Zukiswa Kota & Hopolang Selebalo

1

CONTENTS•Introduction•School Infrastructure

o Education Infrastructure Granto Accelerated School Infrastructure Delivery

Initiative

•Scholar Transport•National School Nutrition Programme•Conclusion

2

PSAM is a civil society organisation that aims to improve the provision of public services essential to the reduction of poverty by strengthening social accountability initiatives concerned with improving governance and public resource management in Sub-Saharan Africa.

EE is a movement of learners, parents, teachers and community members working for quality and equality in the South African education system through research, analysis and activism.

3

The purpose of the presentation is to comment on the 2014 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS)

Inform deliberations towards the 2015/16 BudgetProvide overview of expenditure trends and

delivery through the EIG and ASIDIExamine the necessity of adequate scholar

transport fundingExamine funding for school nutrition through the

National School Nutrition ProgrammePresentation contains recommendations for

Parliament to consider

4

Education (and health) MTEF budget prioritiesPost-school education emphasised R 833 billion for Basic Education and Skills

DevelopmentR 640 billion (2015 MTEF) for Basic Education First MTSF Framework aligned with NDP 2030R397.7 million shifted from the indirect school

infrastructure backlogs grant to the education infrastructure grant

"Reductions in provincial and local conditional grants will target patterns of under-expenditure. The local government equitable share will be protected to ensure the provision of free basic services."

5

Worrying lack of detail on basic education No clear articulation of allocations for gazetted norms and

standards (and this is a substantial undertaking!) Focus on under expenditure on conditional grants: important but

poses risk Restrictions on indicative allocations in outer years; “Significant resources” left unallocated; buffering against fiscal

shocks BUT poses a threat in some areas Reduction of travel and subsistence (R555 million) welcome BUT

risky reductions in programme oversight Considerations of MTEF implications for service delivery;

School infrastructure delivery esp in underperforming but priority provinces

School nutrition grants (MTEF) What trade-offs have been made in terms of long term

infrastructure delivery backlogs and maintenance? (MTEF) What has informed the ‘reprioritisation’ of the Schools

Infrastructure Backlog and Education Infrastructure Grant in this way?

6

There has been significant progress made in the delivery of school infrastructure BUT many South African schools are considered unsafe or ‘inappropriate.’

In 2004, former President Thabo Mbeki announced that…  

“…by the end of this year (2004/05) we shall ensure that there is no pupil learning under a tree, mud school or any dangerous conditions that expose pupils and teachers to the elements”

7

EIG is intended to be supplementary to provincial infrastructure programmes

It also has the purpose of enhancing the speed with which infrastructure happens

This is critical in areas such as the Eastern Cape with maintenance backlogs and a high number of new schools that have to be built

Proposed 2014 Division of Revenue Amendment Bill shows that there have been no mid-year adjustments to allocations given to provinces. Except the Western Cape, which receives an additional R 397 million.

Non-reductions suggest good use of budget allocations by provinces Poor transparency of the EIG regarding implementation/rollout

plans Only publically available information on performance are

infrastructure project lists found in provincial education department votes

Not adequate as a means of assessing progress and performance (delivery and performance)

Intention to decrease allocations worrisome: targets met?

8

The Bill also proposes to increase funds available to provinces for the implementation of the EIG over the medium term.

Proposed nominal increase of 29% between 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years

It must be noted that the proposed R9,4 billion in 2015/16 is R1 billion less than was projected in the 2013 MTBPS.

Proposed increased allocation between 2015/16 and 2016/17 is only R700 million- will this be enough for the implementation of the Norms and standards?

Where will resources for the Norms explicitly come from?

9

10

Intended to ensure the eradication of inappropriate schools by replacing 496 mud schools between 2011/12 and 2013/14 financial years and to provide basic services.

R8.2 billion was allocated for the grantMassive challenges with regard to

expenditure over the years. Length of the project was extended and the budget reduced…

11

“…to give effect to Cabinet approved budget reductions, R1.2 billion over the medium term has been reduced from spending on the school infrastructure backlogs grant…the reductions to the school infrastructure grant align this allocation with the ability of sector to deliver school infrastructure and extend the deadline for addressing the school infrastructure by one year, from 2015/16 to 2016/17.”

12

[1] Projection of allocations over a two-year period.[2] ‘000

13

Numerous challenges facing the South African education system in the provision of scholar transport

Delivery requires DoT and DBE to work together to ensure adequate data capturing of learners in need, sufficient budgeting to meet this need and the service to reach intended beneficiaries

It is unclear whose responsibility it is to provide this service.

There are thousands of learners in rural provinces who walk long distances to access schooling daily

Funding that is made available by provinces is not enough to transport all qualifying learners to schools

14

It is notable, that despite this urgent need, the 2014 MTBPS and proposed Division of Revenue Amendment Bill did not allocate funding for learner transport exclusively

15

  2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

  Outcome Revised Estimate Estimate Estimate

Scholar Transport (ECDoT) R 366,070,000 R 383,593,000

R 356,076,000

R 372,818,000

R 392,951,000

Target Number of Scholars (ECDoE)

  55000 55537 57936 57936

16

Risk of cuts due to some under spending?

17

18

Emphasise MTBPS focus on building capacity of public sector;

The DBE must allocate (and spend) adequate budgets for infrastructure maintenance.

The DBE should provide explanations for reductions in key budget; education infrastructure

The DBE and NT must improve planning alignment between PEDs and the DBE with a specific focus on maintaining accurate management databases to allow rigorous monitoring and evaluation as well as allow close public scrutiny.

Explicit allocations towards the implementation of the Norms and Standards

Provincial reports produced on 29 November 2014 must be available in the public domain

19

The adoption of the National Scholar Transport Policy of 2009

The DBE should collect and verify data on the number of learners who need scholar transport, particularly in the Eastern Cape

Creation of a grant geared towards providing learners with transport, particularly in the Eastern Cape

20

The DBE must be cautioned against reductions made to the budget pertaining to monitoring and oversight of the NSNP

The DBE must elicit clear data from provinces relating to the number of all the learners that are eligible to benefit from the NSNP

The DBE must critically consider the inclusion of all eligible learners that are currently sponsored on the NSNP

21

Emphasis on post-school education important However; risk ECD and Basic Education priorities Conditional grant targeting most vulnerable must

be better/clearly prioritised;Silence in MTBPS disconcerting given the need Focus on quintile targeting of NSNP conditional

grant Protection of conditional grants; infrastructure

and nutrition Allocate clear resources aligned with clear plans;

school infrastructure

22

Thank you for your time!

23