Mtef.

6.2 Presentation by the KwaZulu-Natal Education Department

6.2.1 School infrastructure development

The KwaZulu-Natal Education Department reported 3 685 existing projects to the value of R16.264 billion; and an additional 912 new projects that would cost R6.056 billion. Over the last four financial years, R13.7 billion had been paid for 3 410 projects by the Province.

The Province made use of the following implementing agents to deliver on its infrastructure goals:

. Coega Development Corporation (643 projects);

. eThekwini Municipality Water and Sanitation (61 projects);

. The Independent Development Trust (1 778 projects);

. Ithala Development Finance Corporation Limited (39 projects);

. KwaZulu Natal Department of Public Works (1 178 projects);

. KwaZulu Natal Department of Education (213 projects); and

. Mhlathuze Water (403 projects).

The Provincial Education Department reported that 87 per cent of its allocated budget went towards the Compensation of Employees, leaving only 13 percent to cover their operational needs. The Province's school infrastructure backlog exceeded R80 billion. The Provincial Education Department was exploring the possibility of funding backlogs though Public Private Partnerships (PPP).

6.3 Presentation by the Limpopo Education Department

6.3.1 School infrastructure development

The Limpopo Education Department (LED) reported that, the alignment of the Infrastructure Planning Process and the statutory infrastructure plans with the Budget and Disbursement Plan had been prioritised, and the processing of payments for projects under retention would be accelerated. The Department had made a commitment for the payment of undisputed invoices within the 30 day prescribed period.

The Department reported that, funds locked against the project lists had been identified as an inhibitor, and that the National Treasury had been requested to relax the conditionalities with very strict compliance measures. The clarity provided by National Treasury related to the delineation of functions between Departments responsible for Infrastructure Planning and Monitoring, Infrastructure Operations/Construction, and Oversight. It was further mentioned that capacitation of the respective Departments would accelerate spending patterns.

The Department reported that, the Provincial Executive should be encouraged to lift the moratorium to fund infrastructure projects from the province's equitable shares. In the short term, the DBE should be requested to deal with inappropriate structures, water and sanitation projects through the ASIDI; while the focus of the LED should be mainly on dealing with classroom, school furniture and maintenance- related backlogs.

It was further reported that the 2013-14 infrastructure budget (EIG) was under R1 billion.

To meet basic safety requirements, the province required improvements to the value of R 5.317 billion. Thus currently the waiting period for schools to reach basic safety requirements was more than 5 years. To operate at minimum functionality, improvements to the value of R 20.358 billion would be required, whilst to reach a level of optimal functionality, R 35.210 billion was required.

6.3.2 Challenges and obstacles hindering the realisation of basic functionality levels

The Department noted the following challenges:

. Integrated planning and service delivery: The absence of an integrated planning strategy and knowledge-base pertaining to localised population dynamics could result in the Department providing schools incorrectly.

. Budget allocation: Education infrastructure was solely funded from the Education Infrastructure Conditional Grant which was not supplemented by an allocation from the Provincial Equitable Share.

. Current funding model: The MTEF allocation of the Education Infrastructure Grant, which locked the funds to specific project lists, needed to be reviewed.

. Emergencies: The budget allocation for emergency projects, arising from storm-damaged schools and inappropriate sanitation projects was inadequate. For instance, the Department spent R 225 million in 2012/13. But the 2013/14 allocation was R 20 million. This would adversely affect the timely and structured response to deal with emergency projects.

. Competition for specialised skills: The inability of the Department to attract the prerequisite skills within the built industry (such as Engineers, Quantity Surveyors, Architects, etc.) made it difficult for the Department to roll-out and monitor its infrastructure programme on time.

. Core mandates: The Provincial EXCO had declared the Limpopo Department of Public Works (LDPW) as the Implementing Agent of choice. The delivery of the Department's infrastructure programme was entirely dependent on the proper resourcing of the LDPW, especially for construction, refurbishment and maintenance imperatives.

6.3.3 National Intervention to improve service delivery

The DBE intervened through the ASIDI Programme to improve infrastructure development in Limpopo. To date 93 schools were provided with sanitation; 116 schools provided with water; and three schools with inappropriate structure had been rebuilt.

In 2013/14, a total of 387 schools would be provided with sanitation facilities with 2124 seats across the Province. 387 schools would be provided with water, a process which involves drilling and the use of equipment of boreholes and internal reticulation. The Province was still identifying schools with inappropriate structures to be addressed through ASIDI.

6.4. Presentation by the Mpumalanga Education Department

6.4.1 School infrastructure development

The Mpumalanga Education Department reported that it had 1 790 ordinary public schools, and an enrolment of 1 030 584 learners. To reach basic safety functionality the province required R 5.99 billion over the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years; and to reach optimum functionality, R 13.37 billion would be required. To enable the province to eradicate its backlogs, R19.37 billion would be required.

The table below illustrates the province's expenditure between 2009/10 and 2013/14.

|Year |Budget allocation |Expenditure |% Expenditure | |2013/14|R 595 million |R 166 million |28% | |2012/13|R 695 million |R 687.9 million |99% | |2011/12|R 690 million |R 544.0 million |88% | |2010/11|R 604.2 million |R 411.9 million |68.2% | |2009/10|R 341.5 million |R 308.0 million |90.2% | |2008/09|R 378.7 million |R 343.4 million |90.7% |

6.4.2 Challenges hindering the realisation of Basic Functionality Levels

The province reported the following challenges:

. Inadequate funding as illustrated above: the provinces' allocations had not been increased in line with the increased demand;

. Inadequate internal capacity to respond to minor maintenance repairs;

. Rural schools were far from material resources, and therefore accessing materials was expensive; and

. The Province was prone to storms that damaged infrastructure, thus emergency repairs were required.

6.5 Presentation by the Western Cape Education Department

6.5.1 School infrastructure development

The Western Cape Province had 1 653 ordinary public schools, and received R1.293 billion in the 2013/14 financial year. All projects were currently on schedule. Backlogs were experienced at 17 primary and 23 secondary schools. Additional funds would be required to bring all schools to a level of minimum functionality.

The Province had made a strategic shift from building new schools. There was a move towards expanding and/or merging existing schools, thereby increasing its maintenance budget substantially over the MTEF.

The below table illustrates the generic budget required by the Province:

|Major Budget Category |Timeframe backlog |Indicative amount | | |elimination | | |New buildings |10 years on-going |R 420 million per | | |component to |annum | | |address new demand| | |Expansion to address |Five years |R 48 million per | |enrolment pressures | |annum | |(mainly classrooms) | | | |Mobiles |Three years |R 10 million per | | | |annum | |Expansion to address |10 years |R 13 million per | |utilisation | |annum | |rationalisation / | | | |consolidation (classrooms)| | | |Replacement |20 years |R 175 million per | | | |annum | |Maintenance |On-going |R 550 million per | | | |annum | |Total for all categories | |R 1.216 billion |

6.5.2 Challenges experienced by the Province

The latest Census data reflected that the Western Cape was the fastest growing province in the country. Migration was spread from the Metro along the coastal areas to the Eden Karoo district. This expansion placed additional pressure on planning and the budget: between 2011 and 2012 alone learner numbers had increased by 19 800, the equivalent of 20 large schools.

6.6 Presentation by the Northern Cape Education Department

6.6.1 School infrastructure development

The Northern Cape Education Department reported that 96 per cent of its 573 schools were public schools. At the time of the visit, the Province's learners totalled 28 2631. The 2013/14 budget amounted to R334.385 million, comprising R17.451 million (equitable share) and R 316.934 million from the Education Infrastructure Grant (EIG). By the end of July 2013, the province had spent 30 percent i.e. R98.788 of its budget.

The supply of education infrastructure in the Northern Cape was uneven. There were areas where there was an over-supply of facilities and areas where there were shortages. This existed within districts and across districts. A severe lack of data provincially and nationally had created major challenges in the determination of backlogs. The challenge was further exacerbated by the shortage in capacity to plan against the growing budgets within the province.

In terms of basic functionality, the Provincial Education Department reported that all schools had basic forms of water, sanitation, electricity and fencing. A list of inappropriate asbestos structures in 36 schools had been submitted to the DBE for inclusion in the ASIDI programme. Two of these inappropriate structures were currently being replaced by the Department.

6.6.2 Challenges experienced by the Province

The following challenges were identified:

. The challenge of Basic functionality in the province related to three areas:

o The level of provision- insufficient provision

o Standards - inappropriate structures ( structures made of inferior material)

o Maintenance

. The Draft planning framework aligned to national guidelines was in the development stage and earmarked to inform infrastructure decisions by December 2013.

. The planning framework would further be used to develop a Infrastructure Strategy aligned to the attainment of the National 2025 targets by April 2014.

. The lack of data made it impossible to determine with certainty the backlogs with regards to optimum functionality.

. There was a lack of systems to house data and institutionalize it.

. The Province was experiencing a lack of capacity in terms of planning and monitoring projects; within the built environment industry of the province; and at a systems level.

. The Province reported that 11 posts of the 22 advertised posts had been filled. The Province was struggling to attract the relevant skilled individuals at the current remuneration levels.

6.6.3 Interventions

The Province was implementing the following key interventions to address its challenges:

. The NEIMS data update was currently underway.

. Provincial efforts to address a lack of information on current infrastructure status included the following:

o Developing a simplified NEIMS assessment form. 50% of schools were currently verified.

o Implementation of EFMS to manage projects and ensure the historical data on projects was kept.

. In terms of capacity, the Department had adopted systems to assist in planning; three new systems would be implemented by Dec 2013.

6.7 Presentation by the Eastern Cape Education Department

6.7.1 School infrastructure development

The Eastern Cape was one of the largest and most populated provinces, and had to provide appropriate facilities to more than 1.8 million learners. In addition to meeting targets set and an inadequate budget, the province had to contend with a legacy of infrastructure that had to be maintained.

At the time of the visit the province's maintenance budget totaled approximately R6.435 billion.

6.7.2 Challenges experienced by the Province

The Eastern Cape Education Department noted the following challenges:

. Budgetary constraints: Recent and indicative budgets showed that the province's annual budget allocations for infrastructure backlogs for 2012/13 to 2015/16 were R1 - R1.7 billion which was insufficient to address the backlogs.

. Reliability of planning data: Much of the data on the condition of facilities was outdated, and the infrastructure unit had to rely entirely on feedback in interactions with the Districts.

3. Addressing the challenges

Key measures to address the challenges included the following:

. Internal capacitation: It was reported that the HR strategy to improve capacity to ensure effective planning and monitoring was in place. A total of 11 technical professionals had been appointed to the infrastructure unit.

. District planning sessions: The Planning Section had engaged Districts to identify ASIDI projects, currently engaging on the B5 project list for the next MTEF.

. Condition Assessments: The School Condition Assessment tender had closed on 25 July 2013 and was currently being evaluated. It was envisaged that the information would be available for prioritising only in 12 months. The information would be captured on the Education Facilities Management System (EFMS).

. EFMS enhancements: Support was engaged to update the information on the EFMS and enhance the system in order to ensure better reporting.

. Maintenance planning: The development of the maintenance strategy, term tenders for maintenance and school based maintenance was underway which was expected to result in a more effective maintenance and better response to emergencies.

. The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC): The IPC was established and held meetings fortnightly to deal with strategic and policy issues.

7. The Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (PICC) Presentation

The Committee was informed that Government had identified 17 Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs), based on the spatial analysis of the country's needs. The SIPs cover a range of economic and social infrastructure. All nine provinces are covered, with the emphasis on poorer provinces.

The PICC presentation focused on the Strategic Integrated Project (SIP) 13, namely, the National School Building Programme and aspects of SIP 15 (Expanding access to communication technology) relevant to school infrastructure.

7.1 Overview of the National School Building (SIP 13)

7.1.1 Focus areas on SIP13

Key PICC focus areas with respect to SIP 13 were as follows:

. Monitoring the implementation of school infrastructure projects across the country (with particular emphasis on time, cost and socio-economic impact);

. Fostering the integration of infrastructure delivery (school buildings, roads, water, sanitation, electricity, broadband, etc)

. Intervening to address bottlenecks that hamper delivery (authorisations, permits, etc).

The PICC noted that the Coordinating Committee was currently not involved in monitoring the equipping of schools and assessing fitness for purpose.

7.1.2 Infrastructure backlogs

The PICC highlighted the key national school infrastructure and services backlogs to be addressed as follows:

|Backlogs |510 inappropriate schools (ASIDI Schools) | | |63 000 school classrooms (Provincial Programmes) | | |15 000 libraries (Provincial Programmes) | | |18 200 laboratories (Provincial Programmes) | | |13 600 computer labs (Provincial Programmes) | | |16 500 administration buildings (Provincial | | |Programmes) | | |1120 schools without water supply (ASIDI Water) | | |916 schools without electricity (ASIDI | | |Electrification) | | |741 schools without proper sanitation facilities | | |(ASIDI Sanitation) |

7.1.3 Construction update

The PICC reported that the total cost of ASIDI's committed projects which included new schools and services (e.g. water, sanitation and electricity) to existing schools was R6 billion. As of December 2012, R590 million of this allocation had been spent. By the end of March 2013, R943 million had been spent. A total of 49 schools were rolled out in the Eastern Cape since 2011/12 and 202 school projects for 2012/13 were at different stages in the implementation planning stage. Of the 49 schools, 10 had been completed while 39 were still under construction by December 2012. By the end of March 2013, 22 schools had been constructed while 27 were still under construction.

Provincial Programmes (new schools, additions to existing schools, new and upgrading of services and maintenance) were allocated R8.9 billion and had spent R5.7 billion by December 2012 and R8.5 billion by March 2013. The total allocation for National and Programmes was R14.9 billion, of which R9.44 billion had been spent.

The PICC noted that according to the DBE, contracts for 20 schools in the ASIDI programme were terminated. Replacement contractors for all schools but three were finalised between March and May 2013. Replacements for the remaining three schools were being processed and practical completion of the three schools was only expected early in 2014. It was further noted that all the schools had taken more than 12 months to complete. The last three schools would have taken more than 24 months if completed in February 2014.

In respect of the 202 school projects for 2012/13, three schools in KwaZulu-Natal had not been allocated to an Implementing Agent. Only 14 out of the 202 schools would be completed during the 2013/14 financial year. A total of 260 schools were planned for initiation in 2013/14 in the Eastern Cape. The table below shows the planned roll- out of the ASIDI schools for 2012/13 and 2013/14.

|PLANNED ROLL-OUT OF THE ASIDI SCHOOLS | |Province |2012/13 |2013/14 | |EC |133 |260 | |FS |30 |0 | |KZN |3 |0 | |LP |3 |0 | |MP |5 |0 | |NC |1 |0 | |NW |2 |0 | |WC |25 |0 | |Total |202 |260 |

7.1.4 Expanding Access to Information and Communication Technology

In terms of expanding access to Information and Communication Technology (ICT), the PICC reported that the target was to provide access to ICT to 125 Dinaledi and 1 525 district schools by 2014. The roll-out commenced in May 2012 and was originally expected to be completed by 31 March 2013 but delayed to March 2014. The project cost was projected at R308 million.

The status as of July 2013 was as follows:

. Wide Area Network (WAN) infrastructure had been installed in 852 schools.

. An education portal had been set up to host educational content for schools.

. Clarity regarding the provision of end user devices and Local Area Network (LAN) connectivity was required.

. The DBE was in the process of developing ICT training components for schools.

. The Schools ICT Connectivity project had delayed by up to a year due to copper theft and deficient technology specifications.

. The Departments of Basic Education and Communications needed to resolve issues of hardware and connectivity within schools.

Overall, the PICC was concerned with the slow allocations, the slow build and the poor implementation of the projects.

7.2 Recommendations of the PICC to fast track infrastructure delivery

The PICC recommendations to fast-track the building of schools were as follows:

. Delivery timeframes for schools and other social infrastructure were unacceptably long and needed to be shortened.

. The use of Innovative Building Technologies (IBT) for clinics, schools and student residence construction and where appropriate for other public facilities' construction and refurbishment, including houses, was proposed.

. A phased introduction of 60% of new schools built to use IBT, proposed as follows:

o A minimum of 30 schools in 2013/14

o 100 schools in 2014/15.

. There was a need to have a common understanding of the delivery timeframes (of each phase) with the DBE and SIP Coordinators (the Development Bank of Southern Africa and the Independent Development Trust) to ensure close monitoring.

8. Committee Observations

1. The Committee noted that despite improvements made in infrastructure development, provinces faced serious challenges and were unlikely to meet the set targets in the Action Plan for 2014 and the National Development Plan to ensure that all schools reach basic functionality levels by 2014/15 and 2016 respectively. It was further noted that recent and indicative budgets for infrastructure backlogs were insufficient to address backlogs and ongoing maintenance.

2. The Committee was concerned that instead of budgeting based on their equitable share, provinces relied on the Education Infrastructure Grant (EIG) to meet their infrastructural needs.

3. The new system for data collection appeared to have resulted in less reliable information being available.

4. The Committee appreciated that the Department was responding to some of the challenges experienced in the development of infrastructure. In particular, Members welcomed strides made in alleviating capacity constraints through the appointments of the built environment specialists and technical assistants in some provinces. It was noted that this would improve delivery. There were concerns regarding the slow progress in the filling of these posts in provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape, Limpopo and North West.

5. Members requested the Department to supply the Committee with a full list of inappropriate structures.

6. The Committee remained concerned with regards to under-spending on infrastructure by some provinces. Members expected the Department's measures to improve spending to have their desired effects.

7. Members urged the Department to attend to disparities in the provision of sporting and recreational facilities.

8. The Committee commended the Free State Education Department for introducing hostels to accommodate learners from rural areas and farming communities.

9. The Committee was concerned regarding the integrity and credibility of data used for infrastructure projections in some provinces, particularly Limpopo, Northern Cape and the Eastern Cape. In respect of Limpopo, Members questioned why the Department was relying on the 2006 NEIMS data instead of more recent data.

10. The capacity of the Department of Public Works as an implementing agent in some provinces required attention.

11. Members commended Mpumalanga for using FET colleges as implementing agents since students at these colleges would gain practical experience.

12. Members were concerned that most provinces were not making use of the Further Education and Training (FET) colleges for the manufacture of school furniture.

13. The Committee was concerned that the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission relied on data supplied by provinces which was often not accurate. The PICC was urged to find ways to source credible data.

9. Recommendations

The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, having conducted a two day workshop with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Provincial Education Departments (PEDs), and considered the issues that were highlighted, makes the following recommendations:

The Minister of Basic Education should ensure that:

1. The Department of Basic Education consider collaborating with Further Education and Training (FET) colleges for the manufacture of school furniture. This model worked well for the Mpumalanga Provincial Department of Education.

2. The Department of Basic Education, together with the Provincial Education Departments, should consider establishing units dedicated to rural education and farm schools similar to those in the Free State, to assist in infrastructure development.

3. Provinces that comprised vast rural areas should consider building hostels as these may improve access to quality education and result in other benefits such as savings on transport and safety for learners.

4. Provincial Education Departments should perform an audit of the total number of employees to establish whether the funds allocated to the Compensation of Employees (COE) were justified.

5. Provincial Education Departments such as Limpopo, Eastern Cape and Northern Cape should consider fast-tracking the updating of their infrastructure data since what was currently available appeared to be inaccurate.

6. Provincial Education Departments such as KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape, Limpopo and North West should fast track the recruitment and appointment of the required built environment and finance personnel for improving school infrastructure delivery.

7. Provinces that still had mud schools should consider making use of mobile classrooms in the event that the eradications of mud schools is not possible by 2014/15.

8. Provincial Education Departments should include sporting and recreational facilities when prioritising infrastructure development.

9. To fast track infrastructure development, Provincial Education Departments should receive allocations from the Provincial Equitable Share, in addition to funds from the Education Infrastructure Conditional Grant.

10. The Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Committee should find ways to source authentic and credible infrastructure data on provinces.

Report to be considered.

8. Report on oversight visits to farm schools in the Free State and Western Cape Provinces, dated 11 March 2014.

The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, having undertaken oversight visits to farm schools in the Free State and Western Cape Provinces, reports as follows:

1. Introduction

1. The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education conducted oversight visits to farm schools in the Free State and Western Cape between 30 July and 2 August 2013. 2. The purpose of the oversight visits was to assess the state of education in farm schools in these provinces, in line with the Committee's resolve in its Five Year Strategic Plan to prioritise its focus on economically disadvantaged schools in order to make the greatest impact in the system. There was an additional need to provide support to the provincial departments of education, the districts and schools in identifying their challenges and to assist in finding effective solutions to the challenges being faced. 3. The oversight visits followed the Committee's 2010 public hearings on access and delivery of quality education, where the Committee heard that learners in farm schools were vulnerable and school attendance for youth aged 16 to 18 was far lower than in other settlement types. Against this background, the Committee sought to assess progress in key interventions to improve the quality of education in these schools. 4. The framework for the visits was guided by key interventions and priorities set out in major government plans to ensure that enabling conditions for quality teaching and learning are established. In this regard, the Committee focused on critical areas such as the state of the school environment and infrastructure; the accessibility of schools; teaching and learning; curriculum delivery; school governance; progression and skills development; and socio-economic challenges to education. 5. As part of the oversight, the Committee received briefings from senior officials of the Provincial Education Departments, districts and teacher unions on aspects of farm schools. The Committee also visited a total of 25 primary schools where members held meetings with stakeholders in order to learn first-hand the state of farm schools and to discuss the challenges faced by schools.

Delegation:

Portfolio Committee on Basic Education: Hon H H Malgas, MP (ANC) (Chairperson and leader of the delegation), Hon N Gina MP (ANC) (Whip), Hon C Moni MP (ANC), Hon S Makhubele MP (ANC), Hon A Mashishi MP (ANC), Hon FF Mushwana MP (ANC), Hon A Lovemore MP (DA), Hon. D Smiles MP (DA) MP, Hon K J Dikobo MP (Azapo) and Hon W Madisha MP (COPE). Parliamentary staff consisted of Mr D Bandi (Content Advisor), Mr J Ngcobo (Researcher), Ms P Jayiya (Stand-in Committee Secretary) and Ms S Ntabeni (Committee Assistant).

Department of Basic Education: Mr H M Mweli: Deputy Director-General, Mr E R Mafoko: Director, Dr R Venketsamy: Chief Education Specialist, Mr M Kgatla: Chief Education Specialist, Dr D Sekao: Chief Education Specialist, Ms K Mohoebe (Parliamentary Liaison Officer: Director-General)

Free State Education Department: Mr J Sekolanyane: Chief Finance Officer, Mr F Sithole: Deputy Director-General, Ms B Tshabalala: Director, Mr M Mokgobo: Director, Mr H Mthombeni: Chief Director, Mr B M Kitching: Director, Ms M B Monnane: Deputy Director-General, Mr A K Moeti: Director, Ms V Gxumisa-Madikizela: Chief Education Specialist, Ms K Maposa: Senior Education Specialist, Mr M Motshidisi: Education Specialist, Ms K Mathiwe: Senior Education Specialist, Mr T Hlalele: Senior Education Specialist, Mr M Kedibone: Senior Education Specialist, Mr A Sehume: Property Officer, Ms G Tsikwe-Tsoai: Senior Education Specialist

Western Cape Education Department: Mr J Goliath: Director, Mr D T Fernholdt: Manager, Mr H M Galant: Manager, Ms A Braaf: Manager, Mr L H Rousseau: Manager, Mr F D Claasen: Chief Education Specialist, Mr C Frolick: Director, Mr J Beukes: Director, Ms A M Truter: Chief Education Specialist, Mr W Maliwa: Chief Education Specialist, Mr J Burger: Deputy Chief Education Specialist, Ms L Marais: Chief Education Specialist,

Organised Labour: