at Provincial Legislature (PL)
8 August 2006
Infrastructural measures can assist with crime control but they are not the
ultimate solutions. We need to develop sustained crime prevention structures
and strategies as well as improve the socio-economic conditions in the high
risk school communities.
This was part of comprehensive replies tabled in the Provincial Legislature
yesterday in response to questions from members to Western Cape Education MEC
Cameron Dugmore. Another one dealt with teacher development and evaluation.
Questions for oral reply
Mr GCR Haskin to ask MEC CM Dugmore:
(1) Whether he or his Department has taken or intends taking any steps with
regard to the vandalising of laboratories at schools in the Western Cape and to
the theft from schools of computers that were donated by the Shuttleworth
Foundation; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the relevant details and (b)
how does he intend preventing future occurrences of vandalism and theft?
(2) (a) What as at the latest specified date for which figures are
available, were the estimated costs relating to the replacement of equipment
stolen and vandalised during the 2005/06 and 2006/07 financial years and (b)
who will be bearing these costs?
Answer:
18. (1) (a) Equipment was donated to schools by the Shuttleworth Foundation
via an arrangement between the school and the Shuttleworth Foundation that did
not involve the Department. The security, replacement, etc of the equipment
must therefore be done in terms of the normal processes outlined in the
schools' agreements with the foundation or in terms of normal loss control. The
Western Cape Education Department (WCED) makes no provision for the replacement
of such equipment.
(b) The WCED is taking this issue very seriously. Repairing and securing
buildings are costly.
The first prong of our three-pronged strategy has been strengthened since
September 2005, with the deployment of Bambanani volunteers in partnership with
our sister Department, the Department of Community Safety.
The role of the Bambanani volunteers is to provide the following:
A) law enforcement on school premises (school premises security)
a) access control
b) searches and seizures
c) patrol perimeter of school as well as school corridors and identify
problematic areas on school premises
B) participation on the safety committee of the school
C) improve police and youth relationships
D) community involvement / networking
E) decrease crime on school premises
F) early identification of illegal activities by youth at risk on school
premises
G) intelligence gathering
H) school site surveys
I) disaster / emergency preparedness.
As a first step, we have placed an alarm system at schools which is linked
to an armed response service. It has been proven that an alarm system if
properly installed, maintained and backed with effective armed response is the
most inexpensive deterrent to vandalism, violence, theft, arson, gangsters and
intruders. The armed response companies often serve as the first call of
response. Schools are also requesting their armed response companies to
schedule additional patrols in the affected areas to ensure greater visibility
and vigilance.
Schools are also encouraged to foster and strengthen partnerships with the
local sector policing units, as well as the community policing forums and
neighbourhood watches.
Safe Schools believes that the community should be included where possible
to foster greater community buy-in and support. In this way a sense of
community ownership of the school is strengthened and community members are
more likely to report any untoward activity that they have observed at the
school. They are also less likely to commit burglary and vandalism at the
school.
In addition, schools are advised and supported in taking the following
safety and security measures:
*·It is important that schools use a community orientated problem solving
approach and ensure that other sections of the school community are
involved.
* Schools are obliged to report all burglaries and vandalism incidents to
the Safe Schools Call Centre at 0800 45 46 47.
* Safe Schools will meet with the affected schools (that have been
repeatedly burgled) to discuss best practice strategies on preventative
measures.
* Schools to take a proactive approach and explore best practice strategies
used at other schools to counter burglaries and vandalism.
* Schools should constantly check that their security systems are
functional.
* Principals are to ensure that their schools' safety committees are fully
functional.
* The safety committees at schools are to do regular security checks as well
as alarm testing.
* Defective alarm systems to be upgraded.
It is also important to remember that infrastructural measures can certainly
assist with crime control but that they are not the ultimate solutions as we
need to develop sustained crime prevention structures and strategies as well as
improve the socio-economic conditions in the high risk school communities.
(2) (a) Due to time limitation the WCED was not in a position to collate the
requested information from schools in the Western Cape. My Department will do
this and provide the member with the necessary information when it becomes
available.
(b) Schools.
Mr S Esau to ask MEC CM Dugmore:
Whether all the measures to evaluate teacher effectiveness are in place; if
not, why not; if so, (a) what are the relevant details and (b) (i) what is the
impact of such measures and (ii) how regularly are they (aa) conducted and (bb)
monitored?
Answer:
12. Yes
(a) The system to measure teacher performance is in place. Teacher
Performance Measurement (PM) is one part of the Integrated Quality Management
System (IQMS). The other two parts are Development Appraisal (DA) determining
educator training and development needs and Whole School Evaluation (WSE) which
is the evaluation of the entire school.
The DA and PM legs were implemented for the first time in 2005. The first
cycle was from 1 January - 31 December 2005. It was applicable to every teacher
paid by the WCED whether they are permanent or temporary. Every teacher
underwent a baseline evaluation in the first four - five months of the year and
a summative evaluation in the last term of the year.
Educators who were on various types of leave, suspended, etc would not have
been evaluated but would have been expected to slot into the next evaluation.
The collective agreement states that normal leave should not interfere with the
IQMS process.
There were some educators who refused to participate in the system. They did
not receive the one percent. Follow-up work has been done with them because if
they refuse to comply progressive discipline will become applicable. They have
been informed that this will happen.
(b) (i) Year 2005 was the first year of implementation. Because the system
requires a peer and a supervisor to evaluate the teacher together, our general
finding (which is confirmed by findings in other provinces) is that evaluation
panellists were generally very lenient in their evaluations. This meant that
the educators received high scores even though the learners at a particular
school did not perform well. Some principals of schools where learners are
struggling or failing received scores that did not correlate with their learner
achievement or school functionality. Minister Pandor has expressed concern
about this phenomenon.
Within the Western Cape we supplied each school with copies of a guide which
unpacks the standards of evaluation. This document now makes it possible for
the evaluating panel to know what evidence to look for before making a decision
on a score. We believe (and principals are telling us that the document goes a
long way to helping with more realistic evaluations) that the evaluations of
2006 will present a different picture to those of 2005. The Department of
Education (DoE) has also been developing a Moderation Guideline, which will be
used in 2006.
An important fact to keep in mind is that if a teacher gets an "acceptable"
score, he or she qualifies for pay progression of one percent. This is note the
normal inflationary increase. The linking of the pay progression to the
evaluation of teachers has, we believe, had a negative impact on the
reliability of the scores. At a recent meeting at the Education Labour
Relations Council (ELRC), it has been suggested that the pay progression should
perhaps be de-linked from the evaluations. If not teachers will continue to get
high scores even though there is no improvement in the effectiveness of their
teaching and they will not identify their developmental needs.
Within the WCED we have made it clear that the evaluation has to be based on
what the teacher does throughout the year and there should be a correlation
with the learners' achievement levels.
(ii) In the first year of implementation teachers were evaluated twice
(baseline and summative). Subsequently, the teacher has to be formally
evaluated once a year. We have advised schools, however, that the overall
evaluation cannot be based on one classroom visit. In order for principals to
effectively moderate the evaluation scores they are advised to make regular
visits to gain an overall comparative picture of teacher performance.
(aa) Formally evaluated once a year.
(bb) The fact that the teacher scores must be submitted once a year in
itself means that the process has to be undertaken. Our experience is that
teachers watch very carefully that everybody on the staff is evaluated. Where
there are "irregularities" teachers report these through their unions.
Circuit managers as part of the evaluation of the principal are required to
determine how the PM is implemented.
IQMS officials located in the Education Management and Development Centres
(EMDCs) do ongoing monitoring of the process and they report once a month to
the push to talk (PTT) a sub-committee of the Provincial Education Labour
Relations Council (PELRC).
Within the WCED, we contracted a service provider to conduct a monitoring
exercise at sampled schools in February - March 2006. A copy of the report has
been sent to all WCED schools.
Recently a self-evaluation audit tool was sent to all schools, so that they
can assess their structures and processes.
The way forward; the Directorate: Quality Assurance also monitors whether
the development of teachers (based on their DA) is indeed taking place. The WSE
process requires that the evaluators do verification of the evaluation scores
of educators.
In conclusion, it is our view that implementing a system such as this and
getting positive results or impact takes about three years. We seek ways of
refining its implementation and ensuring that it brings about improved quality
in the delivery of education.
For enquiries contact:
Gert Witbooi
Cell: 082 550 3938
E-mail: gwitbooi@pgwc.gov.za
Issued by: Department of Education, Western Cape Provincial Government
8 August 2006
