1. NEEDU PRESENTATION Portfolio Committee on Basic Education (National Assembly) 25 October 2016

2. OUTLINE Purpose Role of NEEDU
First Systemic Evaluation Cycle:
Sample of districts and schools visited
Focus areas
Main findings
Working with provinces to ensure impact
Improvement at school level
Barriers to quality education
Second Systemic Evaluation Cycle:
Conclusion

3. PURPOSE To brief the Portfolio Committee on:
NEEDU’s work for the past five years ( ); and
Plan for the next five years (2017–2021)

4. THE ROLE OF NEEDU
The National Education Evaluation and Development Unit (NEEDU) was established to assist in the creation of a quality basic education system for SA. NEEDU would do this through the establishment of a countrywide credible, sustainable and holistic performance review system which focuses systemically on the state of teaching and learning in classrooms, and on the monitoring, administration and support functions at school, provincial and national levels
In the performance of its functions, the Unit visits provincial departments of education, district offices and schools—after notice has been given to the Head of Department, districts and schools—for the purpose of observing or assessing the functioning of the system
Two of the principal functions of the Unit are to:
evaluate the state of South African schools, in particular the quality of school leadership, teaching and learning; and
make proposals in regard to remedying shortcomings in educational practice and eliminating barriers to quality education

5. FOCUS OF FIRST FIVE YEARS: 2012-2016
NEEDU is – in completing its first five-year cycle of systemic evaluations having evaluated:
all phases of schooling in different samples of schools,
most districts, and
all provincial Departments of Education
During this cycle, the focus was on evaluation—the “E” in NEEDU, i.e., identifying, on a system-wide basis, the factors that inhibit or advance school improvement

6. THE SAMPLE OF SCHOOLS VISITED

7. FOCUS AREAS IN THE FIRST CYCLE
At the school level:
Teaching and monitoring of reading in the Foundation Phase
Quality of curriculum implementation (incl. curriculum pacing and coverage; quantity and quality of written work; and monitoring of reading, teaching and learning by school management teams)
Availability and use of learning and teaching support materials and assistive devices (e.g. textbooks, graded readers and DBE workbooks)
Quality of school-based assessment of and assessment for learning
Analysis of assessment results (incl. ANA) and use of assessment data
Teacher support and professional development programmes
Time management
At the district level:
Capacity of districts to support schools
Frequency and quality of support provided to schools
At the provincial level:
Quality of support to schools and districts, and monitoring oversight

8. MAIN FINDINGS Finding No.1: Reading
134 schools were evaluated in 2012 and the following are main findings about teaching and monitoring of reading in the Foundation Phase by the SMTs and district officials:
Main findings
Action taken by
DBE/Provinces
In most schools (87%), teachers do not have a good method to teach reading. Getting the whole class to read in chorus is still a practice in many classrooms 
DBE set up a Reading Advisory Committee made up of external reading experts to advise on reading matters.
Reading support prioritised in PDEs and reported through NSLA quarterly.
In the process of setting the national reading norms for EFAL and African languages.
DBE is piloting the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) in schools.
Where teachers identify learners who are struggling with reading, they do not always know how to help these learners to read 
Where teachers assess reading, reading assessment results are either not used at all or are not used properly
In most schools (over 90%), SMTs do not monitor reading. In few cases where they monitor, it is not planned and is it done not systematically
Most districts (80%) visited do not have a system of monitoring reading levels in schools

9. Finding No.2: Curriculum Delivery
870 schools were evaluated between 2012 and 2016, and the following are findings regarding curriculum coverage and pacing in mathematics and language in all phases:
Main findings
Action taken by
DBE/Provinces
Provincial Literacy and Numeracy (LitNuM) strategies do not find expression in teacher classroom practices
Provinces and districts are monitoring curriculum pacing and coverage closely and report quarterly on progress.
Supporting and monitoring the holding of regular SMT, Staff, SGB and Parents meetings- 74.8%
79.7% of schools surveyed were happy with the support they receive from districts to strengthen curriculum coverage
Learners write less frequently and curriculum coverage is well below the expected norm in the mathematics and language, especially in primary schools
In the Foundation Phase, learners write more single words and sentences but little or no extended writing 
SMTs and districts do not have a good system to monitor the work of teachers
While the SMTs collect learners’ books, sign and stamp them, this is done as a matter of routine and for compliance purposes

10. Finding No.3: Utilisation of LTSM
870 schools were evaluated between 2012 and 2016, and the following are findings regarding the availability and use of LTSM in all phases:
Main findings
Action taken by
DBE/Provinces
Most primary schools do not have sufficient textbooks in mathematics and language, partly due to lack of or ineffective textbook retrieval system to ensure that learners return textbooks 
DBE developed a LTSM policy (draft) which includes text book retrieval.
Current PDE reports indicate 85% retrieval
 DBE has made significant improvements in the quality of the workbooks.
PEDs report quarterly on Workbook utilisation
Principal’s Survey indicated 73% satisfaction with provision of curriculum materials.
DBE developed Graded readers in all languages
Most primary schools do not have sufficient graded readers in the Foundation Phase to give learners enough opportunities to read 
Schools have DBE workbooks in right quantities and correct languages. Every learner has his or her own workbook 
However, many schools do not use DBE workbooks optimally while some use them as a matter of compliance 

11. Finding No.4: Time management
870 schools were evaluated between 2012 and 2016 and the following are findings regarding time management in all phases:
Main findings
Action taken by
DBE/Provinces
Many schools experience problems with late coming and absenteeism for both teachers and learners 
District officials, and subject advisors accessibility rated at 68.2%
District officials are monitoring time management in schools closely.
Quarterly meetings with District Directors to deal with all issues relating to school and classroom management
Engagement with Provincial and District officials and School principals (Minister, DG & Senior Officials)
Over 64% were satisfied with support received on Learner Support (which includes learners with barriers to learning).
Time-on-task is a major challenge in most schools. Loss of time goes undetected in many schools because there are no control systems. Time is still lost when teachers: go to workshops, attend teacher union meetings, attend memorial services , take sick leave, return late to class after break
On paper, class timetables in most schools meet the CAPS requirements regarding instructional time allocation for language and mathematics
In practice, teachers do not follow time allocation indicated in class timetables. In primary schools and multi-grade schools, timetables are mostly prepared for compliance purposes

12. Finding No.5: Assessment
870 schools were evaluated between 2012 and 2016 and the following are findings regarding the assessment of and assessment for learning:
Main findings
Action taken by
DBE/Provinces
Teachers in most schools are not able to construct/set assessment items of good quality. Learners perform "well" in SBA but poorly in common and international assessments 
Subject Committee and SBA workshops conducted in all provinces to train advisors on setting quality tasks.
PEDs and DBE constructed SBA tasks in all subjects and languages ( Finalising Booklet).
TARMI being set up with HSRC- electronic item banks.
PED Subject improvement plans aligned to DBE plans
Over 72% happy with support they receive to develop School Improvement Plans
On administering SBAs the national satisfaction level stood at 80.5%
SMTs moderate formal assessment tasks but they do not know how to do it properly to ensure that formal assessment tasks are of good quality 
Poor quality SBA reflects poor curriculum coverage. Teachers assess what they have taught not what they ought to have taught 
The only type of analysis that schools do is level analysis, which is a purely statistical procedure in which learner results are classified into levels
Few schools have school improvement plans that are informed by assessment analysis results 
Schools do not use results of assessment analysis to inform planning and teaching

13. Preliminary Findings in Special Schools
334 special schools were evaluated in the latter part of 2015 and in 2016 and the following are preliminary findings :
It is clear that there is no systematic way of admitting learners into South African special schools. Different schools within and across provinces use different methods to admit learners
Many learners with low to moderate support needs are placed inappropriately in special schools. As one Principal said, “Everyone thinks our school is a dumping ground.”
Different special schools use different curricula to guide them
Left to their own devices, with no guidance and support from national and provincial department of education, special schools have come up with different curricula.
Absence of a national standardized curriculum makes it difficult to evaluate curriculum delivery in special schools
Many special schools do not plan their programmes and progression of learners with an exit goal in mind.

14. WORKING WITH AND THROUGH THE PROVINCES TO ENSURE IMPACT
To ensure that NEEDU findings lead to system-wide changes:
Findings at the school level are presented to districts and provincial education departments (PEDs) to take necessary actions
Gaps in the districts to support schools are presented to PEDs for corrective action
Two years after an evaluation, NEEDU makes follow-up visits to a sample of schools, districts and PEDs to monitor and support the implementation of NEEDU recommendations

15. IMPROVEMENT AT SCHOOL LEVEL
NEEDU made follow-up visits to a sample of 158 schools that were evaluated in 2012 to establish if these institutions have made an attempt to implement NEEDU recommendations
Some schools have made progress on areas that continue to cause concern in the system.
It is for this reason that the Minister has requested NEEDU to monitor and support the implementation of the recommendations from the research conducted.

16. FOCUS OF 2nd FIVE-YEAR CYCLE (2017-2021)
During this cycle, the focus will shift to development—the “D” in NEEDU, i.e., to ensure system-wide impact of NEEDU findings and assist the Ministry and the Department to meet the sector strategic objectives through addressing selected areas of challenge
This is in line with NEEDU objectives “to conduct systemic evaluations for school improvement”
Thus, having identified, on a system-wide basis the factors that inhibit school improvement during the 1st five-year cycle, as directed by the Minister, in the 2nd five-year cycle, NEEDU will focus on:
analysing and identifying approaches and strategies necessary for achieving equality in the provision of quality education
providing feedback to the system on the effectiveness of the national and provincial strategies and programmes that seek to address the challenges that are clearly described in the Action Plan to 2019 Towards the Realisation of Schooling 2030, and recommending programmes that work which can be rolled-out on scale
acting as a research/information hub of the Department to ensure that it (the Department) is a research-driven organization whose programmes are informed by and anchored on empirical evidence

17. 2nd FIVE-YEAR CYCLE ( )
The prioritised focus areas for NEEDU in the second five-year cycle include making proposals to the sector with regard to the following:
Conducting a deeper investigation about why schools do not use DBE workbooks optimally. This is to ensure that there is value for the high investment put on the development and distribution of workbooks
This investigation will involve focus group discussions at school and district levels across the provinces to understand reasons why teachers do not use workbooks optimally
Preparation for this investigation started in October 2016 and data collection, through focus group discussions, will start in January 2017
By the end of the third quarter in the current financial year, a report with recommendations and proposals for remedying shortcomings will be presented to the Department to allow the system to maximise the utilisation of workbooks by all teachers
Investigating whether tuition time allocated to different subjects is sufficient to cover the breath and depth of the curriculum or syllabus, given that many schools stop teaching early to start exams in June and in November, amongst other things

18. CONCLUSION
The Action Plan to 2019 Towards the Realisation of Schooling 2030 describes in sufficient details challenges faced by the education sector and how DBE, working with the provinces and through the districts, seeks to address them.
It is against this background that the Minister has instructed NEEDU to focus less on reporting on the challenges and concentrate more on using NEEDU's research and drawing from research findings from other sources to propose solutions to address the curriculum implementation gaps in the system.