249_Bloch, 2009 - ERA :: The Evaluation Research Agency

Policy Space and Intervention: The Education Roadmap
in South Africa
By: Graeme Bloch (Education Specialist, DBSA) [email protected]
Introduction: Theoretical Issues
This paper examines a policy intervention process, in which the Development Bank of
Southern Africa (DBSA) played a central facilitating role on behalf of government in
drawing up an Education Roadmap for the new incoming government of South Africa.
Questions are raised about the conditions that led to the specific request to DBSA as well as
about DBSA’s positioning to participate as credible broker in this education policy
development process. The wider social conditions and concerns that opened up space for
critical policy development are clearly a part of this complex equation.
In addition, the limitations and specificity of the whole process are identified. This leads to
some critical questions relating to follow up and implementation, and thus about the efficacy
and impact of the particular policy intervention.
Lastly, the actual assumptions and basis for understanding the theory of policy development,
becomes another area of analysis and learning.
In this case, it is about the key analytical frameworks that guided choices of both the
diagnostic analysis (what is the problem with education?) and solution (what are the core
interventions required?) that the Education Roadmap proposed. Were these theoretical
assumptions brought to the surface? In point of fact, do they need to be explicit in a policy
intervention process? Or do the proposals and their education assumptions simply but
meaningfully reflect the common ‘public’ discourse; or the lowest common denominator of
viewpoints amongst the stakeholders who engaged in the policy process?
This set of questions about assumptions underlying the policy model raises a series of similar
questions about implementation and intervention, about hierarchy of importance and choice
in the proposals going forward, and of course questions about follow up.
These questions are raised not so much as practical or pragmatic questions (who will pick up
on the proposals?), but rather in terms of the assumptions made about policy implementation.
In this case, it is assumed that a process of ‘elite’ agreement and common purpose to amend
and develop an Education Roadmap through a given process of stakeholder facilitation, and a
semi-formal ‘stakeholder’ agreement (the so-called 10-Point Programme) would have lasting
policy and implementation impact. Is this a naïve view or a pragmatic assessment of
institutional, political and social realities and opportunities?
Thus, this paper makes a contribution to a series of lessons asked or learned. It asks whether
policy development and impact is purely contingent and accidental – being in the right place
at the right time – or whether there are universal lessons for policy development. These are
clearly not understood to be chance, as this paper will show, though there are aspects of the
contingent that interact with the structural and the purposive (or branding/positioning and
institutional capacities elements).
The paper thus also develops a further set of questions: what are the internal institutional
conditions that allow a particular institution, the DBSA, to play an important role in this
policy intervention and development process? Has participation of DBSA in this process been
enhanced, contributed to, and led to improvements in, the practices within DBSA in relation
to Education and to DBSA’s role in policy development, as well as being formed by
preceding experience? The recent formation of a DBSA policy unit, has been enhanced and
has been justified by the agreement to participate in developing the Education Roadmap.
The paper below will spend some time describing the policy process of drawing up the
Education Roadmap, the participants, the methodology of working, the specific analytics and
outcomes of the process and the role of information. In addition, the theoretical and practical
lessons learned have been posed above, but can hardly be definitively answered insofar as
this process is far from finished. (As this paper is written, South Africa is in the grip of
election fever. The next Minister of Education and Cabinet are yet to be appointed, let alone
provincial Ministers or top officials, and policy direction will only then become solidified and
more clear. By the time of KMA, some of these issues may be resolved.)
It may be that many of the lessons are specific and unrepeatable; it is more likely a series of
lessons and comparisons may be drawn for more effective strategic alignment and policy
development in a range of differing situations.
Alignment and interconnection
In a previous paper, the twin relationship was posed, of the external constraints and structures
– the actual state of education and its role in post-apartheid South Africa – and of the
institutional development of a policy for intervention within the DBSA itself.
What this paper can say is that the successful positioning of the DBSA in the education
policy space enabled it to be seen as first choice, as well as a critical and honest broker in the
stakeholder policy process.
A 2005 paper on the developing of nascent education policy within the DBSA, argued:
“(Important is how DBSA) instituted a specific portfolio of education policy, the context and
environment of this space, how it provides a platform for developmental education
intervention, and the methodologies to open up such a meaningful range of interventions.
The main focus…is on alignment and interconnection, on how (a specific analysis of) the
realities ‘outside’ intersect with the internal imperatives, mandates and potentialities of a
specific institutional space at the DBSA. Although about one specific institution, the paper
poses questions of institutional locations, their specificities, their modes of external
intervention, the outcomes to be expected.” (Bloch, G: 2005, 3-4)
This is not really the place for a detailed examination of either the context nor of the
development of education policy in the DBSA. These will be summarized:
Education context
The education context, fifteen years after apartheid, can be described as one of crisis. (see
Bloch, G: 2007 and 2008).
While there were significant improvements and achievements in the first fifteen years of
democracy, it remained clear that there were inadequate outcomes in terms of standard scores
for literacy, mathematics and science, where South Africa routinely came last even amongst
less-developed and resourced African countries. Skills scarcities and dependencies had their
roots in an inadequate baseline of achievement within the schooling system from very early
grade levels.
The second point is that the poor outcomes impacted far more heavily on poor, rural and
township i.e. predominantly black schools. While a small portion of schools achieved
success, however measured, 80% of the schools remained dysfunctional. Gangsterism, illdiscipline, hunger and AIDS impacted negatively on the social functioning of schools.
Teacher issues, for a variety of reasons, resulted in a largely dispirited, demoralized, underperforming but angry teacher corps, and again this impacted particularly on the poorer
schools leading some commentators to talk of ‘two school systems’.
It needs to be indicated that concern about the public school system and its shortcomings was
widely and publicly expressed, and even acknowledged by education authorities. (This was
also given impetus by DBSA’s own interventions in this policy discourse space).
These concerns found expression, amongst other places, within education resolutions at the
ANC conference in Polokwane. This important conference defined a far more grassroots
based and mobilisational approach by the ruling party (and of course the well-known election
of Jacob Zuma as ANC president). In education, there was a call for attention to the impacts
of poverty on schooling, and to address access issues for the poor, including through nutrition
schemes and the extension of non-fee paying schools to 60% of schools (from 40%). In
addition, crucially, there was a call to ‘restore teaching to the noble profession’ it had once
been. In return for this commitment by society, teachers were to reciprocate by being ‘inclass, on-time, teaching.’ Education must go beyond being a concern of the education
department, but become the concern of government as a whole. The ANC subcommittee on
education was charged to give flesh to such formulations, as well as to develop a plan that
could inform its key election platform dynamics in the field of education.
Institutional context: the DBSA and education
Was the DBSA in a position to involve itself in such concerns?
DBSA’s primary role is in infrastructure development, with a strong concern for social
infrastructure. Education policy adopted in 2006 understood infrastructure not just in hard
physical bricks-and-mortar sense, but to include management systems and institutional
capacities. Nonetheless, DBSA’s core role as financier was to continue, particularly in
relation to loan funding to universities, FET (vocational) colleges and ‘private’ schools with a
developmental component.
Nonetheless, a key feature of the new education policy was to commit DBSA to involvement
in the public schooling sector. This was a difficult area to fund directly, given its complex
relation to the provincial fiscus, although it is possible new areas may open up in relation to
attempts to improve the physical facilities in schools (see DBSA, Infrastructure Barometer,
In particular, as the earlier paper argued (Bloch, G: 2005, 8) “One of the key decisions was to
develop the policy space as a public space…and the building of networks and sustaining of
Further, it was understood that “practical experience and carefully assessed learnings will be
able to shape a longer-term frame on where the bank has the most expertise, development
impact, leverage and ability to intervene. Policy, defined in terms of shaping a series of
practical interventions within a specific institutional landscape, itself changes, as the wider
education and schooling environment will also shift.
“The alignment of interventions to seriously address the issues of quality and equity in the
South Africa education system, and finding the best interventions based on one’s own
institutional location, are hardly short-term or superficial projects.” (Bloch, G: 2005, 11)
It is argued that a consistent involvement by DBSA in public discourse had three effects in
the intervening years 2005 to 2008– (1) It helped change the public discourse and
understanding of failings in the education system, to the point where the term ‘crisis’ has
become a common currency. (2) Secondly, it placed DBSA into the public and educational
eye as itself a critical but sympathetic observer and participant, with credibility and analytical
reach, as well as commitment, expertise and passion for finding solutions. (3) Thirdly, a
strong network of relationships, including with government officials, was built in a variety of
ways, ranging from an education Thinktank of leading educationists (and officials) to a wider
education conference on Investment Choices.
While this sounds terribly conscious, of course reality develops less overtly. Nonetheless, by
June 2008, a combination of external concern with the state of education, and internal
positioning of the DBSA, came into interconnection with the specific ‘political’ positioning
and actions of the chair of the DBSA Board (a previous Cabinet Minister himself and wellrespected social activist). Through networks and connections, he brought together the
Education Minister, Naledi Pandor; the head of the ANC education subcommittee, Zweli
Mkhize, who would have a strong influence on appointments and direction of the incoming
government (in fact, strictly speaking, head of the ANC Social Transformation Committee);
and the chair of DBSA himself, to suggest the drawing up of an Education Roadmap . He was
also able to implement a similar process in relation to Health.
Was this serendipity or the conscious coming-together of a combination of factors that had
been brewing over a number of years, and were now able to bear fruit?
In 2007 at the previous KMA conference, it was argued:
“Education change is enormously complex and outcomes often seem impervious to policy
A comprehensive coordinated approach to education policy will have to be put forward.
Planning, targets and priorities for the medium term need to be developed. A clear national
consensus among stakeholders needs to be elaborated.
The basic thrust is for a strong and principle-driven commitment to increased involvement in
the education arena. This will also have to explore the range of non-school interventions that
need to be coordinated and drawn together to impact on schooling.” (Bloch, G: 2007, 14-15)
The story of the Education Roadmap as such follows.
The Education Roadmap
Education and specifically schooling in South Africa is in a poor state, in terms of skills
production, outcomes such as basic numeracy and literacy, and the inequalities that are
reproduced in schools and society. There is wide acknowledgement of these problems and
their impact on social and economic development, Anextensive public debate about how to
intervene to fix the apparent problems has emerged, and has been given impetus by the
publication of the Education Roadmap.
On initiative of the three principal partners (Jay Naidoo of DBSA, Minister Naledi Pandor,
and MEC Zweli Mkhize, MEC for Finance and Economic Development and chair of the
ANC Education Education sub-committee), the DBSA agreed to convene a stakeholder
process to examine problems in schooling and develop possible solutions. The process began
with a meeting convened on July 25 2008 to set the agenda, included two major
strategy/technical meetings, and a further two stakeholder meetings to amend documentation,
before the final adoption of the Education Roadmap and 10-point programme on November
7, 2008.
The primary purpose of the process was to develop a ‘position paper’ and to stimulate debate
and stakeholder involvement, by assisting in the development of a Roadmap to reform the
education system. This Roadmap may play a significant role in the planning of the incoming
government and any new education administration.
The convener and secretariat for the Roadmap process has been the Development Bank of
Southern Africa. Apart from the direct involvement of the Chair of the Board and the Group
Executive for Research and Information, the process was managed by a team inside the
DBSA led by the Education Specialist, and consultancy.
After a series of consultations with experts and role-players the Development Bank of
Southern Africa, as part of its broader development mandate, convened a one-day meeting
under the chairmanship of Jay Naidoo (DBSA) Minister Naledi Pandor and Dr Zweli Mkhize
(MEC, and ANC subcommittee chair). This stakeholders’ meeting on July 25 heard input
from Prof Servaas van der Berg of Stellenbosch University. The meeting then discussed
challenges in education, and agreed to embark on the Roadmap process.
Two technical meetings were held on 22 August 2008. These looked at a diagnostic of the
education sector, attempting to agree on an analysis of challenges and the reasons for
blockages in delivery and the poor outcomes. The second technical meeting defined an
agenda in terms of the solutions that might be required. This began to set up an understanding
of the key levels of intervention required. These followed the Carnoy framework of inschool, support to school, and societal levels of impact (see Bloch et al, 2008).
Out of these meetings were developed the key documents and information. These included an
introduction and overview that mapped out the processes, history and tasks ahead for the
roadmap process. A second document – also continually updated - was a diagnostic with
detailed slides of problem areas in education. As facts came to light or stakeholders pointed
to new areas or new research, the diagnostic slides were updated. Thirdly, a matrix was
developed – this provided a table that analysed blockages, suggested interventions, and tried
to look at their impacts. This matrix too was continually updated, and made available to
technical meetings and to stakeholders. It provided the menu or selection from which the
pared-down 10 point programme was eventually developed.
These documents were fed into two key stakeholders meetings, on 15 and 19 September.
Groups met to focus on the following areas:
1. Diagnostics (data/trends): which focused on education outcomes, employability,
teacher statistics and other indicators. While there is a range of statistical material
available, it has to be admitted that many questions cannot be answered through
statistical means due to poor data.
2. Solutions: this group had to develop and group key interventions, to allow for efficacy
of interventions as well as to relate this to the diagnostic of challenges and blockages.
In addition, the challenge was also to identify interventions in areas where there are
currently programmes or even unresolved debates. This means a number of issues
were flagged, with the challenge on stakeholders to intensify the search for resolution
(eg the Integrated Quality Management System for accountable supervision of
3. Roadmap draft reports as amended were routinely provided to Working Groups and
participants, with key elements structured into the main report.
Out of this, then, the DBSA group executive and education specialist drew up a final set of
‘Roadmap’ slides for presentation. This was approximately 56 slides in all, proposing a full
diagnostic, an analysis of key problem areas, and a set of suggested priorities for intervention.
The role of information in developing a consensus and analytical grid can be seen as central.
The last set of slides was presented by the Group Executive to the final stakeholders meeting
on November 7. Here the final proposals for intervention were put forward. The chairs – Jay
Naidoo, Minister Pandor, and Dr Zweli Mkhize – fashioned the proposals into the 10-point
Programme that was finally released for public discussion.
To summarise the key meetings:
July 25 2008– first stakeholders’ meetings – sets agenda and process.
August 22 – two technical subgroups, on diagnostic and solutions.
September 15 and 19 – technical groups, stakeholder defined – to examine documents
as they develop.
November 7 2008– final stakeholders meeting – adoption of Roadmap and 10-point
These represented a range of ANC-aligned and non-ANC aligned institutions, unions,
government officials, academics, NGO’s and other commentators. While not a
‘representative’ forum as such, these would either represent key education stakeholders or
carry the respect of stakeholders in the field.
‘Political’ Jay Naidoo (DBSA), Zweli Mkhize (MEC/ANC), Minister Naledi Pandor
(Minister of Education); Education MEC’s (Yusouf Gabru, W Cape, and Aaron Motsoaledi,
Limpopo); Ministerial advisors; Department of Education national officials (DG Hindle;
DDG’s Tyobeka, Vinjevoldt, Patel); Provincial education officials (W Cape, Free State, E
Cape); Treasury (Budget DDG Kuben Naidoo);
Teacher unions: NAPTOSA (National Professional Teachers Association – President Ezra
Ramisehla, Dave Balt, former president) and SADTU (SA Democratic Teachers’ Union:
chairperson Thobile Ntola, secretary Thulas Nxesi, development officer Matshiliso Dipholo);
COSATU; ANC Education subcommittee; NGO’s: CEPD (Centre for Education Policy
Development); EPU (Wits Education Policy Unit); Idasa; Historic Schools Restoration
Project; JET Education Services; LEAP School; CDE (Centre for Development and
Enterprise); NBI (National Business Institute); Monitor Group
DFI’s IDC; NRF (National Research Foundation); NEPAD;
Academics and commentators: Rhodes University (DVC); Tshwane University of
Technology;Linda Chisholm (HSRC), Jonathan Jansen, John Pampallis, Shireen Motala,
Servaas van der Berg, Mary Metcalfe; Mamphela Ramphele (Circle Capital): all well-known
DBSA (team of 7, including Group Executive, Education Specialist, and 2 consultants
Key Issues highlighted
The Roadmap highlighted key areas that hold back education;
1. Social disadvantage: Parents are often uneducated, relatively powerless and lack
information. Social disadvantage is reproduced across generations.
2. Teachers: Teachers are key to education improvement. A range of issues affect
teachers, from poor subject knowledge and teaching practices, to insufficient numbers
in training to little performance evaluation.
3. Dysfunctional schools: Schools mostly do not achieve acceptable outcomes,
reinforced by confusion over OBE. Schools are badly managed and supported. The
departmental Foundations for Learning Campaign begins to address issues of reading
and numeracy at primary and foundation level, where it counts most.
4. Resources: Despite massive improvements, there are still huge backlogs: lack of
libraries, labs and computers, and poverty effects from nutrition to AIDS orphans to
gang violence.
5. Responsibility and accountability: far stronger national intervention is needed to
overcome inefficiencies as policy drops down to provincial delivery levels. District
support systems and management in particular need to be fixed to give impetus to
school level improvement.
6. The Roadmap identifies three levels, for analysis and intervention. Most important is
the in-school level, what happens in the classroom between teacher and learner. There
are issues of ‘support to school’ where the principal and departmental district ensure
that schools are managed, resourced and function well. Lastly, ‘societal’ issues mostly
impact on the readiness of students to learn. Poverty and backlogs are a real heritage
of apartheid. All 3 levels need to be identified and tackled together.
The 10 Point Programme
The actual 10 point programme was the key output from the process and is reproduced below.
Teachers to be in-class, on time, teaching. Teachers to also be required to use
textbooks in class.
Focus efforts on improving the quality of early childhood education and primary
schools, including implementing the “Foundations for Learning? Campaign
emphasizing the promotion of language and numeracy.
Conduct external tests for all grade 3 and grade 6 learners every year, and provide the
results to parents
Ensure effective evaluation of all teachers based on extent to which learner
performances improve, with results influencing occupationally specific dispensation
pay for teachers.
Enhance recruitment of quality teachers and strengthen teacher development
Offer bursaries to attract quality student in-take into teacher training institution and
offer student loan repayments to attract young graduates into teacher contracts.
Enhance pre-service and in-service teacher training, including through better
coordination and resourcing
Ensure that teacher unions have a formal and funded role in teacher development
Support to school
Strengthen management capacity to ensure working districts and schools. This entails
bringing in management capacity from the private sector, civil society and elsewhere
in the public sector.
Phase in a process of measurable improvements through targeting efforts at selected
education districts and dysfunctional schools.
Use of infrastructure budgets as an incentive for schools that deliver improved teaching and
Increase the use of ICT in education, including audiovisual teaching materials in the
classroom to supplement teaching and demonstrate quality teaching to learners and
Improve national-provincial alignment and efficiency of education expenditure,
through procuring textbooks nationally and allocating resources to improve district
capacity. In this regard, the use of conditional grants is an important tool to ensure
Develop a social compact for quality education. This will include a National
Consultative Forum dedicated to clarifying the “non-negotiables” and performance
targets for key stakeholders, and the monitoring thereof.
Mobilisation of communities at all levels should be encouraged to raise awareness and
participation in education issues. Examples include graduates assisting their former/
dysfunctional schools to assist, corporate social investment, party branch campaigns
to clean up schools, and supporting food gardens, and encouraging young graduates to
enter teaching (“Teach SA”).
Implement poverty combating measures that improve the environment for learning
and teaching, such as a nutrition programme (cross-cutting programme with health),
basic infrastructure for schools, and social support for children.
The Roadmap process provides conceptual and programmatic guidance for education
systems’ reform. Stakeholders convened on 7 November 2008 where the Education Roadmap
was presented for a final review and adoption.
It is envisaged that the government will give due consideration to its findings and
recommendations. Beyond this, the process provides the basis for a debate on education and
education priority interventions. It opens up discussion of the need for a social compact of
key stakeholders that could, through common purpose and collective action, achieve a more
effective education system and better education outcomes.
The Roadmap process, although limited in what it can achieve, has produced a diagnosis of
the strategic challenges facing the South African education system as well as a range of
potential policy responses. The strategic policy options are high level and provide a starting
point rather than a final definitive position on the way forward.
Although a definitive conclusion is not possible at this point it appears consistent with the
evidence that an important contributor to South Africa’s poor education outcomes arises from
institutional weaknesses within the public education system, problems in ‘delivery’ by
education departments and officials, and the range of problems faced by teachers in ensuring
effective teacher development. There is a need for an approach that would seek to improve
the efficiency and accountability of the system at the same time as seeking to improve
support to and accountability of the teaching corps.
It should not be underestimated the extent to which the Roadmap process may contribute to
national debate and help focus discussion around core elements that may lead to solutions
(see media list, below). The impact in this policy space is clearly difficult to measure, though
the level of media interest may indicate public awareness and focus.
The Roadmap process has enhanced DBSA image as a facilitator with integrity, able to bring
together key stakeholders in government, civil society, unions, and NGO’s as well as
academics. DBSA has been acknowledged too as a centre of excellent knowledge applied to
policy solutions. This positive response can also be translated into investment opportunities
as stakeholders return to DBSA to implement resolutions at a later date from the Roadmap.
DBSA should continue to position itself as a thought and policy leader in this regard. Areas
such as agency work; resource inputs and management; management training and
marshalling; policy debate; and a range of investment opportunities; are all ongoing areas for
DBSA that may be enhanced by DBSA’s initiatives around the Education Roadmap.
The DBSA-convened Roadmap process has been completed.
Government, constituencies and the public are currently debating the Roadmap and have
taken ownership of education system improvements. This is also a key limitation of the
Roadmap, as both publication and implementation going forward are not in the hands of the
It remains to be seen whether the concurrence of situation and circumstance; the specific
positioning of the DBSA and its role going forward; and the underlying assumptions of the
model of policy development, intervention and change, make enough sense to see positive
transformation in the policy implementation space going forward.
The specific lessons presented and the series of analytical and theoretical questions posed in
the introduction, highlight the importance of such projects and their documentation and
public presentation.
1. Bloch, G (2005) Developing Education in a Development Bank: Considerations and
Reflections, paper to Kenton Education Conference, Mpekweni.
2. Bloch, G. (2006) Education isn’t Just Education: Non-Education Expenditure to
Improve Quality Education, paper to CCEM Conference, Cape Town, December
3. Bloch, G (2007) The Difficulties of Systems’ Change, paper to KMA Conference
4. Bloch, G (2007 and 2008) The Persistence of Inequality in Education: Policy and
Implementation Priorities, paper to DBSA Knowledge Week November 2007, and
EASA Conference, Club Mykonos, January 2008.
5. Bloch, G , Chisholm, L, Fleisch, B and Mabizela, M (eds) (2008) Investment Choices
for South African Education. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
6. Chisholm, Linda (2003) “The state of curriculum reform in South Africa: The issue of
Curriculum 2005” in Daniel, J Habib, A and Southall, R (eds) State of the Nation
South Africa 2003-2004. Cape Town: HSRC.
7. Chisholm, Linda (ed) (2004) Changing Class: Education and Social Change in PostApartheid South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC.
8. Chisholm, L (2005) “The State of South Africa’s Schools” in Daniel, J Southall, R
and Lutchman, J (eds) State of the Nation: South Africa 2004-2005. Cape Town:
9. Chisholm, Linda Motala, Shireen and Vally, Salim (eds) (2003) South Africa:
Education Policy Review. Sandown: Heinemann.
10. Council on Higher Education (2004) South African Higher Education in the First
Decade of Democracy. Pretoria: CHE.
11. DBSA (2008) Infrastructure Barometer, 2008. Midrand: DBSA.
12. Department of Education (2005, 2008) Education Statistics 2003, 2006. Pretoria: DoE
13. DoE (2005) National Framework for Teacher Education, Report. DoE: Pretoria.
14. DoE (2005) Report of the Ministerial Committeee on Rural Education. Pretoria:DoE.
15. Fiske, Edward B and Ladd, Helen F (2004) Elusive Equity: Education Reform in
Post-Apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC and Brookings Institute.
16. HSRC (2003) Human Resources Development Review 2003: Education, Employment
and Skills in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC and East Lansing: Michigan State
17. Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (2005) Conflict and Governance:
Transformation Audit 2005. Rondebosch: IJR.
18. Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (2008) Risk and Opportunity: Transformation
Audit 2008. Rondebosch: IJR.
19. Jansen, Jonathan D (2002) “Political symbolism as policy craft: explaining nonreform in South African education after apartheid” in Journal of Education Policy,
Vol 17 (2)
20. Jansen, Jonathan (2003) “The state of higher education in South Africa: From
massification to mergers” in Daniel, J Habib, A and Southall, R (eds) State of the
Nation South Africa 2003-2004. Cape Town: HSRC.
21. Jansen, J (2005) Educationally Essential: Teachers, Textbooks and Time” in IJR:
Conflict and Governance Transformation Audit 2005.
22. Jansen Jonathan and Taylor, Nick (2003) Educational Change in South Africa 19942003: Case Studies in Large-Scale Education Reform. Washington: World Bank.
23. Kraak, Andre (2004) An Overview of South African Human Resources Development.
Cape Town: HSRC.
24. Morrow, Wally and King, Kenneth (eds) (1998) Vision and Reality: Changing
Education and Training in South Africa. Cape Town: UCT.
25. Seekings, J and Nattrass, N (2006) Class, Race and Inequality in South Africa.
Scottsville: UKZN Press
26. Seekings, J and Nattrass, N (2007) Historical Causes of Contemporary Inequality in
South Africa, background paper to DBSA Development Report (unpublished).
27. South African Institute of Race Relations (2008) South Africa Survey 2007/2008.
Johannesburg: SAIRR.
28. Soudien, C. (2005) Education: Wrestling with Legacy in IJR: Conflict and
Governance Transformation Audit, 2005.
29. Taylor, Nick Muller, Johan and Vinjevold, P (2003) Getting Schools Working:
Research and Systemic School Reform in South Africa. Cape Town: Pearson
30. UNESCO (2004) Education For All: The Quality Imperative (EFA Global Monitoring
Report 2005). Paris: UNESCO.
31. UNESCO (2007) Education for All by 2015: Will we make it? Oxford: OUP.
32. Van der Berg, Servaas (2005) The Schooling Solution: Primary School Performance
is the Key. In IJR: Conflict and Governance Transformation Audit, 2005.
33. World Bank (1995) South Africa: Education Sector: Strategic Issues and Policy
Options. Washington: World Bank.
Media reports directly related to the Education Roadmap include:
1. ‘We must all invest in education roadmap to put SA on track’ by Ravi Naidoo and
Graeme Bloch (Sunday Times 30/11/2008)
2. ‘Charting the course of SA schooling’ by Graeme Bloch (Cape Times 05/02/2009)
3. Also as ‘Ways to fix our school system’ and ‘Education roadmap’s 10-point
programme’ by Graeme Bloch (The Star 09/02/2009 and Pretoria News, Daily News).
4. ‘ANC takes long look at education, training ahead of election’ by Sue Blaine
(Business Day 04/10/2008).
5. ‘ANC may give OBE the chop – New Roadmap compiled at education Indaba’ by
Angelique Serrao (Star, 14/11/2008).
6. ‘Outcomes based education may be on the way out’ (Cape Times 14/11/2008).
7. ‘Education Roadmap’ calls to scrap OBE’ (Argus 14/11/2008.
8. ‘Padkaart’ vir onderwys saai paniek’ (Beeld 15/11/2008).
9. ‘UGO opnuut in die spervuur’ by Carien Kruger (Rapport 16/11/2008).
10. ‘Onderwys-krisis’ (Hoofartikel, Rapport 16/11/2008).
11. ‘ANC considers major changes in schooling’ by Sue Blaine (Business Day
12. ‘Awaiting the outcome’ (Business Day editorial 18/11/2008).
13. ‘More than just OBE is on the Agenda’ by Sue Blaine (Business Day 19/11/2008).
14. ‘Union backs outcomes education’ by Sue Blaine (Business Day 24/11/2008).
15. ‘Back to basics’ (Business Day editorial 27/11/2008).
16. ‘How to build a winning nation’ (Sunday Times editorial 30/11/2008).
17. ‘Matric failure (Business Day editorial 07/01/2009).
18. ‘Changing the course of SA schooling’ (Cape Times 5/02/2009)
19. ‘Teachers can forge a learning nation’ (Star 4/o3/2009; Cape Times 16/03/2009
Related flashcards

System administration

65 cards

Canadian Hockey League

15 cards

Create Flashcards