Acts Online
GT Shield

Further Education and Training Colleges Act, 2006 (Act No. 16 of 2006)

National Norms and Standards for Funding Further Education and Training Colleges (NSF-FET Colleges)

G. National and provincial planning

 

Maintenance of the register of nationally approved FET College programmes

 

86) The register of nationally approved FET College programmes titled "Formal Further Education and Training College Programmes at Levels 2 to 4 on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) ", as described in paragraph 37, must be maintained by the DoE. The DoE must ensure that this register is easily accessible to public FET Colleges, as well as to other stakeholders in the vocational education and training market.

 

The national funding base rate and the costing of programmes

 

87) Much of the maintenance of the register of nationally approved FET College programmes involves updating the estimated costs of delivering the nationally approved FET programmes. During the initial implementation of this policy, substantial work is required to establish an initial set of cost information on nationally approved FET programmes. Thereafter, most work must concentrate on updating costs in line with inflation rates that are applicable to the inputs in question, and on the costing of new or revised training programmes.

 

88) A national funding base rate must be maintained and be used as a benchmark for the costing of all other nationally approved FET programmes. The national funding base rate is a rate, expressed in monetary rand terms, indicating the cost of delivering a basic one-year full-time programme. The national funding base rate is split into the three economic categories of (1) personnel, (2) capital infrastructure and (3) non-personnel non-capital. The national funding base rate should describe the cost of delivering the least costly programme that exists or might exist. This means that the national base rate may describe a hypothetical low-cost programme, rather than an existing programme. Cost effective class size and a minimal requirement for equipment and infrastructure should be assumed. Minimal administration and student support overhead costs, as well as industry liaison costs, should moreover be assumed. The expected additional cost of providing services for a representative number of special needs learners will be separately determined from the standard NFBR and an additional amount added to the national funding base rate which will be used to calculate the programme cost for these learners at the same time when NFBR is calculated by DoE. The rate must cover annual depreciation in capital stock. In other words, the national funding base rate should be adequate to build reserves needed for periodic replacement of facilities and equipment. It need not cover infrastructure backlogs and infrastructure expansion costs. The hypothetical programme must be a useful point of departure from which to gauge the cost of other programmes, which would all be more costly or equally costly.

 

89) In addition to costing the basic hypothetical services implied by the national funding base rate, the DoE must indicate the costs of all programmes on the register of nationally approved FET College programmes relative to the national base rate. This must lead to the funding weights required for the formula funding grid (see paragraph 34). These funding weights must include industry liaison time, as well as all the cost aspects covered by the national funding base rate (see previous paragraph). The programme-specific funding weights should take into account the fact that actual class size is often lower than the theoretical class size, due to the fact that colleges may not achieve economies of scale, or because one college may not be able to fill several classes offering the same programme to maximum capacity. The average additional cost implied by these issues should be worked into the funding weights. An important part of the costing work is the formulation of the costing methodology. A sound methodology can greatly reduce the attention that must be paid to each separate training programme, and can bring a greater degree of consistency to the entire costing exercise.

 

Finalisation of public funding strategies

 

90) On the basis of the research referred to in paragraph 20, and through an appropriate consultation process, national and provincial targets must be formulated relating to the number of graduates for various programmes needed from the public colleges. It is important that these targets should only be as specific as credible research allows. Experience in other countries has shown that an excessively detailed level of national planning, often referred to as 'manpower planning', is not feasible, given the complexity of the training demand trends, and also the system that supplies the graduates. At the same time, however, there needs to be a critical level of national and provincial planning, and target-setting, particularly where it is very clear that there is an under-supply or an over-supply of particular types of graduates.

 

91) Public funding strategies, including targets relating to the output of the FET College sector, will be shaped within a planning horizon that is at least 3 years (MTEF). Five to twenty year plans are common in other countries. However, it is important for targets, both national and provincial, to be confirmed on an annual basis, so that the annual PED-college planning process can be guided by a clear and unambiguous set of priorities. For this reason, the DoE and PEDs must jointly confirm training targets for publicly funded FET College training by March of each year. These training targets would focus in particular on overall output increases required, and increases in the outputs of specific types of graduates.

 

92) The development of public funding strategies for technical and vocational FET must involve a critical level of participation by various government stakeholders, and non-government stakeholders. The DoE will ensure that a major series of national consultations occurs at least every three years to deal specifically with public funding priorities in technical and vocational FET, including the public funding of FET Colleges. These consultations must include, as a minimum, representatives from the Department of Labour, the Department of Trade and Industry, National Treasury, the Provincial Departments of Education, several major employer and employee organisations, several Higher Education institutions, and several public FET Colleges, and private FET provider organisations. Prior to these consultations, the DoE will provide stakeholders with the basic information packages and research outputs necessary for successful consultations to occur. The DoE will also ensure that on an annual basis the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) becomes involved in the finalisation of public spending strategies for FET.