By: Graeme Bloch (Education Specialist, DBSA) graemeb@dbsa.org

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, ill-discipline, hunger and AIDS impacted negatively on the social functioning of schools. Teacher issues, for a variety of reasons, resulted in a largely dispirited, demoralized, under-performing 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 ‘in-class, 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, 2008).

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 partnerships.”

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 well-respected 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?

Summary

In 2007 at the previous KMA conference, it was argued:

“Education change is enormously complex and outcomes often seem impervious to policy intervention.

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

Introduction

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.

Process

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 in-school, 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 teachers).
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 Programme.

Participants

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 educationists
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.

A.In-school

• 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 learning.

• Increase the use of ICT in education, including audiovisual teaching materials in the classroom to supplement teaching and demonstrate quality teaching to learners and educators.

• 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 alignment.

Societal

• 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.

Conclusions

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 DBSA.

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.

Bibliography

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 2006.
3. Bloch, G (2007) The Difficulties of Systems’ Change, paper to KMA Conference Nairobi.
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 Post-Apartheid 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: HSRC.
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 University.
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 non-reform 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 1994-2003: 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 Education.
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

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 17/11/2008).
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

Average: Select ratingCancel ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (9 votes)