financing, Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools is that it is only partly about financing. It is more fundamentally concerned with the rights of the child. It is concerned with the highest priority of this Government: of pushing back the frontiers of poverty. It is centrally concerned with improving the quality of life of all South Africans, now and into the future.
I commissioned the Department of Education to conduct this review because of my concern about the persistence of inadequate service delivery in pockets of the education system and to review the financing of education. Despite our remarkable successes at improving quality, access and equity - over an extremely short period since 1994 - I found it unacceptable that some learners were still attending schools that were inadequately resourced, that some poor parents were carrying an inordinately high financial burden because of high education costs, that many non-poor parents and, especially, lower middle class parents were making financial contributions toward the schooling of their children that were difficult to explain on educational grounds. I found it unacceptable that children were being excluded from school, or humiliated while at school, because their parents were unable to pay the school fee. I found this unacceptable because it constituted an assault on the dignity of the child and a violation of the rights of the child enshrined in our Constitution.
I am determined to deal with these problems purposefully and with urgency. Given the gravity and complexity of the problems at hand, it is essential that any corrective interventions we select be informed by solid analysis and information. And not by sensational journalism or blatant untruths, of the kind I read in a 'quality' weekly newspaper on Friday. The article in question quoted somebody who claimed that about 80% to 90% of public resources went to former Model C schools. I am shocked that anyone could find this claim conceivable and printable. I am shocked too that in preceding articles, written by the same writer in past editions of the newspaper, similarly wild claims were inferred based on a consistent set of two or three sources, without any attempt to establish the veracity of these claims. Such reporting calls into question not only the professionalism of our media but also raises the issue of good faith in relation to matters of national importance.
I have sought, through this review, to obtain urgently information based on a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the problems. I vividly recall the look of horror on the face of my Director-General when I announced the deadline for the completion of this review. He has risen admirably to the challenge. I know that the MECs for Education, the Department of Education and the Provincial Education Departments share my sense of urgency on this matter.
I have studied the report and considered the analyses and recommendations very carefully. The report provides a solid basis for consultation, within government and with stakeholders, aimed at identifying robust, practical and high-impact interventions that would have an immediate and long-term impact on the amelioration of the problems that we find so unacceptable.
The review confirms that enormous advances have been made in access, funding and equity in the schooling system since the advent of a democratic order in the country in 1994.
The shifting of budgets has been responsible for a reduction in a key index of inequality between provinces by some 60%, between 1995 and 2001. This is a remarkable achievement that has few parallels anywhere in the world. Net enrolment rates have improved, funding per learner has increased in real terms, and the schooling system is vastly more equitable in 2003 than it was in 1994.
The analyses in the report show that measures of inequality for most aspects of education provision are much more favourable than the index of inequality for income in the country. This confirms the potent equalising effects of education in South Africa and is testimony to this Government's determination to reduce poverty and inequality in our country.
The review has also identified areas of service delivery where there has been less success, for instance in the adequacy of non-personnel expenditure and the provision physical infrastructure. Personnel expenditure in the provinces varies between 85% to over 90%, an exceptionally high proportion by international standards. Salaries are also high by international standards, but the main question that arises is the level of productivity - what are we really getting for this level of investment, given that we must work within the MTEF cycle to ensure that better service is provided to our young people.
I am satisfied that a comprehensive set of recommendations, intended to deal with these problems in a systemic way, is advanced in the report.
The central and most far-reaching recommendations in the report relate to ways of improving the present mechanisms that seek to target resources toward the poor. Presently, each province compiles its own resource-targeting table, according to which non-personnel funding is targeted to learners grouped into five categories according to measures of poverty. But these tables are constructed according to levels of poverty within the province. This has given rise to a situation where learners, who are equally poor according to absolute measures, receive vastly different public funding simply because they live in different provinces.
This situation has been particularly prejudicial to poor learners in provinces where the large proportion of the population is poor. The situation is aggravated by the fact that poor provinces, have tended in the main, to budget less than provinces with lower levels of poverty.
I am determined to remedy this situation and, therefore, intend to consider carefully the recommendation in the report to move towards a system of national targeting of poor learners in the country, so that learners who are equally poor receive the same levels of non-personnel funding irrespective of which province they reside in.
Inadequate funding levels give rise to severe pressures on schools to obtain inputs such as chalk, paper, library books and a range of other consumable and non-consumable items that are vital for effective learning and teaching. Faced with such a situation, schools catering for the poor are forced to do without or to call on parents to finance the purchase of these inputs. Both of these consequences are unacceptable.
Three main mechanisms are presently used to achieve the re-distribution of public spending towards the poor: the National Norms and Standards for School Funding, the Post-Provisioning Norms and capital expenditure. Because all of these mechanisms have only recently been initiated and implemented, one will have to focus on the medium term trajectory as well as their present outcomes to assess their effectiveness. The review shows that all of these mechanisms have had a real impact and that their impact is set to increase even further. However, the review has also identified certain implementation problems that have reduced the potential and intended impact of these interventions. In this regard, we will do two things to improve impact. First, we will amend policies, in the manner suggested in the review and, second, we will strengthen the robustness of mechanisms, related to systems and monitoring, to improve implementation.
The Review shows that inadequate levels of public funding going to poor schools are often not directly related to the size of education budgets. Some parts of the education bureaucracy have been woefully unable to convert available funding in budgets into resources for schools. One main cause of this failure relates to inappropriate systems and business processes, which we are determined to improve. But the other reason relates to inability of officials to discharge their responsibilities effectively. While the latter reason is mercifully much less widespread, we will not countenance a situation where people are deprived of resources because of a lack of commitment, the absence of a sense of mission and a disregard of the Government's programme of batho pele, people first.
I am extremely keen on the recommendation to establish a budget monitoring and support office in the Department of Education. Such a facility will vastly improve our monitoring capacity, which will, in turn, improve our capacity to identify and resolve problems at an early stage and to hold accountable those officials who have been able to disregard their responsibilities with impunity.
The costs of education related inputs that are not traditionally supplied by the school, such as uniforms, transport and - in the case of poor learners - food, has received thorough attention in the review. The analyses, in this regard, have focused on improving our understanding of the factors that influence the prices of these inputs. Specific recommendations are advanced to alleviate the financial burden, on parents and households, because of the high costs associated with these inputs.
In addition to the those I have already referred to, the report also makes recommendations to improve personnel management and educator utilisation; the management and utilisation of resources at school level; compliance with policies and procedures related to fee-setting and fee exemptions; the efficacy and outcomes of capital investment spending and monitoring and evaluation in the system.
Like any other complex system, the education system does not lend itself to solutions that are confined to tinkering with selected parts. Nothing less than a systemic and thorough strategy will do. I intend to ensure that our interventions are systemic in nature.
We will not tolerate a situation where some schools are poorly resourced. We will not tolerate a situation where learners are deprived of their dignity and full access to education on account of an inability to pay fees. We will not tolerate a situation where parents who can afford to pay fees are exploited to fund unfair pricing practices, inputs unrelated to the improvement of education quality and additional pecuniary benefits for principals and state-employed educators. We will not tolerate a situation where officials fail to convert budgets into resources intended for schools.
We will not allow these things because we have a moral obligation to ensure that they stop. We will not allow these things because they distort public funding and add to the financial burden of parents. We will not allow these things because they deprive our young of their basic human rights, enshrined in the Constitution. We will not allow these things because they prevent the doors of learning and culture to be opened to all.
This report reflects the extensive work, conducted over a period of two months, of managers, researchers and planners in the Department of Education. I am grateful to those people who have acted as real professional working long hours, doing real research and proposing far reaching recommendations. It is a tribute to the sustained investment by this Government in public sector capacity, and education planning capacity in particular, that a comprehensive review of funding mechanisms and costs related to public schooling could be finalised in such a short period of time.
We have allowed a lengthy period, until 21 April 2003, for public comment to enable us to consult extensively with key partners in the education and social development community. I encourage all interested parties and members of the public at large to engage actively with the report and to submit their comments to the Department of Education.
The feedback received from these consultations and public comments will be carefully considered before I finalise my decisions on the recommendations of the Review of The Financing, Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools.
I thank you.
Issued by Ministry of Education
3 March 2003
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Release of report on cost of education in public schools
STATEMENT TO THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF THE REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE FINANCING, RESOURCING AND COSTS OF EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROFESSOR KADER ASMAL, MP, Pretoria, 3 March 2003
The significance of the report on the Review of the Financing, Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools is that it is only partly about financing. It is more fundamentally concerned with the rights of the child. It is concerned with the highest priority of this Government: of pushing back the frontiers of poverty. It is centrally concerned with improving the quality of life of all South Africans, now and into the future.
I commissioned the Department of Education to conduct this review because of my concern about the persistence of inadequate service delivery in pockets of the education system and to review the financing of education. Despite our remarkable successes at improving quality, access and equity - over an extremely short period since 1994 - I found it unacceptable that some learners were still attending schools that were inadequately resourced, that some poor parents were carrying an inordinately high financial burden because of high education costs, that many non-poor parents and, especially, lower middle class parents were making financial contributions toward the schooling of their children that were difficult to explain on educational grounds. I found it unacceptable that children were being excluded from school, or humiliated while at school, because their parents were unable to pay the school fee. I found this unacceptable because it constituted an assault on the dignity of the child and a violation of the rights of the child enshrined in our Constitution.
I am determined to deal with these problems purposefully and with urgency. Given the gravity and complexity of the problems at hand, it is essential that any corrective interventions we select be informed by solid analysis and information. And not by sensational journalism or blatant untruths, of the kind I read in a 'quality' weekly newspaper on Friday. The article in question quoted somebody who claimed that about 80% to 90% of public resources went to former Model C schools. I am shocked that anyone could find this claim conceivable and printable. I am shocked too that in preceding articles, written by the same writer in past editions of the newspaper, similarly wild claims were inferred based on a consistent set of two or three sources, without any attempt to establish the veracity of these claims. Such reporting calls into question not only the professionalism of our media but also raises the issue of good faith in relation to matters of national importance.
I have sought, through this review, to obtain urgently information based on a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the problems. I vividly recall the look of horror on the face of my Director-General when I announced the deadline for the completion of this review. He has risen admirably to the challenge. I know that the MECs for Education, the Department of Education and the Provincial Education Departments share my sense of urgency on this matter.
I have studied the report and considered the analyses and recommendations very carefully. The report provides a solid basis for consultation, within government and with stakeholders, aimed at identifying robust, practical and high-impact interventions that would have an immediate and long-term impact on the amelioration of the problems that we find so unacceptable.
The review confirms that enormous advances have been made in access, funding and equity in the schooling system since the advent of a democratic order in the country in 1994.
The shifting of budgets has been responsible for a reduction in a key index of inequality between provinces by some 60%, between 1995 and 2001. This is a remarkable achievement that has few parallels anywhere in the world. Net enrolment rates have improved, funding per learner has increased in real terms, and the schooling system is vastly more equitable in 2003 than it was in 1994.
The analyses in the report show that measures of inequality for most aspects of education provision are much more favourable than the index of inequality for income in the country. This confirms the potent equalising effects of education in South Africa and is testimony to this Government's determination to reduce poverty and inequality in our country.
The review has also identified areas of service delivery where there has been less success, for instance in the adequacy of non-personnel expenditure and the provision physical infrastructure. Personnel expenditure in the provinces varies between 85% to over 90%, an exceptionally high proportion by international standards. Salaries are also high by international standards, but the main question that arises is the level of productivity - what are we really getting for this level of investment, given that we must work within the MTEF cycle to ensure that better service is provided to our young people.
I am satisfied that a comprehensive set of recommendations, intended to deal with these problems in a systemic way, is advanced in the report.
The central and most far-reaching recommendations in the report relate to ways of improving the present mechanisms that seek to target resources toward the poor. Presently, each province compiles its own resource-targeting table, according to which non-personnel funding is targeted to learners grouped into five categories according to measures of poverty. But these tables are constructed according to levels of poverty within the province. This has given rise to a situation where learners, who are equally poor according to absolute measures, receive vastly different public funding simply because they live in different provinces.
This situation has been particularly prejudicial to poor learners in provinces where the large proportion of the population is poor. The situation is aggravated by the fact that poor provinces, have tended in the main, to budget less than provinces with lower levels of poverty.
I am determined to remedy this situation and, therefore, intend to consider carefully the recommendation in the report to move towards a system of national targeting of poor learners in the country, so that learners who are equally poor receive the same levels of non-personnel funding irrespective of which province they reside in.
Inadequate funding levels give rise to severe pressures on schools to obtain inputs such as chalk, paper, library books and a range of other consumable and non-consumable items that are vital for effective learning and teaching. Faced with such a situation, schools catering for the poor are forced to do without or to call on parents to finance the purchase of these inputs. Both of these consequences are unacceptable.
Three main mechanisms are presently used to achieve the re-distribution of public spending towards the poor: the National Norms and Standards for School Funding, the Post-Provisioning Norms and capital expenditure. Because all of these mechanisms have only recently been initiated and implemented, one will have to focus on the medium term trajectory as well as their present outcomes to assess their effectiveness. The review shows that all of these mechanisms have had a real impact and that their impact is set to increase even further. However, the review has also identified certain implementation problems that have reduced the potential and intended impact of these interventions. In this regard, we will do two things to improve impact. First, we will amend policies, in the manner suggested in the review and, second, we will strengthen the robustness of mechanisms, related to systems and monitoring, to improve implementation.
The Review shows that inadequate levels of public funding going to poor schools are often not directly related to the size of education budgets. Some parts of the education bureaucracy have been woefully unable to convert available funding in budgets into resources for schools. One main cause of this failure relates to inappropriate systems and business processes, which we are determined to improve. But the other reason relates to inability of officials to discharge their responsibilities effectively. While the latter reason is mercifully much less widespread, we will not countenance a situation where people are deprived of resources because of a lack of commitment, the absence of a sense of mission and a disregard of the Government's programme of batho pele, people first.
I am extremely keen on the recommendation to establish a budget monitoring and support office in the Department of Education. Such a facility will vastly improve our monitoring capacity, which will, in turn, improve our capacity to identify and resolve problems at an early stage and to hold accountable those officials who have been able to disregard their responsibilities with impunity.
The costs of education related inputs that are not traditionally supplied by the school, such as uniforms, transport and - in the case of poor learners - food, has received thorough attention in the review. The analyses, in this regard, have focused on improving our understanding of the factors that influence the prices of these inputs. Specific recommendations are advanced to alleviate the financial burden, on parents and households, because of the high costs associated with these inputs.
In addition to the those I have already referred to, the report also makes recommendations to improve personnel management and educator utilisation; the management and utilisation of resources at school level; compliance with policies and procedures related to fee-setting and fee exemptions; the efficacy and outcomes of capital investment spending and monitoring and evaluation in the system.
Like any other complex system, the education system does not lend itself to solutions that are confined to tinkering with selected parts. Nothing less than a systemic and thorough strategy will do. I intend to ensure that our interventions are systemic in nature.
We will not tolerate a situation where some schools are poorly resourced. We will not tolerate a situation where learners are deprived of their dignity and full access to education on account of an inability to pay fees. We will not tolerate a situation where parents who can afford to pay fees are exploited to fund unfair pricing practices, inputs unrelated to the improvement of education quality and additional pecuniary benefits for principals and state-employed educators. We will not tolerate a situation where officials fail to convert budgets into resources intended for schools.
We will not allow these things because we have a moral obligation to ensure that they stop. We will not allow these things because they distort public funding and add to the financial burden of parents. We will not allow these things because they deprive our young of their basic human rights, enshrined in the Constitution. We will not allow these things because they prevent the doors of learning and culture to be opened to all.
This report reflects the extensive work, conducted over a period of two months, of managers, researchers and planners in the Department of Education. I am grateful to those people who have acted as real professional working long hours, doing real research and proposing far reaching recommendations. It is a tribute to the sustained investment by this Government in public sector capacity, and education planning capacity in particular, that a comprehensive review of funding mechanisms and costs related to public schooling could be finalised in such a short period of time.
We have allowed a lengthy period, until 21 April 2003, for public comment to enable us to consult extensively with key partners in the education and social development community. I encourage all interested parties and members of the public at large to engage actively with the report and to submit their comments to the Department of Education.
The feedback received from these consultations and public comments will be carefully considered before I finalise my decisions on the recommendations of the Review of The Financing, Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools.
I thank you.
Issued by Ministry of Education
3 March 2003
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
