Adult Basic Education & Training; Further Education & Training: briefing by Department of Education

Meeting report

EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
25 June 2002
ADULT BASIC EDUCATION & TRAINING; FURTHER EDUCATION & TRAINING: BRIEFING BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Chairperson: Prof. Mayatula (ANC)

Documents handed out:
ABET AND SANLI: Presentation (Appendix)
Transformation of Further Education and Training: Progress

SUMMARY
The Department briefed the Committee on the progress of ABET and FET programmes. Thy highlighted achievements, funding, challenges and recommendations for their programmes. The discussion focused on access to ABET and FET in rural areas and for disabled learners. The discussion was very limited due to time constraints.

MINUTES
Mr Hindle: Deputy Director General: General Education and Training, Department of Education, began by explaining the difference between Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) and the South African National Literacy Initiative (SANLI). He explained that while ABET was a medium term qualifications driven programme to upgrade skill levels, SANLI was a short term volunteer assisted initiative to eradicate illiteracy. He proceeded by listing legislative programmes that underpinned ABET. These include the ABET Act, which provides for the institutional framework and the Employment Equity Act, that governs conditions of service for adult educators. The final part of the presentation was statistical information on funding ABET and SANLI operations (please refer to the attached presentation).

Mr Lehoko: Deputy Director General: Further Education and Training, outlined the progress on the transformation of further education and training. He highlighted the provision of infrastructure during the transformation and also lessons that the Department has learned during the process. He proposed some strategies in the light of lessons that they have learned during the transformation processes and the present context of education. He concluded his presentation by listing recommendations towards challenges of providing further education and training.

Discussion
Mr Van den Heever (ANC) asked if the ABET projects were in line with the Education Minister's time frames with respect to Tirisano.

Mr Hindle explained that the time frame was lifelong. No country ever eradicated illiteracy completely and that South Africa was no exception to that fact.

Mr Kgwele (ANC) suggested that it would be wise to have a provincial break down of figures of ABET participation so that the Committee could have a clearer picture of progress and problems experienced by ABET. He also wanted to know if ABET had improved access to its programmes especially in the rural areas. He asked Mr Hindle to list the programmes in rural areas.

Mr Hindle agreed that it would be a good idea to have a provincial breakdown of ABET figures. He then explained that there was no evaluation done so far on the progress and success of ABET. He agreed that the rural areas presented a challenge for ABET.

Prof Ripinga (ANC) agreed with Mr Kgwele on the need to provide a provincial breakdown of ABET statistics. He saw no significant increase in funding ABET and wondered if that did not hamper progress. Mr Hindle explained that the funding of ABET had not increased significantly in nominal terms but that by international standards it was significantly higher than other countries.

A Member (ANC) asked Mr Hindle if the Department's ABET enhanced access and support for disabled learners.

Mr Matlola (Director: ABET) explained that the issue of access to education for disabled learners was a general problem at all levels of education. He pointed out the fact that ABET sites were the very public schools that posed physical barriers for physically disabled learners. He concluded his reply by pointing out that the inputs that were made for inclusive education would also benefit adult learners with disabilities.

Another Member (ANC) agreed with Mr Kgwele and Prof. Ripinga on the need for the provision of ABET programmes in rural areas and suggested that the Committee should visit ABET sites in rural areas. He was concerned about the large proportion of dropouts compared to the intake.

Mr Hindle expressed his concern too about lower throughput against large intakes. He then explained that both the financial and non-financial cost of learning for adults was higher and that it could be the reason for higher drop-out rates.

Mr Vadi (ANC) asked if the ABET programmes had any co-ordinators who were educators in the public service.

Mr Hindle explained that because of low human resource capacity, the Department had no fully-fledged system of educators who co-ordinated ABET programmes.

Mr Kgwele commented that the Department should involve the private sector and that the Committee should support and popularise the skills development process. He then asked Mr Hindle how his office was taking advantage of voluntarism.

Mr Mpontshane (IFP) wanted to know if there was monitoring of officials in ABET sites. Mr Hindle explained that due to lack of capacity, there were no monitoring mechanisms.

The meeting ended abruptly due to the need to vacate the venue for another meeting. The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix:

ABET AND SANLI

Presentation to the Education Portfolio Committee
25th June 2002

ADULT EDUCATION