ANALYSIS OF EXAMINATION RESULTS AND THE LEARNER ATTAINMENT STRATEGY

Introduction

National pass rates - not enough to provide useful information on the following key priorities:

1. Access and retention of learners in the education system

2. Improved quality 3. Gateway subjects 4. National Strategy for Learner Attainment- dealing with under-performance

• The approach on this analytical effort focuses: 1. Access - Numbers passing 2. Quality - Numbers passing with endorsement 3. Gateway subjects especially in Mathematics and Science 4. Under-performance in all schools

2006 School Realities

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RSA

1. Learners 12 302 236 11 962 176 (97.2%) public schools

340 060 (2.8%) independent schools 2. Teachers 386 595 367 188 (95%) public schools 19 407 (5%) independent schools

23 947 teachers for 3 828 705 learners in 5 851 secondary schools-Matric Results3. Schools 26 292 schools

25 194 public 95.8%) 1 098 independent (4.2%)

4. Learner to teacher ratio 32.6 public schools 17.5 independent schools

Class of 2006

1. The cohort that began formal schooling in 19952. Have had 12 years of schooling in a democratic, non-racial,

transformed single education system3. First group of learners to write 11 subjects set nationally4. Highest number writing the Senior Certificate Examination

since 2002

2002 : 443 8262003 : 440 2672004 : 467 9852005 : 508 3632006 : 528 525

Examination Administration

Examination Statistics

No. Wrote: 528 525No. of Exam Centres: 8 124No. of Marking Centres: 81No. of Markers: 29 731No. of Question Papers: 1 489No. of examiners: 1 492No. of Internal Moderators: 554

Examination Administration

Examination Process:1. Setting and moderation of Question papers.2. External moderation of Question papers by Umalusi.3. Editing, translation and printing of question papers4. Registration of Exam Centres.5. Registration of candidates.6. Distribution of question papers.7. Writing of the examination.8. Marking9. Standardisation10. Processing and Release of results

Quality of Examination Papers

1. First Senior Certificate examination where eleven of the subjects were set nationally.

2. Panels of examiners with internal and external moderation.

3. More cognitively demanding question papers.

STATEMENT BY HIGHER EDUCATION SOUTH AFRICA (HESA)

1. “Congratulates the Department of Education on the strides made in securing the integrity of the examination process”

2. “The challenge well-recognized by the Department of Education is to shift the focus to issues of quality, language and the need to produce high level outcomes and disparities in provision

3. “Evidence need to be produced that there is an increase in the cognitive and conceptual demand on exam papers and that examiners and markers are well prepared that set new levels of engagement for learners and that these new demands are reflected in classroom practices and a strong focus on teacher development”

HESA-29 December 2006

Approval of the 2006 Senior Certificate Examination

1. Umalusi approved the 2006 Senior Certificate Examination on 20 December 2006.

2. In the approval of the results, Umalusi noted the following:• Improved Administrative Systems.• improvement in the quality of question papers.• Increase in the number of learners writing the Senior Certificate

Increased Cognitive Demand

Statement from the Umalusi report notes:

‘ …. an increase in cognitive challenge of the national question papers. This has been a welcome move, and it will very well assist in preparing the learners for the challenges of the 2008 curriculum and the new National Senior Certificate (NSC)

Irregularities

1. Most irregularities- administrative in nature.

2. All irregularities- reported to the National Examination Irregularities Committee (NEIC).

3. Most administrative irregularities- dealt with prior to the release of the 2006 results

Umalusi Declaration

“On the whole Umalusi is satisfied that the 2006 examination were conducted in a manner that renders them fair, valid and reliable. Umalusi wishes to report that there were few reported irregularities but these were addressed appropriately, and therefore Umalusi endorses the fact that the credibility of the 2006 examinations is above reproach”

Umalusi report on the 2006 SC examination

RESULTS

ProvinciaLEfficiency gains

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

EASTERN CAPE12 443

28 825 33 286 37 468 33 915 39 597

41 268

FREE STATE5 879

15 703 17 777 18 916 19 459 20 355

21 582

GAUTENG9 987

47 368 50 941 55 621 54 808 57 073

57 355

KWAZULU-NATAL23 840

58 620 68 973 75 077 81 830 84 842

82 460

LIMPOPO9 879

48 971 49 644 48 219 54 897 60 087

58 850

MPUMALANGA7 343

18 136 22 222 22 700 22 913 22 737

25 479

NORTHERN CAPE

1825 571 5 309 5 667 5 609 6172 5 753

NORTH WEST2 477

22 963 24 637 25 055 24 221 23 748

25 440

WESTERN CAPE2 267

31 049 32 985 33 769 33 065 32 573

33 316

277 206 305 774 322 492 330 717 347 184 351 503National74 297

PROVINCIAL SHARE OF ENDORSEMENT IN 2006 18

,551

15,70

7

28,62

6

54,90

6

96,77

8

21,13

3

17,11

2

2,067

14,69

7

7,002

5,901

17,01

2

19,11

6

14,02

9

5,481

5,537

1,163

10,58

9

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Eastern Cape Free State Gauteng KwaZulu-Natal Limpopo Mpumalanga North West Northern Cape Western Cape

Wrote forEndorsement

Passed w ithEndorsement

NUMBER OF PASSES PER GENDER

2001 TO 2006

128,629

143,289151,127 154,780

162,327 164,065

162,485171,365 175,937

184,857 187,438

148,577

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of Passes:Male Number of Passes:Female

Passes per Gender 2001 – 2006

Narrowing the gap towards gender parity YEAR MALE % FEMALE % DIFF. %

2001 128 629 63.6 148 577 60.1 19 948 3.5

2002 143 289 70.7 162 485 67.4 19 196 3.3

2003 151 127 75.1 171 365 71.8 20 238 3.3

2004 154 780 72.0 175 937 69.5 21 157 2.5

2005 162 327 69.7 184 857 67.2 22 530 2.5

2006 164 065 67.9 187 438 65.5 23 373 2.4

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Perc

en

tag

e

Pass rate: Male Pass rate: Female

8.3%

3.5% 2.4%

Passes per Gender from 2001 – 2006

Narrowing the gap towards gender parity

DISTRIBUTION OF DISTRICT PERFORMANCE

Province No. Districts Less 50 % 51-60 % 61-70 % 71-80% 81-100 %

2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006

EC 24 23 06 03 10 07 06 11 01 02 none none

FS 05 05 None none none none none 02 04 03 01 none

GP 12 12 none none 01 01 02 none 05 03 04 08

KZN 12 12 none 01 01 01 07 07 05 03 None none

LP 06 06 none 01 02 04 04 01 none none none none

MP 10 03 04 N/A 03 none 02 03 01 none none none

NC 04 04 none none none none none none 02 03 02 01

NW 05 05 none none 02 01 02 02 01 02 none none

WC 07 07 none none none none 01 none 02 01 04 06

SUBJECT RESULTS

NUMBER OF PASSES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE

2002 - 2006

24,888 26,067 26,97529,965 29,781

70,76375,693 73,943 73,667

81,151

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Science HG Science SG

NUMBER OF PASSES IN MATHEMATICS

2002 TO 2006

20,528 23,412 24,143 26,383 25,217

101,289104,707

109,664 112,279 110,452

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Maths HG Maths SG

PERFORMANCE ON THE NEW NATIONALLY EXAMINED

SUBJ ECTS IN 2006

24,6

03

31,1

26

86,3

70

69,4

55

156,

268

80,6

49

87,2

34 124,

377

115,

562

204,

053

23,4

55

15,7

60

66,9

07

53,9

62

134,

442

60,1

66

79,8

60

91,0

09

106,

380

234,

334

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

WROTE

PASSED

Dealing with under-performance in all

schools

National Strategy for Learner Attainment

NSLA• An overarching or transversal programme directing the focus of the system to

the achievement of all learners

• “A programme:– A planned and sustained series and set of related operations, projects,

activities, strategies, interventions with short and long term objectives of raising learner performance and ensuring improved quality learner achievement

– Not once-off, cosmetic, response to crisis or isolated/silo feature

• Integrates nine provincially driven complimentary strategies An overarching/ is by design rather than by default and that it is a true reflection of the health of the system – achievement / performance must be guaranteed

NSLA

• In schools – seeks to raise learner achievement from Gr. R to Gr. 12• Initial focus on foundation and FET phases• May need to employ different strategies, approaches for different learners• All learners can learn therefore all learners can achieve

– Move beyond the narrow constraint of only academic, scholastic, theoretical knowledge…– Learners can achieve at a variety and at varied levels– Must at least ensure that learners perform optimally / achieve within current programmes

• Therefore there is still a role and place for “special or specific” interventions, remedial and corrective strategies

• The institution (schools) remain the central place for the execution of our core mandate and for executing the NSLA

• A strategies, interventions (education system) t Not once-off, cosmetic, response to crisis or isolated/silo feature

• Integrates several complimentary strategies

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR LEARNER ATTAINMENT (NSLA)

Strategic site-based focus: Comprehensive, integrated, diagnostic and targeted approach

1. Improving the overall performance- across all schools. 2. Improving the quality of learner attainment- Increased numbers of Learners passing with endorsements. 3. schools performing below the national average 4. All learners in the system- a fair chance to succeed (Integrated and comprehensive intervention to link

NSLA with the National Numeracy and Literacy Strategy in GET) 5. Link with Mathematics, Science and Languages interventions 6. Monitoring and reporting (monthly HEDCOM and CEM reports): A teacher in the classroom - a textbook for

every learner in each subject 7. Diagnostic and targeted specific projects and interventions- Increased numbers passing Science,

Mathematics and gateway subjects, Eliminating lowest 20% performance in each province, more than 10% below previous performance; New teachers and first matric classes in the schools; Increased endorsements in schools with 100% passes, More HDI learners in the top 50 in each province and more quality and consistency in well endowed schools

Ministerial Remit to the IPEC LekgotlaI. Academic and situational analysis of schools that performed badlyII. Some typical questions: Did they have learning resources; Are all management and teaching posts filled;

What subjects were failed and do the schools have teachers for these subjects; What parts of the syllabus give more problems; How does 2006 compares with previous performances and District offices-does it have staff, resources and can it provide support.

Sch

ool

Deve

lop

men

t

Teach

er

Deve

lop

men

t

Learn

er

Att

ain

men

t

NSLA

SCHOOL

Province

DISTRICT

INTERVENTIONS

Monitoring visits

Reporting to HEDCOM and CEM

PIP

DIP

MAKING THE NSLA NATIONAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WORK

School Development StrategySchool self-evaluationS

DP

MAKING NSLA WORK

• Educator development – Integrate with School Improvement Plan– Focus on IQMS – responding to development needs;– Establish SMT responsibility;– 3-year plans for educator development & curriculum

training– Focus on content of learning areas/subjects

1. School Visits2. Appropriate monitoring tools 3. Teacher orientation Workshops4. EXAM Feedback/ ITEM ANALYSIS

MAKING THE NSLA WORK

• Learner achievement:– Grade 1 – 12;– Focus on 10 - 12;– Focused and targeted interventions;– Teaching and learning time, actual learner activity,

assessment, remedial/intervention work;– Access to LTSM;

MAKING THE NSLA WORK

• Reporting• Parental involvement• Increased visits to schools – Learning Area

Managers and Circuit Managers• Intensify all services and support to schools

• Computerized system for tracking learner achievement and early interventions towards 00% success rate by 2014: IECS– All information relating to learner progression collected;– Includes all learners in the system; – Integrated database developed

MAKING THE NSLA WORK

PROGRAMME FOR

NSLA

SchoolDevelopment

EducatorDevelopment

LearnerDevelopment

School DevStrategies

School Dev/ Evaluation

9 Focus Areas

IQMS

EducatorDev. Needs

Individual/General

N C S

Learning Area/Subject/ examinations

LearningInterventions

Monitoring Value Addedness Fair chance to succeed for all learners

Target drivenUse of examination and other credible data

IntegratedNSLA Programme

STRATEGIC IMPACT• Enables every child to fulfill his or her potential• Matches challenging targets with appropriate

resources• Achievement makes it easier for learners to go to

HEIs or to access good jobs• Decreases disengagement from education and from

wider society• Direct impact on Human Capital development

initiatives

Schools with pass rate below 20%1999 - 2006

1034

559

472

242

154183

148 139

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of

scho

ols

Number of schools below 50% pass rate

Province 2005 2006 Change LER

EC 419 345 - 74 33.3FS 26 36 + 10 29.5GP 118 94 - 24 33.7KZN 375 471 96 32.8LP 309 547 238 33.4MP 167 98 - 69 34.5NC 8 8 0 31.8NW 135 95 - 40 29.4WC 34 16 - 118 31.1

NATIONAL 1 591 1 710 119 32.6

Dealing with under-performance in the system in 2006

1. 114 schools-in an NSLA project of selected schools under 20% in 2006

2. 99 schools – improved (87% success)3. Improvement categories: 20 – 40% = 49 schools

41 – 60% = 25 schools 61 – 79% = 18 schools

80 – 100% = 7 schools4. Transfer of lessons and experiences across all schools in 2007

114 Pilot schools that improved performance in 2006

20 - 40%43%

41-6022%

61-7916%

80-1006% Still Under 20%

13%

Still Under 20%

20 - 40%

41-6061-79

80-100

18

25 49

15

7

CONCLUSIONa national picture

NUMBER OF LEARNERS WHO PASSED

TRENDS (2002 - 2006)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

Passed Without Endorsement Passed With Endorsement Total Passed

Num

ber o

f Lea

rner

s

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

260

653

230

726 24

0 48

2

245

600

86 5

31

75 0

48

82 0

10

85 1

17

347

184

305

774 32

2 49

2 330

717

2656

73

8583

0

3515

03

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES PASSED

2002 - 2006

305774

322492

330717

347184351503

280000

290000

300000

310000

320000

330000

340000

350000

360000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Passed

Num

ber o

f Can

dida

tes

Total Passed Linear (Total Passed)

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES PASSED WITH

ENDORSEMENT 2002 TO 2006

75048

82010

8511786531

85830

65000

70000

75000

80000

85000

90000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Passed With Endorsement

Passed With Endorsement Linear (Passed With Endorsement)

YEARS IN COMPARISON

Number enrolled Number Wrote Number passed Number with endorsement

2004 493 447 467 985 330 717 85 117

2005 533 405 508 363 347 184 86 531

2006 554 079 528 525 351 503 85 830

Number enrolled, writing and passing SC 2004 to 2006 examination

NATIONAL PASS RATES FOR 2006

527,950

351,503

265,673

85,830

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Wrote Total Passed Passed withoutEndorsement

Passed withEndorsement

(66.6%)

(50.3%)

(16.3%)