Global Development

The reins of government, 1994 – 1998

In the run-up to the historic 1994 democratic election, the ANC had published its education and training manifesto, popularly known as the ‘Yellow Book’ - building on a process of research, consultation and policy debate that had commenced two years earlier, in 1992, with the release of an initial policy statement entitled ‘Ready to Govern’. The policy proposals in the Yellow Book were formally released by the ANC in 1995 in the form of a published report entitled ‘A Policy Framework for Education and Training.’

At the heart of the ANC’s proposals was, again, a commitment to the integration of education and training:
For education and training to make a significant contribution to social and economic development, they need to be seen as an integrated whole. Until now, the two have been strictly separated, since education has been seen primarily as an academic activity and training has been seen primarily as a vocational activity. As is increasingly recognized here and abroad, this is a false dichotomy which does not correspond to the structure of knowledge, the needs of the workplace or the requirements of ordinary life in society (ANC, 1995: 34).
Prior to the election, this emphasis on the integration of education and training had extended to the planned combination of the Departments of Education and Manpower into a single new Department. In the new Government of National Unity established under President Nelson Mandela, however, the separation of Departments was maintained; and proposals for their unification were quietly dropped from the 1995 ANC Policy Framework.

The new government did move quite rapidly however with a second, key element of its strategy for the integration of education and training, with the joint sponsorship by the Departments of Education and Labor of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and the establishment of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA).¹²⁴

In March 1997 the Department of Labor published its Green Paper entitled ‘Skills Development Strategy for Economic and Employment Growth in South Africa’, following this up with a raft of legislation in 1998 that created the basis for the introduction of a national skills levy, the establishment of an initial twenty-five Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs), and the launch of a new system of ‘learnerships’ and skills programs that were intended to replace the established but declining system of apprenticeships. The Green Paper called for a ‘skills revolution’ in South Africa; in his Foreword, the Minister of Labor highlighted the discussions that had taken place ‘between the social partners in the National Training Board and in Industry Training Boards’ as well as other consultations, specifically those through the tripartite consultative body, NEDLAC.¹²⁵ The only explicit reference to the Department of Education, however, concerns the joint sponsorship by the two Departments of the SAQA Act.

Nonetheless, in keeping with the thrust of ANC education and training policy, the Green Paper stressed the need for integration and coordination, as well as for partnerships between government, business, labor and communities. The substantive discussion in the Green Paper, however, focused almost exclusively on skills development, within the context of employment, and portrayed the Department of Labor’s Skills Development Strategy as ‘complementary’ to the formal education system, with little discussion of what that ought to entail in practice.¹²⁶

In a short passage in the Green Paper, (DoL, 1998: 77 – 78) however, one practical link with the Department of Education’s Further Education and Training strategy is suggested, in the form of a reference to the role of the then-technical colleges in education and training and skills development. In a section entitled ‘Linking Learnerships and the Technical Colleges’ the Green Paper suggests that the ‘technical college sector represents a critical supplier of the country’s mid-to-high level technical skills’. Observing, however, that graduates from the colleges were often unable to find employment within industry, the Department of Labor Paper suggested that the delivery of learnerships by colleges, and the introduction of a revised funding mechanism which incorporated some form of ‘conditional link to industry’ could help to remedy an unsatisfactory situation.

Suggesting that colleges ‘are the obvious institutions’ to respond to the need for ‘improved institutional technical education and training,’ the Green Paper went on to suggest that a portion of the Department of Education budget for colleges might be used as part of government’s support for the ‘structured learning’ component of learnerships. This link between the learnerships and colleges, however, would depend ‘on the technical colleges improving the quality and relevance their outcomes in relation to industry.’ The way to achieve this, the Green Paper proposed, was to earmark part of the technical college budget for learnerships, and to release this funding only once the college had entered into a SETA¹²⁷-registered learnership contract with an employer and learner.

At the same time as the Department of Labor was busy with its Skills Development Strategy, the Department of Education was initiating a National Committee on Further Education (NCFE) – the term ‘training’ being absent from its title, though not necessarily its brief.

The 1995 ANC Policy Framework had in fact proposed the early establishment of two National Commissions, on Higher and Further Education; in the case of further education, it was argued:

The main issues of contention concern the institutional form of post-compulsory schooling, the relationship between Adult Basic Education and Further Education, and the nature of the existing technical colleges, the roles assigned to regional training centers, company training centers and private training centers, and finally, the function of any future community college sector¹²⁸ (ANC, 1995: 126).
In the case of further education, the Department of Education opted in September 1996 for the establishment of a National Committee on Further Education (NCFE) – a Ministerial committee enjoying a lesser status than a Presidentially-appointed Commission – and charged with reporting within a much shorter timeframe. In the event, the timeframe was extended, and a final report was presented to the Minister in August 1997. Just over a year later, in September 1998, the Minister’s White Paper 4, ‘A Programme for the Transformation of Further Education and Training’ (Ministry of Education, 1998)¹²⁹ was released, a month after the Department of Labor’s Green Paper.

In his Foreword, the Minister of Education set out a cooperative and integrated vision of human resources development:

This White Paper, and the White Paper on Higher Education, are the companion strategies of the Skills Development Strategy of the Ministry of Labour, all three of which are central features of our national Human Resource Development Strategy. Accordingly, this White Paper provides for close collaboration with the Ministry of Labour in sharing labor market information, providing career guidance through market training needs (sic), building links between training and job placement, and sharing information on tracer studies of graduates.’

Education White Paper 4 referred explicitly to the need for close cooperation between the Departments of Education and Labor, arguing, inter alia, that

The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour have a joint responsibility for providing education and training pathways for young people and adult workers, and for developing more effective linkages between training and work. The introduction of learnerships in FET institutions is an important development. For this purpose, FET institutions will be advised on how to access programme funding through the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) and the National Skills Fund.
…In the market for education and skills, the Ministry of Labour operates mainly on the demand side, while the Ministry of Education operates mainly on the supply side. The Skills Development Strategy of the Ministry of Labour provides a framework for determining the training needs in the labor market…. The FET policy framework provides, in the main, a strategy for suppliers of education and training to respond to the labor market needs as identified by private and public employers.
…The Skills Development Strategy of the Ministry of Labour and the new FET framework are complementary. To this end, the two Ministries must work in close collaboration….(Ministry of Education, 1998: 16-17).
The observant reader will notice some critical differences in the approaches of the two Departments to the question of the role of colleges in the delivery of learnerships. Most obviously perhaps, the Department of Labor looked to the education budget to supplement the funding of the skills strategy; while the Department of Education hoped to identify mechanisms for colleges to access additional funding through the Department of Labor’s skills levy. Perhaps as important if unstated a difference lay in the unambiguous focus of the Department of Labor on ensuring that colleges improved the relevance and quality of their programs in relation to the requirements of industry.

Along with its concern with coordination and cooperation between Education and Labor, and its acceptance of learnerships as one of the key avenues for ensuring the responsiveness of further education and training to the needs of the economy, Education White Paper 4 also placed much emphasis on the need for partnerships:

We will build new partnerships with the social partners, communities, NGOs and others, to promote the development of new, more responsive program(s) and curricula, build capacity and mobilize resources and expertise for the development of the new FET system. In particular, we will deepen the relationship between FET and the Skills Development Program of the Department of Labor (DoE, 1998: 37).
The Ministry would allocate earmarked funding for the development of college-industry linkages and partnerships, with the aim of developing new programs and curricula and to modernize existing programs, to meet the needs of the labor market. Such initiatives would aim particularly to promote linkages with industry that combined theory and practice and offered learners practical and on-the-job training (DoE, 1998: 38).
Further,
A high-priority initiative, in collaboration with the provincial education departments, the Department of Labour and the new National Skills Authority and Sectoral (sic) Education and Training Authorities, will be promoted, to fast-track a systematic preparation for the introduction of learnerships in FET colleges and other programme(s) envisaged by the Skills Development Act (DoE, 1998: 40).

Policy Implementation, 1999 – 2004

Notwithstanding the positive messages about collaboration in the implementation of policy, the goal of closer coordination and integration has remained elusive, while the national Human Resource Development strategy has effectively lapsed. Although SETAs were rolling out 5 year plans meant to be supporting the implementation of the National Skills Development Strategy of the Department of Labor, the equal buy-in of employers, organized labor and government was absent. The Department of Education also did not participate in the development of these 5 year plans.

As for the introduction of learnerships in colleges, early on a number of collaborative pilot schemes were initiated, with some success, while some colleges took the initiative and introduced learnerships more or less independently and usually funded through the SETAs or other forms of funding. Because the legislative framework did not provide for colleges to offer these learnerships using funding from the Department of Education in fear of being accused of ‘double-dipping’ into state funds, colleges then established separate section 21 (not-for-profit) companies in order to create the legal framework for the delivery of more responsive programs such as learnerships. Clear guidelines from the Department of Education were never issued, and in some cases provincial education departments actively discouraged the offering of programs outside of the official Department of Education curriculum, in spite of the specific reference to ‘fast-track’ the introduction of learnerships in FET colleges. (DoE, 1998:40)

Without clear official direction, the provision of so-called non-formal (non-DoE) programs, or learnerships and skills programs other than those approved and funded by the Department of Education, expanded unevenly and off a low base but more rapidly than the overall growth. Unweighted FTEs for non-DoE programs in 1998 is 8 169 out of a total of 122 742 to 19995 out of 143 913 in 2002. Reform and modernization of the dated official curriculum was placed on hold, and, as will be seen in the next section, other key elements of Education White Paper 4 were also delayed, while the Department of Education focused its attention on the reorganization of the institutional landscape of colleges.¹³⁰

One unintended consequence of this situation was that in many colleges a growing institutional divide emerged between those programs and teaching departments which offered the by now outdated national curriculum of the Minister of Education, primarily to full-time young learners, and those which engaged directly with industry and some Sectoral Education and Training Authorities (SETA’s) in the provision of training for workers and employees.

As was noted above, vocational education and training in the technical colleges at the beginning of the 1990s remained heavily skewed towards whites, while the technical colleges sector itself was relatively small and fragmented, with some 76,000 students enrolled across 123 racially divided institutions. Alongside this provision was a system of employer-provided training, much of it informal and uncertified, and constrained by the weak state of the economy. Training for the unemployed was provided by Department of Manpower training centers – the quality and effectiveness of which was variable and uncertain, however (NEPI, 1993a, 1993b).

Again the colleges system as a very important tier of the SA education and training system needed dedicated focus, leadership and resources. The private sector realized the significance of this sector and through the National Business Initiative (NBI) brought collective action to this arena from as early as 1997 by participating actively in the development of policy for the sector. To support the successful implementation of this policy, business through the Business Trust, invested R85 million for 5 years (1999 – 2004) in the sector by establishing the Colleges Collaboration Fund (CCF), managed by the NBI.

The CCF program was implemented through a service level agreement with the Department of Education (DoE), supporting the DoE in its re-landscaping of the sector from 150 small and medium-sized technical colleges to 50 large multi-campus FET colleges. The CCF produced 3 sets of comprehensive data based on situational analyses of the FET sector. These informed the first period of policy implementation. It also provided extensive capacity building in the sector: to the management of these institutions, to the provincial departments who had executive authority over these colleges, to emerging middle managers of mainly historically disadvantaged background through an exchange program with UK colleges, supported by the British Council. A significant contribution to the sector came in the form of support to the newly merged institutions addressing change management and also strategic planning for every institution at the end of 2003.

However, in spite of the availability of significant financial resource and the support of expertise, the implementation of policy was very slow. It could be argued that the political will to transform these institutions as critical to the skills development challenges in South Africa was not evident. In the first 5 years many significant areas of policy implementation had not been addressed and little show of plans for future implementation could be seen.

In their analysis of the policy framework for Further Education and Training in South Africa, Fisher and Jaff refers to the perspective of Ashton and Green (1999) who argue that a policy framework for education and training which aims at improving the national skills base and at placing a country on the path to a high-skill, high-wage economy requires an effective integration of education and training policies with national trade and investment and labor market policies, a robust institutional framework and strong political and social consensus, especially between government and business elites. They use this wider sense of a ‘system’ for skill formation, linked to policies for economic growth and development to inform their discussion of the policy framework for Further Education and Training in South Africa, and the implementation thereof. They argue that in 5 years of FET college policy implementation much of it was focused on the transformation of the institutional landscape of the colleges sector and on college capacity building, resulting in uneven developments in the sector.

Based on the evidence gathered, they point to the fact that the question of delivery by FET colleges cannot only be answered at the level of the college itself, but must also be answered in terms of the immediate policy and institutional contexts, especially the development of new programs and qualifications, the implementation of new funding and quality assurance regimes, and in terms of the integration and linkages between FET policy, other education and skills policies and their institutional arrangements, and the articulation of these with current skills requirements as well as with the intended economic development and skills paths that are aimed at.

The key features of the new Further Education and Training System towards a ‘progressive approach to system change’ as the White paper 4 sought to map out, are about creating a new governance framework, changing learning and teaching through the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) by looking at qualifications, programs and curriculum, developing a new funding system as a lever for system change and promoting and assuring quality.

White Paper 4 proposed a new FET framework which would be founded on the principle of cooperative governance, with a ‘strong steering, coordinating and developmental role’ for government, substantial authority for colleges, and partnerships between government, organized business and labor, and communities (Department of Education 1998b: 19). A National Board for FET (NBFET) was to be established as a ‘major statutory body’ to advise the Minister, and provincial advisory bodies were also to be set up.

Cooperative governance during this period is reflected primarily in the various committees and sub-committees of the Heads of Education Department Committee (HEDCOM) concerned with FET, as well as in three ad hoc but important exercises that played a significant part in shaping the new FET colleges sector over the past four years.

The first was the National Landscape Task Team (NLTT), appointed by the Minister of Education to advise on the restructuring of the colleges landscape. Its Report (Department of Education 2001) laid the basis for the merger as mentioned before. Flowing from this, the appointment of College Councils and principals in terms of the FET Act could proceed.

The Department of Education then established a Merger Operations Task Team (MOTT) to oversee and support the process of mergers, the declaration of colleges as FET institutions, and the appointment of Councils and principals. A smaller task team of national and provincial representatives, with the Colleges Collaboration Fund support, was responsible for the drafting of an initial proposal and financial estimates for the development of a new FET funding regime in 2003. With the merger and declaration of colleges and the appointment of new governance and management structures, the devolution of greater authority to colleges could follow, as envisaged in White Paper 4 and in the FET Act.

These cooperative governance structures and key initiatives demonstrated that the will in the Department to play a ‘strong steering, coordinating and developmental role’ certainly existed, and visible results could be produced.

Partnerships formed a further element in the new governance arrangements. ‘There is little doubt that the partnership with business through the Business Trust and through the close working relationship between the Department and the CCF has provided critical technical and financial support to the change strategy of the Department, and is a tangible expression of the commitment to partnerships in the White Paper’ (Fisher and Jaff 2003). Partnerships between colleges and business, government departments and communities were also growing. However, it was clear that more could be done by the national and provincial department in collaboration where necessary, with the Department of Labor and other government departments, to encourage the development of mutually beneficial partnerships and to create an appropriate enabling environment, especially with respect to such factors as governance, programs, staffing, infrastructure and funding.¹³¹

As mentioned, the other element in the new governance framework is the National Board for FET and the related provincial structures. The NBFET was established, not as a statutory body, but by Ministerial appointment in terms of the National Education Policy Act (No. 27 of 1996). “The perception is common amongst observers that the Board lacks status and recognition and has not played a particularly effective role and that its profile and influence with key stakeholders, including the Department of Education itself as well as organized business and labor, has been limited. Provincial advisory boards, where they have been established, would seem to be faced with the same difficulties.” (Fisher and Jaff)

The key consequence, from the perspective of the new governance framework, is that FET lacks a credible, high-level and knowledgeable advisory forum capable of forging consensus amongst key stakeholders on the development of the FET system and of providing robust and independent advice to the Minister. Moreover, the NBFET in some respects parallels the National Skills Authority established by the Department of Labor, but there would appear to be little structured or systematic communication or cooperation between the two bodies. Following Ashton and Green (1999), the lack of an effective national forum for forging consensus and shaping the national agenda is a critical weakness in the development of the national system for skill formation.

The second pillar of the FET policy framework was about programs and qualifications. Department of Education programs currently offered by colleges in terms of Nated 190 and Nated 191 are widely criticized as out of date and as failing to provide the educational and generic underpinnings required, not only by the wider social and individual aims of FET policy but by the modern workplace.¹³² The modernization of these programs commenced during this period was put on hold until the landscaping was in place. Along with the lack of cooperation between the Departments of Labor and Education, clear guidelines on the implementation of learnerships, and the development and motivation of college educators, this area of implementation did not receive the attention that it should have.

In order to implement quality assurance – the third key factor as envisaged in White Paper 4 - an enabling environment and with the role and interrelationships between the different structures needed to be created, clarified and communicated. Work in this area commenced at a time when the entire quality assurance and accreditation architecture was under review by the two sponsoring government departments (Department of Education and Labour, 2003) and was contested by stakeholders.

The notion of a funding system as the fourth pillar for system change extended well beyond a new funding formula; it included the development of reliable management information systems, the building of planning and managerial capacity in the national and provincial education departments, and the building of college systems and capacity accompanied by the phased delegation of budgets to colleges.

Some progress was made. Proposals for significant new public investments in colleges, and the outlines of a new programs based funding regime including funding envelopes for capital investment, staff development, student financial aid and innovation were under consideration in the Department of Education.

Work on a new FET Management Information System (FETMIS) was ongoing but not ready for underpinning the new funding and planning mechanisms. The planning and managerial systems and capacity in the education departments to implement the new funding regime are still to be developed. These constraints and time-lags indicated that it was likely to take some time before a new planning and funding cycle could be implemented and before the new funding would begin to flow to the colleges system and to impact significantly on its quality and performance.

Reflecting on the systemic nature of policy implementation in the FET sector over the first 5 years and asking whether the changes that had taken place amount to real and sustainable system change, Fisher and Jaff (2003) conclude ‘that, at one level, the evidence has shown that implementation of FET policy over the past five years cannot be regarded, at the present moment, as amounting to system change, although in some important respects it has begun to lay the foundations for this. At the same time, key elements of the policy framework have yet to be addressed, and the mechanisms for funding, planning and steering FET colleges as a system are not in place.’

Significant time and effort had been invested by the Department of Education and the colleges, and through the CCF, by the private sector. The most significant of this was visible in the new institutional landscape of FET colleges. However, it was clear that from a wider perspective the limitations to the steering, coordinating and developmental role of the Department were not in the capacity or will to mobilize around policy objectives, but in the failure or inability to ‘develop a sustainable capacity to guide and monitor the overall development of the FET system on an ongoing basis’ (Fisher and Jaff).

In the history of TVET in South Africa business has always had a significant interest. Again the case for business to continue bringing collective action to contribute to the effective transformation of at least the FET colleges sector was evident. If business wanted to see its investment and involvement of nearly 9 years and of over R85 million in the CCF as well as the intended R1,9 billion investment to be made by government to bear fruit to the economy and society in general, it needed to participate actively in creating systemic change for sustainable impact. This should become visible in achieving the intended outcome of a modern and responsive FET colleges sector. In support of the White paper 4, partnerships seemed to be the most appropriate vehicle towards the key rebirth for responsiveness.

During 2004 some companies rose to the challenge by committing to the concept and framework of a high-level strategic and developmental partnership between business (supported by the NBI) and the new Further Education and Training (FET) Colleges sector was accepted. The partnership would assist business leadership, on both an industry-sector and regional/provincial basis, to play the pivotal role in capacitating and shaping the development of a new sector of leading-edge education and training institutions that will meet the intermediate and higher skills needs of the economy and of society.

Leadership is essential if colleges are to be assisted to play a larger and more strategic national role in skills development and uplifting communities, if government is to be supported at the highest levels in its efforts to build the sector, and if employers are to share collectively both in the benefits of a new system and in making the investments of time and resources that will be necessary. The CIP initiative seeks to promote practical working relationships between colleges and companies that will build the capacity of colleges to respond to industry, and national and provincial further education and training demands, and continuous engagement of business leadership with the FET colleges sector in addressing the skills challenges of SA.

As stated above, a real breakdown of relationships between the government and its colleges on the supply side, and the parties such as business and communities on the demand side occurred during the 1980s. The parties lost the ability to work together on finding solutions to the mid-to-higher level education and training needs and actually testing and learning from real joint practice.

During 2004 and 2005 the President of South Africa, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, in his State of the Nation address referred to the importance of the FET colleges in the skills development challenges of SA. A new Minister of Education was appointed and a serious reshuffle of top senior positions in the Department of Education occurred. It was clear that new political focus was to be given to this sector. At the beginning of 2005 the President and Minister of Education announced a R1,5 billion (which later became R1,9 billion) new investment by government over a 3-year period into the recapitalization of the FET colleges sector. An initial R50 million was granted to the Department of Education by the Department of Finance to prepare for the roll-out of this investment from 2006 onwards. It is envisaged that this will kick-start the FET colleges on the road towards responsiveness, supporting the government in its economic growth and development strategy which will see big investment in infrastructure and other areas, and also business in terms of relevance to its ever changing and growing skills needs. The recapitalization will focus mainly on supporting colleges in the development of their human resources, programs and curriculum, infrastructure and equipment, administration systems and site or building upgrading and acquisition.