Anda di halaman 1dari 31


d Principal Hewat College of Education 2001

This paper was commissioned as support material for the book TRANSFORMATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa
The views and opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the views of either the Editorial Group or the CHET Board.

1. Introduction 2. Contextual Background 2.1 The Uniqueness of Teacher Education 3. The Climate and Instruments of Change 3.1 The Pre-1994 Period 3.2 The Period 1994-1997 3.3 The Period 1998-1999 4. Interpretation and Analysis of Processes and Intentions 4.1 National Government 4.2 Provincial Government 4.3 Other Compelling (Non-Government) Influences 4.4 Implementation of Intentions 5. College Sector Responses 6. Conclusion 6.1 What the Higher Education Institutions have Inherited 6.2 An Evaluation Framework 6.3 A Missed Opportunity References Annexure A to E 2 2 3 3 4 6 10 11 11 12 14 14 16 17 18 18 20

1. Introduction At the end of the 1990s, a firmly entrenched system for the production of teachers for the public ordinary school system, ceased to exist. Where previously this function was entrusted to provincial education authorities, and executed in their Colleges of Education, it now became the sole prerogative of universities and technikons. This step is no mere transfer of function from one type of institution to another. On the contrary, it signifies a huge leap of faith by divesting the State of an obligation enshrined in the 1910 Constitution of the Union of South Africa, to ensure a sufficient supply of teachers for its schools, and reassigning this responsibility into the domain of the discretionary powers and functions of autonomous institutions. In the process, a national asset of inestimable value has been all but lost. From a student enrolment of 70 000, served by approximately 5 000 teacher educators in 93 Colleges of Education in 1994, a mere 10 000 contact students, served by 1 000 teacher educators at 25 contact colleges were recorded at the end of the decade. [See Annexure E: Table 1, and Parker (2001: 6)]. This milestone event provides an opportunity to reflect on the defining characteristics, past history, and converging influences that contributed to the eventual demise of the sector as a whole. It also spawns an array of questions pertaining to the chosen route for transformation, and its timing. 2. Contextual Background At a very superficial level, the terms college education and teacher education have coalesced over time so that now they are often taken to be synonymous. Yet, in South Africa, colleges have been the sites for offering a variety of qualifications in many disciplines other than Teacher Education. Agriculture, Nursing, Theology, and Technical Colleges, are examples that come readily to mind. Teacher training, since 1910, has also been offered at universities particularly, and some technikons, leading to qualifications for teaching in the secondary school phase. The term, Teacher Education, has also come to describe both initial or pre-service training of teachers, as well as the in-service training of teachers for improvement of their qualifications. It is, therefore, crucial to de-link the concepts of college education and teacher education, and then to define the scope of this study as Collegebased Teacher Education within the purview of the State through its nine provincial administrations. Here the impact of the decisions and policy implementations of the 1990s has been most acutely experienced, to the extent that the sector ceased legal existence in 2001. The significance of the demise of the college sector lies in its reversal of a policy enshrined in the 1910 Constitution of the Union of South Africa, which placed a constitutional responsibility upon the provinces of the time to provide teachers for the school system. This Constitution also introduced the national versus provincial distinction and the university versus college distinction, with regard to governance and focus of operation. The declaration of Colleges of Education as subdivisions of universities and technikons in terms of the 1997 Higher Education Act (Act No. 101 of 1997) has removed this bifurcated approach. For the first time in almost a century, the State is now divested of any direct role in the production of teachers. This is a development of momentous proportions, presaging possible negative implications for an emerging country.

By incorporating Colleges of Education into universities and technikons, South Africa has acted in keeping with trends elsewhere in the world, as can be recognised, for example, in Scotland. However, the appropriateness of such a step may be questioned in a developing country, on an undeveloped continent, where most countries - certainly Anglophone countries - still have dedicated Colleges of Education. 2.1 The Uniqueness of Teacher Education It is crucial here to consider the characteristics that define the uniqueness of College-based Teacher Education as an endeavour within the broad spectrum of Education and Training: Teacher Education derives from a constitutional imperative upon the State. Every person in South Africa has the right to basic education and the State has an on-going obligation to satisfy the need for teachers of good quality. Where Teacher Education is offered at dedicated institutions, a confluence of mission between staff, students, and support services contribute towards the development of a special ethos or brand that is easily identifiable. Vertically, Teacher Education straddles school education and higher education. Horizontally, it straddles academic education and vocational education and training. It provides a professional education that embraces not only specialised theoretical studies, but importantly, also professional ethics. In South Africa, Colleges of Education achieved a high degree of geographical penetration in all 9 provinces, in rural and urban areas alike. This is instrumental in generating a strong sense of community between colleges and schools (see Annexure E: Table 3). In rural and economically disadvantaged areas, teaching evolved as a de facto transitional profession providing entry into other professions and occupations. This phenomenon, thought to be wasteful by some, is also considered as perfectly acceptable in a developing country where disadvantaged candidates with weak initial academic credentials require assistance to reach their fullest potential. All these elements are not necessarily unique in their own right, but collectively, they contribute to the uniqueness of the College-based Teacher Education sector. It is these colleges singular in professional mission, activities and methodology - which have been incorporated into the Higher Education system as sub-divisions of universities or technikons, in terms of the December 2000 Declaration on Incorporation (see Appendix A). 3. The Climate and Instruments of Change The act of incorporation brings to fruition a number of policy initiatives and legislative processes driven by the national Ministry and Department of Education. It represents the first major foray of the Department into the terrain of transformation in Higher Education. It is perceived by some, especially in the Teacher Education sector, as having been executed with great haste, and without due regard for the particular character and unique contribution of College-based Teacher Education to Education generally. This section of the study is devoted to a description of the prevailing conditions and issues in College-based Teacher Education in the last decade of its existence. Particular emphasis

is placed upon governance and operational autonomy, sectoral organisation and leadership, and the Constitutional circumscription of policy and legislation. Also for consideration is a description of the policies, processes, and structures that have helped shape the outcome of incorporation. 3.1 The Pre-1994 Period As with Education generally, Colleges of Education still reflected the pervasive sociopolitical ordering of society along racial lines at the beginning of the 1990s. Broadly speaking, 4 systems were distinguishable as serving those communities classified as Black, Coloured, Indian, and White, respectively. For the Black community several subsystems operated: a centralised State department for Black learners within South Africa (Department of Education and Training: DET); a centralised State department in each of the independent homelands, namely, Transkei, Bophutatswana, Venda and Ciskei (TBVC countries); and, a centralised State administration in each of the self-governing territories (SGTs). Coloureds and Indians were served by administrations of centralised State departments governed by the House of Representatives (HOR) and House of Delegates (HOD) respectively. A centralised State department accountable to the House of Assembly (HOA), administered Education for Whites, and devolved implementation powers and responsibilities to the four provinces, ie., the Cape, Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal. State control over colleges varied from very strong in respect of DET, TBVC and SGT institutions, to weak in HOA colleges under provincial education departments. Governance and Autonomy Through both national legislation and provincial ordinances, HOA colleges were granted institutional governance structures akin to university Councils and Senates, and enjoyed a large measure of operational autonomy. The province provided funds for expenditure on capital works and authorised personnel; the college retained fee income and other revenues, which were used for all other operational expenditure. Consequently, these colleges were well resourced. Many colleges entered into contractual agreements with universities to address issues of quality assurance, certification, and joint offering of degreelevel Teacher Education programmes. Examples include: Cape Town College of Education (CE) and the University of Cape Town; Edgewood CE and Natal University; and Johannesburg CE and the University of the Witwatersrand. In sharp contrast, colleges within the DET-TBVC-SGT scope of operation, were characterised by weak institutional governance structures, usually Advisory Boards. The budget process, allocation of funds, and control over institutional expenditure fell within the jurisdiction of departmental officials, whilst fee income accrued to the State. Such a dispensation allowed no real scope for operational autonomy. Resource levels, both human and material, varied widely. The departmental regulation of either all, or some, student admissions, curriculum and syllabus content, examinations and certification, did little to enhance the professional status of institutions, or the credibility of qualifications. Within this general description, however, allowance must be made for notable exceptions such as the Institute for Teacher Education comprising the University of Bophutatswana (UNIBOP) in association with a cluster of Colleges of Education, or Giyani

CE (Venda) in association with the University of the Witwatersrand, and Transkei CE in association with the University of Transkei (UNITRA). HOR and HOD colleges fell between the extremes described above. These colleges were governed by Acts of Parliament and regulations promulgated under these Acts, namely: the 1963 Coloured Persons Education Act, and the 1965 Indians Education Act, respectively. Although departmental control remained a debilitating feature for HOR colleges, nevertheless, examples of a strong ethos, tradition and public image emerged. Examples include Dower CE (Port Elizabeth), Hewat CE (Cape Town) and Perseverance CE (Kimberley). HOD Colleges veered more towards the HOA model than was true for HOR colleges. This prevailing unevenness and incoherence precluded any application of the term system to the disparate entities dotting the Teacher Education landscape. Developments within the sector were uncoordinated and sometimes even contradictory. Two examples serve to illustrate this feature. Firstly, as a response to burgeoning secondary school enrolments, and the consolidation of policies relating to independent homelands and self-governing territories, many new colleges were erected in these areas during the 1980s and early 1990s, without reference to issues of national supply and demand, special needs, and quality enhancement. Yet conversely, within the HOA dispensation, the process of merging and closure of colleges was already under way in response to the narrowly defined demographic trends of a single racial group. This is exemplified by the closure of COEs in Paarl, Port Elizabeth and Stellenbosch under the Cape Education Department, and the consolidation of teacher training in two colleges, serving the Afrikaans-speaking community (Boland CE) and English-speaking community (Cape Town CE), respectively. The Establishment of CCERSA, 1992 The great disparities and lack of co-ordination described above led to feelings of isolation and alienation within the college sector. The need for contact across the racial and ethnic divide was felt at all levels, as was the desire to work towards the creation of a non-racial, equitable South Africa. As a consequence, exploratory talks were held by a small group of rectors who, though drawn from predominantly race-based associations, had nevertheless been meeting informally for the past five years or more. Sufficient common ground was found to validate the establishment of an integrated, national association representing all college rectors. In August 1992, the Committee of College of Education Rectors of South Africa (CCERSA) was established. Its membership was open to all rectors of Colleges of Education in geographical South Africa, ie. the four provinces together with the TBVC countries and SGTs. 107 colleges were identified and their rectors offered membership of CCERSA. The unified body, a voluntary association of individuals, wished to play a proactive role in transforming the sector by establishing linkages within and beyond the sector itself; by gathering and disseminating information, and by lending support and building capacity at institutional level. It also wished to engage with governmental and other agencies as a representative voice for Colleges of Education. CCERSA has never enjoyed de jure recognition akin to that of the Committee of Technikon Principals (CTP) and Committee of University Principals (CUP, now SAUVCA) in the technikon and university domain. However, it has secured de facto recognition implicit in

membership of various bodies such as the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), and its substructures. It has gained access to senior departmental officials, the parliamentary portfolio committee on Education, and to Ministers of Education, to propagate its cause one pointer to the seriousness with which the association is viewed. However, a second pointer, namely, the extent to which understandings and undertakings are subsequently implemented, conveys a somewhat different message. Sadly for CCERSA, the dilemma of how to interpret, and how to contend with perceived non-delivery by organs of State loomed large at critical times. In addition, like all other structures in Teacher Education, CCERSA fell victim to the national-provincial schism, with consultations on policy and legislation occurring at national level, and negotiations on practical implementation taking place at provincial level with consequently uneven outcomes. The impact of these features will be analysed later in this paper. A Constitutional Imperative It is illuminating to consider constitutional obligations as a forerunner to the recounting of policy and legislative processes. Act 200 of 1993 introduced a new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, commonly referred to as the Interim Constitution. In Chapter 9 of the 1993 Constitution, provision is made for the establishment of 9 provinces, each with its own legislature and administration. The legislative competences of provinces are set out in Schedule 6 and include: education at all levels, excluding university and technikon education. Hence the control and administration of Colleges of Education was defined as a provincial competence by virtue of the above demarcation. The Act ushered in a new era of administration in the sense that all education colleges, regardless of racial and ethnic considerations, now fell under the jurisdiction of the province within whose boundaries they were located. This can be regarded as a first step - through de-racialisation - towards the rationalisation and eventual transformation of the sector. However, it did not eliminate fragmentation since the multiplicity of race-based education administrations was now reduced to 9 administrations centred around geographical location. The unification of the College of Education sector within each province did not address the 1910 constitutional divide between provinces and the national Department of Education (DOE). Nevertheless, it brought into sharp relief the accumulated imbalances, inequities, and disparities that existed between institutions now under a unified provincial administration. 3.2 The Period 1994 1997 Transformation Strategies The first national democratic elections of 1994 provided a springboard for introducing goals, principles, and values intended to inform all transformation initiatives. The detailed analyses and recommendations emanating from investigations and policy developments were informed by the vision and guiding principles of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP: 1994). For example, new policy development for Teacher Education was conceived as:

part of a larger process of reconstruction and development, and driven by the vision of a flourishing democracy able to provide quality education to all its citizens. (The National Teacher Education Audit Workshop Report, 1996: 5). Some of the policy milestones, both internal and external to Teacher Education, that had an impact on the sector, will be described in this section of the paper. a) Committee on Teacher Education Policy, 1994 The Committee on Teacher Education Policy (COTEP) was established in 1993, and legitimised through partnership with the National Education and Training Forum (NETF) a non-statutory body in 1994. It included representatives from the national and 9 provincial departments of education, teacher education providers, and teacher unions and federations. COTEP operated under the chairmanship of the national DOE through the first-ever Directorate of Teacher Education, and was responsible for both developing policy, and also co-ordinating its implementation. COTEP reported to the Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM) through the DOE. Of all the varied policy issues to confront COTEP, two of overriding significance emerged: first, the development of norms and standards for Teacher Education, and secondly, the incorporation of Teacher Education into Higher Education. The first mandate passed through several stages, which included the gazetting of the Norms and Standards for Teacher Education as national policy in 1995, the publication of the Revised Norms and Standards in 1996, and the finalisation of this process with the appearance of the Norms and Standards for Educators document in February 2000. The 1995 document established minimum standards by defining a core syllabus content in a range of learning areas. COTEP was empowered, in the period preceding the establishment of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), to approve and register programmes, and to accredit qualifications. Critically then, it addressed the issue of qualification nomenclature and appellations. However, radical revision of the Norms and Standards was necessitated by the advent of SAQA and Curriculum 2005, and the Norms and Standards for Educators document of February 2000 created a new benchmark in this process. As a parallel process, the second mandate was given effect in the appointment and subsequent workings of the Hunter Committee, whose findings and recommendations provided a data source for internal use by the DOE. The process culminated in the formulation of a crucial document entitled: The Declaration of Incorporation of Colleges of Education into the Higher Education Sector: A Framework for Implementation. Issued in June 1998, it was intended as the blueprint for subsequent implementation. b) National Teacher Education Audit, 1994 One of the consequences of a fragmented system was the dearth of reliable data on the College-based Teacher Education sector. The National Teacher Education Audit of 1994 was the first-ever attempt to gather, collate, and analyse data on the Teacher Education sector on an inclusive basis. Of primary importance was the issue of teacher supply and demand. In this regard, the Audit Report predicted a large oversupply of teachers by the year 1997, and in its recommendations, proposed a reduction in the number of Colleges of Education.

By highlighting the many deficits and deficiencies in the sector, the Audit produced a generalised picture of poor quality provision. It also provided data on State expenditure on Teacher Education, which revealed, rather starkly, that the per capita cost of training a student at a College of Education compared adversely with per capita costs for the same activity at universities and technikons. This was ascribed primarily to the relatively low staff to student ratios prevailing at Colleges of Education, namely, a national average of 12,4 : 1, in 1994, according to G. Hall (1996: 46). The twin elements of poor quality and high cost provision, albeit with notable exceptions, subsequently informed the arguments of the proponents of incorporation into universities and technikons. CCERSA supported the Audit process, but not the interpretation of data and subsequent use to which it was put. For instance, CCERSA questioned the impact on the interpretative thinking of members of the National Commission on Higher Education. While CCERSA accepted the inevitability of rationalisation, either through closure, amalgamation or mergers; and welcomed formal organisational links with HEIs in close proximity to colleges, it expected equitable provisioning, redress and capacity-building, together with institutional autonomy, to be the vehicles for achieving quality improvement. c) National Commission on Higher Education, 1996 The National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) was established in 1995 and charged with the task of undertaking a situation analysis; of mapping out a vision for Higher Education and presenting particular proposals that could lead to the development of a planned, integrated, high quality system of Higher Education. Structurally it comprised five Task Groups, some of which encompassed several Technical Committees. One Technical Committee, devoted to Teacher Education, included current or former college-based teacher educators, together with university-based teacher educators and researchers. In its Report (1996: 10), the Technical Committee proposed, inter alia, that Teacher Education should form part of the national Higher Education system, with institutions acquiring autonomy. It proffered a range of possibilities for colleges linking with each other, for example, in a collegium or cluster, in Institutes of Education or University Schools of Education, or through colleges negotiating articulation agreements with universities or technikons. However, the NCHE Report (1996: 156-158) surprisingly proposed that Colleges of Education should be incorporated into existing universities and technikons as faculties or schools of these institutions. In so doing, it departed from the key recommendations of its own Technical Committee. Furthermore, commissioners recommended a college sector embracing Nursing and Agricultural colleges together with Colleges of Education. Dissent ensued within the Teacher Education environment, and was strongly expressed in focused discussion groups, deputations and further written submissions all to no avail. The controversy that arose around these recommendations has not yet abated, nor have allegations about the disproportionate influence exerted by individual commissioners.

The NCHE defended its recommendations as reflecting the considered, collective judgement of commissioners, based on personal convictions, and other wide-ranging inputs, including external resources. d) White Paper 3, 1997 The initiatives described above, with the attendant workshops, hearings, and written submissions, can be regarded as preparatory steps towards developing a White Paper. This document, titled: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, was gazetted in August 1997, and is commonly referred to as White Paper 3. It held out as a key target the diversification of the Higher Education system in terms of the mix of institutional missions and programmes, recognising the distinct function and mission of universities, technikons and colleges as three types of institutions operating in the Higher Education system. In addition, it described institutional autonomy as a fundamental principle; and crucially, it identified human resource development at institutional level and capacity-building at a systemic level, as vital goals. The COE sector was encouraged by such promising indicators of a continued existence in a more desirable dispensation, in particular the assurance that a range of organisational models would be allowed to evolve, based on regional and national needs, sound education practice, and efficiency and costeffectiveness criteria (WP 3: 25). e) The Higher Education Act, 1997 The Higher Education Act, 1997, followed soon after White Paper 3, and provided the legal mechanism for incorporation to be effected. Section 21(1) of the Act granted the Minister power to declare any institution providing higher education as: i) a university, technikon or college; or ii) a subdivision of a university, technikon or college. Critically then, this Act narrowed the options to two only, namely: a single-purpose college dedicated to Teacher Education and functioning in its own right; or a college incorporated as a subdivision of a university or technikon. The White Paper and Higher Education Act must be viewed in the wake of the new 1996 Constitution, which in Section 4, defines the legislative competence of provinces on Education as encompassing education at all levels, excluding tertiary education (emphasis added). COEs, as tertiary institutions, became a national responsibility, thus creating opportunities for national planning and co-ordination. The import of this Act cannot be overstated, since it fulfilled one of the key aspirations of teacher educators, namely, location in the HE system as a national DOE responsibility. For the first time in over 90 years the ambivalence over control of Teacher Education between provinces and the national department was squarely addressed and expunged, and a vehicle put in place for driving a radical, structural transformation of Teacher Education. f) Other (non-government) Initiatives During the 19941997 period a plethora of investigations and policy developments was launched, all depicting a degree of consensus around a recommendation to incorporate Colleges of Education into Higher Education. The initiatives were not State-driven, but

emanated from a wide array of academic, research, non-governmental and political organisations, that included, inter alia, the National Education Policy Initiative (NEPI), the South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE), the Union of Democratic University Staff Associations (UDUSA), the ANC Education Policy Desk (A Policy Framework on Education and Training), and also the Report on the National Conference on Teacher Development. Matching their general agreement on the location of Teacher Education in Higher Education is a second common theme, namely, the recommendation that COEs should be planned, governed and funded as part of a single HE system. These recommendations are, therefore, in accord with the eventual provisions of White Paper 3 and the 1997 HE Act. 3.3 The Period 1998 1999 A Framework for Implementation The challenge of the 1998-1999 period was how to give effect to incorporation. During 1997, the DOE, through COTEP, commissioned a Technical Committee (TC) to investigate and report upon aspects relating to the incorporation of COEs into the HE system. The report of this TC, sometimes called the Hunter Report, was utilised by the Department of Education as an internal document from which an implementation strategy for incorporation could be devised. The ensuing strategy is set forth in a June 1998 document entitled, The Incorporation of Colleges of Education into the Higher Education Sector: A Framework for Implementation. The Framework document reiterated the Ministrys commitment to: a mix of organisational models in the HE system; the principle of granting institutional autonomy to Colleges of Education on a par with that enjoyed by universities and technikons; and providing a facilitative framework for multi-level capacity building. It also recommended the appointment of a Transition Committee to develop procedures for assessing which COEs would continue to function, and on what optional basis. It advocated the appointment of a panel of suitable persons to assess the applications of colleges for autonomous status and recommended the development of a framework for the building of institutional, administrative, management, and academic capacity for those colleges that qualify for autonomy (1998: 35). The Implementation Framework was approved by HEDCOM, but as will be seen later, these commitments, confirmed in June 1998, seem to have been overtaken by new insights and developments. The recommended Transition Committee did not materialise in the form as advised in the Implementation Framework. Instead, it was constituted as a sub-committee of HEDCOM that did not include representatives of the teacher unions or CCERSA, as hoped for. The decision to omit these groups proved to be contentious and costly in terms of breaking down trust. Minimum criteria were established to determine which colleges would qualify for incorporation into the HE system, and included, inter alia, size, curriculum diversity, staff qualifications, institutional history and compatibility factors. The task of identifying these colleges was left to the provinces. Criteria were seen as soft guidelines only, and were not stringently monitored by any co-ordinating authority. Restructuring and rationalisation (closures, amalgamations, mergers) ensued at provincial level according to provincial analysis and priorities, and not within the context of a national plan. Severe cutbacks in


student admission quotas and the curtailment or even withdrawal of State bursaries gained momentum in some provinces, thus accentuating uncertainty over future employment opportunities, and dealing a severe blow to student and staff morale alike. Notice of Intention, 1999 It is about this time that a firm decision was taken at national level to proceed with incorporation along one route only, that is, incorporation of colleges as subdivisions of universities and technikons. In so deciding, the DOE nullified the proposals of the Teacher Education Working Group of the NCHE, the Hunter Committee, White Paper 3 and the Higher Education Act, all of which provided possibilities for COEs to operate within the HE system through ways other than the proclaimed one route model. Colleges to be incorporated and receiving HEIs were identified, the latter on the basis of historical ties with, or geographical proximity to, colleges. The DOE was also guided by specific regional needs, and motivated institutional requests in its selection of HEIs. As required by the 1997 Higher Education Act, the Minister gave notice of his intentions, in the public print media, to incorporate 27 COEs into the Higher Education system as subdivisions of identified HEIs. This process extended over the period July 1999 to July 2000. Simultaneously, officials of the national DOE embarked on an extensive programme of consultations with their provincial counterparts in preparation for incorporation. 4. Interpretation and Analysis of Processes and Intentions A number of critical intentions have emerged from the above description of policy and legislation affecting Teacher Education. These intentions can be summarised as: location in Higher Education; comprehensive capacity-building; autonomous institutions and a mix of institutional types. Since government is pre-eminently the agent responsible for implementation, the role of government at national and provincial levels respectively, will be examined in some detail. But government is not the only player; consequently, the roles of other players, for example CCERSA, or other parameter-setting influences, for example GEAR, will be examined. Finally, it must be acknowledged that some of the developments at college level were unintentional, and achieved more by default than design. It should be accepted that the enfeeblement of institutions and demoralisation of educators would not have been planned goals, for example. 4.1 National Government In this section of the paper, the term, government is applied to the national Department of Education (DOE) and the national Ministry of Education. The Minister, in executing his/her duties is required to consult with the Council of Education Ministers (CEM: comprising provincial MECs for Education) and HEDCOM (the administrative heads of provincial education departments). He/she is also advised by the Council on Higher Education (CHE). Furthermore, the Minister acts in compliance with his/her relationship to Cabinet, and is subject to collective Cabinet mandates and approvals. In the final analysis, however, he/she


is responsible for all HE policy and legislation, having integrated all of the wide-ranging, and sometimes conflicting, inputs and influences that shape decisions. National versus Provincial Dichotomy One of the dilemmas confronting government is the dichotomy between national policy formulation and provincial implementation. This tension has had a marked impact on developments during the early rationalisation stages, and the later incorporation process. Decisions taken, or policies devised, in the context of consensus-seeking as described above, were often not implemented at provincial level. An initiative by COTEP to introduce a uniform fee structure and bursary system in State-owned colleges an agreement honoured more in the breach than the observance illustrates this strain. A host of reasons can be advanced for this tension, including lack of capacity, the intrusion of other localised factors (student unrest, labour union disputes or community pressure) or changes in key personnel. Regarding the latter, it must be noted that within the first five years of democratic government, several shifts in administrative and political leadership took place at provincial level, and extended after the 1999 general elections. Predictably, the resultant instability and lack of continuity either stalled decision-making and implementation, or introduced confusion through new interpretations of policy decisions. Whatever the contributory factors, in reality non-compliance with, or even reversal of policy decisions, could not be addressed by the DOE, which lacked the authority to enforce any decision upon provincial departments acting within their areas of competence. Growth, Employment and Redistribution Policy (GEAR) Not all of the determinant decisions of government emanated from within Education. In the mid-1990s, a major shift in thinking and planning occurred within government, away from RDP guiding principles and goals such as access, equity, and redress, to the new macroeconomic policy objectives of GEAR. The GEAR policy emphasised new goals of efficiency, effectiveness, and affordability over developmental objectives, and ushered in a new climate of competitiveness. Provincial Treasuries were constrained by the national Departments of Finance and State Expenditure to conform to GEAR principles and guidelines in their respective budgeting processes. An inflexible approach to over-expenditure, and the threat of disciplinary action against errant accounting officers, ensured that all activities were subjected to the closest scrutiny. College-based Teacher Education, perceived to be a highcost activity, witnessed a greater urgency in rationalisation strategies as provinces grappled with huge deficits, and diminishing allocations in real terms. Initial expectations of substantial investment in capacity-building and human resource development soon dissipated, and for college educators the conviction grew that economic exigencies had supplanted educational and developmental considerations in driving rationalisation. This theme will be expanded upon in succeeding paragraphs. 4.2 Provincial Government Of the many factors influencing the functioning of provincial administrations and institutions such as colleges, two stand out because their impact was so acutely felt. These influences emanate from the budget process, already alluded to above, and employer-employee relations.


The Budget Process New provincial structures came into place during the course of 1995. Initially, funding for Education came via the national DOE, and was essentially based upon the apartheid budgeting process. By 1996/1997, however, the budget process as prescribed in the Constitution came into effect, and direct allocations were made from National to Provincial Revenue Funds. Provincial governments were now responsible for their own revenue and expenditure estimates. The prioritisation of Education was viewed differently by politicians in different provinces, as was the prioritisation of Teacher Education as a programme within the Education Vote. It soon became apparent that the constitutional obligation to provide basic schooling would take precedence over all other activities. In priority ranking, this was followed by RDP drives towards the removal of backlogs and the introduction of equity measures, and also presidential initiatives such as Adult Basic Education (ABET) and Early Childhood Development (ECD). Too many initiatives chasing too little funding, amidst the constant threat of over-expenditure, impelled provinces towards a reappraisal of activities against needs. COEs, inherited from race-based administrations, often overlapped in geographical location and programme offerings, and exceeded the needs of a racially integrated system. They became obvious candidates for rationalisation, through mergers, admission quotas, and State-bursary cutbacks. ELRC Agreements The Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) was established in 1994, and provided a platform at national level for negotiations between the DOE as employer and various teacher unions or federations as employee representatives. One of the earlier resolutions of the ELRC, taken in 1996, related to pupil-teacher ratios (learner-educator ratios) of 40:1 in primary schools and 35:1 in secondary schools. Implementing this resolution helped destroy the widely-held belief of a huge shortage of teachers in South Africa. Provinces, with the exception of the Northern Province and Eastern Cape, for example, had to deal with substantial teacher surpluses. When planners and other decision-makers considered this new reality, taken together with the fact that most provincial education departments allocated 80 90% of annual budget to personnel expenditure, then rationalisation (or rightsizing) became imperative. Teachers at risk included under-qualified and unqualified personnel, and incumbents of temporary posts. Nationally, many thousands of teachers exited the system through being declared in excess, and qualifying for voluntary severance packages. Posts were abolished at schools to conform to new provisioning scales based on new ratios, workloads, and minimum contact-teaching hours. Teacher unemployment reared its head as staff establishments were trimmed or vacancies remained unfilled. The significance of the above to Teacher Education cannot be overstated. Employee organisations began to question both the rationale and morality of admitting students to programmes of initial training in the prevailing context of downsizing and unemployment. The twin pressures of financial constraints and staff rationalisation were key contributors to province-led college reshaping. The issue of affordability loomed large in strategic evaluation of the college sector, and explains in part why the process of identifying colleges for closure, mergers, and conversion to multi-functional institutions was already underway when the 1997 HE Act was passed. These steps were entirely in accordance with provincial competencies, and with the multi-type institutional mix proposed in White Paper 3.


4.3 Other Compelling (Non-Government) Influences The forces described above can be regarded as push forces propelling COEs towards incorporation into universities and technikons. The question can be asked about the existence of pull forces. In addressing this question, it must be recorded that many influential people within the university and technikon world held very strong views in favour of incorporating COEs into established higher education institutions (HEIs). Some institutional heads welcomed the opportunity to contribute towards producing high-quality Education professionals, and proclaimed their capacity and commitment to do so. These viewpoints were argued either in direct talks, or within commissions and advisory bodies to the Ministry. At a more pragmatic level, however, some HEIs were partially activated by the prospect of increased enrolments in shrinking Education Faculties. The concomitant increase in fee income and State subsidies, based on student head-counts, provided a powerful inducement. Additionally, the possibility of acquiring valuable fixed property and plant created openings for taking not only Teacher Education, but also other university or technikon initiatives and programmes, into areas and communities not previously reached by the HEI. This is of considerable importance in the highly competitive environment of HE, especially with the advent of private-for-profit institutions and their inroads into public HEI enrolments. 4.4 Implementation of Intentions In the preceding paragraphs of this section of the paper, an attempt is made to provide a broad contextual framework within which the implementation of intentions can be interpreted. It is now opportune to examine, in a more specific way, why only one of the key intentions enunciated in the 1998 Framework for Implementation document was carried through, namely, incorporation into the HE system; and why the other intentions did not materialise. Intention: Location of Colleges in Higher Education The significance of the 1996 Constitutional imperative, which in Schedule 4 defines tertiary education as a national competence, cannot be overstated. Besides this crucial factor, all significant interest-groups, for example, the organised teaching profession, relevant NGOs and research bodies, CCERSA and HEDCOM, supported the principle of incorporation into Higher Education. The only noteworthy reservations related to provinces losing control over the production and supply of teachers for their schools. The need for national planning, co-ordination, and funding, is self-evident. Conversely, there is overwhelming evidence of the inappropriateness of provincial tamperings with Teacher Education, according to provincial priorities, as a vehicle for addressing national needs and objectives. Examples abound of provinces admitting students to colleges, or alternatively, of imposing admission quotas across the board on colleges, quite regardless of school phase or learning area requirements Incorporation in the HE system, therefore, represents a logical and welcome progression, based on substantial consensus.


Intention: Building Capacity in Colleges of Education A consequence of the national-provincial dichotomy can be seen in the DOEs reluctance to embark on programmes that needed to be nationally driven and supervised, yet provincially implemented. Lack of leverage is one salient reason advanced by the Department for its failure to embark upon a comprehensive capacity building programme in COEs, whilst these institutions were still under provincial control. However, it carries little weight with opinionformers in Teacher Education, many of whom dismiss such a rationale as a glossing-over of what is perceived to be a serious abdication of a core responsibility in the regeneration of College-based Teacher Education. Curriculum 2005 provides but one impressive example of a national policy initiative that is contingent upon provincial implementation at school level. Such examples diminish the persuasiveness of the Departments argument in respect of leverage in COEs under provincial authority. Intention: Granting College Autonomy Conditions within Colleges of Education: By 1998 the rationalisation process had gained momentum and the number of COEs still operating had decreased appreciably. Total student enrolments had decreased dramatically from more than 70 000 in 1994 to a mere 15 000 in 1999, a feature which could be ascribed on the one hand to province-imposed admission quotas and withdrawal of State bursaries; but also to the redundancies and redeployment strategies confronting the profession. Persistent instability within the ranks of the profession created a negative public image, which in turn, exacted a heavy toll on recruitment drives for students to enter initial teacher training. Colleges, lacking institutional autonomy, were powerless to adjust staff complements to declining enrolments since the province employed all educators. Most provinces lacked the capacity to absorb college personnel in other vacant posts, and all lacked an appropriate retrenchment mechanism. As a consequence, overstaffing reached untenable proportions. From a targeted learner-to-educator ratio of 18 : 1 proposed for COEs in the ELRC in 1996/1997, an unsustainable average of 10 : 1 was recorded in 1999, according to Parker (2001: 8). There is also much anecdotal evidence of single-digit ratios as low as 5:1. This feature was highlighted at a crucial time when colleges were being assessed for educational and financial viability as autonomous institutions in the Higher Education system. Conditions within the HEIs: Here, too, the litany of declining enrolments and staff retrenchments is apparent. Looming far larger, however, are issues of governance, management, and financial viability, the latter primarily an outflow of cumulative student debt reaching hundreds of millions of rands, nationally. Also, the DOE has instituted investigations into allegations of maladministration and/or financial mismanagement at some HEIs. Conflict between various constituencies has rendered some HEIs almost dysfunctional. With these examples in view, the DOE set its sights determinedly against college autonomy by the second half of 1998. The DOE lacked both the capacity and the willingness to add to the 36 HEIs for which it already had some responsibility, probably also fearing that an assortment of autonomous colleges in the HE system could emerge as weak and dysfunctional entities. This premise is, and will remain, untested.


Intention: Creating an Institutional Mix Several incumbents of key posts in the DOE hierarchy were seen to be more inclined towards the option of incorporation into HEIs, than the alternative of retaining some COEs in the HE system. The absence, in individual cases, of any first-hand knowledge of Teacher Education, stemming from academic training and career pursuits, can be seen as a contributory factor to this predilection. This observation is usually predicated on the principle of conditioning, and is not raised as a reflection on the professional integrity of any individual. Furthermore, organisationally, the department did not wish to create a tier of education colleges within the HE system, requiring a Directorate for Teacher Education to manage the system, on the grounds that such status is not accorded to other professions such as Accounting, Law, or Medicine. Counter arguments alluding to the uniqueness of Teacher Education as sufficient justification for such an arrangement, have not carried due weight. The DOE also discarded any notion of multi-purpose colleges operating within the Higher Education system, with Teacher Education as an important activity. These institutions, it reasoned, belonged within the sphere of Further Education and Training a stance which ignores the possibilities for straddling of phases presented by the policy of programme funding as opposed to institutional funding. Proponents for the inclusion of multi-purpose colleges believe that the DOE has confused the concept of mix with muddle, or messiness, forgetting, in the words of Appiah, that complexity is not always muddle (1997: 79). The desire for a simple HE system, with two clearly defined institutional types and missions, prevails. As a consequence, an opportunity to introduce new categories of institution and a greater measure of flexibility into the HE system is lost, perhaps irrevocably. Many teacher educators view this decision as symptomatic of a narrow, technicist approach that fails to apprise the particular needs of a significant cohort of the student population. 5. College Sector Responses The responses of individual Colleges of Education to the above pressures must be assessed in the context of their lack of autonomy, and their dependence on provincial departments, another arm of government, to protect and promote their interests. Weakened by student attrition, staff demoralisation and key management retirements, many were reduced to the status of interested onlookers only. Once again, exceptions are acknowledged. The public voice on behalf of the sector, CCERSA, although assiduous and consistent in its representations, was itself hampered by a declining membership (following closures and amalgamations) and limited research, advocacy, and networking capacity. CCERSA had one full-time employee, and an operational budget largely dependent on membership subscriptions. Despite early Ministerial assurances on consultation, re-echoed in the 1998 Implementation Framework, CCERSA was not consulted or invited to participate in key structures to the extent that it anticipated. The HEDCOM sub-committee charged with drafting the Implementation Framework provides a notable example. CCERSA and the teacher organisations were omitted from this sub-committee, despite recommendations for their inclusion in the committee as initially conceived. The DOE viewed CCERSA and the teacher


organisations as parties with direct interests to engage with in negotiations. As such, they could not be both judge and jury at the same time. The omission of CCERSA from a consultative process, at a time when far-reaching decisions affecting its constituents were being taken, requires some explanation. Amongst a range of perceptions held by teacher educators, three are worthy of note: the perception that officialdom is unresponsive to the claims of College-based Teacher Education, ascribed in part to a lack of first-hand knowledge, and also to an under-evaluation of the distinctive qualities and strengths of the sector; the notion of uneasy tension between intention and action, flowing from the varying priority status given to issues by key individuals at crucial times; the suspicion of a predetermined agenda steering the process towards a preferred outcome, ie., the incorporation of COEs into HEIs. These perceptions are rebutted by DOE officials, who point to the safeguards inherent in well-defined structures and processes for decision-making. A similar charge of lack of consultation is linked to the apparent haste with which plans for incorporation were implemented during 2000. In attempting to interpret this situation, mention must be made of the build-up of resentment around the issue of incorporation. Some COEs, convinced of their own strength or potential to survive as stand-alone institutions, opposed either the principle of incorporation into an HEI, or the choice of incorporating partner. Acting individually, that is, not under the umbrella of CCERSA, they opposed departmental plans, and in a few cases threatened court actions. The DOE, not wishing to be impeded by lengthy negotiations and even litigation, decided to forego consultations with key interest-groups, and to proceed speedily with its implementation plan. There were, therefore, no consultations with CCERSA during the 2000 implementation phase. The association, bereft of any active role, decided not to oppose incorporation, but to devote its resources to assisting its constituency in the management of issues arising out of the incorporation process. This strategy speaks volumes about the depth of disillusionment evident within the association, both with the one route model for incorporation, and with the passive role assigned to CCERSA by those responsible for implementing the Ministerial declaration. These outcomes are far removed from the authentic aspirations of the COE sector as expressed throughout the decade preceding incorporation. 6. Conclusion In the preceding sections, a detailed description of decisions and actions is provided, followed by an analysis of those agents and processes that impinged upon the actualisation of several stated intentions. It is conceded that some developments evolved more by default than by design. Nevertheless, the interplay between forces and the responses of players to these forces is surveyed in some depth. All of the above happenings culminated in the fact of incorporation on 31 January 2001. This concluding section sets out briefly the status after incorporation and speculates on the road ahead. Three rounding-off themes are explored, namely: the status of pre-service nongraduate Teacher Education in the first quarter of 2001; a likely framework for evaluating


the new Teacher Education dispensation; and the motivation for exploring the concept of a missed opportunity in the transformation process. 6.1 What the Higher Education Institutions have Inherited What the HEIs have inherited in quantifiable terms, is set out below, and highlights the stark contrasts between 1994 and 2000. In 1994 there were 105 State Colleges of Education, of which 93 provided initial teacher training to about 70 000 students, according to Hall (see Tables 1 and 2, Annexure E). The remaining 12 COEs were involved in the upgrading of teacher qualifications. By 1997 the number of contact colleges had whittled down to 78, and by 1999 to a mere 50, with a student enrolment of 15 000. The provincial process of identifying colleges for incorporation intensified in 2000, and terminated with 27 (25 contact colleges and 2 distance-education colleges) earmarked for incorporation into 17 HEIs. According to Parker (2001: 6), these institutions served approximately 10 000 contact students and 5 000 distance education students. Significant indicators of the current status emerge from the external facilitation process. The Joint Education Trusts reporting role centred on six crucial elements, namely: students, staff, programmes, institutional arrangements, financial arrangements, and property and plant. The current status in respect of each element is summarised in Annexure C. What the HEIs have inherited in qualitative terms is less than easy to define, and now is not the time for generalisations. There is no doubt, however, that the cumulative effect of several years of deep uncertainty, anxiety and demoralisation on the one hand, and negative administrative actions, even for good and acceptable reasons, on the other hand, has taken its toll. Some colleges appear to have mutated into rather pale shadows of the former self-assured, productive and vibrant institutions they once were. For those that survived into the new era under incorporation, such a situation minimises the possibilities of strength uniting with strength in mapping out the new dispensation. 6.2 An Evaluation Framework The time for evaluation lies several years ahead, but it is not without purpose now to speculate on the what and how of any future evaluation, not of institutions, but of the route chosen for sectoral transformation. Some incontestable criteria, and concomitant questions, are enumerated below: Quality The Report on the National Teacher Education Audit Workshop (1996: 17) states that the primary purpose of Teacher Education is to improve the quality of professional practice (emphasis added). Also, the Report of the Teacher Education Technical Committee to the NCHE (1996: 4) states that, the main issue in Teacher Education in South Africa at present is how to improve its overall quality. Furthermore, the Minister of Education, in a letter addressed to vice-chancellors of HEIs in November 2000, says that the incorporation of colleges of education into Higher Education represents an important step in improving the quality of teacher training.


Quality of training leading to quality of practice must, therefore, be accepted as the overriding criterion. Professionalism The achievement of professional empowerment, long hamstrung by provincial controls, provides a credible test for the new dispensation, where professional autonomy is conferred on institutions and teacher educators are respected as autonomous professionals. Professionalism is reflected in the quality of service rendered by institutions, the level of commitment and accountability displayed by individuals, and the attitudes and values transmitted to students. Because programmes provide the vehicle for the attainment of most goals, the reconceptualising of both Teacher Education and Teacher Development programmes, acknowledging the distinctive needs of pre-service and in-service teachers, is an essential goal. The crucial question is: Will academically well-qualified staff, embracing the expectations and rewards normally associated with an HEI, be suitably equipped to prepare teachers for the primary school phase? A second question is: Will Teacher Education attain an appropriately high-level status in the HE institutional milieu, and will sectoral leadership, which fills the current vacuum and commands wide respect and support, emerge in the short term? Integrated Planning and Implementation The rise in authority and influence of statutory bodies within the SAQA and Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) family, and other entities, has introduced a new set of influential players, and is moving the locus of control away from the DOE. Therefore, the extent to which all parties involved in Teacher Education are able to work in concert - in accordance with a national plan - will provide a defining criterion of success. Responsiveness An awakened sensitivity to regional and national needs and priorities must be clearly displayed, be these in the context of access, redress and equity, or in the context of addressing skills-deficits in subjects such as Mathematics, Science and Technology, and Languages, inter alia. In respect of the former context, the bridging and elimination of all the inefficiencies, inadequacies, and imbalances of the old order that have been so clearly articulated and documented, presents a key challenge. In respect of the latter context, appropriate projects to equip all teachers with higherlevel skills lie at the heart of renewal, and the impact of their implementation must be evident. Of unprecedented concern today is that responsiveness must obviously address the daunting consequences of the HIV/Aids pandemic upon teacher attrition rates, and also the age-profile of the profession. Attrition rates are expected to rise appreciably, and recruitment rates may possibly decline simultaneously, in the immediate future in localised areas of the country, as HIV/Aids and related secondary infections take their projected course.


The vital question is: Will the DOE succeed in galvanising self-managing HEIs to respond coherently and collectively to these challenges? Access and Recruitment The responsibility for ensuring an adequate supply of qualified teachers has been devolved from the DOE to a group of autonomous HEIs. Colleges of Education traditionally granted access to students without university admission credentials, namely, matriculation exemption. For this tried and proven practice to continue, vigorous and focused student recruitment drives, coupled with a heavy investment in student support, specialised resources and capacity-building initiatives, will need to emerge. The critical question, still unanswered, is: Will HEIs be able to attract enough students who comply with higher-level admission requirements, or will matriculation exemption be waived? Cost-effectiveness Norms in respect of the funding of institutions and financing of students have been determined and are nationally operative, and equitable. In addition, HEIs enjoy the benefits of economies-of-scale in the delivery of programmes. A salient question is: What impact will be manifested on the portion of the total HEI budget consumed by Teacher Education? As a basis of comparison, this was recorded as 29,5% in 1994. Similarly, what impact will be made upon annual, per capita costs of training students in initial Teacher Education programmes? Any substantial evidence of non-compliance with these criteria, and the nature of feedback on the critical questions, will provide some pointers to the possible negative implications forewarned against (but not predicted) in the Introduction. Whilst it is in order to define the criteria by which the unfolding dispensation will be evaluated, it is also pertinent to reflect on the environment within which these objectives will be pursued, and to assess whether conditions are now propitious, neutral or hostile. The elements of the current facilitative dispensation, which make these goals more readily achievable than in the past, are set out in Annexure D. 6.3 A Missed Opportunity What transpires from interviews and private conversations is a strong belief that the oneoption approach represents a missed opportunity. This hypothesis is shared by many educators within the Teacher Education sector, and by some senior provincial officials and academic researchers. The incorporation of COEs as subdivisions of universities and technikons, and the denial of self-standing autonomous colleges or multi-purpose colleges within the HE system, is not universally accepted as the appropriate choice for a country still grappling with great developmental challenges. It is believed that the retention of a small range of COEs of proven quality or demonstrated potential, and with a well-suited geographical location, would have been less costly in terms of infrastructural and human resource losses.


The decommissioning of institutions with customised Teacher Education facilities, the deployment of hundreds of teacher educators in administrative posts at regional, district, and area offices (approximately 600 in KwaZuluNatal, for example), the blanket offering of severance packages to teacher educators (approximately 130 in the Western Cape alone), the dismantling of Teacher Education directorates at national and provincial head offices, and the absorption of specialist incumbents in non-related directorates, all represent an unaffordable loss in human and material resource utilisation. The oft-asked question concerning specialist individuals, is: Can this sacrifice of both the collective wisdom and experience, on the one hand, and expertise and commitment, on the other hand, be regarded as anything but unaffordable at this stage? This conviction is not indicative of a survival wish, nor does it deny the need for radical transformation. On the contrary, it embraces the obligation to reduce substantially the number of COEs nationally, and to demonstrate system-wide improvement on all relevant management and educational criteria. Those who hold the view argue, however, that the inadequacies and shortcomings detailed in research and commission reports, where and if valid, are essentially an outcome of State control and deprivation, extending over several decades, in most colleges. Consequently, the empowerment of the affected colleges is considered to be a more just and less costly route towards redress and transformation. Furthermore, it is argued that government has a duty to create an environment that is conducive to optimal performance and delivery. Its absence in the past is regretted, but there is now a widespread acceptance of, and praise for, the new structural and policy edifice that has emerged during the 1990s (see Annexure D). In addition, the practice of projecting weaker colleges as symptomatic of the sector as a whole is regarded as unfair and indefensible. Finally, college educators have noted that there have been several commissions of inquiry into Education in South Africa since 1910. Their findings and recommendations have left intact the national-provincial divide, and the university-college dichotomy in respect of Teacher Education. This fact does not justify, nor is a call being made for, retention of the status quo. However, it does grant some liberty to raise questions on the appropriateness of the historical timing and unprecedented haste accompanying the current one route strategy for incorporation. Time will yield the answers. For all of these reasons, it is believed that a number of COEs, of predetermined quality and potential, should have been retained and allowed to evolve into new-generation colleges, consolidating the strong attributes and assets accumulated in the past, and operating in delivery and articulation agreements with HEIs. The privilege of working in a facilitative environment, side-by-side with HEIs for the first time in the history of South Africa, would have been welcomed as due recognition of the distinctive character and unique contribution of College-based Teacher Education, to Education in particular, and human resource development, in general. Failure to grasp and act upon this challenge is perceived as a missed opportunity.


REFERENCES Appiah, Kwame. 1997. Liberalism and the Plurality of Identity. In N Cloete, J Muller, M.W. Makgoba and D. Ekong (eds), Knowledge, Identity and Curriculum Transformation in Africa. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Department of Education. 1998. The Incorporation of Colleges of Education into the Higher Education Sector: A Framework for Implementation. Pretoria. Education White Paper 3. 1997. A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. Pretoria. Joint Education Trust Final Report. 2001. The Incorporation of Colleges of Education into Higher Education. Johannesburg. Khulisa Final Report for the Education Labour Relations Council. 2000. A Study on Career Pathing and a Salary Grading System for Educators. National Education Policy Investigation. 1992. Teacher Education. Cape Town: Oxford University Press/ NECC. National Commission on Higher Education Report. 1996. A Framework for Transformation. National Teacher Education Audit Workshop Report. 1996. Towards a White Paper on Teacher Education. Norms and Standards for Educators. Government Gazette Vol. 415, No. 20844. Dated 4 February 2000. Parker, Ben. 2001. Roles and Responsibilities, Institutional Landscapes and Curriculum Mindscapes: A Partial View of Teacher Education Policy in South Africa: 1990-2000(1). Unpublished paper. Technical Committee on Teacher Education Report to the NCHE. 1996. The Regeneration of Professional Teacher Education in South Africa.

Key Acts Act No. 47 of 1963 Act No. 61 of 1965 Act No. 90 of 1979 Act No. 67 of 1992 Act No. 101 of 1997 Act No. 200 of 1993 Act 1996

Application Coloured Persons Education Act (HOR) Indians Education Act (HOD) Education and Training Act (DET) Education Ordinances Amendment (HOA) Higher Education Act Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Constitution of the Republic of South Africa


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABET: ANC: CCERSA: CE or COE: CEM: COTEP: DET: DOE: ECD: ELRC: ELSEN: GEAR: HE: HEDCOM: HEQC: HOA: HOD: HOR: MASP: NCHE: NEPI: NSB: NSE: NQF: OBE: PED: PSCBC: RDP: SAIDE: SETA: SGB: SGT: TBVC: UDUSA: Adult Basic Education and Training African National Congress Committee of College of Education Rectors of South Africa College of Education Council of Education Ministers Committee on Teacher Education Policy Department of Education and Training Department of Education Early Childhood Development Education Labour Relations Council Education for Learners with Special Education Needs Growth, Employment and Redistribution Higher Education Heads of Education Departments Committee Higher Education Quality Committee House of Assembly House of Delegates House of Representatives Mutually Agreed Severance Package National Commission on Higher Education National Education Policy Investigation National Standards Bodies Norms and Standards for Educators National Qualifications Framework Outcomes-based Education Provincial Education Department Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council Reconstruction and Development Programme South African Institute for Distance Education Sectoral Education and Training Authority Standards Generating Body Self-governing Territories TranskeiBophutatswanaVendaCiskei Union of Democratic University Staff Associations


ANNEXURE A: Notes to be read in conjunction with Government Notice No 1383 dated 15 December 2000 (List of COEs incorporated into HEIs). Twenty-five Colleges of Education were incorporated as subdivisions of 17 HEIs, namely, 13 universities and 4 technikons. Two colleges were not incorporated as proposed, namely, Sebokeng CE with the University of Potchefstroom, and Western Cape CE with Peninsula Technikon. The colleges continue to operate under Gauteng and Western Cape Education Departments, respectively, until pipeline students have qualified. Two colleges that were not intended for incorporation, namely, East Rand CE in Gauteng, and Kgasimang CE in the Free State, continue to operate until pipeline students have qualified. Two colleges continue to operate in order to establish the nucleus of a future HEI in provinces that currently do not have a university or technikon. They are the Ndebele CE in Mpumalanga, and Phatsimang-Perseverance CE in the Northern Cape. The colleges are expected to work in close association with HEIs, which through satellite campuses or external divisions, maintain a presence in the province.


ANNEXURE B: Postscript Year 2000: The Year of Implementation Although falling somewhat beyond the 19941999 transformation period currently under review, the events of 2000 bear relating because they bring to completion a groundbreaking process spanning constitutional specifications, policy developments, legislative enactments, and structural influences. Consultations with receiving HEIs In February 2000, the Minister of Education convened a National Workshop on Incorporation with senior management of the receiving HEIs. Significantly, the HEIs collectively declared their support for the incorporation of colleges, and their commitment to Teacher Education. However, two major concerns surfaced: the first related to the basis on which funding would be allocated, and the level of funding; and the second concerned the mechanism to be used in securing college staff to meet the needs of pipeline students (college students continuing as HEI students to complete their diploma courses). Furthermore, note was taken, and assurances drawn from Section 22(1)b of the 1997 Higher Education Act, which provided for the transfer of assets, liabilities, rights and obligations to the HEI. The likely transfer of assets implied that the immediate costs to the HEI, attendant upon the incorporation process, could be offset against the prospect of acquiring fixed property and plant, and other assets. The Appointment of an External Agent as Facilitator With all the pieces in place for meaningful negotiation to press on, the reality was, in fact, the contrary. Progress appeared to have stalled, and triangular negotiations between Provincial Education Departments (PEDs), incorporating colleges and receiving HEIs, remained suspended at a purely exploratory stage in most cases. Some impetus was required and the DOE, together with the ELRC, agreed to the appointment of an outside facilitating agent. The Joint Education Trust (JET) was appointed as an external facilitating agency in mid-August 2000. The brief was to liaise with institutions and PEDs; to gather and disseminate information; and to provide periodic reports to the DOEs Steering Committee for the Incorporation of Colleges of Education into Higher Education, and to the PSCBCs Teacher Education Task Team. JET began its operations in September 2000, spurred on by a Ministerial target date for implementation of incorporation in January 2001. PSCBC Agreement, 14 December 2000 The Ministers power to declare colleges as subdivisions of universities and technikons was not unfettered, but was constrained by the requirements of Section 21(5) of the 1997 Higher Education Act, to wit: An education institution may only be declared a public higher education institution after the employer has complied with its obligations in terms of the applicable labour law. Since the PEDs would be relinquishing the role of employer of college staff to the receiving HEIs after incorporation, and since different conditions of service would become applicable, the matter had to be negotiated in the appropriate labour relations forum.


Protracted negotiations within the PSCBC, covering the interests of both educator and noneducator staff, culminated in agreement being reached in mid-December 2000. The resolution, No 12 of 2000, laid down a framework for the management of personnel in the incorporation process, in respect of both temporary secondment and permanent employment; and also provided a mechanism for employees to exit the employ of the State through qualifying for a Mutually Agreed Severance Package (MASP). Declaration of Incorporation (Government Notice No. 1383 in Government Gazette No 21913) On 15 December 2000, the Minister of Education gazetted the incorporation of 25 COEs as subdivisions of universities or technikons. Of the 27 earmarked colleges, two were not incorporated, namely, Sebokeng CE as a subdivision of the University of Potchefstroom, and Western Cape CE as a subdivision of Peninsula Technikon, both as a consequence of alternative decisions taken at provincial level, or failure to reach agreement. The effective date for implementation of incorporation was announced as 31 January 2001. Thus, the first clear hint of absorption of colleges of education by universities and technikons, as expressed in the 1996 NCHE Report, was now actualised, and marked the end of an era in College-based Teacher Education.


ANNEXURE C: What HEIs have inherited Students Those students who registered at COEs and who needed to complete the courses in which they registered, enrolled as HEI students in 2001, and were regarded as pipeline students for funding purposes. By March 2001, approximately 2 400 second-year students; 2 000 third-year; and 750 fourth-year students, had enrolled at 17 HEIs. Most of these would not have contemplated university training normally, and many would not have satisfied university admission requirements. They will have been accustomed to intensive teaching in small groups in a milieu far removed from the current experience. Staff None of the college staff have as yet been appointed to the HEIs. In terms of an agreement reached in the PSCBC, and endorsed by CEM, college staff members were seconded to the HEIs to serve the needs of pipeline students. They, however, remained employees of the province. The secondments were valid until 31 December 2001, and were renewable. HEIs were required to identify and create new posts to meet their new Teacher Education obligations, and to advertise these vacancies in closed lists for college personnel only, for final selection by 30 June 2001. Successful applicants would become HEI employees on an agreed date, and under different conditions of service. Programmes Most institutions have continued with existing COTEP-approved programmes for pipeline students, with some modifications to meet institutional needs, where necessary. Programmes lead predominantly to undergraduate Diploma qualifications and are weighted towards primary school teaching. HEIs have the opportunity to design new programmes according to the February 2000 Norms and Standards for Educators specifications, and in compliance with SAQA and NQF requirements. Institutional Arrangements For many students and staff members, there has been little dislocation. The former college continues to operate at its old location, but under new HEI management. Examples of this arrangement include: Cape Technikon (Boland CE and Cape Town CE) and Port Elizabeth Technikon (Algoa CE). An alternative scenario involves staff and students being relocated to the HEI campus and college buildings reverting to other usage. University of Port Elizabeth (Dower CE) provides an example. Incorporation, for most colleges, has meant absorption or a full take-over by the HEI, with concomitant loss of identity, ethos, and assets. Very few colleges have survived this model: an example is Johannesburg CE, which has negotiated a retention of status and identity as a college within the Faculty of Education of the University of the Witwatersrand. Financial Arrangements Pipeline students, who previously received State bursaries, continue receiving such assistance until they qualify. However, all students are now eligible to apply for NSFAS funding, which has been boosted by an injection of R20 million earmarked for Teacher Education. Institutions have received subsidy funding, including a top-up amount representing the differential between college-level fees and HEI fees. They also qualify for ad-hoc funding to


cover legitimate costs arising out of the incorporation process. These funds are expected to be available from the 2001/2002 financial year. Property and Plant Initially, the Ministry of Education believed that the principle that funds and property follow function should apply, and therefore, directed a written request to provincial Education MECs to transfer college plant and property to the relevant HEIs. The tension between national and provincial competences surfaced, and questions were raised about the Ministers authority to enforce such a principle. Authority over State property within provinces rests in the provincial administration, and several provincial departments, including Planning, Finance, Public Works and Asset Management, are integrally involved in decisions on utilisation. Cash-strapped provinces, with huge infrastructural needs, are reluctant to relinquish valuable assets, citing the need to establish Education Development Centres (EDCs) or INSET delivery centres in vacated college buildings. The outcome has been uneven, with some incorporations going together with transfer of ownership of property in part or in full. Boland CE and Cape Town CE in the Western Cape; and Pretoria Onderwyskollege in Gauteng, provide appropriate examples. In other instances, the right of use principle has been employed, as enunciated in the Ministers Declaration (in Government Gazette No. 21913 of 15 December 2000). Whilst there is de facto occupation and utilisation of college facilities by the HEI, ownership remains vested in the provincial authority. The Eastern Cape has followed this model.


ANNEXURE D: Facilitative Structural and Policy Elements A single policy and legislative framework is in place, encapsulated in the 1997 Higher Education Act. A National Plan for Higher Education has been devised and published, and sets out explicitly to assist HEIs comply with systemic goals. Structures for evaluating, approving and accrediting programmes and qualifications are in place, for example: SAQA, NQF and their substructures. Structures for monitoring quality assurance processes have been established, for example: HEQC. Statutory bodies, addressing the career and professional needs of educators are operational, for example: ELRC and the South African Council for Educators (SACE). The latter provides for the registration of educators, and the enforcement of a Code of Conduct. Qualifications have been de-linked from salaries, and issues of salary grading, job evaluation, and career-pathing for educators have been researched and reported upon to the DOE and ELRC (see Khulisa Report). Some coherence has been established with ECD, ABET and ELSEN. A unified school system is in place with a core vision and objectives, as expressed in Curriculum 2005 and Outcomes-based Education (OBE). HEIs are autonomous, self-regulating entities able to benefit from economies of scale, significant infrastructural resources - including research capacity - and interdisciplinary approaches to programme offerings.


ANNEXURE E Table 1: Teacher Education Provision, 1994 PROVIDERS State Colleges (contact) Private Colleges (contact) State Colleges (distance) Private Colleges (distance) Universities (distance) NGOs (distance) Technikons (distance) Universities (contact) Technikons (contact) Departmental INSET NGOs TOTAL NO. OF INSTITUTIONS 93 5 8 3 3 3 1 20 5 41 99 281 TOTAL ENROLMENT 70 647 11 000 44 117 24 532 60 038 763 164 27 274 1 846 122 290 115 882 478 553

Table 2: Headcount of Students at Contact Colleges, 1994 PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 10 880 3 712 6 210 9 235 2 008 2 464 10 552 910 3 521 49 492 SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 3 282 793 1 483 2 940 1 635 2 645 8 328 56 113 21 239 TOTAL 14 162 4 505 7 693 12 139 3 643 5 109 18 880 966 3 634 70 731

Eastern Cape Free State Gauteng KwaZuluNatal Mpumalanga North West Northern Northern Cape Western Cape TOTALS


Table 3: Provincial Distribution of 93 Residential Colleges: 1994 Province No of contact COEs 21 8 10 14 4 7 20 2 7 93 No of HBCs No of HWCs No of Rural COEs 19 7 0 9 4 6 20 0 1 66 No of Urban COEs 2 1 10 5 0 1 0 2 6 27

Eastern Cape Free State Gauteng Kwazulu Natal Mpumulanga North West Northern Northern Cape Western Cape TOTALS

21 7 8 12 4 6 20 2 5 85

0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 8

Tables 1-3: Extracts from Hall, Graham. 1996. Working Paper: Overview of current situation, and the role of Colleges of Education in the provision of (general) post-secondary education. In Report of the Technical Committee on Teacher Education, NCHE. 1996. The Regeneration of Professional Teacher Education in South Africa. HBC: Historically Black College HWC: Historically White College