Gauteng Department of Education

Portfolio Committed Round Table Discussions

6 February 2018

1
 Vision and Mission
Vision
Every learner feels valued and inspired in our
innovative education system

Mission
We are committed to provide functional and modern
schools that enable quality teaching and learning to
protect and promote the right of every learner to
quality, equitable and relevant education.
BACKGROUND
Performance planning, budgeting and reporting cycle

10
 Overview
• The executive authority is responsible for developing
a five year vision which should guide the
development of the department's strategic plan.
– The aim of strategic planning is to bridge the gap
between policy and budgets;
– Strategic planning must ensure common purpose
between the executive authority and the accounting
officer in the pursuit of government objectives and
outcomes.
– Strategic plans must form the basis for identifying
departmental programmes.
• The MEC in consultation with the Premier and EXCO
has agreed on the key goals and objectives for the
five years and has signed a performance agreement
 Planning, monitoring and reporting system
• 5th Administration has adopted long,
medium and short-‐term planning
• Long-‐term planning
– National Development Plan (NDP) 2030
– The TMR programme expresses the NDP in the
GCR context
• Emphasis on radical socio-‐economic and spatial
transformation in the period to 2030 and beyond
– Sectoral long-‐term plans
• Gauteng Integrated Transport Plan, Gauteng
Infrastructure Master Plan, Revised Gauteng Spatial
Development Framework.
 Planning, monitoring and reporting system
• Medium-‐term planning - Priorities over the electoral
mandate period 2014 to 2019
–• National: Medium Term Strategic Framework
(MTSF)
– Building-‐block for the implementation of the NDP
– Consists of 14 outcome areas
– Forms the basis for the National Delivery Agreements
–• Provincial: Gauteng Medium Term Strategic
Framework
• Based on Ten Pillars of TMR, and
• Local government priorities
–• Departmental: Five-‐Year Strategic Plans
– Based on Gauteng MTSF and national MTSF, sectoral and
programme priorities
 Planning, monitoring and reporting system
• Short to medium-‐term planning
– GCR-‐wide plan: Programme of Action (POA)
• Translates TMR priorities into measurable programme
• Annual, rolling outcomes-‐based plan with quarterly
targets and annual targets for outer years
• Financial allocations
– Departmental plans: Annual Performance Plans
(APPs)
• Sets out what departments intend during the
upcoming financial year and MTEF to implement the
strategic plan
• Includes performance indicators and targets for
budget programmes and sub-‐programmes
 Planning, monitoring & reporting instruments
• POA linked to other
instruments but distinct
approach & purpose Game
changers
Short-‐term
priorities e.g
100/ 200 days

MTSF Gauteng POA

Strategic
Plans Departmental APPs
 Planning, monitoring & repor8ng instruments

Outcome plans for each of the Ten Pillars

Sector-‐based Inter-
‐governmental
Province-‐wide
Annual rolling MTSF
POA Strat
IDP/ Mul8-‐sectoral Inter-
‐governmental plans
SDBIP
APP Mul8-‐
Province-‐wide (5y)
Financial & non-‐
Sector-‐based sectoral
financial
Province-‐wide Localised Annual rolling with
Single sphere Mul8-‐ targets to 2018/19
Annual sphere
CONTEXT AND VISION

GDE’s 10 pillars for education transformation

The Department’s plans are underpinned by the Ten
Provincial Pillars, with the key focus on Pillar 3:
GDE’s 10 pillars for education
Accelerated social transformation and a supporting
role in all the other pillars. transformation
1 Radical economic transformation
1. Curriculum and Assessment
2 Decisive spatial transformation Development
3 Accelerated social transformation 2. Teacher Provision and Support
4 Transformation of the state and
3. Leadership and Management
governance
4. Infrastructure Development and
5 Modernisation of the public service
maintenance
6 Modernisation of the economy 5. Planning, finance and resourcing
6. ICT in Education
7 Modernisation of human
settlements and urban development 7. Social Cohesion
8 Modernisation of public transport
8. School functionality including
infrastructure
community Involvement
9 Re-industrialisation of Gauteng
province 9. Skills Development
10 Taking the lead in Africa’s new 10. Access to quality Early Childhood
industrial revolution Development (ECD)
 Strategic Framework for 2015-2020

Social Support from

Cohesion Parents
Post
Curriculum and Assessment Schooling
Development Training and
Education
Teacher Provision and Support
Learner
Performance
Make Schools Effective classroom
Leadership and Management grades 3, 6, 9, 12
Attractive Practice
Improved Learner
School functionality including Attainment
community involvement

ICT in Education
Infrastructure Access to quality
Development and Early Child
Partnerships maintenance Development (ECD)
Performance Indicators
 2015-2020 5-YEAR INDICATORS OVERVIEW
• The approved GDE 5 year Indicator
Framework comprised of 60 indicators:
– 36 constituted Programme Performance
Measures (PPMs or sector/national measures);
– 24 were Specific Performance Measures (SPMs
or Provincial MTSF measures)
• In 2015/16 the sector introduced 42
statistical indicators which included many or
most of the MTSF indicators – this was
discontinued except for 13 assessment and
exam related indicators.
 2017/18 APP INDICATORS OVERVIEW
• The approved GDE 2017/18 Annual Performance Plan comprised of 73
indicators:
1. 36 constituted Programme Performance Measures (PPMs or sector/national
measures);
2. 24 were Specific Performance Measures (SPMs or Provincial measures), and;
3. 13 constituted Statistical Technical Indicators (STIs).
• The Indicators as approved are tabulated below:

No. Programme PPMs SPMs STIs Total

1 Administration 4 3 0 7
2 Public Ordinary Schooling 9 8 0 17
3 Independent Schools Subsidies 3 2 0 5
4 Public Special School Education 3 2 0 5
5 ECD 2 2 0 4
6 Infrastructure 10 2 0 12
7 Exams & Related 5 5 13 23
TOTAL 36 24 13 73
 2017/18 Revised APP with MTSFs Indicators
• The HEDCOM Sub-Committee meeting held on the 24 February 2017, took the
decision that all PEDs would include the previously-omitted MTSF indicators in
their 2017/18 APPs.
• It was further agreed that the PEDs that did not include the MTSF indicators in
their approved 2017/18 APPs would need to incorporate them in their revised
2017/18 APPs.
• The GDE incorporated 19 MTSF indicators across 3 programmes that were not
previously included in the approved 2017/18 APP (see table below) -
Programmes 3, 4, 6 and 7 were not impacted

No. Programmes No. of MTSF Indicators

1 Administration 4
2 Public Ordinary Schooling 14
5 ECD 1
TOTAL 19
 2018/19 APP INDICATORS OVERVIEW
• The approved GDE 2017/18 Annual Performance Plan comprised of 73
indicators:
1. 36 constituted Programme Performance Measures (PPMs or sector/national
measures);
2. 24 were Specific Performance Measures (SPMs or Provincial measures), and;
3. 13 constituted Statistical Technical Indicators (STIs).
• The Indicators as approved are tabulated below:

No. Programme PPMs MTSF Total

1 Administration 4 4 8
2 Public Ordinary Schooling 9 14 23
3 Independent Schools Subsidies 3 3
4 Public Special School Education 3 3
5 ECD 2 1 3
6 Infrastructure 10 10
7 Exams & Related 5 5
TOTAL 36 19 55
Audit Framework
 Good performance indicators should be:
Reliable Well defined
Must be accurate enough for its Clear, unambiguous defini5on so that
intended use and respond to data will be collected consistently and
changes will be easy to understand and use

Verifiable Cost-‐effec5ve
Possible to validate the processes Usefulness of the indicator must
and systems jus5fy the cost of collec5ng the data

Appropriate Relevant
Avoid unintended consequences and Must relate logically and directly to
encourage service delivery an aspect of the ins5tu5on's mandate
improvements
SMART performance targets

Nature and required level of

S PECIFIC performance can be clearly iden1fied

Required performance can be

M EASURABLE measured

Realis1c given exis1ng capacity

A CHIEVABLE
Required performance is linked to
R ELEVANT achievement of goal

Time period/deadline for delivery is

specified
T IME BOUND
 Audit criteria

Main criteria Sub-‐criteria

Compliance with regulatory Applicable to performance

requirements management and repor5ng
Presentation
Measurability
Usefulness Relevance
Consistency
Validity
Reliability Accuracy
Completeness
21
 Preparing for the Audit

Understand and test the design and implementation of the performance

management systems, processes and
1 relevant controls

Test the measurability, relevance, presentation and consistency of planned and

2 reported performance information

Confirm on the usefulness of the reported performance information for selected

3 programmes or objectives

Test the reported performance information against relevant

4 source documentation to verify the validity,
accuracy and completeness of reported performance informa5on

Conclude on the reliability of the reported performance for

5 selected programmes or objectives
 Audit reporting – Auditor’s report
REPORT ON OTHER LEGAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Predetermined objec1ves
Usefulness of informa1on
Material audit findings focusing on presenta5on, consistency, relevance and
measurability of reported performance informa5on for selected
programmes or objec5ves

Reliability of informa1on
Material audit findings focusing on reliability of reported performance
informa5on for selected programmes or objec5ves

Compliance with laws and regula1ons

Compliance findings relevant to the performance management and

repor5ng
PREPARING AND ADDRESSING THE
MTSF
 Preparing and addressing the MTSF
• The Department’s planning officials was part of the DBE
team in formulating and specifying the MTSF indicators.
• The Department agreed to all of the MTSF indicators,
except, requesting that Technical Indicator Descriptors be
amended for the following 4 new MTSF indicators:
• PPM 211: Number of teachers who have written the Self-Diagnostic
Assessments
• PPM 212: Percentage of teachers meeting required content
knowledge levels after support.
• PPM 214: Number and percentage of Funza Lushaka bursary holders
placed in schools within six months upon completion of studies or
upon confirmation that the bursar has completed studies.
• PPM 219: Number and percentage of learners who complete the
whole curriculum each year.
• The Department also requested the Auditor General to
audit all the new MTSF indicators for readiness but not
deliver an audit opinion on them.
 Preparing and addressing the MTSF
• Department has:
– Workshopped all Branch Managers , Chief
Directors and Direct Line Managers on the 19
new MTSF indicators and the related Technical
Indicator Descriptors (TIDs).
– Business processes has been developed for all
the new MTSF indicators.
• The business processes will be used to develop
standard operating procedures and define the AoPo
• Line managers have been notified to be audit ready
 Preparing and addressing the MTSF
• Historical data was gathered for all the indicators
and targets was set the for the 2017/18.
– The 2017/18 targets is used as a baseline for 2018/19
planning cycle.
• The 2017/18 Annual Performance Plan has been
revised to include the MTSF indicators.
– With TIDs developed by the Department
• The 2018/19 Annual Performance Plan is in its final
draft and includes all MTSF indicators
– With TIDs developed by the National Department
 Challenges related to the MTSFs Indicators
• Technical Indicators Descriptions (TIDS) were not clear/precise on some of the
indicators – this required an extensive refinement process to facilitate the
introduction of the MTSF indicators into the approved 2017/18 and 2018/19
APPs.
• Setting of targets in light of the non-availability of historical data.
• Lengthy consultative process both nationally and provincially (GDE Line
Managers) to prepare for the successful introduction of the MTSF indicators.
• The full introduction of the MTSF indicators without a prior pilot phase
imposes a significant reporting obligation on provinces.
• The absence of a policy framework for some of the MTSF aligned PPMs may
hinder the development of effective standard operating procedures.
SYSTEMS DEVELOPED ,CHALLENGES
AND RISKS IDENTIFIED
 Performance pressure points

Auditing Cabinet

Ministry

Civil Service
Commissions
Agency
Department

Citizens Parliament

Front Line

Planning Evaluation Finance

Units

The primary use and benefit of performance information resides within Government ministries
& departments for management purposes. Actors external to this environment exert pressure
for accountability and control.
 System and Policy Implications
• System integrity for accurate and reliable reporting takes two to
three years to establish.
• As such the data integrity for the new PPMs in year one and year
two is at risk of a negative audit opinion.
• GDE’s current systems related to some of the MTSF indicators are
not sufficiently robust for the capture, storage and retrieval of
data which runs the risk of generating a weak evidential base.
• The absence of a policy framework for some of the MTSF aligned
PPMs will hinder the development of effective standard operating
procedures.
• Pre-existing GDE and MGSLG & Sci-Bono systems, processes and
procedures related to introduction of the MTSF indicators were
not sufficiently robust for the capture, storage, retrieval, analysis
and reporting of data – this raises some concern about the
reliability of both the target setting and reporting against the new
indicators
 Challenges
• The GDE is likely to experience reporting challenges in
respect of the following indicators:
– PPM205: Learner absenteeism rate
• It is difficult to manage standard operating procedures at school
level to confirm the accuracy, validity and completeness of the
reported learner absenteeism rates at schools.
– PPM 211: Number of teachers who have written the Self-
Diagnostic Assessments
• The implementation of the self-diagnostic process was
postponed by DBE
• No policy appears to underpin the process – teachers (Unions)
may argue that it is not compulsory to write the test.
– PPM 212: Percentage of teachers meeting required
content knowledge levels after support
• we need to verify whether the reporting standard of teachers
obtaining 80% in their content knowledge scores is grounded in
any normative framework.
 Challenges
• PPM 214: Number and percentage of Funza Lushaka bursary
holders placed in schools within six months upon completion of
studies or upon confirmation that the bursar has completed
studies.
– The reporting period is not definitive – The placement period
potentially could straddle 2 financial periods and this may generate
some confusion
– An example will be do we report on 2014 graduates in the 2015/16
financial year, if we report in the 2014/15 financial year we can only
report achievements up to the last quarter of 2014/15. The indicator
implies that we should report up to the end of the second quarter in
the financial year, hence reporting over two financial years.
• PPM 219: Number and percentage of learners who complete the
whole curriculum each year.
– The completion of the entire curriculum would require robust in-
school and departmental monitoring systems.
– This deliverable has multiple dependencies grounded in the
availability of suitable, reliable and relevant resources at all levels of
the system
 Recommendations related to the New Indicators
• The Education sector and DPME need to
formalize an agreement with the Auditor-
General that will allow for the new PPM’s to be
audited solely to determine the state of
readiness to accommodate the new indicators
and not to confirm an audit opinion in the
2017/18 and 2018/19 audit cycles.
• The PPMs have been adopted and will be
implemented however the final audit outcomes
in respect of all newly adopted PPMs should
have been postponed until all the PEDs reached
some level of confidence and comfort in
becoming audit ready.
Thank You