Review Report on the CENTRE for SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (CSD) › ... › documents › CSD_Review_Report.pdf · CENTRE for SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (CSD) May 2013 . CONTENTS Page List of ACRONYMS

CSD Review Report, May 2013

(For submission to IPC Size and Shape on 29th May 2013)

Review Report on the

CENTRE for SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (CSD)

May 2013

CONTENTS Page List of ACRONYMS 2 1 Purpose of the Review 3 2 Review Panel, Meetings Attended 3 3 Review Process 3 4 Context and History of the CSD 4 5 The CSD’s role and contribution to society 14 6 CSD education and training programmes 18 7 Governance and Management 32 8 CSD Funding Model and Finances 40 9 CSD Staffing 43 10 Location of the CSD 45 11 List of Review Panel Recommendations 47 12 References 48 13 Appendices

A. Terms of Reference for the Review of the CSD B. List of persons interviewed C. CSD Staff and qualifications D. Qualifications based career path E. Time-line for ECD practitioner F. Staff Equity Profile G. CSD Financial Statements

52 54 55 57 58 59 60

1


List of acronyms B. Ed Bachelor of Education B. Ed FP Bachelor of Education Foundation Phase CBO Community-based organisation CD Community Development CE Community Engagement CSD Centre for Social Development DSD Department of Social Development ECD Early Childhood Development ETDP Education and Training Development Practices FET Further Education and Training FP Foundation Phase FTE Full time equivalent HEQC Higher Education Quality Council IPC Institutional Planning Committee ISER Institute for Social and Economic Research ITEC Institute of Training and Education for Capacity Building (an Eastern Cape NGO) M. Ed Master of Education NGO Non-governmental organisation NPO Non-profit organisation PBO Public Benefit Organisation (NGO granted tax exempt status under section 30 of the Income Tax Act) RPL Recognition of Prior Learning SETA Sectoral Education and Training Authority SGB School Governing Body SRC Student Representative Council

2


1. PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW In accordance with Rhodes University’s policies, when a major change is contemplated or a director of a university institute or centre retires or resigns, a review is conducted in order to critically reflect on the performance and contribution of the entity to either confirm the vision, mission, mandate and goals of the entity, or to reorient and restructure the entity. The initial purpose of this current review of the Centre for Social Development (CSD) was to reconsider its direction and purpose. In the interim the resignation of the Director of the CSD, Ms Adams, effective 31 December 2012, reinforced the need for the review.

2. REVIEW PANEL, AND MEETINGS ATTENDED

NAME

2011 2012 2013

Jan

21

Oct

24

Nov

12

Nov

13

Nov

14

Nov

28

Jan

18

Jan

25

Feb

01

Apr

26

Apr

30

May

08

May

14

May

17

May

20

Prof Emeritus Geoff Antrobus Chair √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Prof Heila Lotz-Sisitka, Director Environmental Education

-

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

-

-

-

√

√

Mrs Margaret Keeton, Development Practitioner/ RU Board of Governors

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Ms Chimwemwe, Secretarial and Administrative support - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - - - √ -

Ms Sandy Stephenson, IPU √ Resigned from post during the Review process

3. REVIEW PROCESS In line with the University’s Institutional Planning and Review Framework (Council, 2008), terms of reference were developed and accepted by the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC) on 10 October 2011. The aims and objects of the review as well as the Panel composition were conveyed in a letter dated 25 October 2011 to the Centre for Social Development (CSD) Director, who was requested to prepare a self-evaluation report1 with recommendations. The usual process would be that the Review Panel meets to consider the report and to conduct interviews, if necessary. A draft report is then prepared by the Panel, which would be referred to the CSD Management Committee and the Faculty of Education and finally for consideration by the Institutional Planning Committee, together with any comments from the Faculty and the CSD Management Committee. The IPC considers the submissions and makes recommendations to Senate and Council. Resource implications arising from the recommendations will be considered by the relevant institutional structures (e.g. Staffing Committee and Finance and General Purposes

1 The Review Panel was not aware as to whether the initial Terms of Reference were developed in conjunction with the CSD.

3


Committee), and if approved, included in the forthcoming budgetary cycle. Once the review report is finalised, it is made available to members of the university community via the intranet.

A self-evaluation report, received by the Director of Institutional Planning, Ms Sandy Stephenson, on 30th November 2011 and forwarded to the Panel on 2nd December, was considered at the Review Panel’s first meeting held 21 January 2012. However, in the considered opinion of the Panel, the report did not address adequately the issues facing the CSD. Furthermore, it appeared that the evaluation had been compiled without consultation of either the CSD Management Committee or with input from CSD staff. The report was referred back to the Director of the CSD. Subsequently the IPC, at the request of the Director, reconsidered the terms of reference and the Panel composition [See Appendix A]. The IPC recommended that the second self-evaluation report was to be completed by 30 July 2012 and to be discussed and finalised at a meeting of the CSD Management Committee on 17 August. It was expected that the Final Review Panel report would be completed by 30 November 2012.

In the event, the revised version of the self-evaluation was completed in October 2012 and the Panel was only reconvened later in the month. This meant the initial deadline identified by the IPC was not achievable. Further time was taken up in subsequent months with requests for more background documentation as the Panel’s needs for items such as financial reports, Management Committee Minutes and CSD Annual Reports had not been anticipated. Additional items of interest referred to by individuals interviewed by the Panel had also to be sourced. It was fortunate that the Panel included amongst its members individuals with specialist background knowledge as in certain areas (e.g. the national ECD landscape and the structure of Educational Qualifications) there were complexities to navigate with which a more generalist panel might have struggled.

The Panel met on fourteen further occasions to consider the documentation, conduct interviews and prepare a draft report for the CSD Management Committee. The Panel perused available documentation and interviewed the Director and 14 other individuals, including four CSD staff members, the Chair of the CSD Management Committee (who was also the Deputy Dean of Education Faculty), the Dean of Education, Head of Department of Education and several others. A list of those interviewed is contained in Appendix B. Some of the interviewees were interviewed more than once.

4. CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF THE CSD

4.1 Early institutional history and context of operation The Centre for Social Development (CSD) was established in 1981 with donor funding from the Anglo-American and De Beers Chairman’s Fund as a Unit of Rhodes University with the Vice-Principal as its Chair. The first entry in the Rhodes University Calendar in 1985 described the CSD as having links with the Department of Social Work “so that students may become more closely involved in community affairs.” The aim of the CSD included: assisting people to achieve and run their own community projects; the development of skills in administration, decision-making, fund raising and community involvement through committee membership and involvement in projects. The CSD offered a programme for the training of pre-school teacher-aides; and administered four large

4


bursary funds. Later developments, as reported in the 1995 calendar, included links with Day Care Centres used as training centres for the pre-school programme, the management of urban pre-schools and thirty five pre-schools on farms and in nearby districts, and the establishment of home-based care groups to provide a safe haven for children from the surrounding townships. Through the years its activities contributed significantly to the objectives of the University. In 1999, the University redefined the relationship between the CSD and the University to make the Centre the interface between Rhodes and its communities2. At this time a Senate Committee for Community Engagement was created. The CSD, under directorship of Di Hornby was given an active mandate to formalise the community engagement function of the university, and it was the Director of the CSD that chaired this first committee. The CSD also became home to the student volunteer programme, which was later taken up more formally via the newly established Director of Community Engagement in 2010 when the university established a Community Engagement Directorate, with a dedicated Director of Community Engagement. This history of a changing relationship between the university and its community engagement function is reflective of changes in the national landscape of universities, and is also significant to this review of the CSD (see below). The social context within which CSD locates itself and in which it continues to function is the extreme poverty and inequality that continues to affect South African society 17 years into our democracy. The Eastern Cape Province demonstrates the pervasive effects of such poverty, with 72% of the population living below the poverty income line, of which 77 percent are children of school going age (HSRC, 2008). The situation suggests that child poverty (at 65.5% in South Africa) remains more extensive than poverty amongst adults (45.2%), confirming that children are more often to be found in poorer households. It also indicates that despite the massive injection of cash transfers into households with poor children through the child support grants, poverty amongst children remains substantial. Contrary to popular wisdom, in development terms Grahamstown performs poorly in comparison to the rest of the Eastern Cape despite its comparatively enhanced resource base. Data reported by the Makana Municipality in 2010 reveal the poverty in which the majority of Grahamstown’s 100 000 residents are trapped. The city has a higher unemployment level (34 per cent) than the province as a whole and nearly a quarter of families subsist on income of less than R800 a month (the official poverty level). Social grants are a major source of income with some R60m being paid each year in social relief to residents. The vast majority of children under 15 are listed as beneficiaries of child support grants (24 000). One quarter of households, live in informal settlements and shacks. Only 21 per cent of households have direct access to water and 35 per cent to waterborne sanitation3. Grahamstown is the largest urban area in the Cacadu district, one of the most violent regions in the province. The incidence of assault and burglary are twice as high in Cacadu as provincial and national levels, while rates of murder and rape are also higher. A large proportion of such crimes go unreported and the victims are predominantly women and children. Health services are described

2 HEQC Audit; p126 3 Information extracted from the Makana IDP (2010)

5


by a majority of residents as “poor and inaccessible” a situation further aggravated by long queues at clinics4. The destructive impact of this poverty is reflected in Eastern Cape communities where educational participation with meaningful developmental outcomes is low and positive longer term development outcomes associated with educational participation are difficult to achieve. The CSD has aimed to contribute directly to addressing the problems associated with educational and developmental policy failures by providing strategic, high level skilling of early childhood educational practitioners, and other related development programmes. The primary objective is to facilitate positive social and community development outcomes through early childhood educational interventions, with training being a core element of this commitment to development outcomes. In undertaking the task the CSD has seen itself as drawing directly on the mandate of the university to “…endeavour, through teaching, research and community service, to contribute to the advancement of international scholarship and the development of the Eastern Cape and Southern Africa”5. The CSD combines the elements of community and social development and imperatives of “…development of the Eastern Cape and Southern Africa” specifically through Early Childhood Development (ECD) training programmes, Self-Help Groups (SHGs) which foster independent action of individuals in communities, the development of learning resources which enable reflective community engagement in development practices, training of Community Development practitioners and student volunteers and a range of small-scale development projects. In implementing the programmes the pioneering 30 year history of the CSD is recognised and acknowledged and encapsulated in the vision of its founder and subsequent directors and staff, who built the CSD with committed leadership, energy and an ability to identify community needs and to respond to these realistically and appropriately.

4.2 Previous Reviews of the CSD A review panel chaired by the then Vice-Principal of Rhodes University in the late 1980s was tasked to “advise the university on the current state of the Centre and on any changes which might be deemed necessary given the rapid pace of change in the environment in which we operate “6. The Committee considered various options and concluded that: “The committee is of the opinion that much can be done to improve the relationship between Rhodes and the CSD (option 3). Furthermore, the Committee believes that both Rhodes and the Centre can benefit from a closer association.” The Review Panel proposed:

• That the link between CSD and Rhodes be placed on firmer institutional grounds by the drawing up of a contract. Such a contract could stipulate inter alia: The University’s responsibilities in respect of the Centre; The objectives of the Centre and how these relate to the University’s mission,

4 Rhodes University Research Survey [?] 5 Self-evaluation Report of the Director of the CSD, 2012 6 ditto

6


• That much greater student involvement in the Centre is encouraged. Perhaps the SRC could be enlisted to assist in ‘Rag’ type of activities. That students (not only international ones), especially the bursary holders, could be placed in various community projects in Grahamstown for further afield, for voluntary service to these organisations. That the Centre should be bolder in advertising a role for students in community service.

• That the Centre could be a gateway between Rhodes and the broader Grahamstown community. Rhodes can benefit enormously from the ‘good will’ which the Centre has generated over the last 18 years. For example, one of the largest projects of the Centre, Raglan Road Child Care Centre in Fingo Village4, has a large board on the outside wall indicating its identification with the Centre for Social Development but does not mention Rhodes University at all. There is a small plaque bearing the Rhodes name as one enters, but the Committee feels that the profile of the University could very easily be raised in the townships by indicating a firm link between the CSD and Rhodes. There needs to be a more visible association with the Centre which will hopefully reflect a more formal link between Rhodes and the Centre.

• That the Centre establishes a link with the Department of Social Work. Even if this implies a geographic extension to Duncan Village and Mdantsane – this may be important for the East London campus. The latter is the second largest township in the country and a Rhodes presence can only be beneficial to the university.

• That the Centre establishes links with the Department of Education at Rhodes University – especially with the Primary Education Division in East London. If the Centre is engaged in pre-primary schooling it makes sense for there to be a link with those engaged in the next step in the children’s learning.

• That the Centre establishes relations with the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) with a view to research co-operation on community projects. One of the Review Committee members is particularly keen to pursue this option.

• That the Centre should be involved in the unfolding process of transformation of Rhodes University. It could be the subject of transformation and as well as a contributor to the process.

A second review was undertaken to inform the CSD’s relationship to the university, chaired by Professor George Euvrard, reported in July 2007.7 Thirty individuals were interviewed. “Its original mandate was to make recommendations ... on the management, staffing and reporting structures...of the CSD and Community Engagement (CE), but was later adjusted to focus more on the place of Community Engagement at Rhodes and its relationship with the CSD...” The Review Panel recommended, among others, that:

• The University acknowledges, appreciates and encourages the community involvement of its members ... as well as the community development work of the CSD.

• The University commits itself to build on the guiding developmental principle established by the CSD: to work in partnership with communities according to their expressed needs ... within a mutually beneficial framework. (“It is this approach that has created the

7 Review of Community Engagement and its relationship with the Centre of Social Development. (31 July 2007)

7


reputation, credibility and trustworthiness of the University’s community involvement in the Eastern Cape over the past 25 years.”)

• The CSD be contracted to promote, co-ordinate and monitor Social Community Engagement at Rhodes, including the Student Volunteer Programmes and partnership projects, and be the preferred provider for this service in the future.’

It is from this review that the CSDs roles and interventions in the university community engagement programme emerged (see above), which changed once the university community engagement programme was internally formalised under the leadership of a Director of Community Engagement. This, in turn, changed the role and relationship between the CSD and the university, allowing the CSD to further enhance its developmental contributions via training programmes, a change which directly influences the content and focus of this review.

4.3 Changing role of the CSD From the above, it is clear that the CSD has had two key roles since its inception: Its direct work associated with social development (hence its name: Centre for Social Development); and contributions to the development of community engagement at Rhodes University. Over time, due to changes in the social development, funding and university community engagement landscapes, the CSD has also changed its practices. Such changes have been pro-active at times and at other times reactive. For much of its history, CSD had a reputation of innovation and leadership. Specific examples of pioneering contributions by the CSD to the University include:

• the establishment and management of the University’s student volunteer programme; • creating one of the University’s first major international student partnerships with Boston

College, Mass.; and • the development of a career path for ECD practitioners starting with informal training and

culminating in a B.Ed. This was a first for the country and provided opportunities to professionalise the delivery and training of community based ECD.

In more recent years however, it would seem that the CSD has shifted less as result of identifying new strategic opportunities and more in response to the changing sectoral (national) and institutional (local) landscape. The different phases that the CSD has passed through can be briefly illustrated in a diagram (see Diagram 1) which shows three different ‘periods’ of the CSD’s work, as influenced by the changing contexts in which it has operated over a 32 year period.

8


Figure 1: Major shifts in the role of the CSD, 1981 to the present Major shifts as seen from Figure 1 associated with the role of the CSD over this period of time are:

• A shift from being the ‘major arm’ of delivery of the university community engagement function, to being a partner as the university develops more formalised structures for community engagement,

• A shift from providing community services to developing an innovative integrated development model. This provided community development innovation leadership for the university and the Early Childhood Development (ECD) sector; which has changed in form, as the CSD has taken up a stronger focus on accredited ECD training as main mechanism for development in more recent times,

• the impetus and power of which has been lost in recent years, • A shift into Community Development in which training is linked to capacity building and the

mentoring of self-governing Community Based Organisations (CBOs) many of which have sustained independent operations for 20 years and more. A subsequent shift away from a strong institution building focus has taken place to focus more on smaller self-help initiatives with a group income generation approach, although the training programmes continue to emphasise a holistic community development, and aspects of institution development (via training outcomes).

9


• A strong shift towards providing accredited, qualifications based training and qualifications-based career path development options for the ECD sector, which has become increasingly funder-led, and which now dominates the CSD programming.

• A shift to, and then away from providing national policy and best practice leadership for the ECD sector in South Africa.

Many of the changes in the CSD’s functioning are related to contextual developments, and the leadership of the organisation at different periods in time. In recent years, the CSD has been affected by leadership instability and churning, which partly explains the loss of its former influence at national level in the ECD sector (see also below). The formalisation of community engagement within Rhodes University explains the CSD’s change of emphasis from contributing strongly to the RU community engagement function, to its concentration of a new approach to social development via accredited training provisioning. It still plays a key role in community engagement through partnerships with the Community Engagement programme at Rhodes University (e.g. student volunteers support the CSDs work). Changes to the funding landscape, as well as a history of neglect of formalisation of career pathway development for ECD professionals in South Africa explain the CSD’s uptake of a qualifications-led social development training function as primary focus in the current period.

4.4 Constitution of the CSD The CSD’s objectives, its relationship to Rhodes, composition of the Management Committee, manner in which Finances are dealt with and other procedures are set out in a 2005 Centre for Social Development Constitution. In brief the objectives are:

• To serve as the main outreach arm of the University ... (striving) to meet the needs expressed by indigent communities in Grahamstown and the surrounding areas of the Eastern Cape; and

• To focus specifically on Early Childhood Development (ECD). Eight ways in which the CSD delivers on its ECD focus are then listed:

• The first is the training of ECD workers in a career path into tertiary education, with the aim of raising the standard of ECD practice.

• The next five points deal with different ways through which CSD supports the delivery of quality ECD in the community through assistance for practitioners at their delivery site, working with the community to set up new ECD sites and empowering the oversight and governance structures to run these centres effectively8.

• The last three areas of activity focus on community development through training of parents and practitioners and their support.

8 It is the latter two roles that are less prominent in the CSD’s most recent work, as the focus on accredited training emerged more strongly. As discussed below, this shift has resulted from a mix of opportunities and pressures. The shift is therefore partly a conscious proactive choice (the focus on accredited training) and partly a reaction to funding and capacity pressures (resulting in a de-emphasis on capacity building, advocacy and strategic leadership of the sector).

10


From this, it is clear that the CSD sees that development outcomes are to be attained through training, and through training-based support for developmental outcomes, as shown in the model of CSD practices below (Figure 2). This model situates training within a wider social development process, and it is in this way that reference to the CSDs training work should be read in this review.

Figure 2: A representation of CSD’s social development practice through training and training related outcomes, as it has evolved from changes in the community development, university, and funding landscape over time. As originally conceived and confirmed in 2005, the CSD was intended to be a proactive development agency with a strong, continuing set of activities in the poor and under-resourced e communities of Grahamstown, in particular. This is evident from the Preamble of the CSD Constitution, which makes it quite clear how the CSD is expected to act and for what broad purpose:

“The work of the CSD is underpinned by a deep respect for the capacity and desire of communities to help themselves. The CSD’s approach is holistic and participatory, drawing on the communities’ knowledge, competence and commitment to facilitate a process of social development. The concept of social development brings together the strands of social, economic, educational and political development.”

Similar points are made in the CSD’s Statement of Purpose which was crafted in place of a Mission and Vision Statement

11


“The CSD envisions vibrant communities that take responsibility for the early childhood development needs of their children, as a foundation for achieving human potential. The CSD facilitates the development of early childhood communities and imparts skills to practitioners to strengthen community owned initiatives. Our practice is based on a caring professionalism that builds relationships which affirm and support the ability of people to arrive at their own solutions.9”

The twin function of the CSD as set down by the Constitution is to serve as the main outreach arm of the University. At the time of the CSD’s creation and perhaps even as recently as 2005 when the Constitution was amended, the term Community Engagement was not yet in use. Outreach as defined for the CSD meant “meeting the needs expressed by indigent communities”. This read together with the Preamble clearly hints at a process of engagement and partnership with community groups and structures. It goes further than this; it also suggests a process of capacity building, mentoring and ultimately association with independent, self-managed and self-sustainable agencies. In this regard it may not be too much to suggest that the vision was one of helping build civil society through joint endeavours around identified needs resulting in the emergence and ongoing operation of new civic organisations (primarily around ECD). From the above, it is clear that the CSD was identified as the lead agency for what has subsequently become known as the university’s Community Engagement role. In 2005, the CSD presented the University’s activities in Community Engagement to the HEQC Audit Team. As shown by the trends review in Figure 1, actualisation of this first objective has changed substantially with the establishment of a separate Community Engagement division in the university under a newly appointed Director. Essentially, the CSD has changed the nature of its originally strong Community Engagement relationship with the university, to provide a model of training-led social development for ECD as a contribution to the universities’ overall engagement with its community, contributing also to the university education function in potentially innovative ways, as will be discussed further in this review. This change occurred in two stages: Firstly through the university’s stronger commitment to CE through establishment of a CE Directorate which meant that this function no longer needed to be fulfilled by the CSD. A second major change in this process was the move of the student volunteer programme and its management to CE. This change arose as a result of a) the initial work undertaken by the CSD for the university in establishing the CE function and b) because of the changing higher education landscape in South Africa, where CE became more strongly institutionalised as the ‘third’ pillar of higher education practice. The vision and mission of the CSD does not encompass the full scope of what is now defined in universities as CE, and it seemed natural that the student volunteer programme, initiated by the CSD for the university, should also be housed in the new CE directorate. Whilst this was a logical move, the impact of the loss of senior staff involved in these functions occurred at a difficult time for the CSD and may have unintentionally compounded the extended

9 NOTE: A review of if and how training curricula and programmes are oriented towards this wider developmental goal was not undertaken as part of this review. It would, however, be an interesting focus for curriculum review and re-development within the new QCTO structural frameworks. Achieving such a goal through a training-centred approach to development would require particular forms and approaches to training, as well as a certain scope of activity and orientation to be contained in such curricula. This relates to the points below on curriculum development and academic leadership within the CSD.

12


leadership transition the organisation experienced over the last 5 years. It is therefore worth detailing the changes

• Between 2005 and 2007 the CSD had a CE manager on its staff funded by the University • In 2006 a university-funded student volunteer co-ordinator was added • In 2008 a dedicated Director of CE replaced the manager post on the CSD staff • In 2009 the CSD’s contract to manage CE and student volunteering for the University was

terminated. While these changes have given the CSD a chance to strengthen other aspects of its work, most notably its training-led social development model, the change also had the effect of severing the formerly strong implementation ties associated with university CE programmes. The CSD, however, continued to provide sites of practice, and placement opportunities for university student volunteers. Through this process, the CSD’s earlier strong role as CE innovator in the university had fundamentally changed, and with this some of its operational links to the university. These were, however, replaced with operational links associated with accredited training provisioning, as outlined below. As a result of a combination of factors and forces, the CSD has shifted from a development agency that initially focussed on establishment of ECD institutions and which led the establishment of CE in the university, to a social development institution that uses accredited training provision in the ECD sector as its main mechanism for achieving developmental outcomes. There were gains and losses associated with this shift. The Review Panel heard different opinions as to the extent to which the current activities of the CSD represent a fully positive and deliberate programme or are rather a mixture part chosen and part imposed by leadership, funding and capacity constraints. This divergence of views suggests to the Panel the urgent need for a common and clearly communicated strategic vision to be developed with all CSD stakeholders, a point which is highlighted later in the report. In its training for development focus, the CSD is both similar to, yet different from mainstream training providers. The CSD has moved from occupying a unique niche in the development sector drawing on its University base to leverage resources and energies to apply locally (in the form of community outreach and capacity building) and nationally (through ECD best practice and advocacy), to different role focussing mainly on accredited training provisioning. This puts the CSD in the position of having to compete in the main with a range of other ECD and CD training providers for training funding, and there are signs that the funding mechanisms that drive this sector are also driving practice in the CSD. There is potential to enhance this role, through a careful analysis of how the relationship with Rhodes University may be able to ‘leverage advantage’ for the CSD within this changed context of practice in ways that the CSDs contribution will also continue to benefit the university. The review explores this in some depth. The review clearly points to the key challenge to the CSD and Rhodes University, which is to articulate and maximise the value that CSD delivers in a pressured Higher Education space where delivery is more tightly linked than previously to the Institutional Plans that fix the parameters for state recognition and assistance. As the University sees opportunity in and moves to formalise work initiated by the CSD – whether the CE function, or the qualifications space around the Foundation

13


Phase (which with Grade R now occupies some of the historical ECD Phase) there is a need to consider carefully what new frontiers / relationships can the CSD push into that will bring concrete benefit to the University in the years ahead, and vice versa? To use a simple analogy, as the branches are grafted from the CSD onto new, stronger institutional bases in the University, what remains of the trunk, and how do branches and trunk continue to co-exist in mutually symbiotic and beneficial ways? Is there continuing value in a progressive development agency that nurtures structures in local communities creating a complementary and expanded Rhodes’ presence in the community to the CE interactions? And is the RU relationship with the CSD strengthening its current development path focussing on accredited ECD training and provisioning within a changing national qualifications and policy environment? From this it is clear that core to this review is the conceptualisation and need to actualise, and re-establish, albeit in a different form, a mutually beneficial, or symbiotic relationship between RU and the CSD.

5. THE CSD’s ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY

5.1 The case for ECD training, practice and research

To understand the work of the CSD and its unique contribution in Makana, in South Africa and its importance to Rhodes University, it is important to understand the significance of its work. As already indicated, the CSD has, for a long time, been engaged in social development innovation, with an increased and ongoing focus on Early Childhood Development and the formalisation of training and professional career path development for this sector within an integrated model of social development.

Early Childhood Development is defined as a comprehensive approach to policies and programmes of care, protection and development for children from birth to nine years (0-9) within their own families, neighbourhoods and public and community structures.

The early years have been recognised as a vital phase in a child’s social, physical, emotional and cognitive development, and recent human brain development research confirms that the first five years’ of a child’s life are most critical for cognitive development as the child’s brain develops most quickly in these early years. It is therefore imperative that nutrition, health, stimulation and social well-being are provided in optimal forms during these years (Jolly, 200710). The work of the CSD is therefore both important for social development and the well-being of children, but also for education, and educational success of Makana and the Eastern Cape’s young children. UNICEF and the South African government have recently put out a call for national ECD curriculum and programme development for exactly these reasons.11

The focus of the CSD’s work is therefore unique and vital for the well being of society, and for Makana and the Eastern Cape, as it is well known that Early Childhood remains a neglected area of

10 Jolly, R (January 2007). Early Childhood Development: the global challenge. Retrieved from http:www.thelancet.com. Vol 369, January 6 2007. 11 See Mail and Guardian, 3 to 9 May 2013.

14


education and development. In this respect, the CSD’s work on institution building, training and holistic approaches to social development has generated substantive social capital to the University’s credit in this arena in past years. It also continues to have an important role to play in building the sector nationally, and to addressing the severe educational issues in Makana and elsewhere in South Africa at the most ‘foundational’ levels12. The Review Panel received input from a number of people from inside the University and out, speaking passionately on the unique asset the CSD is, and could continue to be for Rhodes. Rhodes is the only South African university with a dedicated resource that focuses on early childhood development. UCT has the Children’s Institute, but this does not operate from a development base. The potential strength of the CSD as a link into the Education Facility bringing a family perspective to its work, especially in Primary and Foundation Phase work, should not be underestimated. It is now widely recognised that poverty as an inter-generational phenomenon poses a massive obstacle to all South Africa’s development strategies. The holistic, hands-on-approach of the CSD in recognising education from its earliest phases as a challenge that can be addressed locally by harnessing family and community energy more appropriately, has a lot to offer wider efforts to improve teaching and learning everywhere. In equipping teachers to be more effective in the classroom, the Rhodes Education Faculty should be able to draw on CSD capacity to identify the tools and techniques that generate complimentary learning and understanding outside the classroom. It was also pointed out that the CSD has a particular contribution to make in the Eastern Cape where ECD leadership is under pressure. Only three strong regional NGOs remain active in the province – the CSD, ITEC in East London and Khululeka in Queenstown. A re-invigorated CSD is vital for the wellbeing of the sector. Welfare agencies in Grahamstown are concerned about the state of ECD in Grahamstown; quality is a concern and the ability of local providers to assist primary schools supply the Grade R teaching they need to have in place for 2014 is extremely limited. The appalling lack of preparedness for primary schooling amongst Grade 1 learners in Grahamstown documented in 2012 by GADRA Education is directly linked to dysfunctional ECD in the city. No effort to transform Grahamstown’s schooling can succeed over the medium term without significant improvements in this space. The CSD should be playing a pivotal part in this. And drawing from this experience, building relevant learnings for national Early Childhood strategy with a pipeline of expertise from level 4 and 5 trainees through the B.Ed. and ultimately to PhDs. A Research Chair in Education and Development (with a primary focus on 0-9) could strengthen this, researching and documenting policy, curriculum and delivery in the early years would bring together all of the inputs required to achieve this.

12 It is increasingly being recognized that unless the country begins to address educational issues at this level, it will not be possible to attend to the intractable educational issues and concerns experienced in the country. The DHET are recognizing this with greater investment in Foundation Phase education, and also in Early Childhood Development, although this is seen to be the purview of the Department of Social Development.

15


5.2 Towards a mutually beneficial partnership framework for CSD and Rhodes University This review argues that opportunities need to be identified to marry the history of the social capital development of the CSD to the educational work of the university in search for a ‘win-win’ orientation. A proposal has been put forward by the Director of Community Engagement (Hornby, 2012) on the strategic significance of Early Childhood studies and advocacy work for the higher education sector which articulates some aspects of such potential; focussing mainly on potential learning benefits for Higher Education students in many disciplines should they engage themselves in ECD support as part of the university’s community engagement function.13 The review discusses other aspects of this relationship.

In the shift that has taken place in recent years to accredited training on scale in response to new contract funding opportunities from state and quasi state agencies (see trend analysis in Figure 1 above), the CSD runs the risk of becoming merely a qualifications processing agency. The clients that CSD are working with in this area are interested in numbers – getting as many individuals through a training process as quickly as possible in order to be able to report progress against national training targets. In response, CSD must find ways of processing volumes through its training system in remote areas on time frames set by the client. In order to manage the workloads and reduce stress on staff, trade-offs are being made implicitly or explicitly. The Review Panel wishes to highlight some of these trade-offs in the hope of prompting a new strategic debate within the CSD and the wider University about the costs and benefits of this contract driven approach which the CSD now finds itself bound by. In this regard, the Review panel observes the following: • There has always been a tension in the work of the CSD between the academic imperative of

being a University agency and the development imperative of being an NGO. This is a creative tension which if constructively engaged can reveal important synergies. It need not be a sterile, zero sum game.

• It does appear from the perspective of the Review Panel that the pressure resulting from the CSD to create a better fit with the mission of the University (especially after the Community Engagement function the CSD had traditionally played was taken over by a dedicated unit) has resulted in a skewed approach where important other potential benefits for the University relationship have been lost.

• In the absence of staff with the background and qualifications able to teach conventional University offerings, the focus has shifted to training as the closest equivalent. This initially grew out of the vision of career-pathing for ECD practitioners and to develop a stream of candidates through formal preparatory NQF levels and ultimately to the B.Ed. This is a sound intervention in the circumstances of South Africa and the Eastern Cape in particular, and is a very innovative and appropriate intervention with potentially significant transformational impact both for the pioneering graduates, but more especially for the future generations of children who will hopefully emerge into the learning mainstream as a result of this enhanced investment in their foundational learning experience.

13 See for example Hornby, D. October 2012. Proposal SAHECFF: How CEs might advance the ECD Agenda using the expertise and resources of the universities.

16


• In practice however, it seems to the Review Panel that this “academic” mission of the CSD has become subsumed into what can easily be viewed as mass based training. To realise the integrated development intentions of this training, careful attention to curriculum development and associated institution building elements is needed that can maximise social development outcomes. When the qualification begins to trump the quality of the learning sought (see below) and when staff are able to do no more than run contact sessions in diverse and distant community centres, academic purpose and additional value opportunities are compromised in the process (see discussions on the training programmes of the CSD in section 7 below).

• The Review Panel therefore urges the CSD to reflect again on what it sees as its “academic purpose” and more especially how it can contribute better to the full potential of the CSD in society, and the wider mission that Rhodes University has set itself; and that the CSD engage the relevant university structures in this discussion (especially the Education Department and Community Engagement Division, but potentially also the ISER, Department of Sociology etc.).

• In this regard, the research element of the University mission could become a real area of strength at the CSD, as can the possibility of implementing the new Diploma in Reception Year Teaching Year and a 0-9 education partnership with the Education Department, who are developing a Foundation Phase education trajectory at present that includes research and teaching. The input from others in the ECD sector to the Review has highlighted the unique value the CSD has in its University base. This relationship needs to be articulated and understood more clearly by all partners of the CSD within the university, and also within the CSD itself.

• From the university perspective, there is real benefit in considering the CSD both as a training institution that helps to build a 0-9 trajectory for the educational work of the university (complementing and extending what the Education Department does), but also offers the university a fully-fledged community development arm, which can substantively complement its community engagement function and its contribution to local development of society.

Recommendation:

1. That in developing a new strategic vision for the CSD and restructuring its role to provide higher educational value add aligned to the University’s broader role, care should be taken that the real social capital vesting in the CSD is also grown to benefit the local community, and that the university at the same time consider the full value of the CSD to its mission and vision. It is recommended that: the concept of a mutually beneficial relationship needs to be embraced by the CSD and the University, and operationalized with integrity and mutual respect.

2. That a Task Team be established to work with the CSD and other relevant groups in the university (e.g. CE, Education Department) to ensure that the first recommendation (together with other recommendations in this review that support recommendation one) is given the necessary impetus within the university system. The Task Team should define and assign responsibilities for the different recommendations (for example, the staffing model to be driven by HR with CSD Director, etc.)

3. That additionally, in the light of insights gained from an overview of the changing role of the CSD over time, the CSD should review and reflect critically on some of the changes that have taken place in its community development role, especially the ongoing importance of

17


its earlier strong contribution to social innovation and institution building for ECD in Makana and the Eastern Cape. It may also be necessary to review whether training via the community development qualifications is the only way of strengthening such institution building, should the CSD decide to reclaim this role. A long term programme, specifically focussed on ECD institution building / organisational development, may, for example, be equally important (as was noted by a number of interviewees in the review process). Such a programme on organisational development / institution building, if carefully planned and well managed, could potentially also form the focal point around which the CSD engages with the Rhodes University Community Engagement division, drawing on the contributions of the wider Rhodes University community (and student volunteers) as already partially articulated by the Director of CE in her paper on the possible value of ECD community engagement for Higher Education (Hornby, 2012).

The rest of the review report provides further detail and substance to the above mentioned core recommendation.

6. CSD EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES

6.1 Orientation The CSD programme offerings have, over the past 8 years taken on a stronger focus on formal accredited education and training provisioning. The CSD is nationally known and recognized for the career-pathing possibilities that have opened up for Early Childhood Education Sector practitioners who previously could only access informal training. There is evidence that a large number of ECD practitioners have benefitted from the career- pathing opportunities that have been made available through the CSD14. Importantly in relation to the humanist, developmental and educational success benefits of ECD provisioning in any society (articulated in Section 5 above), there is also evidence that the sector as a whole has been able to develop as a result of the academic leadership provided by the CSD. There is national sector-based recognition of this role played by the CSD. Related to this is recognition of the CSD’s role in establishing career-pathing for ECD education and training in practice15 is the ‘unique’ relationship that the CSD has with a university, which in part, has enabled this career-pathing trajectory to emerge for the sector. The influence and unique role of Rhodes University needs to be understood within Rhodes University as it has influence on the positioning of the CSD in the university.

Important for this review is a clear understanding that the formalized and accredited education and training provisioning of the CSD in support of Early Childhood Development and well-being of children is currently the core business of the CSD. Additionally the CSD is also well known for its role in the show casing of best practice in resource poor settings, and development of an integrated model for social development. With the advent of SETAs, formalised training has become more

14 See the paper produced by Margaret Irvine (2009, see also the discussion below) 15 The career path is mapped out in theory in ETDP SETA qualifications, but these have been, perhaps notoriously, difficult to realize in practice.

18


competitive and the quality related contributions niche (formerly well established in CSD) needs to be differentiated from the ordinary running of training programmes. This is core to the partnership with RU, and is also an advantage that CSD has in relation to other players in the ECD sector. This needs to be recognized, clearly understood and supported, as per the recommendations suggested in this review.

6.2 Qualifications offered The CSD offers the following formal accredited training programmes for Early Childhood Development Practitioners which are accredited by the Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP SETA):

- Level 4: FET Certificate in ECD - Level 5: National Diploma in ECD

The ECD training, especially at levels 4 and 5, is complemented by accredited Community Development (CD) training, also accredited by the ETDP SETA. The CSD offers the following formally accredited Community Development Practitioners Training:

- Level 1: Certificate in Community Development - Level 4: FET Certificate in Community Development - Level 5: Currently under development within a partnership with other NGOs

(materials are being developed while programme approval is in process).

The strategic importance of these CD qualifications which are critical to the CSD’s vision of development needs to be highlighted. Funding pressures and the fact that CD training does not feed into other formal qualifications could place these elements at risk unless the CSD is able to mobilise national support for them in the same way as it was able to advocate successfully for the mainstreaming of the ECD training. This is discussed further in section 6.3 below.

The CSD has also been investigating the linkages between these qualifications and an auxiliary social work qualifications / career pathway, not with Rhodes University, but with the University of the Western Cape. This follows the loss of social worker training when the Rhodes University / University of Fort Hare merger took place, and a natural link between the CSD's community development training and social work career path training development was lost.

All of these qualifications are quality assured by the ETDP SETA and not by the Rhodes University Education Department or any other Rhodes University faculty as they fall outside the PQM of the university. It is not clear whether the Level 5 qualifications on offer could be included in the PQM of the university in future. This should be investigated by the CSD and the university if the 0-9 trajectory recommended in this review is fully embraced. This will need to form part of larger discussions on the vision, mission and strategic plan of the university and the Faculty of Education.

The CSD does, however, offer one qualification that is quality assured and accredited by the Education Department at Rhodes University. This qualification is a Level 6 Bachelor of Education (Foundation Phase, in-service) which emerged out of the Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) (Foundation Phase) qualifications offering. The B.Ed Degree is offered as a level 7 qualification on the NQF. It is not clear whether the Level 5 qualifications on offer could be included in the PQM of

19


the university in future. This should be investigated by the CSD and the university if the 0-9 trajectory recommended in this review is fully embraced. This will need to form part of larger discussions on the vision, mission and strategic plan of the university and the Faculty of Education 16. The Rhodes University Education Department will continue to offer the B.Ed (in-service) under the new Teacher Education Qualifications Framework, and a process of re-curriculation is currently taking place via the B.Ed quality committee (see below).

The HOD of the Education Department signs off the quality related aspects of the CSD B.Ed (in-service), degrees are awarded by the Faculty of Education, and the FTEs accrue to the Education Department, not the CSD. This raises funding related questions, as the inputs for the programme (staff etc.) are externally funded and supported via donor funds, yet subsidies and FTEs accrue to the university’s Education Department.

Recommendation:

4. That where the CSD makes contributions to DHET accredited training, FTEs should accrue to the benefit of the CSD (e.g. if they continue to offer the B.Ed Foundation Phase or the Diploma in Grade R Teaching; see recommendations below) or in relation to their contributions to the qualifications.

6.3 Integrated, holistic model of provisioning

Importantly, however, it is the complementarity of the ECD and Community Development training programmes, when applied to social contexts of early childhood development practice. Application of these qualifications in a complementary manner is what distinguishes the CSD education and training model (See Figure 2). ECD practitioners from ECD centres are trained using the ECD qualifications, and at the same time, the intention is to train parents and community development workers from the same sites using the Community Development qualifications. This is done so that qualified community development workers are ‘on site’ and available to support the Early Childhood Practitioners, and so that they can work together ‘on site’ to ensure the well-being and development of young children.

This ‘dual and complementary’ offering allows the CSD to offer an integrated, holistic model of education, training and social development, as shown in Figure 2. The CSD is known and recognized for this integrated approach, and it is this that distinguishes its practice from normal education and training provisioning practices of for example an education department or faculty involved in ECD training. It is also this model which militates against the CSD simply being integrated into the Education Faculty, or into Community Engagement within the university structure (sees discussion on structure and location below).

However, the intention to achieve this integrated approach is not always achieved in practice, mainly because community development training funding is harder to secure than ECD training funding. It is easier for the CSD to obtain ECD training funding, and the result is that the integrated

16 When it was established it was conceptualised as a Level 6 qualification, before the changed levels of the NQF were gazetted, which now pegs the qualification at Level 7.

20


model of the CSD is not always actualised, although it remains a strong ideal, and feature of the CSD’s identity.

Various people who gave evidence to the Review Panel raised the sustainability challenges to the CD Practitioner training and the extent to which the Janus-faced structure of inward focusing ECD practitioner and outward focusing CD practitioner could be operationalised at ECD delivery sites in resource poor settings. The landscape of ECD provision is set to change dramatically with the introduction from 2014 of Grade R delivery at or in association with every Primary School. The salaries available to accredited Grade R teachers will be significantly more attractive than those which standalone ECD agencies can generate through a mixture of fees and Department of Social Development Subsidies. This will put further pressure on the already constrained ability of such pre-schools to provide salaries to a CD practitioner as well. Yet in the CSD’s vision of community development the pre-school plays a vital catalytic role as the facility around which community energy can focus on collective transformational health, child-rearing and socio-economic empowerment efforts in which effective early learning can take deeper and more enduring root. These centres must be preserved and strengthened and this is only possible if the role of the CD practitioner gains national recognition. A new challenge for the CSD is to provide policy and advocacy leadership once more in this space. Coupled with a stronger research focus as suggested elsewhere in this report, the CSD could develop and present the case for mainstream funding for such posts through structures like the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) or the subsidies for Community Development Workers (CDWs) provided by the DSD to other recognised social agencies. The impact of this on national development strategies could be dramatic.

6.4 Career-pathing emphasis

The qualifications-based ECD practitioner career path is mapped out in Appendix D, and is described as follows by Margaret Irvine, research associate of the CSD, who produced a paper on the topic for an African ECD conference in 2009 as follows:

“Rhodes University has established a career path for ECD practitioners beginning with the Further Education and Training Certificate (at the level of the twelfth year of secondary schooling) through a seven year programme of nationally accredited courses with three exit levels to graduation from an undergraduate degree. The motto of the university is ‘Where leaders learn’ and ECD leadership is promoted through supervised practical programme competence, academic literacy and critical thinking skills. The courses are based in a deep understanding of ECD from conception to the age of nine, and spans both neighbourhood and family based programmes and the first four years of public schooling. The curriculum, course materials and assignments are based in the South African context, but are flexible enough to encompass the needs of sub-Saharan Africa” (Irvine, 200917).

As indicated above, this is, however, a ‘long route’ and can take up to seven years of ongoing study. It is, however, currently the only route for ECD practitioners to move from FET Certificate (level 1) to Diploma to Degree. To date, no RPL (recognition of prior learning) research has been undertaken to

17 Irvine, M. 2009. An in-service ECD career path at Rhodes University, South Africa from ‘school-leaving’ certificate to post graduate level. Paper presented at the 4th African International ECD Conference, Dakar, Senegal, November 2009.

21


investigate whether the seven year learning pathway is necessary or not18. Rhodes University is said to be the only university that has created this qualifications-based career path support for the ECD sector, and it is highly valued by the sector as it shows that such a route is possible. Of interest is the fact that young matriculants are also beginning to see this as a possible career path. The qualifications structure to support career path development for ECD is also valued in the sector for its capacity to assist with professionalization of the sector. Interviewees reported younger entrants to the sector which was traditionally dominated by older women who had taken up ‘caring for the young’ roles in their communities. This qualifications pathway work is not, however, without its challenges and Margaret Irvine (2009), in her paper on the career pathing innovations at Rhodes University pointed to the following five (often interrelated) challenges:

• Development of academic literacy over the seven years of the qualification path • Screening and selection of ECD practitioners to enter the Level 6 qualification19 (B.Ed Foundation

Phase), needs to be based on practitioner competence, but also academic literacy • Curriculum development – to accommodate breadth of situational practice in ECD field

(community work, classroom work, grade R, three year olds, and grade 3 for example) is not an easy task (types of assignments and on-site assessment modes presented are important aspects of curriculum development work here)

• Coherent curriculum development across three levels (4, 5 and 6) which make sense both within each level and across the levels (i.e. avoidance of repetition and random offerings which do not work towards a holistic qualification at Level 6) is a challenge. The courses need to interlock in the same way that a full time B.Ed. would interlock.

• Timing: The ability to complete the courses in the time allocated is a further challenge. This is a major stumbling block within the current system of workplace-based teacher education. ECD practitioners/teachers are full time employees, who should be focused upon the children in their care for at least five hours a day, followed by approximately two hours of administrative and planning work and some time working with colleagues and parents. This leaves little time for concentrated study.

From the above, it is clear that this work in the CSD requires competent academic leadership if it is to be sustained (see below).

Of importance to this review is a perception that the qualifications based career path development role that Rhodes University has played should be supported and expanded with policy related interventions, and research that helps to continue with quality enhancement and reflexive development of this pathway. It is said that this was a role played by CSD at a national level previously, but that the CSD is no longer playing this role due to leadership changes and capacity constraints. This indicates a loss of national academic leadership capacity in the CSD (see below). This discussion also raises the important relationship that exists between CSD and Rhodes University, and the benefit that CSD derives from a partnership relationship with Rhodes University, which of course also benefits Rhodes University (i.e. it is a recognized centre of academic leadership for ECD in the country). However, the current ‘status quo’ is that this mutually beneficial relationship needs new impetus, and strengthening through a stronger partnership model and clearer definition

18 There are a number of national examples of RPL research that could be productively deployed to investigate this issue further. 19 Note that at the time of writing, the B.Ed Level 7 qualification was listed as a Level 6 qualification on the NQF.

22


of the ‘mutual beneficiation’ relationship, roles and responsibilities between the university and the CSD, as mentioned in recommendation 1 above.

6.5 Accreditation of qualifications and quality assurance

The structure and functioning of the career path for ECD practitioners as opened up, and provided for by the CSD is centrally associated with two different forms of accreditation. Levels 1-5 qualifications are accredited by the Education, Training and Development Practices SETA. The B.Ed (Foundation Phase – in-service) at level 7 on the NQF is accredited by Rhodes University’s Department of Education, which in turn resides in the Faculty of Education.

There are currently a number of concerns associated with the provisioning and sustainability of the formalized accredited education and training programmes at level 1-5:

6.5.1 Changes to the qualifications and accreditation landscape There are a number of changes occurring on the South African qualifications landscape that are pertinent to the review of the CSD’s education and training programmes and offerings. Key amongst these are: • A re-design of SETA based qualifications based on the new frameworks for occupationally

directed training of the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations, articulated in the National Qualifications Framework Act No 67 of 2008, and subsequent amendments to related legislation.

• The new Higher Education Qualifications Framework and its application into the Teacher Education Qualifications Framework, articulated as new policy under the National Qualifications Framework Act No 67 of 2008 as the ‘Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications’ (RSA 2011)20.

The ‘Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications’ (RSA 2011) indicates that the B.Ed qualification (formerly offered as a level 6 qualification) will now be a Level 7 qualification. The policy also introduces a new qualification which is of interest to the CSD, namely the Diploma in Grade R Teaching, at Level 6 on the NQF. Its articulation with QCTO accredited occupational training and the B.Ed degree need to be investigated by the CSD (see recommendations below).

20 RSA, 2011. Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications. Government Gazette No. 34467. 15 July 2011.

23


These changes have a significant impact on the current offerings of the CSD, discussed in more detail below.

At Rhodes University there is a move towards establishing a B.Ed Foundation Phase degree, and a proposal in principle was recently accepted by the Institutional Planning Committee to consider the possibility of offering such a degree programme. As per the IPC decision on 29 April 2013, the following matters still had to be addressed before full permission to offer the qualification would be granted, many of which are likely to take time to secure, but the HOD (Education) is confident that all matters outlined below will be dealt with and that the programme is likely to start in 2015. The IPC decision on the degree was as follows:

Recommendation on B. Ed (Foundation Phase) made at IPC meeting (cited from 3 March 2013 minutes)

2013.1.10 NEW PROGRAMME PROPOSAL: BACHELOR OF EDUCATION (FOUNDATION PHASE TEACHING) FULL TIME Doc 4 The IPC CONSIDERED the proposal for a new Bachelor of Education (Foundation Phase Teaching) Full Time degree programme as outlined by the Dean of Education. The proposal was APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE to begin in 2015. Points raised in the discussion included: • Clarification was requested on whether the degree had necessarily to be of four years duration. • Infrastructure requirements needed to be further clarified. Office space requirements and

floor-space could include a lecture venue of 60 seats and 10 offices. • DHET assurances regarding full bursaries needed to be sought. • This would be the first course taught bilingually, in English and isiXhosa, at Rhodes University. • A query was raised over potential demand for the course. • The IFO, DMU and Finance Divisions undertook to interrogate the financial feasibility of this and other proposed new programmes.

24


• Concern was raised over the projected high cohort dropout rate and the under-estimation of residence space required. • Staff for this programme would be fully integrated within the Education Department. Once comments had been taken into account the proposal would be tabled at the IPC Size and Shape sub-committee (IPC Committee Minutes 4 March 2013).

This decision is clearly important for the CSD, as it provides for the possibility of the B.Ed qualification, currently on offer in the CSD, to be amalgamated with the new initiatives in the Education Department at Rhodes University at curriculum and quality assurance levels (even if different delivery modes – full time and part time are used) and thus to strengthen the university’s B.Ed Foundation Phase programme within a 0-9 trajectory. While this is the same qualification, two different programmes are being planned – a full time programme (which will be offered by the Education Department should IPC approval be granted and DHET funding be allocated to this initiative), and a part time programme (which is the one currently being offered by the CSD). These have similar curriculum contents, but different delivery modes.

From a university perspective, it would seem effective from a staffing, quality management, capacity and funding perspective to offer one consolidated, and newly designed B.Ed Foundation Phase degree at Rhodes University (it will be important that the content and quality of the programmes (full time and part time) are similar, not different, even if the mode of delivery and time for completion of the degree is different). The Dean of the Education Faculty indicated in the review process that the academic home of this programme should be the Education Department, while the HOD of the Education Department felt that the part time programme was ‘different enough’ to be housed by the CSD, while the full time programme would be housed by the Education Department. Based on other inputs into the review process however, the review panel are of the view that the programme should be housed in the Education Department, where both full time and part time versions of the B. Ed Degree (FP) could be on offer. The implication of this is that staff currently involved in the B.Ed Foundation Phase at CSD could potentially be formally absorbed / transferred / recruited for the new B.Ed programme in the Education Department.

Recommendation:

5. That a key consideration of the Education Department’s intention to introduce a Bachelor of Education degree for Foundation Phase at Rhodes University should be the integration of the CSD Foundation Phase offering in this area with future plans for the development and implementation of the degree. The full time and part time modalities of the programme’s offering has quality assurance, staffing, curriculum development and other implications that will need to be examined in more detail by the Director of the CSD, the HOD: Education Department and the IPC.

Within the proposed narrative of establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the CSD and the university that is central to this review, it is important that all parties fully understand the significance of viewing ECD within a 0-921 trajectory. A Foundation Phase programme established in

210-9 refers to the age of children. Traditionally Foundation Phase deals with 6-9 year olds, and early childhood organisations have tended to deal with 0-5 year olds. However, there is strong recognition that a separation of these for

25


the Education Department (focussing on 6-9) can be significantly enriched and extended through the expertise and experience of the CSD with its core focus on 0-5 year old children, and the CSD interest in child development can be strengthened with stronger engagement with the Foundation Phase programmes in the Education Department which tend to focus more on the formal learning of children from 6-9 years. Of importance here is not so much the institutional positioning of the CSD and the Education Department’s various programmes, but the potential value that can be derived for children’s development and learning in Makana, the Eastern Cape and wider society.

Recommendation

6. That the CSD and the Education Department at Rhodes University work on a strategic partnership ‘guiding document’ which outlines the manner in which a strong 0-9 trajectory can be developed for ECD and Foundation Phase work at Rhodes. This can potentially position Rhodes University as a national leader in developing this trajectory, especially if a research-based approach to training and child development is adopted within this 0-9 trajectory. This will also complement other recommendations related to the CSDs education and training programme.

7. That the Education Faculty as a whole, and the Education Department at Rhodes University consider including a commitment to development of a 0-9 education and development trajectory in their strategic planning, and the Vision and Mission of the Education Faculty, and Education Department.

There are also a number of other aspects that are relevant to a discussion on changes in the qualifications and accreditation landscape, which directly affect the CSD. These include:

• Changes affecting SETA based qualifications development, design and accreditation: With the changes in the National Qualifications Act No 67 of 2008 and the promulgation of three separate quality councils, have come revisions to the manner in which education and training programmes are to be constituted and quality assured. The Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) will quality assure many SETA training programmes up to level 622 on the NQF. Currently SETAs are all undertaking pilot programmes and are re-establishing their quality assurance systems. For the ECD sector this means that Education Quality Assurance Partner and Assessment Partnerships will be formed (in most sectors professional bodies are filling this role), and that ECD qualifications are likely to be restructured, which in turn will require new curriculum and programme development processes as the older model of unit standard based training is being changed to a more strongly constituted model based on occupational task definition, and the combining of knowledge, practice and work experience standards23. For the CSD, this means that a) they could potentially be positioning themselves as part of the new quality assurance community of practice, and b) that they ought to be preparing for qualifications revision and re-design in the near future. Nothing in the review data indicated that

institutional management purposes is not in the best interests of young children, and a strong conceptual and practical engagement with ECD from 0-9 is in the best interests of children’s development and learning. 22 There is still some contestation as to what the upper level of qualifications are that will be quality assured by the QCTO, but there appears to be strong field-based arguments that a number of qualifications (the ECD qualifications included) up to level 5/6 will continue to be quality assured by the ETDP SETA under the QCTO model of occupationally directed training. 23 Exact details on progress relating to this should be obtained from the ETDP SETA.

26


such engagement with the changing qualifications architecture is currently taking place within CSD, which in turn reflects the need for enhanced academic leadership (see below).

Recommendation:

8. That the CSD begin to investigate the implications of the new Quality Council for Trades

and Occupations (QCTO) and SETA processes for re-curriculation and materials development work associated with its offerings at Levels 1-5 on the NQF, as this is likely to have cost implications in the near future, and may require specific fundraising for the re-development of programmes.

• Introduction of a new qualification – Diploma in Grade R Teaching: The new Teacher Education

Qualifications Framework for South Africa has introduced a potentially important ‘niche’ qualification for the CSD, namely the Diploma in Grade R Teaching. The Policy on the Minimum Requirements for Teacher Education Qualifications (RSA 2011) describes this qualification as such:

Diploma in Grade R Teaching (NQF Level 6) NOTE: the qualification for Grade R teaching is treated separately from teaching qualifications for ITE and CPD, as it has a specialised purpose and its focus is on one specific grade in the Foundation Phase (FP). The progression path from Grade R teaching is into FP teaching, for which the minimum qualification is a B.Ed in FP teaching.

And Purpose [of the Diploma in Grade R teaching]

The Diploma in Grade R Teaching is the minimum qualification for Grade R teachers. The purpose of the Diploma in Grade R Teaching is to develop learners who can demonstrate general principles, as well as focussed knowledge and skills appropriate for Grade R teaching. The qualification requires a depth of specialisation of knowledge, together with practical skills and experience in a Grade R classroom teaching context. As part of the qualification, students are expected to gain experience in applying such knowledge and skills in the context of working with Grade R learners in a school.

Qualification type specifications

NQF exit level: 6 Minimum total credits: 360: Minimum total credits at level 7: 6024 Minimum total credits at level 5: 12025

Extracts from RSA, 2011. In a drive to build capacity for Grade R teaching the Department of Basic Education are currently funding training for Grade R teachers at Level 5. The CSD have recently been given ZAR 8 million to

24 This shows potential ‘shared teaching’ with the FP programme in the Education Department 25 This shows potential credits that can be recognised from other CSD training programme contexts (ETDP SETA accredited programmes).

27


offer this Level 5 training at provincial level, and it is envisaged that this grant will be potentially run over 5 years. This positions the CSD strongly in the Grade R training and development environment, a position that could be substantially expanded should in future, especially within a strong 0-9 partnership trajectory with the Education Department. The CSD and Rhodes University can be positioned as national leaders in establishing this trajectory.

Recommendation

9. That the CSD actively pursue the offering of the new Diploma in Grade R Teaching and acquire the necessary resources to ensure quality delivery at scale. The CSD received funding for a substantial Grade R Level 5 training programme in 201326. If possible, this should be used to produce the foundational development work necessary for a high quality level 6 Grade R Diploma in Teaching, and discussions should take place between the Education Department and the CSD to ensure that this is done within a learning pathways framework that also embraces possibilities for articulation of qualifications so that for ECD practitioners completing the Level 5 Grade R Diploma can gain access into Foundation Phase Bachelors of Education Degrees, and within the 0-9 trajectory outlined above in recommendation 4.

• Re-curriculation of existing B.Ed in-service degree programmes: The new Teacher Education Qualifications Framework for South Africa has also introduced a new knowledge framework for teacher education qualifications which requires that teacher education institutions all engage with a re-curriculation of their programmes. A process is currently underway in the Faculty of Education under the leadership of the Department of Education to review the curriculum implications of the new policy framework for the Bachelor of Education (in-service/part-time). The CSD are part of this process (see recommendation 5 above).

6.5.2 Quality assurance and quality concerns One of the issues raised often during the review was a concern about ongoing and sustained quality management and assurance of the qualifications being offered by CSD. This is a concern of the CSD Management Committee, the CSD itself, and of external stakeholders who perceive a potential drop in quality associated with the qualifications and training on offer through the CSD. This in turn is linked to a range of factors that are interlinked:

Firstly the short term nature of the funding (i.e. it does not allow funds for ongoing reflexivity and review and it ‘drives’ a delivery-at-all costs model). Staff are consequently under pressure to ‘deliver’ based on the funding that comes in. This also leads to a lack of internal continuity in the training programmes, training sites etc. and places staff under pressure to constantly be working away from home, which in turn affects their capacity for follow through at the project sites between training programmes and sessions. Beyond a broad framework of ‘offerings’ the CSD does not have a clear strategic plan for its implementation work, which also contributes to it having become more ‘funder driven’ around funds for training programme implementation (e.g.

26 This provides a unique advantage for the CSD funding for this programme can potentially continue for a 5 year period. Currently the CSD have received R8 million for this training at provincial level. The programme design for this training is currently underway.

28


if an organisation that funds training in the Northern Cape offers funding, then the CSD would endeavour to offer the training there, despite its interest and focus in the Eastern Cape).

Secondly, the quality concerns are linked to inadequate leadership support in the CSD. The Director is tasked with a wide range of tasks, including fundraising, staff and financial management and oversight, as well as academic leadership of the programmes. The structure and functioning of the Management Committee, and the model of accreditation partnership with the Faculty of Education (which accredits one of its qualifications as mentioned above), has not allowed for hands on provisioning of academic leadership for qualifications design, monitoring, and implementation of quality assurance. This has left the Director overloaded, and unable to provide the necessary academic leadership and quality orientation to the programmes, despite substantive attempts to do so. This relates to issues of governance and management as discussed below, and shows that quality management of the training programmes is not a technical matter, but rather a whole institution matter.

Thirdly, there is a concern with staffing, and it was noted by a number of stakeholders that the

CSD has extremely dedicated staff, who are excellent practitioners, but that additional capacity is needed for the implementation and management of accredited training as it requires engagement with research-based evidence to inform curriculum design (not just practice experience), additional levels of assessment bureaucracy, and other forms of academic and technical expertise to ensure quality implementation than those required for excellent practice (although these are of course also necessary).

Fourthly, there is also a concern with sustained capacity for ongoing curriculum, programme and

materials development. Currently most of the CSD curriculum programme and materials development work is outsourced27. Designing qualifications and materials according to accreditation standards requires substantive investment in curriculum, programme and assessment design expertise, which in turn requires investment in materials development expertise. From this is it clear that the CSD requires a mix of skilled staff with the time as well as the expertise to undertake such roles. Currently some such expertise does exist in the CSD for the level 1-5 training, but all staff are overburdened, and are not getting the time necessary for these kinds of tasks. This affects the quality of planning, implementation and reflexivity. Additionally, professional development programmes for staff need to be in place for ongoing reflexive curriculum and materials development work, especially within a changing qualifications landscape.

This fourth point is also relevant to the level 7 training (the B.Ed Foundation Phase degree). The

CSD has been supported with curriculum and programme design by qualified staff from the Education Department, but this has been on a ‘voluntary / ad hoc basis’ rather than by pre-determined strategic intent or institutional planning. Here it should be noted that this kind of link with the Education Department is a potential strength, but it should not be based on vo

Documents

Review Report on the CENTRE for SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (CSD) › ... › documents › CSD_Review_Report.pdf · CENTRE for SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (CSD) May 2013 . CONTENTS Page List of ACRONYMS