1

REPORT ON LEARNER TRANSPORT

to the

Portfolio Committee of Education

19 February 2008

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2

Objectives of the study• The DoE undertook a study on learner transport

schemes in provinces in 2006/7• The study gathered information on existing learner

transport schemes both internationally, nationally and sub-nationally.

• Purpose was to evaluate the current status and to develop alternate strategies to improve access to schools

• The study also included a formulation of a national framework on learner transport assistance schemes, which was provided to PEDs.

3

Report• International good practice

– UK: provision of learner transport allocated in law as a local government function – provision is free – and norms and standards are developed/

– USA: Local Education Board is authorized to operate school buses. State regulates bus design, even as far as colour goes – Yellow buses.

– Brazil: No legal authority, their education plan is vague about scholar transport – it alludes to provision of learner transport to/in/from rural zones, if necessary

– Indonesia – Jakarta free learner transport from in 2006– India – Tamil Nadu Free transport from school 1 to

school year 12, this includes private schools– Zambia – Pressure on state is mounting to introduce

learner transport.

4

The learner transport issues in SA

• Nelson Mandela Foundation study highlighted issue as acute in rural areas.

• Human Rights Commission raised matter in its reports.

• Ministerial Committee on Rural Education also pronounced on the lack of learner transport.

• StatsSA National Household transport study provides facts and figures on learner transport

5

National Household Travel Survey by Department of Transport (2003)

• 76% of learners walk to school (almost 100% in rural areas and 70% in urban areas)

• For 30% (3.6 million) of learners their travel time to school is more than 30 minutes.

• KZN high percentage of walkers and to lessor degree in EC, MP and NW

6

• 25% of primary school learners walk for longer than 30 minutes (1.8 million learners)

• 560 000 learners walk more than one hour one way.

• Currently only 200 000 learners provided with transport

National Household Travel Survey by Department of Transport (2003)

7

Role of National and Provincial Departments of Transport (PDoT)

• PDoTs do not carry costs of provision except in NW; in LP they administer contracts for PED.

• Most PDoT aware of and are moving to establish operator registers and managing legal, regulatory and safety requirements.

• Transport planning a function of Local Government – there is little integration with learner transport evident.

• National DoT and PDoT mention learner transport as a special category of need and provide bicycles through the Shova Kulula project.

• In theory learners can travel on contract services subsidised by NDoT through Provinces BUT dedicated learner transport was removed from timetables

8

Provincial Education Departments

• Formal policies in PED: EC, GP, MP, NC, WC• Informal policies in PED: FS, LP and KZN• In NW managed by PDoT• Where learner transport is provided it is through

operators, except in WC where travel allowances are also provided through transfers to households

• Contract terms vary – fixed rates, per km rate, per learner per km rate. Procurement and contracting challenges are evident.

• Allocation varied in 2006/07 from R2m in LP to R120m in WC (per capita R1 300 to R4 000)

9

Some issues

• Contract rates not sustainable

• Overloading, freeloaders because of lack of learner access control

• Some conditions on contractors onerous

• Poor coordination with PDoTs

• Lack of knowledge by PED in managing transport programmes

• Unreliable services

10

Strengths of providing transport

• Access is supported including timeliness especially for poor

• Safety (crime, inadequate roads and pavements)

• Conserves learner energy and saves time for effective learning and social interaction

• Bicycles could reduce some of the negatives when motorised transport not feasible

11

National Policy and Legislation

• SA Schools Act – MEC must provide school places, education is compulsory therefore free transport should be provided at least to the poor who have to walk long distances to access education.

• Education school funding norms implicit in terms of provision of learner transport. National School Funding Norms says if travel time is longer than 1.5hrs (180km by car, 3-5km if walking) children should be targeted for hostel places.

• White paper on national transport policy 1996

12

National Policy and Legislation

• Action agenda 1999: DoT• National Land Transport Transition Act

2000• National Land Transport Strategic

Framework• CSIR research• Shova Kulula Project• Operators regulations

13

Principles for the Road ahead• Current state “a long and winding road” – PEDS must be

responsible to provide adequate and reasonable access• Walking and cycling are healthy BUT over safe roadways and

over reasonable distances. • Alternatives: Provide adequate schools, hostels, travel

allowances, boarding allowances• Inter-governmental coordination required NDoT, NDoe, PED,

PDot, LG• Transport should be free of charge to eligible learners from poor

households• Need improved procurement, management, funding, contract

management• Need to pay for quality, safe and sustainable solutions to ensure

investment by private sector.• Zoning of schools may also be more efficient in some cases.

14

Proposed Roles and Responsibilities

• National policies, guidelines, legislation, regulations, monitoring frameworks required (NDoE and NDoT)

• Provincial policies, guidelines, legislation, regulations, strategies, plans and implementation, contracting, registration and licensing (PED, PDoT)

• Beneficiary Identity – access control (PED, Education Districts, Schools)

• Service Design and its monitoring (PED, PDoT,Education. Districts, Schools)

• Muncipal transport, road and pavement conditions, traffic safety. (Local Government)

15

Structures

• Service level agreements between PED and PDoT defining roles and responsibilities

• Horizontal coordination required between NDoE and NDoT and between PED and PDoT.

• Supply chain management to be strengthened.• Proper physical resource planning required. • Muncipalities, road authorities and local education

structures to play a role.• Vertical coordination – DoE, PEDs, Education,

Districts, school principals, SGBs and transport operators

16

What the policy should cater for:• Priority for poorest, walking longest distances to nearest

public school, primary over secondary, special needs over ordinary.

• Transport allowance to be provided if household is poor,• Provide hostels where travel time more than 1.5 hours,• Free transport to home periodically and during holidays.• Transport assistance only to learners and supervising

teachers.• Curriculum choice and school preference will only qualify

for free transport in exceptional circumstances.• Principals to identify learners, PED to verify• Beneficiaries need identification to avoid “free-loading”.

17

Guidelines• These provide for:

– Principles– Roles and responsibilities– Structures– Beneficiaries– Appropriate modes of transport– Provisioning standards, Safety and health standards,

service standards– Procurement means, registration of contractors,

contracts, process matters, period, penalties, services, payment, monitoring

– Costs– Code of conduct for learners and operators

18

Costing models

• Current spend R440m for 200 000 learners plus NW R50m (Between 2-3% coverage))

• If coverage increased to 33% of learners (4 million) then it requires R3bn

• If limited funds available, transport should be phased in to starting with those learners who are youngest and those travelling the longest time.

19

Need & cost projection: 3km rule

Province

Total provincial of

learners

Learners Expenditure Projected Learners

Potential Cost

Number Number R million Number R million

Eastern Cape 2,100,425 27,500 36 618,030 472Free State 685,971 3,117 13 175,589 118Gauteng 1,863,375 49,420 79 577,382 487KwaZulu-Natal 2,768,015 0 0 1,166,002 933Limpopo 1,771,320 3,229 21 526,906 262Mpumalanga 1,092,382 50,463 143 258,123 219Northern Cape 772,044 12,421 28 39,897 17North West* 261,736 7,300 17 271,103 284Western Cape 978,517 47,100 120 280,536 168Total 12,293,785 200,550 457 3,913,568 2,960Source: Provincial Edcuation Departments. Own estimate for North West*Estimate based on 205/05 expenditure and average costs

School transport provision in 2006/07

SCHOLAR TRANSPORT: STATUS QUO & PROJECTION OF 3 KM NORM

20

all learners learners utilising transport

Number Rand Rand

Eastern Cape 1.3% 17 1,309Free State 0.5% 19 4,171Gauteng 2.7% 42 1,599KwaZulu-Natal 0.0% 0 0Limpopo 0.2% 12 6,504Mpumalanga 4.6% 131 2,834Northern Cape 1.6% 36 2,254North West* 2.8% 64 2,287

Western Cape 4.8% 123 2,548Total 1.6% 37 2,277Source: Provincial Edcuation Departments. Own estimate for North West*Estimate based on 2005/06 expenditure and average costs

per learner expenditure % of learners covered

SCHOLAR TRANSPORT: SUMMARY OF STATUS QUO (2006/07)

21

Way forward for 2008/9 MTEF• NDoE will finalize discussions with NDoT on the

the report and bring PDoTs and PEDs into the process of considering the options, roles and responsibilities.

• Capacity assessment of Provinces/National to manage to be undertaken.

• If decentralised system inefficient and if it detracts from core function of education then consider making it a national government service unit

• A position paper will be published • Thereafter policy and national norms and

standards will be drafted and consulted. • Funding bid for 2009/10 MTEF

22

Thank you