FLBP Report Annexures

FUNZA LUSHAKA BURSARY
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
Report Annexures
31 March 2016
Prepared for the DPME and DBE by
1
Table of Contents
List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................3
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................4
Annexure A: Document Review ..........................................................................................................6
Goals and objectives .................................................................................................................................. 6
Programme design .................................................................................................................................... 6
Programme Management and Administration ......................................................................................... 8
Recruitment, application and selection criteria ...................................................................................... 16
Training and Student Profiles .................................................................................................................. 18
Funding arrangements ............................................................................................................................ 22
Monitoring and tracking systems for bursary recipients......................................................................... 29
Graduation and placement ..................................................................................................................... 30
References ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Annexure B: Programme Theory and Logframe ................................................................................. 35
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Section 1: The need for the FLBP ............................................................................................................. 35
Section 2: Programme design, stakeholders, purpose, goal and objectives ........................................... 40
Section 3: Theory of change, Key Business Processes and logframe ....................................................... 46
References ............................................................................................................................................... 65
Annexure C: Initial Programme Theory Interview Schedule ............................................................... 75
Annexure D: Report on Programme Theory Stakeholder Workshop................................................... 83
Annexure E: Evaluation Matrix Linking Questions to Methods and Data Collection Instruments ....... 109
Annexure F: Final Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................ 114
CATI Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................ 114
2
Student Focus Group Schedule .............................................................................................................. 143
DBE/DHET Interview schedule ............................................................................................................... 151
National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) officials Interview schedule....................................... 157
Provincial Recruitment and Placement Interview schedule .................................................................. 162
DBE MIS/SITA Interview schedule.......................................................................................................... 167
National Treasury Interview schedule ................................................................................................... 171
University officials involved in financial/bursary administration .......................................................... 174
Deans and Academic Coordinators at universities Interview schedule ................................................. 178
Annexure G: Completed FLBP interviews and focus groups ............................................................. 183
Annexure H: Comparative analysis of relevant bursary programmes and key lessons learnt ............. 187
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 187
2. South African bursary schemes ...................................................................................................... 187
3. International bursary schemes ....................................................................................................... 195
4. Key lessons and conclusions ........................................................................................................... 201
List of Figures
Annexure A
Figure 7: Funza Lushaka business process……………………………………………………………………………….…….. 10
Figure 8: Age profile of beneficiaries when first registering……………………………………………………….….. 20
Figure 9: Racial composition of Funza Lushaka beneficiaries (2007 – 2013)…………………………….……. 20
Figure 10: Gender composition of Funza Lushaka bursary beneficiaries (2007 – 2013)………….……… 21
Figure 11: Phase specialisations of bursars (2007 – 2013)……………………………………………………….……. 22
3
Annexure B
Figure 1: FLBP programme theory…………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 47
Figure 2: Recruitment and application process…………………………………………………………………….……….. 52
Figure 3: Selection business process…………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 53
Figure 4: Awarding and disbursement business process……………………………………………………………..… 54
Figure 5: Placement business process…………………………………………………………………………………………… 55
List of Tables
Annexure A
Table 10: Funza Lushaka Bursary current priority areas…………………………………………………….…..… 7
Table 11: Phase allocations in 2012…………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 8
Table 12: Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders………………………………………………………………… 11
Table 13: District based recruitment selected beneficiaries…………………………………………….……….. 16
Table 14: Funza Lushaka Bursary Recipients 2007 – 2013…………………………………………..…………... 17
Table 15: Total value and number of bursaries awarded 2007 – 2013…………………………………….. 24
Table 16: Comparison of value of bursaries and number of bursars in 2007 and 2012…………….. 26
Table 17: Highest and lowest bursary amount within institutions……………………………………………. 27
Table 18: Number of FL bursars compared to students enrolled for an initial teaching 28
qualification……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..
Table 19: Academic progress of 2012 bursars……………………………………………………………..…………… 29
Table 20: Academic record of 2012 bursars who did not re-register in 2013………………..…………. 30
Table 21: Provincial placement of Funza Bursars……………………………………………………………………… 31
Table 22: Provincial placement policies……………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Annexure B
Table 1: Stakeholders key to the FLBP and their roles……………………………………………………………… 42
Table 2: FLBP Logframe…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57
4
Table 3: Proposed logframe to guide the FLBP in the proposed changes outlined elsewhere are 65
accepted
Annexure D
Table 1: Schedule for Theory of change workshop…………………………………………………………………… 88
Annexure E
Table 1: Evaluation matrix questions and data collection instruments.......................................... 109
Annexure G
Table 1: Schedule of completed FLBP interviews and focus groups…………………………………….……… 183
Annexure H
Table 1 DSD Social work scholarship implementation stakeholders…………………………….……………... 190
Table 2: DAFF external bursary scheme implementation stakeholders………………………………………. 191
Table 3: British undergraduate degree pass classification………………………………………………….……… 197
Table 4: Bursary allocations for FE ITT…………………………………………………………………………………….… 198
Table 5: Bursary allocations for ITT for 2014/5…………………………………………………………………………. 199
Table 6: Bursary payment guidelines for different types of awards for full-time study………..…….. 199
Table 7: Bursary payment guidelines for different types of awards for part-time study or modular 200
courses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5
Annexure A: Document Review
Goals and objectives

As part of the many efforts to address teacher supply and demand challenges, the DBE launched the
Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme in 2007. The programme is intended to ensure increased numbers of
well qualified teachers entering the system, encourage young people to consider teaching as a career
and to target particular scarce skills in teaching (DBE, 2014c). The FLBP falls within the mandate of DBE
(DBE, 2011a), as a key deliverable as indicated in the Strategic Plan 2011-2014 and the Action Plan to
2014.
The Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme articulates with Goal 14 of the Action Plan 2014, and is designed
to achieve the following goals (DBE, 2013d):
 Attract quality students and ensure that students are trained in identified priority areas.
 Contribute substantially to the supply of adequately trained teachers with a focus on rural and
poor schools.
The Funza Lushaka bursary scheme is seen as one of the mechanisms to be used to enhance access for
high achieving students to qualify as teachers, addressing both supply and quality issues in the
education system (DBE, 2011b).
Several programme objectives have been identified (DBE, 2011b):
 Employ efficient and effective recruitment mechanisms to attract quality students (aged 30 and
below) to become teachers in identified priority areas;
 Increase the number of first-time enrolments in teacher education programmes by 10% each
year;
 Provide financial assistance to South African youth with academic potential to enter and
complete tertiary studies in teacher education programmes;
 Ensure a satisfactory completion rate of funded students; and
 Ensure that Funza Lushaka graduates are placed appropriately in schools.
Programme design
The programme is a dedicated merit-based full-cost bursary programme for students mostly under the
age of 30 who wish to become teachers in identified priority areas. Bursaries are available at all the 22
universities in South Africa that offer initial teacher education programmes and funded programmes
include both routes to qualifying as a teacher: either through the four-year Bachelor of Education (B Ed)
degree or through a three or four year Bachelor’s degree followed by a Postgraduate Certificate in
Education (PGCE). Students who receive a bursary on the programme are required to sign an agreement
6
committing themselves to teach in a public school for the equivalent period of time they received the
bursary. Primarily, the intention is to place students in poor and rural schools in the first instance.
Priority areas for Funza are identified in the bursary Implementation Protocol, which is reviewed
annually to make considerations for the changing needs and circumstances at schools. The protocol was
developed in 2007 and amended in 2014. Inclusion of subjects on the priority list is based on vacant
posts that PEDs are supposed to fill, HEI graduate output, and learner enrolment on subjects that show
greater uptake. The priority list developed in 2007 was amended in 2011 for the 2012 implementation
year, by adding Geography, Economics and accounting. Geography was added because it was proving to
be a popular subject among learners, yet HEIs were not producing an adequate number of students
specialising in that subject. Accounting and Economics were added because there was an under supply
of teachers, and learners were not able to take these as subjects because schools did not offer them
even though there was a high interest among learners (DBE, 2012b).
Table 10: Funza Lushaka Bursary current priority areas
Foundation Languages Sciences Mathematics Technology

Phase
African English Physical Science Mathematics (All Civil, Electrical, and
Languages (Intermediate, (FET Phase) phases) Mechanical (FET
Senior and FET Phase)
phases)
English African Languages Life Science Maths Literacy Computer Applications
Technology
(Intermediate, (FET Phase) (All phases) (FET Phase)

Senior and FET
phases)
Afrikaans Agricultural Science Engineering Graphics
and Design
(FET Phase) (FET Phase)

Natural Sciences Information
Technology
(Intermediate and (FET Phase)

Senior)
Geography (FET Technology
Phase) (Intermediate and
senior phases)
Source: DBE, 2012b, Funza Lushaka Report 2012
7
Programme Management and Administration
The Department of Basic Education through its Initial Teacher Education Directorate manages the
programme overall, while the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) on behalf of the DBE is
responsible for its financial administration. The Department collaborates closely with Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) in order to ensure that students are properly selected, and that the disbursement of
funds to qualifying students is adequately managed. HEIs have a Funza Lushaka management structure
comprising an academic co-coordinator, administration officer and a financial aid officer/administrator.
At some institutions, the Head of School plays the role of the academic co-coordinator. The HEI
management structure is part of the bursary selection panel which also includes provincial
representation to ensure that bursary funding is directed to priority- areas and subjects. HEIs have the
responsibility of informing bursars when they have been awarded a bursary and this is done through
short message service (sms), email messaging, phone calls as well as posting lists of awarded bursars on
notice boards. In 2011, there were plans to develop letter templates that would be used to send formal
written responses to applicants (DBE, 2011b). It is however not clear in subsequent monitoring reports
if HEIs used letters as a form of communication with bursars. The DBE is now also part of the selection
panel, a new innovation introduced in 2012 because of the perception that DBE participation in
selection committee meetings would ensure uniformity across universities. However, universities cited
the allocation of time for selection meetings as inadequate, and some delays at institutions delayed the
selection process which would then not be completed timeously (DBE, 2012b). Participation of DBE
officials is regarded as costly from a time perspective and in real monetary value terms1 (DBE, 2013d).
Another change introduced in 2012 was that national criteria were the main guide for selection of
bursars, but the provincial needs also directed selection decisions. Phase targets were developed for
awarding bursaries for specific phases of study, with the B Ed getting the larger allocation. The
allocations for all phases that were determined are as follows (DBE, 2012b).
Table 11: Phase allocations in 2012
Bachelor of Education Other B PGCE

degrees
FP IP SP FET 10% FP IP SP FET
20% 20% 10% 10% 5% 5% 10% 10%
The management of the programme is guided by explicit policies and guidelines for:
a) Amount available for disbursement in the following academic year

b) Management of the bursary scheme
c) Determining individual bursary values at institutions
11 The actual cost could not be determined from the document review
8
d) Allocation of funds to higher education institutions
e) Teaching specialization which will be funded
f) Quotas for bursary allocation to students by qualification type and phase specialization
g) Procedures for application for the bursary
h) Criteria and processes for award of the bursary
i) Disbursement of bursaries to students
j) Placement process (DBE, 2011b)
In 2011, institutions were reporting poorly on mechanisms they used for tracking academic progress.
Tracking excluded bursars for inclusion in selection processes in successive years, monitoring continued
enrolment for priority areas, and authorising final selection lists forwarded to the department (DBE,
2011b).
As a multi-stakeholder programme, the Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme involves several layers of
administrative responsibility. Funding is provided through central government, applications are
managed centrally via a web-based application system, recruitment is a combined responsibility of HEIs
and the DBE, bursary management and monitoring takes place through the HEIs and the NSFAS (who
administers the funding on behalf of the DBE), and placement and employment of teachers is primarily a
responsibility of the PEDs, with support from the DBE at particular points.
The programme has five key loci of implementation: national processes at DBE; provincial processes,
District and community processes, the internship programme and HEI processes. These are reflected in
the flow diagram below (DBE, 2014d) with roles and responsibilities of stakeholders elaborated in Table
12.
9
Figure 7: Funza Lushaka business process
Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme District based recruitment Internship Programme Community based Recruitement
DBE HEIs Province ISASA Communities
Prepare FLIMS for Advocacy and Recruitment Recruitement and selections Recruitment and Selections
Students apply and
applications and campaigns
capture placement
capturing of
data
placement data
Provincial selections
Use data set to
Preparation of
prepare for
applicant data set
selection meetings
Issue and distribution of

promissory letters
Approve returning
Select students for
and new students
bursary awards
for bursary awards NSFAS
Submit approved
Receive approved
lists to NSFAS for Submit claims to
lists and process
payments of NSFAS
claims for payment
bursary claims
Use NSFAS reports Submit annual Submit the bursary

for reconciliation Funza Lushaka payment report to
and reporting report DBE
Prepare placement Submit results Recover money

dataset notification from defaulters
Submit placement
Defaulters
data set to T E H
10
Roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder are explicitly defined for each of the specific programme
elements as reflected in Table 12.
Table 12: Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
DBE PROVINCE HEI

 Revision of the district  Establishment and
based concept constitution of the
document Provincial Co-ordination
 Revision of Funza Committee
Lushaka Policies and
Process document
 Develop presentation  Development and
guidelines for the Submission of the
District based Advocacy and
advocacy and Recruitment
recruitment management plan to DBE
 Convene inter  Advocacy/District  Provide information
provincial meeting to Briefing sessions and on admission
District based discuss District based Recruitment requirements,
recruitment advocacy and  Receiving and information
recruitment strategies consolidation of brochures and
 Monitor and support application forms from application forms for
the provinces during the Districts admission
the advocacy and
campaign
 Monitor and support  Provincial selection  Participate during the
the Provincial meetings selection meetings
selections
 Monitor and support  Orientation of selected
the Orientation of students
selected students
 Prepare the FLIMS for  Capturing of the Funza  Assist in the
the new bursary Lushaka bursary capturing of the
application cycle Application forms Funza Lushaka
electronically bursary application
forms
 Consolidation of the  Submission of the  Receive the
provincial signed off signed off list preliminary list of
lists selected students to
facilitate admission
 Issuing of promissory  Distribute the promissory  Assist students with
letters letters to Districts and promissory letters to
Schools register and access
 Province assist students bursary benefits
to Register at HEIs  Monitor the
academic progress of
the students and
11
DBE PROVINCE HEI
provide the report to
DBE
DBE ISASA HEI
 Revision of the concept  Develop advertisement  Provide
document for the messaging for the new advertisement
internship programme intake platform for the new
 Assist in the  Arrange for intake
Development of the broadcasting and
messages for the publishing of the
advertisement advertisement in the
selected media
Teacher platforms
Internship/  Monitor and support  Receive and check the
assistant the process of checking applications forms for
programmes the application forms completeness
for completeness
 Monitor and support  Initial sifting of
Initial sifting of application forms
application forms
 Monitor and support  Invite the initially
the writing of the selected students to
selection tests write selection tests
 Monitor and support  Marking of selection
the marking of tests
selection tests
 Participate in the Final  Conduct final selection
Selection Interviews Interviews
 Monitor and support  Conduct orientation
orientation Workshop Workshop of selected
of selected students students
 Monitor and support  Assist the selected  Assist students with
the registration of students to apply and promissory letters to
students with UNISA register with UNISA register and access
bursary benefits
 Monitor and support  Arrange the placement
the placement of of Interns at host
Interns at host schools schools
 Support and monitor  Arrange and conduct
Mentors’ workshop Mentors’ workshop
 Monitor and support  Arrange and conduct  Participate in the
Academic enrichment Academic enrichment academic enrichment
workshops workshops workshops
12
DBE PROVINCE HEI
 Preparation of the  Remind and encourage  Participate in the
FLIMS for the new students to re/apply revision of the
Funza Lushaka  Participate in the Policies and Processes
Bursary application revision of the Policies document
cycle and and Processes  Participate in revision
capturing of document of the
placement  Participate in the Implementation
information revision of the Protocol
 Revision of Funza Implementation
Lushaka Policies Protocol
and Processes
document
Funza Lushaka  Revision of the
bursary Implementation
programme Protocol
 Preparation of  Use the applicant
applicants database to prepare for
database to be selection meetings
send to HEIs
 Approve the  Confirmation of re-

confirmed returning students for
awards of bursary re-award
bursaries to
returning students
 Participate in the  Arrange and participate

Selection of new in the selection
applicants for meetings of new
bursary awards applicants for bursary
awards
 Receive and  Submit lists of selected
consolidate the students to DBE for
recommended lists approval
of new bursary
applicants
 Approve the
selected students
for bursary awards
 Submit the  Prepare and submit  Receive the approved

approved lists to the claims on behalf lists and process
NSFAS for of students to claims for payment
payment of claims NSFAS
by HEIs
 Use NSFAS reports  Prepare and submit  Submit the bursary
13
DBE PROVINCE HEI
for reconciliation annual Funza Lushaka payment reports to
and reporting report DBE
 Prepare placement  Submit students  Recover money from
database and hand results notification for defaulting students
it over to TEH confirmation of
Directorate placement legibility to
DBE
DBE COMMUNITY  HEIs
Community  Develop a concept  Assist with the 
based document for the advocacy and
recruitment community based recruitment campaigns
recruitment  Distribute the
approach screening forms
 Conduct advocacy
and recruitment
campaigns
 Make the
screening forms
available to the
communities
 Use the screening  Collect the screening 
forms to select the forms and submit to
suitable DBE
candidates
 Announce the  Distribute application  Provide information
suitable forms to suitable on admission
candidates that candidates requirements,
have been  Distribute the Funza information
selected Lushaka application brochures and
 Invite HEIs to forms application forms for
community base  Collect and consolidate admission
recruitment the completed Funza  Provide status report
meeting Lushaka bursary for the students
 Create a database application forms and application for
for community submit to DBE admission
based recruited
students
 Make Funza
Lushaka
application form
available to the
community

 Consolidate and  Distribute promissory  Assist students with
prepare for the letters to qualifying promissory letters to
issuing of students register and access
promissory letters bursary benefits
14
DBE PROVINCE HEI
 Monitor the
academic progress of
the students and
provide the report to
DBE
Source: DBE, 2014e. Funza Lushaka bursary programme business process 2
From 2011 - 2013, the following administrative challenges were identified in the monitoring reports
(DBE, 2011b; 2012b, 2014c):
 When institutions requested that closing dates for receiving applications for the bursary be
delayed until registrations commenced to give a chance to students enrolling at particular
institutions to apply, this delayed responses to applicants, as notification of award of the
bursary occurred after students had registered.
 HEIs do not have administrative capacity as Funza is additional to their responsibilities. at
institutions. The requirements of DBE for processing applications, selections, administering
funds and dealing with student queries and reports demands extra admin capacity, which
universities cannot afford to source.
 Some HEIs struggle with recruitment, failing to attract significant numbers of students in some
priority areas e.g. Engineering Technology.
 Final year students writing supplementary and special examinations required funds to be
reserved for them and later allocated to other students should they be successful in their
examinations. This meant that some applicants would get a late notification of the outcome of
their application.
 It is difficult to track bursars and hand defaulters over to NSFAS as the Initial Teacher Education
Directorate has no way of accessing information on graduates when they are employed or they
have completed their studies.
 Students who reject the bursary after their selection has been confirmed and their names have
been submitted to NSFAS result in under-spending.
 Because only ITE officials are participating in selection committees, their limited capacity leads
to delays in finalizing selected lists and awarding of bursaries.
 Allocation of funds to approved bursars takes place in April and this creates financial challenges
for students at the time of registration in February and during the first few months of the year.
2 Taken verbatim from source document
15
Recruitment, application and selection criteria
Beneficiaries of the bursary are students enrolled in Bachelor of Education (BEd) and Postgraduate
Certificate in Education (PGCE) programmes at HEIs. Students enrolled for other Bachelor degrees such
as Bachelor of Science (BSc), Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) or Bachelor of Agriculture (BAgric) may also
be recruited into a PGCE qualification. Eligible students must be South African, have been accepted into
a teaching programme, show commitment to a teaching career, be studying in one of the agreed priority
phases and areas, and sign an agreement to work in a public school on the completion of their studies.
The programme documents state an interest in favouring candidates from rural areas and those in
financial need.
Recruitment in the first few years of the programme was primarily a direct application process to the
DBE, which is an online process. Prospective students apply via: www.funzalushaka.doe.gov.za from
October to January. Some institutions supplemented online applications with paper-based applications
to support new applications with no online access. This however presents workload challenges as most
universities do not have the capacity to capture the applications (DBE, 2011b).
In addition to this, new District and Community-Based recruitment programmes were introduced in
2012 and 2013 respectively. The District programme introduced in 2012 targets learners from rural and
poor communities. The rationale behind district recruitment is that teacher demand is determined at
district level, so recruitment should be based on forecast of teacher demand in the district. Learners
from specific districts are more likely to want to teach in those districts, and district recruitment will
provide an equal opportunity for students from rural and disadvantaged areas to access the bursary.
There is provision of paper based applications, which takes away the barrier of lack of computers for
online application, but online applications can also be made. Universities are tasked with the
responsibility of capturing the data from the paper based applications. Although the district based
recruitment is supposed to be based on projected demand, it seems like the policy document has
already set out targets for bursaries that can be awarded in each district (DBE, 2014c).
There is evidence suggesting that the district based recruitment is achieving the intended results. In
2012, out of the 2000 bursaries set aside for the district based recruitment strategy, 1193 students were
awarded the bursary, and 2 000 had been selected for the 2014 intake. Table 13 below highlights the
distribution of the district beneficiaries in 2012. Greater uptake of the bursary is evident in KZN and
Limpopo, with the most interest in the bursary displayed in the North West which awarded more
bursaries than allocated.
Table 13: District based recruitment selected beneficiaries
District based awarded

Province Bursary Allocation bursary
Eastern Cape 488 145
Free State 134 110
Gauteng 106 81
16
District based awarded
Province Bursary Allocation bursary
KZN 478 375
Limpopo 378 230
Mpumalanga 142 60
Northern
48 15
Cape
North West 160 170
Western
66 7
Cape
Grand Total 2000 1193
Source: DBE, 2014c, Report on Funza Lushaka Bursary programme 2013
Since 2007, some 30 430 students have received Funza Lushaka bursaries, as highlighted in Table 14
below.
Table 14: Funza Lushaka Bursary Recipients 2007 – 2013
HEI 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Number of

individuals
who
received
bursary
2007 -2013
CPUT 233 349 713 794 648 758 862 1979
CUT 20 71 235 241 291 312 408 786
DUT 10 30 65 71 80 134 221 355
NIHE Mp 137 126 80 48 152
NIHE NC 123 210 248 231 193 234 322 739
NMMU 178 283 561 632 584 774 914 1751
NWU 206 309 638 753 661 948 1257 2287
RU 20 20 38 42 31 27 35 183
TUT 101 160 398 457 417 583 728 1269
UCT 35 41 70 82 64 73 69 274
UFH 158 263 389 499 460 558 660 1325
UFS 181 274 519 610 517 689 878 1842
UJ 144 229 424 443 401 582 750 1465
UKZN 181 315 720 794 701 882 1180 2172
UL 176 258 442 461 386 518 635 1237
UP 180 270 515 578 567 628 875 1703
US 186 271 501 558 476 569 639 1453
UWC 94 148 280 356 317 503 440 1014
WSU 289 386 544 552 433 586 703 1655
17
HEI 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Number of
individuals
who
received
bursary
2007 -2013
UNISA 362 398 310 297 262 398 511 1420
UNIVEN 105 149 281 302 239 362 459 957
UNIZUL 368 367 755 793 550 958 1240 2815
WITS 182 262 464 479 399 552 726 1426
Total 3669 5189 9190 10073 8677 11628 14512 30430
The number of bursaries awarded has increased each year between 2007 – 2010, dipped in 2011, and
peaked again in 2011 – 2013. The decrease in the number of bursaries that could be awarded in
2011 was “due to the inflation related adjustment by Treasury (about 5%) on the 2010
allocation, while the fees at many of the universities increased by over 10%” (DBE, 2012b). In
2012 the allocation was increased from R 449 400 000 in 2011 to R 671 912 000, enabling an
increase in the number of bursaries awarded.
Training and Student Profiles

In 2012, DBE introduced an information sheet to gather comprehensive information on the qualifying
bursars. The qualifying bursars provided information by completing the instrument on-line. The annual
reports on the Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme, written by the DBE contains a comprehensive and
detailed profile of the bursars. Information provided includes: racial, gender, age and phase
specialisation profiles; the number of bursaries awarded with average values per institution; the number
of bursars expected to apply, as well as the percentage qualified to teach by learning area.
Examples of the information gleaned from this exercise include statistics (for the time period 2007-2012
such as:
 Almost 60% of the bursars were African

 Just over two thirds of the bursars were female
 On average 36% of bursars aimed to specialise in FET phase teaching only
Beneficiaries of the bursary are students enrolled in Bachelor of Education (BEd) and Postgraduate
Certificate in Education (PGCE) programmes at HEIs (DBE, 2013a). Students enrolled for other Bachelor
degrees such as Bachelor of Science (BSc), Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) or Bachelor of Agriculture
(BAgric) may also be recruited into a PGCE qualification (DBE, 2014b). Eligible students must be South
African, have been accepted into a teaching programme, show commitment to a teaching career, be
studying in one of the agreed priority phases and areas, and sign an agreement to work in a public
school on the completion of their studies. The programme documents state an interest in favouring
18
candidates from rural areas and those in financial need, and the evaluation will explore the extent to
which these criteria are able to be implemented within the current programme design (DBE, 2014c).
The Funza Lushaka bursary addresses the challenge of an ageing workforce addressed earlier in the
report, as one of its aims is to attract young people under 30 into the teaching profession. To date, this
objective has been achieved significantly as 90%3 of bursary beneficiaries from 2007 – 2013 were under
the age of 30. However, some people not in the targeted age group are getting bursaries and it would be
useful to understand why this is the case. Figure 8 shows the age distribution of beneficiaries from 2007
– 2013.
3 Calculation based on 29 954 beneficiaries (DBE report on Funza Lushaka 2013)
19
Figure 8: Age profile of beneficiaries when first registering
The bursary is also addressing racial inequality in access to university and higher education as the award
is a full bursary, it enables students who would otherwise not have afforded to study go to university.
Furthermore, it also raises awareness of teaching as a career option for black students. Figure 9 shows
the racial composition of bursary recipients from 2007 – 2013.
Figure 9: Racial composition of Funza Lushaka beneficiaries (2007 – 2013)
70.0%
63.5%
58.4% 59.7%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% 2007 - 2011

2012
30.0% 25.5% 23.7%
21% 2013
20.0%
13% 13.6% 12%
10.0%
3.1% 3% 3%
0.0%
African Coloured Indian White
African students constitute the highest percentage of beneficiaries (Figure 10) and more female
students than males have been awarded the bursary.
20
Figure 10: Gender composition of Funza Lushaka bursary beneficiaries (2007 – 2013)
80.0%
67.3% 69% 68.7%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% Female
32.7% 31% 31.4%
Male
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2007 - 2011 2012 2013
There seems to be a challenge in that most beneficiaries want to study to teach at FET as highlighted in
Figure 11. Enrolment for study for this phase was equally high in 2007 – 2011 (36.9%) and in 2012 (36%).
Specialisation in Foundation/Intermediate phase had the lowest enrolment at under 2.6% between
2007-2011; 2012, and 2013.
21
Figure 11: Phase specialisations of bursars (2007 – 2013)
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Foundation Foundation/I Intermediate Senior/FET
Intermediate Senior FET (Grade
Phase ntermediate /Senior (Grade 7 -
(Grade 4 - 6) (Grade 7 - 9) 10 - 12 )
(Grade R - 3) (Grade R - 6) (Grade 4 - 9) 12)
2007 - 2011 15.5% 2.5% 6.3% 12.4% 4.7% 21.7% 36.9%
2012 18.6% 2.3% 6.5% 14.8% 3.8% 18% 36%
2013 20.1% 0.8% 6.1% 16% 2.9% 17% 37%
As part of the Funza Lushaka bursary programme, the DBE has entered into partnership with the
Independent Schools Association of South Africa, for an internship programme to recruit and train
effective maths and science teachers. The first cohort of 20 on this programme was recruited in 2013,
and a further 50 students were recruited for 2014. All students study through UNISA and they work with
mentors for coaching in the classroom during their experiential learning (DBE, 2014a). Mentoring not
only supports student teachers with pedagogical skills and knowledge, but students also get pastoral
mentoring and at times academic support to help them to succeed in their university studies (Mawoyo,
2010).
Funding arrangements
Between 2007 and 2012 the amount spent on bursaries increased from R109 770 701 in 2007 to
R661 387 795 in 2012. In 2014 estimates are that the disbursement to Funza Lushaka bursaries will be
R947 499 000 covering a total of 14 500 bursaries. These figures show a steady increase in the amount
of funding committed to the project in the years since its inception. Although there has been an increase
in funding every year, in real terms, the increase in costs of fees, accommodation and living expenses
has meant that the number of students funded has not increased due to an increase in funding. Table 15
below elaborates.
In 2012 the national average bursary size was R56 696 across the 22 institutions. The Funza Lushaka
Bursary is comprehensive in that it covers not only tuition fee costs, but also accommodation, living and
book expenses. It is therefore known to be an extremely generous bursary as the average amounts are
22
higher than those given to students funded through the NSFAS bursary scheme. The amount given to
any one student is capped at R75 000 for one year of study.
Funds are allocated to institutions using a distribution model based on the amount required to fund
projected returning students plus the cost of new bursaries, adjusted to accommodate smaller
institutions. Funding increases for each year are aimed at covering an increase in rising university fees,
residence fees and general living costs.
23
Table 15: Total value and number of bursaries awarded 2007 - 20134
HEI 2007 No. of 2008 No. of 2009 No. of 2010 No. of 2011 No. of 2012 No. of 2013*5 No of Total Bursar
bursar Bursar bursar Bursar Bursar Bursar Bursar y
ies ies ies ies ies ies ies recipie
nts
2007 -
2013
CPUT R 7 169 233 R 10 828 349 R 27 774 713 R 34 163 794 R 30 265 648 R 45 180 758 R 56 298 862 R 211 678 1979
000 000 904 363 400 000 000 667
CUT R 800 000 20 R 2 420 71 R 7 725 235 R 10 133 241 R 11 742 291 R 18 720 312 R 25 865 408 R 77 407 786
000 434 870 600 000 672 576
DUT R 380 817 10 R 1 200 30 R 2 795 65 R 3 281 71 R 1 610 80 R 8 442 134 R 14 365 221 R 32 074 355
000 000 433 000 000 000 250
NIHE R 1 678 137 R 1 885 126 R 2 108 80 R 1 968 48 R 7 640 200 152
(Mp) 950 000 250 000
NIHE R 3 169 123 R 3 200 210 R 6 568 248 R 6 330 231 R 7 681 193 R 9 313 234 R 14 490 322 R 50 753 739
(NC) 250 000 960 450 400 200 000 260
NMMU R 7 120 178 R 10 698 283 R 25 020 561 R 30 905 632 R 32 726 584 R 45 138 774 R 60 423 914 R 212 033 1751
000 980 650 061 230 320 770 011
NWU R 7 126 206 R 10 786 309 R 24 908 638 R 29 351 753 R 27 517 661 R 43 131 948 R 64 475 1257 R 207 297 2287
929 883 726 000 000 900 000 438
RU R 772 630 20 R 1 000 20 R 1 789 38 R 2 194 42 R 1 850 31 R 1 782 27 R 2 450 35 R 11 839 183
038 022 930 590 000 000 210
TUT R 3 530 101 R 6 000 160 R 15 908 398 R 19 737 457 R 18 974 417 R 31 060 583 R 41 184 728 R 136 394 1269
000 000 900 000 000 650 000 550
UCT R 1 308 35 R 1 640 41 R 3 400 70 R 4 510 82 R 3 717 64 R 4 737 73 R 4 830 69 R 24 142 274
000 000 000 000 700 270 000 970
UFH R 6 318 158 R 10 315 263 R 17 594 389 R 24 403 499 R 26 627 460 R 37 278 558 R 46 130 660 R 168 667 1325
918 000 460 160 600 000 000 138
UFS R 7 240 181 R 10 640 274 R 24 930 519 R 30 353 610 R 28 097 517 R 41 395 689 R 58 466 878 R 201 122 1842
000 000 142 577 597 200 027 543
UJ R 4 977 144 R 9 160 229 R 18 648 424 R 21 264 443 R 21 074 401 R 34 037 582 R 49 276 750 R 158 438 1465
307 000 635 000 560 290 500 292
UKZN R 6 404 181 R 12 875 315 R 33 451 720 R 40 409 794 R 41 408 701 R 57 021 882 R 79 858 1180 R 271 428 2172
500 044 220 135 855 250 500 504
UL R 5 551 176 R 9 025 258 R 15 414 442 R 19 142 461 R 19 106 386 R 29 267 518 R 41 715 635 R 139 222 1237
514 335 117 797 073 005 768 609
4 DBE 2013 Funza Lushaka report

5 Data for 2013 was provided in June and may not include the full number of beneficiaries by the end of the year.
24
UNISA R 2 716 362 R 4 351 398 R 8 960 310 R 10 438 297 R 10 202 262 R 16 785 398 R 22 637 511 R 76 092 1420
474 600 775 650 160 430 746 835
UNIVEN R 3 995 105 R 6 000 149 R 14 050 281 R 16 320 302 R 13 829 239 R 23 826 362 R 32 110 459 R 110 130 957
680 000 000 000 000 000 000 680
UNIZUL R 7 192 368 R 10 750 367 R 25 133 755 R 31 696 793 R 24 200 550 R 43 754 958 R 57 916 1240 R 200 641 2815
100 000 300 258 000 000 188 846
UP R 7 172 180 R 10 704 270 R 25 080 515 R 31 033 578 R 30 261 567 R 39 264 628 R 58 350 875 R 201 866 1703
600 391 316 000 000 700 000 007
US R 7 200 186 R 10 656 271 R 25 013 501 R 30 690 558 R 28 545 476 R 37 386 569 R 44 403 639 R 183 893 1453
000 000 634 000 000 000 000 634
UWC R 3 706 94 R 6 000 148 R 12 253 280 R 15 664 356 R 14 182 317 R 25 207 503 R 24 157 440 R 101 171 1014
894 000 752 000 350 080 860 936
WITS R 7 015 182 R 10 331 262 R 21 940 464 R 24 521 479 R 23 133 399 R 36 360 552 R 49 473 726 R 172 775 1426
418 548 715 717 500 000 000 898
WSU R 7 223 289 R 10 551 386 R 17 267 544 R 23 687 552 R 21 342 433 R 32 300 586 R 41 521 703 R 153 894 1655
720 500 720 202 500 500 250 392
Grand R 109 770 3669 R 171 019 5189 R 377 738 9190 R 462 198 10073 R 438 095 8677 R 661 387 11628 R 890 397 14512 R 3 110 607 30430
Total 701 319 632 603 115 795 281 446
25
As highlighted previously, the impact of the increase in bursary value was eroded by inflation and
increase in university fees, accommodation and living expenses. Proportionally, the number of
bursars who could be funded with the substantial increase in bursary allocation was reduced
because of an average higher cost as depicted in Table 16.
Table 16: Comparison of value of bursaries and number of bursars in 2007 and 2012
Difference
of average
Average value of
Awarded value No. of Average value Awarded value No. of value of bursary in
of bursaries in bursars of bursary in of bursaries in bursars bursary 2007 and
Institution 2007 in 2007 2007 2012 in 2012 2007 2012
CPUT R 7 169 000 233 R 30 768 R 45 180 000 758 R 59 604 R 28 836
CUT R 800 000 20 R 40 000 R 18 720 000 312 R 60 000 R 20 000
DUT R 380 817 10 R 38 082 R 8 442 000 134 R 63 000 R 24 918
NIHE (Mp) R 1 678 950 137 R 12 255
NIHE (NC) R 3 169 250 123 R 25 766 R 9 313 200 234 R 39 800 R 14 034
NMMU R 7 120 000 178 R 40 000 R 45 138 320 774 R 58 318 R 18 318
NWU R 7 126 929 206 R 34 597 R 43 131 900 948 R 45 498 R 10 901
RU R 772 630 20 R 38 632 R 1 782 000 27 R 66 000 R 27 369
TUT R 3 530 000 101 R 34 950 R 31 060 650 583 R 53 277 R 18 327
UCT R 1 308 000 35 R 37 371 R 4 737 270 73 R 64 894 R 27 523
UFH R 6 318 918 158 R 39 993 R 37 278 000 558 R 66 806 R 26 813
UFS R 7 240 000 181 R 40 000 R 41 395 200 689 R 60 080 R 20 080
UJ R 4 977 307 144 R 34 565 R 34 037 290 582 R 58 483 R 23 919
UKZN R 6 404 500 181 R 35 384 R 57 021 250 882 R 64 650 R 29 266
UL R 5 551 514 176 R 31 543 R 29 267 005 518 R 56 500 R 24 957
UNISA R 2 716 474 362 R 7 504 R 16 785 430 398 R 42 174 R 34 670
UNIVEN R 3 995 680 105 R 38 054 R 23 826 000 362 R 65 818 R 27 764
UNIZUL R 7 192 100 368 R 19 544 R 43 754 000 958 R 45 672 R 26 128
UP R 7 172 600 180 R 39 848 R 39 264 700 628 R 62 523 R 22 676
US R 7 200 000 186 R 38 710 R 37 386 000 569 R 65 705 R 26 995
UWC R 3 706 894 94 R 39 435 R 25 207 080 503 R 50 113 R 10 678
Wits R 7 015 418 182 R 38 546 R 36 360 000 552 R 65 870 R 27 323
WSU R 7 223 720 289 R 24 996 R 32 300 500 586 R 55 120 R 30 125
Total R 109 770 701 3669 R 29 918 R 661 387 795 11628 R 56 879 R 26 960
Note: Calculations based on figures from monitoring reports
Ultimately, although institutions were getting as much as more than six times the amount of money
for bursaries in 2012 compared to 2007, this money could only be distributed to about twice or four
times more students, depending on the value of the bursary, based on the fee structure in that
26
university. Based on the national average, the value of bursaries was six times more in 2012 than in
2007, but this was able to fund only three times as many students.
The Funza Lushaka Bursary is comprehensive in that it covers not only tuition fee costs, but also
accommodation, living and book expenses. It is therefore known to be an extremely generous
bursary as the average amounts are higher than those given to students funded through the NSFAS
bursary scheme. The amount given to any one student is capped at R75 000 for one year of study
(DBE 2014c).
Funds are allocated to institutions using a distribution model based on the amount required to fund
projected returning students plus the cost of new bursaries, adjusted to accommodate smaller
institutions (DBE, 2014c). Table 17 below highlights the bursary values within institutions, for 2012.
Table 17: Highest and lowest bursary amount within institutions
HEI Lowest bursary Highest bursary Average value

amount amount
CPUT 30000 60000 R 59 672

CUT 60000 60000 R 60 000
DUT 63000 63000 R 63 000
UFH 66000 66000 R 66 000
UFS 19059 61500 R 60 050
UL 17156 60841 R 56 462
NIHE NC 39800 58700 R 39 878
NMMU 37780 61500 R 58 307
NWU *46006 61500 R 45 438
RU 66000 66000 R 66 000
TUT 30000 53850 R 53 243
UCT 39090 66000 R 64 924
UJ 30000 66000 R 59 151
UKZN 32500 65000 R 64 641
UP 55000 66000 R 62 532
UNISA *7200 66000 R 41 760
US 40000 66000 R 65 727
UNIVEN 48210 66000 R 65 608
UWC 34850 50000 R 49 917
WITS 42000 66000 R 65 867
UNIZUL *4700 47000 R 45 601
WSU 30250 55500 R 55 028
Missing 56610 56610 R 56 610
National average R 56 696
6 * The low value for the bursary is due to a small number of students who are repeating a single subject or,
in the case of UNISA, taking a single subject.
27
The Funza Lushaka programme strives to fund at least 25% of the number of students registered for
an initial teaching qualification. This target has been achieved at the majority of the universities, but
there remain some institutions where the total number of bursars is below this target falling within
the range from 17% to 24% (DBE, 2012b). Table 18 highlights the proportion of students getting the
bursary in relation to all students studying towards an initial teacher education qualification in that
university.
Table 18: Number of FL bursars compared to students enrolled for an initial teaching qualification
HEI 2012 B.Ed& PGCE Funded by Funza Lushaka in Percentage Funded by Funza
Enrolment(1) 2012 Lushaka 2012
CPUT 3126 733 23%
CUT 2104 310 14%
DUT 788 140 17%
NIHE NC 582 241 41%
NMMU 1354 752 55%
NWU 3690 950 25%
RU 122 28 22%
SUN 983 544 46%
TUT 2448 550 22%
UCT 134 75 27%
UFH 1281 546 42%
UFS 2690 686 25%
UJ 2473 562 22%
UKZN 3486 860 24%
UL 1590 487 30%
UNIVEN 1900 337 17%
UNIZUL 2000 1008 50%
UP 3273 627 19%
UWC 1201 520 40%
WITS 1325 543 40%
WSU 2930 558 19%
Total B.Ed 39480 11057
Totals B.Sc, B.A., 258
B.Comm
Combined total 39738 Overall percentage awarded 28%

bursary
One of the reasons for failing to meet targets is when students decline to accept the bursary.
Monitoring reports up to 2012 do not specify reasons why awarded students decline bursaries
although they highlight that this is a challenge.
28
Although Funza is funding a good proportion of students studying for their initial teacher education
qualification, there are challenges with the transfer of Funza Lushaka funds from National Treasury
to universities. Funds are transferred in April each year, and this creates a mismatch between an
academic year and a financial year. The academic year starts in February, and funds are only
available in the second quarter of the academic year. This also creates the problem of late
notification of successful bursars, and creates a burden for bursars who rely solely on bursary
funding as most institutions demand upfront payment for registration fees. An exceptional challenge
experienced in 2011 was that there was a dip in the level of funding available due to an inflation
related adjustment by National Treasury (about 5%) whilst fees at most institutions increased by
more than 10%. As a result, the number of bursaries awarded dropped by about 20% compared to
2010, and many students who met criteria could not be funded (DBE, 2011b).
Monitoring and tracking systems for bursary recipients

There are several ways in which monitoring information is collected and managed. The DBE
developed a report template that was sent to all participating institutions, to provide information
required by DBE by a set date, for compiling implementation monitoring reports. Additional data is
sourced from the State Information and Technology Agency (SITA)’s information management
system as well as supply and demand data from DHET. Starting from 2013, institutions are obligated
to submit the academic results of bursary recipients, providing the following information about the
students: pass; conditional pass; fail; cancelled course registration; graduated; or reregistered for
2013. This information was required for 2012 bursars and it is useful for informing the confirmation
of the re-award of bursaries based on FLBP policy guidelines. The monitoring of academic
performance ensures that the bursaries are allocated to candidates who are progressing with their
studies. In 2012, university reports on student academic performance indicated that of the students
being funded through Funza Lushaka, the rate of drop out was very low at 2.4% as highlighted in the
table below.
Table 19: Academic progress of 2012 bursars
Classification Number %
Number who qualified 2978 26.1%
Number who registered in 2012 8159 71.5%
Number who did not re-register in 2013 279 2.4%
Total 11415
Of the 279 students who were supposed to reregister in 2013 but did not do so, cancellation of
courses and failure were the most prevalent reasons as outlined below.
29
Table 20: Academic record of 2012 bursars who did not re-register in 2013
2012 academic results Number
Failed the year of study 65
Course cancelled 69
No results available* 47
Passed 54
Conditional pass 4
Total 279
The placement of candidates to teach at a public school after the completion of their studies is
essential. Information from PERSAL is used to determine the number of Funza Lushaka bursary
recipients employed in public schools. This information may soon be supplemented by SARS data, to
allow the programme to track recipients employed in private schools, in SGB-funded posts in public
schools and indeed in other sectors. A final monitoring system comprises defaulter management
where students who opt to defer their service obligation are handed over to NSFAS as the
programme administrators to recover bursary funds.
There are several difficulties that make the tracking of students challenging:
 Students change courses or de-register for priority area modules after the bursary was
awarded;
 Students do not come forward to sign agreement forms once selected or decline a bursary
after it was awarded, hence create a need to go through selection processes which cause
delays in notifying additional students;
 Placement of qualifying bursars – Students refuse to sign placement request forms to
facilitate placement in public schools, and some students have not been offered teaching
posts by PDEs; and
 Students who enroll for Bachelors degrees do not want to enroll for the PGCE immediately
after completing a Bachelors degree and opt for Honours degrees in contrast to bursary
agreement conditions (DBE, 2011b).
 The Funza Lushaka Information Management System (FLIMS), written by the State
Information Technology Agency (SITA, was introduced in 2008. The program is unstable and
unreliable, and records get lost, compromising the credibility of the data (DBE, FL 2014c).
Graduation and placement

Before students graduate, Funza Lushaka bursary recipients are required to submit forms indicating
their provincial preference for placement as a teacher, and once graduated they are required to
30
report their graduation to the provincial department concerned within 14 days. Once this happens,
the system (PEDs and the DBE) have 60 days to place the student in a teaching post. Should their
province of first choice be unable to place them, the information will be centrally collated at the DBE
and other provinces will be requested to look for placement. If, after 60 days, a graduate has not
been placed in a teaching post; they are released from their obligations to repay the bursary (DBE,
2012b).
An education system with temporary and unqualified teachers is likely to produce poor results.
Consequently, it is important to place qualified Funza Lushaka bursars, not only to improve the
quality of education of learners, but also to extract value from the programme, by utilizing these
teachers to impact schooling.
A condition of the Funza Lushaka bursary is that all beneficiaries must teach in a public school. There
is some dissonance between two policy documents, with regards to placement. The document
“Placement process for Funza Lushaka Graduates” indicates that students can choose a preferred
province to teach in, but if they can’t be placed there, they must accept wherever they have been
placed. On the other hand, the “Funza Lushaka Bursary Agreement” document specifies in bold that
Bursars cannot choose where they will be placed. While it is worth resolving this policy ambiguity,
the issue that it raises is that of supply and demand. Bursars will be placed where there is a need,
and in some instances, where there is a need is not where they prefer.
Notwithstanding this lack of policy clarity, the Funza Lushaka programme has developed varied
provincial placement protocols for placing of Funza graduates. Reports from provinces show that a
majority of qualified bursars are placed in schools within the same year. In 2012, only 23% of the
3064 qualified bursars available for placement had not been placed in provincial posts by the end of
June 2012. Table 21 shows placement of students in the various provinces. The figures
reflect students who chose to be placed in that province.
Table 21: Provincial placement of Funza Bursars
Provincial Education Department Placed Not yet placed

Eastern Cape 47 216
Free State 150 6
Gauteng 402 55
KwaZulu Natal 922 124
Limpopo 193 15
Mpumalanga 109 12
Northern Cape 90 0
North West 91 0
Western Cape 348 284
National 2352 712
31
The Eastern Cape seemed to be struggling the most with placement of graduates, and figures for
non-placement in the Western Cape and KwaZulu Natal are also quite high. The Northern Cape, the
North West seemed to be the most efficient, with Western Cape and KwaZulu Natal placement also
very high. Persal data shows that most teachers were under temporary employment – which is
unsurprising given the earlier observation that Persal takes quite a while to record teachers from a
temporary to a permanent position (DBE internal report, 2009).
It is also important to note that the placement of students in provinces is based on each individual
province’s placement policies, as outlined in Table 22 below. Most provinces seem to prioritize
placement of Funza gradates. No data was available for the Eastern Cape. Western Cape information
is excluded as it is not clear from the description in the DBE report (2014c) what the position if with
Funza graduates.
Table 22: Provincial placement policies
Province Description of placement policy
KwaZulu Natal  Educators declared in excess are first priority for placement, followed by
Funza graduates.
 After all teachers in excess have been placed, any vacancies are sent to the
Head Office which compiles a composite vacancy List. The matching and
placing of Funza graduates is effected by the District Task Team which
includes the union. Allocation of posts is on a first come first served for
districts. Placements are forwarded to Head Office to process appointments
letters - only the Head Office is allowed to appoint Funza bursars and issue
letters to avoid nepotism and corruption. After this initial placement, Head
Office requests vacancies daily from districts to place available bursars.
Mpumalanga  Comprehensive lists of bursars are provided to all District Offices and Circuit
offices.
 These lists were distributed to schools in October 2012 after the 2013 post
provisioning was released.
 Schools identify bursars who meet the requirements of the vacant post at te
school and appoint bursars accordingly.
 At the same time, bursars can submit a complete CV to schools and Circuit
Offices for possible placements.
 Updated lists were constantly distributed after the results were received and
bursars who had already been appointed and those who could not be placed
were removed from the list .
32
Gauteng  Bursars were required to apply for vacancies at schools through the Vacancy
Circular 09 of 2012 published in January 2013.
 GDE announced that for all vacancy lists preference must be given to Funza
graduates and other bursary holders.
 Graduates were: placed temporarily into vacant ad hoc posts and
permanently into substantive posts during the first term.
 Graduates were placed into profiled posts with due consideration to
curriculum needs and educator qualifications.
 Graduates were placed in vacant posts against promotional posts or any
other resultant posts due to attrition.
Free State  Head office receives lists of vacancies from schools and assessment of
vacancies that can match the profiles of bursars is done.
 Vacancies are matched with profiles of bursars at HR Head Office, and
matched lists are sent to schools.
 Schools conducts interviews with Funza bursars for possible placement, and
submit recommendation forms to HR official signed by all stakeholders
 HR sends appointment letters to bursars – indicating that their
appointments are subject to passing their qualification (must be qualified
educators).
 Appointments are done on PERSAL upon confirmation of the results has
been received.
 Academic results are made available by tertiary institutions on request by
HR if qualifications are obtained as graduation ceremony takes place in
March/April 2014.
 The above process is repeated in the 2nd quarter if profiles do not match
existing vacancies. In this regard, bursars are placed throughout the year.
Northern Cape  The province has a list of substitute posts as by 1st December of each year
 Funza graduates are matched with provincial substitute posts.
 SGBs are consulted and offers of employment are confirmed.
 NCDoE make offers of employment to successfully matched FL graduates
 A list of bursars who decline the post is sent through to DBE to follow up
with regard to conversion of bursary to loans.
 Students are contacted to ensure that they are in the posts in which they
33
have been placed and a summary is made of teachers who are placed in
temporary posts.
North West  Vacancies in the province are analysed and matched to the Funza graduate
profiles at Head Office.
 Meetings are held with districts to discuss the provincial database and the
temporary educator issue to prepare for the Funza intake for 2013.
 District placement teams are formed.
 There is initial placement of students in the Funza B Ed followed by
placement of the bursars with PGCE.
 Schedules, documentation, and recommendation of successful candidates
are submitted to area project Offices for verification and certification.
 There is continuous monitoring of the process and placement of those who
cannot be placed when placement takes place initially.
 The final placement list is submitted to DBE.
References
For a full list of references, see the full FLBP implementation evaluation report
34
Annexure B: Programme Theory and Logframe
Introduction
This document describes the programme theory and presents a logframe for the Funza Lushaka
Bursary Programme (FLBP). It was submitted as part of the formal requirements for the
implementation evaluation of the FLBP. The programme theory and logframe were developed via a
rigorous and participatory process. The evaluation team undertook a literature review which
included an international review of local and international bursary programmes, reviewed FLBP
documents and conducted interviews with key personnel who were involved in conceptualizing and
designing the programme and its subsequent development and evolution. This led to the
development of a draft programme and logframe. A two-day stakeholder workshop was then held
(August 19/20 2014) with a broad range of stakeholders involved in the FLBP, to clarify the goal and
objectives of the programme, identify major events in the development and evolution of the FLBP,
understand how the key business processes work and confirm key components of the logframe (i.e.
activities, outputs, outcomes and assumptions). Following the stakeholder workshop, the evaluation
team refined the programme theory and logframe following to comply with best practices and
international standards. The document was also updated at the end of the evaluation, in light of the
evaluation findings and recommended improvements to the programme design.
This document is structured as follows:
 Section 1 explains the need for the FLBP and briefly describes the policy and institutional
context;
 Section 2 describes the programme design, including changes made to the programme
design since inception to date. It also summarises the key stakeholders involved in
programme and presents the purpose, goal and objectives which the programme was
evaluated against;
 Section 3 presents the theory of change (ToC) which underpins the FLBP and outlines the key
business processes and a summary logframe for the programme.
This document should serve as a living document which is reviewed and revised regularly (i.e.
annually) by the Department of Basic Education (DBE), and used to guide FLBP implementers,
managers and evaluators evaluating the programme in future.
It is important to note that the design of the FLBP has evolved since its inception in 2007. This
document captures those changes (in Section 2.1). The implementation evaluation of the FLBP
conducted by JET covers the period (2007 – 2012), it is important to bear in mind the original design
and objectives which were set for the FLBP when it was conceptualized and which guided it up until
2012 and measure the performance of the programme in relation to these. Recommendations from
the evaluation team regarding how the programme purpose, goal and objectives should be amended,
in light of the evaluation findings are presented in Section 2.3. The ToC and logframe which are
outlined in Section 3 describes the programme in its current form (when the evaluation was
conducted in 2014) and recommendations for how it should be implemented going forward.
35
Section 1: The need for the FLBP
1.1 Rationale for the FLBP

This sub-section describes a range of issues which gave rise to the FLBP. The FLBP was conceptualised
in response to an analysis of contextual factors within the education sector, which included the
following:
 Teacher supply and demand
In 2004/2005, Government conducted an analysis of teacher supply and demand and identified a
major supply crisis. An insufficient number of teachers were being produced and the number of
trainee teacher graduates was lower than the teacher attrition rate (ToC Interviews 3 and 5, 2014).
Teacher supply is influenced by the number of students enrolling in teacher education programmes,
the number of teacher education graduates, the number of graduates in specific subject areas, and
the number of teachers who exit the system annually. Supply side issues include recruitment of
people to train as teachers, access to financial assistance to complete studies, subject specialisation,
completion rates, the proportion of teacher education graduates who go into the teaching
profession, the placement of qualified teachers and teacher provisioning.
Research studies point to a shortfall in the number of new teachers being produced in South Africa.
The DHET’s own analysis identified that at least 12,000 new teachers are needed per annum, but the
21 public higher education institutions (HEIs) involved in initial teacher education7 produced
approximately 6000 graduates per year. A target of 12,000 new teachers produced annually by 2014
was set for both Ministers Motshegka and Nzimande in their Delivery Agreements (DBE & DHET,
2011). This scenario is changing however, there were 13,000 new teacher education graduates in
2013 (ToC interview 2). There has been a “dramatic increase” in the supply of teachers in recent
years, which the FLBP is said to have contributed towards (ToC interview 3). The supply problem is
now more nuanced in that the shortage is of particular types of teachers rather than of teachers per
se (ToC interview 4).
 Ageing teacher population
The teacher population is ageing. The proportion of older teachers has increased over the past 30
years and appears to be concentrated in the 45–55 year age group. A substantial proportion of the
teaching workforce will therefore be eligible to retire on age grounds within the next 5–10 years
(Mda and Erasmus, 2008). If an increased number of younger candidates do not enter the teaching
profession and remain in it for an extended period, there will be inadequate numbers to replace
those who leave the profession due to age. To avert an imminent shortage, government had to
embark on a drive to interest young people into the profession. The FLBP aimed to mobilise bright
7 There are now 22 HEIs which offer initial teacher education. At the time of the DHET’s analysis there were 21 HEIs which
offered teacher education programmes.
36
young people who may not have thought about the teaching profession were it not for the bursary
(ToC interview 6).
 Recruitment
It is difficult to attract new people into the teaching profession because of perceptions of low
salaries. This is exacerbated by reports of ill-discipline in schools and the fact that other opportunities
are more attractive than teaching (Patterson and Arends, 2009). A stakeholder involved in the
conceptulisation of the FLBP explained that “teaching simply wasn’t cutting it as an attractive field
for students entering higher education. It was essential to link the FLBP to a marketing strategy to
raise the profile of teaching as an attractive profession” (interview 1). The FLBP was designed as a
full-cost bursary to make it as attractive as possible to young people considering the teaching
profession and to attract the best candidates (ToC interviews 4 and 5).
 Financing teacher education
Before 1994, teacher training was generally free, but from 1995 – 2005 – after the closure of teacher
training colleges - bursaries for teacher training were largely abandoned (ToC interview 3), with some
provision by Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) but no cohesive national initiative. The idea of
a national system, funded through the national fiscus was thought to be a necessity (ToC interview
1).
In 2002, 110 teacher colleges were closed and/or merged into the 22 HEIs and tuition fees to study
teacher education increased. The number of previously disadvantaged (particularly African) teacher
students decreased, due to bursaries no longer being available and increased tuition fees (ToC
interview 3, 2014). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) was established in 1996 to
provide funding to students from poor backgrounds and increase access to higher education. The
share of NSFAS funding going to education students has remained small and actually declined from
11% in 1996 to 3.3% in 2001. Student enrolment in teacher education also declined during this
period, suggesting a strong association between studying teacher education and access to funding
(Patterson & Arends, 2009).
 Scarce skills subjects
The DHET’s latest draft list of top 100 occupations in high demand in the country identifies the
following three schooling occupations (DHET, 2014):
 Foundation Phase School Teacher

 Natural Science Teacher (Grade 10-12)
 Mathematics Teacher (at primary school level)
37
HEIs corroborate the shortage of foundation phase teachers and emphasize absolute scarcity in
foundation phase teachers who are trained to teach in an African language. More teachers who
teach in African languages are needed to promote mother tongue instruction at foundation phase
level (DBE & DHET, 2011), particularly in light of the DBE’s Initial Introduction of African Languages
policy. There is a shortage of teachers qualified and competent to teach specific subjects
(mathematics, the sciences, technology and languages, arts and culture and economic and
management sciences), phases (Early Childhood Development and foundation phase), languages
(African languages, sign language and Braille), and to teach in Special Needs, rural and remote
schools.
The teacher supply issue discussed earlier has become more nuanced, there is a shortage of teachers
trained to teach specific phases and subjects (ToC interview 4). The introduction of “priority areas”
has provided a mechanism to influence the supply and demand of teachers “in this way we have
some [influence] and can influence the number of Foundation Phase teachers who speak an African
language” (ToC interview 3). The bursary is also available to students who have completed a first
degree in a subject other than education and to people working in other fields (e.g. sciences and
accounting) who would like to retrain (ToC interview 6).
 Shortage of teachers in rural areas
The DBE (2012) highlights that PEDs face a challenge recruiting educators for rural schools. Rural
areas are characterised by a critical shortage of qualified educators, particularly in physical science
and mathematics. The supply of teachers to rural areas was said to have decreased following the
closure of teacher training colleges (several of which were located in rural areas) (ToC interview 3).
Morale is low because of poor conditions of service and the teaching environment in many rural
schools. For these reasons, the FLBP was designed such that students are to be placed by PEDs in
areas of greatest need (ToC interview 6).
1.2 Policy context
This sub-section outlines key aspects of the policy context which supported the conceptualization
and subsequent evolution of the FLBP.
The FLBP’s genesis can be seen in the 2007 National Policy Framework for teacher education and
development which proposed a focus on teacher quantity and quality. The FLBP was put in place as a
tool to assist and attract more students and a higher caliber of student into the teaching profession
(ToC interview 2).
In later years (2011), the National Policy Framework was supplemented by The Integrated Strategic
Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa (ISPFTED) 2011–2025,
which outlines the vision for an integrated national plan for teacher development aimed at improving
38
the quality of teacher education, to improve the quality of teachers, teaching and learning (DBE and
DHET, 2011).
Education plays a crucial role in national development, which is outlined in Chapter 9 of the National
Development Plan (NDP).The NDP emphasizes that teachers – as the facilitators of education – are
central to the success of the national education effort and teaching should be a valued profession
(NPC, 2011: 265). Recognising the significance of education for national development, in 2010, the
DBE launched Action Plan 2014, as part of the larger vision called Schooling 2025. The Schooling 2025
Plan is a strategy of the DBE to improve the schooling system in the period to 2025.
Teacher education programmes have been found to be of varying standards. Based on the Council on
Higher Education (CHE, 2010) report, the revised Minimum Requirements of Teaching Qualifications
(MRTEQ), aligned with the Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF, 2007), provides the
minimum competences required of a newly qualified teacher and provides guidance on revision of all
teacher education qualifications. The MRTEQ directs HEIs to undertake better "professional screening
of applicants prior to admission", to be "more selective during admissions processes" and to "give
more support once students have been admitted and are in the system" (DHET 2011: 6). It further
specifies that, as of July 2014, all new teacher graduates are expected to be able to teach in at least
one official language and be partly proficient (e.g. able to converse) in "at least one other official
language (including South African Sign Language) other than English or Afrikaans" (DHET 2011: 16).
1.3 Institutional context
This sub-section describes major changes in the institutional context which have influenced the FLBP.
In 2009, the then Department of Education split to become the DBE and the DHET. Staff who were
involved in managing and implementing the FLBP were split across the two new Department’s now
responsible for different aspects of the programme: DHET has oversight for post-school education
and training whereas the DBE assesses teacher demand (by looking at enrolments and vacancy rates),
DHET is responsible for ensuring that there is an adequate supply of teachers based on the supply
and demand projections and the DBE manages and coordinates the FLBP.
The Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation8 (DPME) was established in 2010, leading
to greater emphasis on evaluation and the development of national policies and frameworks for
such. In the same year, the outcomes approach and 12 government-wide outcomes were approved
by Cabinet. The first of the 12 outcomes is: Improved quality of basic education (DPME, 2010). A
Delivery Agreement was signed in October 2010 by the Minister of Basic Education and a wide range
of “delivery partners” are involved in supporting the Minister. The Outcome has a range of indicators
linked to it which include increasing “the number of qualified teachers aged 30 and below entering
the public services as teachers for the first time during the past year” (DBE, 2010). Delegates
attending the theory of change stakeholder workshop noted that the establishment of the DPME and
introduction of performance agreements has led to an increased emphasis on monitoring and
8 Now the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation.
39
accountability which ultimately led to the current evaluation of the FLBP – the first evaluation since
the programme’s inception.
Section 2: Programme design, stakeholders, purpose, goal and objectives
This Section discusses the design of the FLBP and reflects on changes between 2007 and 2012, which
is the period under review. Following this, an overview of key stakeholders involved in the
programme is presented. We then outline purpose, goal and objectives of the FLBP and reflect on
changes as compared to the original goals and objectives which were identified for the FLBP and
outlined in the ToR for the evaluation.
2.1 Programme design
The design of the programme has several key features which are described below, along with a
summary of changes to the design of the programme since 2007:
 Education sector programme: The FLBP aims to provide bursaries to 25% of the national
Initial Teacher Education student intake (DBE, 2013). A range of stakeholders - including the
DBE, the DHET, nine PEDs (including since 2012 the districts), HEIs and the NSFAS are
involved - to ensure the success of the programme. An Implementation Protocol outlines the
roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. Stakeholder relationships are reported
to have been cemented over the years, with greater involvement by PEDs and Districts from
2012 with the commencement of district-based recruitment.
 Service-linked: Students are bound by signing an annual contract to give one year of service
for each year that they receive a bursary. During the first few years, parents signed contracts
on behalf of bursars, which posed a challenge. This was changed and bursars now sign
contracts annually. A shift reportedly took place in 2010, from students looking for
placement, to the Human Resources (HR) sections within the DBE and PEDs assisting with
placement. A placement request form was introduced in 2012 for final year students to
complete, indicating where they would like to be placed and, in 2013, placement applications
were made available online. PEDs have 60 days in which to place FLBP graduates, or the
service obligation expires. Stakeholders raised concerns during interviews and the theory of
change workshop that the 60-day placement period is unrealistic.
 Administered by NSFAS: Funding is governed by National Treasury regulations through the

NSFAS Act. Money is transferred from the DBE to NSFAS after the start of the financial year
(i.e. 1 April) annually. NSFAS disburses the funds to universities and the bursaries are then
administered through the Financial Aid Office (FAO) at universities.
40
 Full-cost annual bursary scheme: The FLBP aims to provide a full-cost bursary that is as
attractive as possible to young people. The bursary is intended to cover registration fees,
tuition fees, an allowance for books, travel and residence fees or approved accommodation
and meal costs. Bursaries support students enrolled in a one year Post Graduate Certificate
in Education (PGCE), three year Bachelor of Arts (BA) or Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree plus
a one-year PGCE, or a four year Bachelor of Education (BEd), either from the start of their
studies, or for students already enrolled who apply part-way through their studies. The
amount provided to students differs depending on the HEI they attend.
 Targeted within the context of educational needs: Based on priority needs identified in
2006 (Department of Education, 2006), FLBP recipients should be selected contingent on
their studying in priority areas that include Mathematics, Science, African Languages, English
Language9 (all phases), Intermediate/Senior Phase Technology, FET Technology subjects
(including ICT, and the Foundation Phase (with special emphasis on students who can teach
in an African Language). In the early years the focus on priority areas was not emphasized, as
the main aim was to increase enrolment in teacher education programmes and thus enhance
teacher supply. There has been a greater focus in more recent years on selecting teachers
based on needs, as enrolment in teacher education programmes has increased. The priority
areas were revised in 2009 and 2012, with the need identified to place emphasis on first
language African language-speaking teachers, due to shortages, particularly in Foundation
Phase. This led to ring-fencing a certain number of bursaries for Foundation Phase first
language African-language speaking students at some HEIs. District-based recruitment
introduced in 2012 emphasized recruitment from specific geographic (rural) areas, based on
the assumption that they would return from the areas they came from to teach and thus
increase the supply of qualified teachers. The need was identified by several interviewees
and stakeholders attending the workshop to tighten and strengthen the recruitment of
graduate teachers to geographic areas of need.
 Merit-based bursary: FLBP bursars are selected based on academic performance, to make
selection competitive and attract the highest calibre of students. A number of stakeholders
who were interviewed and several who attended the workshop stressed the importance of
selecting students who have a passion for teaching and demonstrate the potential to be a
good teacher. This may alter the design of the programme, by expanding the selection
criteria, as the programme looks forward.
 Pro-poor: In 2007 recruitment was paper based and in subsequent years it was solely via an
online application system. In 2012 a mechanism was put in place to enhance the recruitment
of candidates from rural areas (specific districts) who are from disadvantaged backgrounds.
District-based recruitment was introduced in 2012; in this year 2,000 bursaries were reserved
for students coming from Quintile 1-3 schools to give the bursary a definite pro-poor focus.
9 English language was a priority subject for many years, but is no longer a priority for the Foundation Phase.
41
The idea was to recruit students from districts with shortages of qualified teachers, who
would go back to those districts to teach after graduation. Since then district-based
recruitment has taken place alongside the regular online application system. District-based
recruitment increased the role of PEDs and districts, who actively recruit by going into
schools. In 2013 community-based recruitment was piloted in Gauteng. The FLBP continues
to be a merit bursary, awarded to applicants with the highest academic achievement. The
district-based recruitment mechanism ring-fences bursaries for students from Quintile 1-3
schools to ensure that students compete for the bursary against peers who attended a
similar school.
2.2 Programme stakeholders
A range of stakeholders play critical roles in the FLBP. Their roles and functions are defined in the
FLBP Implementation Protocol. The following table identifies the key stakeholders and summarises
their role in the FLBP.
Table 1: Stakeholders key to the FLBP and their roles
Key stakeholders Their role
HEIs Responsible for selection in collaboration with the province and the DBE.
Responsible to inform successful applicants and gather documentation for
NSFAS. Provide teaching and support of teacher students, along with
payments to them. HEIs also check and confirm placement request forms.
NSFAS Sign contracts with FLBP bursars. Manage the FLBP funds. Process
payments to HEIs, receive statements of account from HEIs and submit
audited financial statements.
PEDs Responsible for supporting districts with recruitment. Responsible for
establishing the district-based selection panel and selecting awardees,
together with Districts, the DBE and HEIs. Participate in HEI selection.
Responsible for the placement of FLBP graduates
DBE Responsible for recruitment campaigns. Responsible for identifying the
criteria to be applied for selection and participating in selection. Make
awards and inform HEIs of final list. Capture and communicate placement
information.
State Information Responsible for developing the FLBP Management Information System
Technology Agency (MIS).
(SITA)
Districts Responsible for District-based recruitment and ensuring district-based
bursars apply to HEIs. Participate in selection of district-based awardees.
Bursars Obligated to provide one years teaching service for every year that they
receive a FLBP bursary, or repay the bursary (as a loan).
42
2.3 Programme purpose, goal and objectives
The purpose of the FLBP was confirmed by key programme stakeholders as being:
“To address educator scarcity in priority areas (scarce skills subjects and geographically identified
areas of need) so as to respond to concerns about teacher supply and demand and the need to
increase the number of appropriately qualified teachers placed in priority areas in geographical
areas of need in South Africa”.
The programme purpose above holds the same characteristics as the purpose defined in the ToRs
provided for the evaluation10. The wording was revised based on inputs at the stakeholder
workshop. ‘High quality teachers’ was replaced with ‘appropriately qualified teachers’, since the
FLBP has no direct control over the quality of initial teacher education and stakeholders attending the
workshop noted that the term ‘high quality’ was therefore problematic.
The goal of the FLBP is:
“To contribute to the supply of qualified teachers in priority subjects, phases and identified
geographical areas, through attracting suitable students and ensuring they are appropriately
trained in regularly defined priority areas (scarce skills subjects)”.
The goal statement was re-worded in line with the EU Guide to Logical Framework Development
(European Integration Office, 2011), which sets out good practices in structuring programme goals.
The programme goal above holds the same characteristics as the two goals defined in the evaluation
terms of reference11, with slight amendments as summarized below:
 Stakeholders recommended including the need for priority areas to be defined regularly –
this wording has been added to the programme goal;
 ‘Quality students’ and ‘adequately trained’ were replaced with ‘suitable students’ and
‘appropriately training’; and
 Stakeholders noted that teachers are not just needed in rural and poor schools, hence the
wording ‘rural and poor schools’ has been replaced with ‘identified geographical areas’
Subsequent to the evaluation, the evaluation team recommend that the programme purpose and
goal be subsumed into one statement12 as follows:
10 “The purpose of the FLBP is to ensure that the basic education sector responds adequately to the supply and demand
needs for high quality teachers in nationally-defined priority areas” (DBE and DPME, 2014)
11 “1. To attract quality students; and ensure that students are trained in identified priority areas. 2. To contribute
substantially to the supply of adequately trained teachers with a focus on rural and poor schools.”
12 There is no “standard format” for programme theory. According to Wildschut, a South African expert with a PhD on the
topic of programme theory, programme theory frameworks contain the following components as standard – inputs,
43
“To address educator scarcity and contribute to the supply of qualified teachers in priority
phases and subjects, targeting geographical areas of need in South Africa”
Three objectives were identified by the evaluation team and confirmed at the stakeholder workshop.
These are outlined in the box below.
Objective 1: To attract academically deserving suitable* South African students to become

teachers in identified priority areas (scarce skills subjects and phases and identified geographic
areas).
*suitable defined as ‘having a passion for teaching, teaching ability and desire to teach in priority
subjects, phases and identified areas’
Objective 2: To ensure a satisfactory completion rate of funded students in identified priority

areas (scarce skills subjects and phases).
Objective 3: To effectively place FLBP graduates in schools identified as under-resourced.
The programme objectives formulated by the evaluation team differ to the five objectives13 defined
in ToR provided for the Evaluation. The original objectives are presented below, with a discussion on
what has been removed and changed and why:
 To employ efficient and effective recruitment mechanisms to attract quality students (aged 30
and below) to become teachers in identified priority areas.
Stakeholders indicated that ‘aged 30 and below’ has not been strictly adhered to, because,
although the FLBP focuses on attracting youth, a number of older teacher education students
have been funded, including unqualified teachers and people who are retraining for a
different career. Key to this objective is the wording ‘to attract’, which is included in the
revised Objective 1.
 To increase the number of first-time enrolments by 10% year on year.
activities, outputs and outcomes (CREST, 2016). We have opted to follow the template provided by the DPME which also
includes the goal and objectives.
13 1. To employ efficient and effective recruitment mechanisms to attract quality students (aged 30 and below) to become
teachers in identified priority areas; 2. To increase the number of first-time enrolments by 10% year-on-year; 3. To provide
financial assistance to South African youth with academic potential to enter and complete tertiary studies in teacher
education programmes; 4. To ensure a satisfactory completion rate of funded students; 5. To ensure that Funza Lushaka
graduates are placed appropriately in schools.
44
Stakeholders commented that this objective may no longer be relevant or achievable
through the FLBP alone. The number of first-time teacher education enrolments has
increased, reportedly due to number of factors, increasing enrolment is no longer a primary
concern of the FLBP and the FLBP is not the only funding mechanism available to support
teacher education students. There has been a steep rise in tuition fees at HEIs without a
similar increase in the total funding provided by National Treasury for the FLBP year on year,
which means that the total number of students funded by the FLBP cannot increase at 10%
per year. There are a significant number of returning students who have previously been
funded via the FLBP and require funding in subsequent years, so a percentage increase of
first time enrolments is not achievable every year. This objective does not describe how the
education sector will be changed through results and the evaluation team recommends that
it be omitted as an objective of the FLBP.
 To provide financial assistance to SA youth with academic potential to enter and complete
tertiary studies in teacher education programmes.
The evaluation team proposes that this objective be combined with the subsequent objective
as part of a revised Objective 2. The objective refers to provision of funding for students and
their completion of studies in teacher education programmes. The evaluators do not believe
there is need for an objective that specifies the provision of financial assistance to SA youth,
because the programme purpose is to address educator scarcity and enhance teacher supply
rather than provide bursaries to deserving youth, and bursaries are provided to non-youth as
well. Funding is one mechanism to support students complete their studies and this is
referred to in revised Objective 2. The wording ‘academic potential’ has been included in a
revised form (‘academically deserving suitable students’) as part of revised Objective 1.
 To ensure a satisfactory completion rate of funded students.

This objective is captured as revised Objective 2, which is expanded on further to specify
‘identified priority areas (scarce skills subjects and phases and identified geographic areas)’.
 To ensure that FL graduates are placed appropriately in schools.

This objective is captured as revised Objective 3, it has been expanded further to indicate
placement in schools identified as under-resourced.
45
Subsequent to the evaluation, the evaluation team recommend that the programme objectives be
rephrased as follows14:
1. To provide bursaries which attract academically deserving and financially needy students,
with a passion for teaching and the potential to become good teachers, into teacher
education programmes, specialising in priority phases and subjects.
2. To provide financial support to FL bursars to complete their studies – where possible in the
minimum time – and graduate specialising in priority phases and subjects.
3. To match FLBP graduates with vacancies aligned to their phase and subject specialisations in
schools with shortages of qualified teachers.
4. To track FLBP bursars, to ensure that they fulfil their service commitments and monitor their
performance over time.
Section 3: Theory of change, Key Business Processes and logframe
This Section describes the core of the FLBP. Sub-section 1 outlines the ToC which the FLBP is based
on, sub-section 2 lays out the Key Business Processes, and sub-section 3 presents the logframe which
summarises the FLBP.
3.1 Theory of change
The following theory of change statement is proposed for the FLBP and elaborated further below:
If you provide a sufficient full-cost bursary as an incentive to recruit students for initial teacher
education, and you select teacher students based on merit (academic performance) and suitability
(passion for teaching, teaching ability and desire to teach in priority subjects, phases and identified
areas), and then you develop induction and academic support programmes and tracking systems to
ensure satisfactory completion of funded students, and you link bursaries to service contracts and
place FL graduates in posts where they will be teaching priority subjects and phases in identified
geographical areas of need, then you should be able to increase the supply of qualified teachers to
meet the need in priority areas (subjects, phases and identified geographical areas of need) so as to
address educator scarcity.
14 The rationale for including another objective is that tracking and monitor bursars is essential to ensure the cost
effectiveness of the programme and for future evaluative work. Not having a system in place currently meant that the
evaluation team were unable to assess the extent to which bursars were fulfilling the service agreement linked to their
bursaries.
46
Figure 1: FLBP programme theory
Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman (2004) distinguish between programme impact and programme process
theory. Programme impact theory describes a ‘cause-and-effect sequence’ from activities to
outcomes and impact whereas programme process theory describes how a programme is organized,
and administered. Both components are described below as well as the assumptions which underpin
the impact and process theory.
In order to attract academically deserving and suitable South African students into teacher
education, the DBE, PEDs and education districts undertake national and district-based recruitment
campaigns. Promotional material is developed by the DBE. The DBE promotes the FLBP at a national-
level. District-based recruitment campaigns target schools in districts where there are teacher
shortages (based on the assumption that students recruited from there will be willing to go back
there to teach). The success of the district-based recruitment campaign relies upon PEDs, districts
and school principals cooperating in the promotion and marketing of the FLBP. The campaigns target
young people with a good academic background, who demonstrate a passion for teaching, and who
are willing to study identified priority subjects and be placed in areas of need. An underlying
assumption is that the bursary – which covers all academic-related costs - will be attractive to
students who will want to apply to study teacher education.
47
Potential students apply online, or, in the case of district-based recruitment, paper-based application
forms are returned to district offices and captured by districts, supported by PEDs (to remove the
barrier of requiring a computer and internet access to apply). Selection committees are then
convened to select FLBP bursars. District-based applicants are selected at provincial level by a
selection committee comprising PEDs, HEIs, districts and the DBE. National/general applicants are
selected by a selection committee at the HEI they have applied to, after the district-based
recruitment and re-awards have been made and the HEI knows how many bursaries are available.
The number of new national/general awards depends on the funding available, the number of
district-based re-awards and the estimated cost of academic-related costs at the HEI. The HEIs
establish selection committees comprising PEDs, the DBE and HEI stakeholders.
Number of new awards = (funding available) – (re-awards + district-based awards)

(estimated cost of academic-related costs)
The FLBP selection criteria are applied to identify the most suitable candidates. Underlying
assumptions are that a sufficient number of appropriate candidates will apply, stakeholders will be
willing to participate in the selection committees, the selection committees will apply the FLBP
criteria when making selections, the FLBP criteria are adequate to guide selection15, and sufficient
funds are available to make new awards (taking into consideration the estimated cost of tuition fees
and education-related expenses).
For district-based selection, the best candidates are selected out of the applicants from quintile 1 to
3 schools in the targets districts. Approved candidates receive a promissory letter from the DBE
which indicates that they have been pre-approved for a Funza Lushaka bursary. Students who
received the Funza Lushaka bursary in the previous year and have a further year(s) of study usually
receive a re-award. They apply online and their HEI recommends them for re-award based on their
performance during the previous academic year. For HEI-based selection, the best candidates are
selected out of the applicants to a particular HEI. Approved candidates will be notified when the
academic year is underway. Underlying assumptions are that approved candidates will accept the
Funza Lushaka bursary and be willing to sign a contract with the DBE which commits them to provide
one year of teaching service for every year which they receive a bursary for, and will be able to
survive financially (with or without support from the HEI) until the bursary is paid out (after 1 April in
the new financial year).
Once Funza Lushaka bursars commence with teacher education programmes, responsibility falls
upon the HEI to monitor and support students to complete their studies. HEIs establish tracking
15 Some stakeholders attending the workshop expressed a concern that the current FLBP selection criteria are not adequate
as they do not include a means or measure for assessing candidates’ passion and suitability for teaching. A psychometric
test or screening process where candidates are asked to explain their motivation was suggested.
48
systems to monitor students’16 academic performance and identify students in need of additional
academic support to pass and complete their programmes. Underpinning assumptions are that HEIs
have the capacity and willingness to monitor students’ academic performance and provide support
where necessary. HEIs offer academic support programmes for identified students, assumptions
linked to this are that students will be willing to attend support sessions and that the support
programmes will be well-designed, so that they will assist students that attend to perform better.
Support programmes are not be specific to Funza Lushaka bursars but are for all teacher education
students. HEIs monitoring and tracking systems should also be able to identify when students change
their subjects and – importantly for the FLBP – when Funza Lushaka bursars switch majors such that
they are no longer specializing in priority subjects and phases (which are a criteria for receiving the
bursary). The DBE should be informed if/when FL bursars switch to subjects and phases which are not
FLBP priorities so that these students can be informed that if they decide to switch then they will no
longer be eligible to receive a bursary and it will be converted to a loan.
Provided Funza Lushaka bursars receive sufficient academic support (from the HEI) and financial
support (in the form of a full-cost bursary) they will complete their studies and qualify as a teacher
specializing in a subject/phase aligned with the FLBP priorities. Underlying assumptions are that the
bursary allocation is adequate to meet bursars’ education-related needs whilst they are studying and
that the FLBP priority subjects and phases are aligned with actual, real identified needs17.
In their final year of studies, students that have received the Funza Lushaka bursary for at least one
year complete ‘placement forms’ which detail the subjects and phases they have specialized in and
the area (province and district) which they would prefer to be placed in. The DBE compiles a
consolidated list and communicates with PEDs regarding the Funza Lushaka bursars who will be
available for placement. PEDs undertake an audit of teacher vacancies and teacher needs and match
their needs with the list of bursars available for placement. PEDs communicate with the DBE
regarding bursars who would like to be placed in their province, but whom they cannot place, and
the DBE compiles a consolidated list of ‘unplaced bursars’ which it circulates to the PEDs who then
have the option to offer a teaching placement to suitable candidates. Underlying assumptions are
that the FLBP has accurate information about when Funza Lushaka bursars will graduate, students
complete and return the placement forms timeously, students provide accurate information on their
placement forms (about subject and phase specialities and extra curricula interests), Funza Lushaka
bursars will pass their final year and graduate when expected, PEDs undertake teacher vacancy and
needs audits annually, schools provide accurate information to PEDs, the DBE and PEDs communicate
effectively regarding the placement of bursars.
Funza Lushaka bursars should be placed within 60 days. If the DBE/PEDs cannot place students within
60 days then their obligation to give one years teaching service for every year that they received a
16 This applies to all students not just Funza Lushaka bursars.

17 A number of high-level stakeholders that were interviewed to inform the development of the FLBP theory of change
expressed a concern that there is inadequate data available on teacher requirements (e.g. by phase, subject and geographic
area) and this has constrained the ability of the FLBP to address real needs.
49
bursary falls away. If students decline a placement then the bursary should be converted into a loan
which must be paid back with interest. Assumptions which underpin this are that it is
possible/feasible to place students within 60 days (the PEDs are willing to place Funza Lushaka
graduates and schools will accept them), that the DBE has the capacity to monitor placement and
non-placement, that a mechanism exists to convert bursaries into loans18 if bursars break the service
conditions and that NSFAS has the capacity to recover bursaries which are converted into loans.
Intermediate outcomes which result from the FLBP theory of change are that: the bursary provides
an incentive that increases the intake of quality teacher education students (assumptions are that
students who would not study teacher education without the bursary are attracted into teacher
education programmes and that these students are of good quality). Similarly, the placement of
Funza Lushaka bursars specializing in priority subjects/phases in identified geographic areas of need
will lead to a reduction in teacher vacancies (specifically in priority subjects/phases). Assumptions
underpinning this are that there is a shortage of teachers, that there is alignment between the FLBP
priority subjects/phases and teacher needs, and that the number of new teachers entering the
education system (Funza Lushaka graduates, other teacher education graduates and unemployed
teachers) exceeds the number of teacher exiting the system.
Over the long-term, the FLBP will lead to an increased supply of competent teachers specializing in
priority subjects/phases and in identified geographic areas, providing the HEIs teacher education
programmes produce competent teachers, Funza Lushaka graduates remain in the education
sector/teaching, they are allocated to and remain teaching the subjects/phases they have specialized
in and they remain in identified geographic areas of need. Therefore the FLBP will contribute to
addressing educator scarcity, specifically in priority subjects/phases and areas, provided that there is
alignment between the country’s teacher needs and the FLBP priorities and placement system.
The evaluation uncovered the following areas of weakness in the programme theory which should be
addressed in terms of programmes design and implementation going forward:
 There are weaknesses in terms of marketing the programme, a considerable proportion of

bursars do not hear about the programme until they commence studies. Thus the aim of
attracting young people into the teaching profession – who may not otherwise have
considered studying teacher education - may not be achieved.
 Monitoring of students’ subject specialisations (after enrolment) and academic performance
and the provision of support where relevant is undertaken by HEIs currently, but information
regarding this is not fed back to the FLBP. This is a gap, such information could help to
streamline selection of continuing students, ensure that bursars continue to study subjects
which are “priority subjects” and assist in ensuring a satisfactory completion rate of FLBP
bursars.
18 There is no mechanism currently for Funza Lushaka bursaries to be converted into loans if students break the conditions
of their service contract. This is a gap which the NSFAS said it was taking steps to address.
50
 The evaluation findings have demonstrated that there are weaknesses in terms of matching
FLBP graduates with vacancies linked to their phase and subject specialisations. This could be
the result of poor planning (priority subjects are not linked to real needs) or poor matching
(graduates are not well matched with a vacancy which is aligned to their specialisations). This
needs to be addressed.
 A considerable proportion of FLBP graduates are not placed within 60 days and are thus
effectively released from their teaching service obligations. The 60 day placement period and
the modalities of placement should be reconsidered.
Monitoring of placement and non-placement and whether FLBP graduates fulfil their service
obligations by teaching in public schools for the same number of years as they received a bursary for
is not happening. Linked to this, there is no mechanism in place to convert bursaries into loans. These
aspects of programme design and implementation need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. We
recommend that an additional business process be designed around this.
3.2 Key Business Processes

Understanding how the FLBP’s key business processes operate is critical to understanding the FLBP’s
process theory. Four over-arching business processes relating to the FLBP were identified and
confirmed by FLBP stakeholders at the workshop. These are elaborated below:
1. Recruitment
2. Selection
3. Awarding and disbursement; and
4. Placement
3.1.1 Recruitment
Recruitment comprises three sub-processes: general recruitment, district-based recruitment and

reapplication.
The DBE is responsible for conducting general recruitment campaigns for the FLBP. Students applying
via the general route apply online.
Since 2011, the PEDs support districts to recruit students using a district-based recruitment process.
The district-based recruitment targets top performing students from Quintile 1-3 secondary schools.
Districts distribute paper-based application forms to schools together with an information pamphlet
(produced by the DBE). Paper-based applications remove the barrier of access to a computer and the
internet, but online applications can also be made. Districts support students to complete the
application forms and ensure that they apply to study teacher education at HEIs. Districts collect
application forms and capture the information electronically. Districts submit applications and
supporting documents to PEDs.
51
Figure 2: Recruitment and application process
Continuing students with at least one further year of teacher education study reapply online at their
HEIs and submit their academic results (in support of their application) when these become available.
The diagram below summarises the recruitment business process.
3.1.2 Selection
Selection comprises three sub-processes: district-based and HEI-based/national selection and re-
awards.
District-based selection applies to students mainly from quintile 1-3 schools who have applied via
the district-based recruitment process. For district-based selection, PEDs establish a selection panel -
comprising the DBE, Districts, HEIs and PEDs – to select the district-based awardees. Selection is
based on academic merit and the FLBP selection criteria are applied. Applicants are ranked and top
achievers are recommended for award. The recommended award list is forwarded to the DBE for
approval and approved students receive a promissory letter to indicate that they have been pre-
approved for the Funza Lushaka bursary, pending acceptance at an HEI and satisfactory senior
certificate results. The DBE provides HEIs with a list of students who have been pre-approved via the
district-based selection.
52
HEIs recommend students for re-award (i.e. to receive the bursary for another year of study) based
on their performance (i.e. satisfactory) during the previous academic year and the DBE approves and
official list of re-awards.
For HEI-based selection, the HEI receives a list of new applications from the DBE to review and
conducts academic background checks. HEIs establish a selection committee - comprising the
Academic Coordinator, Dean, PED, DBE and FAO – and decisions are made based on the number of
bursaries available (which depends on the funds available, the cost of studying education at the HEI,
and the number of district-based and re-awards for the coming year). The selection panel
recommends students for awards and a list is forwarded to the DBE who makes the final decision.
Figure 3: Selection business process
The selection business process is summarized below.
53
3.1.3 Awarding and disbursement
The DBE makes awards based on recommendations made by HEIs (with respect to reapplications)
and the selection committees and provides HEIs and NSFAS with a confirmed list of awards. The DBE
issues promissory letters to district-based awardees. HEIs inform successful students and collate
documentation that is required including bursary agreement forms (which form a contract between
the students and the DBE) for NSFAS to release the bursary. HEIs forward the documentation to
NSFAS. The NSFAS pays the student bursaries to the HEIs who recover institutional costs (i.e.
registration and tuition fees, accommodation and food if applicable) and pay the balance to students.
NSFAS receives a statement of account from each HEI and submits audited financial statements to
the DBE. The diagram below summarizes this business process.
Figure 4: Awarding and disbursement business process
54
3.1.4 Placement
The placement business process can be summarized as follows: the DBE sends HEIs a list of Funza
Lushaka bursars in their final year of study who will be eligible for placement the following year
which the HEI confirms (and amends if necessary). The DBE sends placement request forms to HEIs
who request students to complete them, indicating their subject and phase specialization, extra-
curricular interests and preferred province of placement. Since 2013 student placement information
has been submitted online. Placement information is collated by the DBE and communicated to the
PEDs. PEDs are required to place bursars who want to work in their province within 60 days of
receiving notification of the students’ results. PEDs report monthly to the DBE on placement. If PEDs
cannot place bursars, they inform the DBE and the DBE offers these bursars to other PEDs for
placement. FLBP graduates not placed within 60 days are relieved of their service obligation. If
students refuse to accept a teaching post then their bursary should be converted into a loan19 which
they are required to pay back. The graphic below summarizes this business process.
Figure 5: Placement business process
Subsequent to the evaluation, the evaluation team recommend that the business processes be
reorganised: recruitment and selection can be combined into one core business process linked to
objective 1 and tracking and monitoring should be added as an core business process linked to the
new objective 4 which is proposed.
19 As noted previously, the conversion of bursaries into loans is not taking place currently, but the FLBP documentation
makes provision for it.
55
3.3 FLBP logframe
A logframe presents a summary of key components of a programme or project. A template provided

by the DPME was used to compile the FLBP logframe which follows. The logframe includes the
following components: goal, objectives, activities, outputs, intermediate and long-term outcomes,
indicators, sources and means of verification and assumptions which underpin the links in the
logframe between activities, outputs, outcomes and achievement of the goal and objectives.
The logframe which guided the evaluation is presented first. Following this, an updated logframe
(which includes the new proposed objective 4) is presented, which should be used to guide planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation going forward if the recommendations made elsewhere
in this document are accepted.
56
Table 2: FLBP Logframe
Logical hierarchy Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)Means of Verification; Source of Important Assumptions
Verification information
FLBP goal To contribute to the supply of Quantifiable increase in the supply of Data sources: PERSAL database, FLBP graduates are qualified to teach
qualified teachers in priority teachers specializing in priority FLBP management information priority subjects and phases.
subjects, phases and identified subjects and phases since 2008. system (MIS), DBE and PED
geographical areas through statistics on identified teacher FLBP graduates are placed in identified
attracting suitable students and Quantifiable increase in the supply of needs and teacher placement. geographical areas of need.
ensuring they are appropriately teachers to identified geographical
trained in regularly defined areas of need since 2008. FLBP graduates are committed to
priority areas (scarce skills staying in teaching/education.
subjects). % of FLBP graduates still teaching/in
the education system after five years. # of teachers entering the system
(including FLBP graduates) is equal to
or exceeds the number of teachers
leaving the system each year.
Objective 1: To attract academically deserving suitable South African students to become teachers in identified priority areas (scarce skills subjects and phases and
identified geographic areas).
Long-term Increased number of teacher Quantifiable increase in teacher Data sources: HEIs’ MIS HEIs have the capacity to absorb
outcome education students, specifically education enrolment since 2008, increased enrolment in teacher
specializing in priority areas. specifically specializing in priority education programmes.
areas.
Intermediate Increased intake of suitable % FL bursars specializing in priority Data sources: evaluation survey Suitability is determined in terms of
outcome students specializing in priority areas. results; HEI MIS’s. academic achievement, demonstrating
areas into teacher education a passion for teaching, willingness to
programmes. % Teacher education students study priority areas and be placed in
specializing in priority areas. areas of need; the bursary will attract
students into teaching; teacher
57
Logical hierarchy Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Means of Verification; Source of Important Assumptions
education programmes are aligned
with FLBP priority areas.
Outputs Recruitment activities conducted % implementation of annual Data source: DBE quarterly DBE wants to market the FLBP;
(national). management plan. reports. recruitment campaign is appropriately
targeted.
Recruitment activities conducted % implementation of annual Data source: PEDs quarterly PEDs and districts want to market the
(district-based) management plan. reports. FLBP; recruitment campaign is
appropriately targeted.
Applications made to FLBP. # of applications (national and district- Data sources: Data source: FLBP Applications are complete; applicants
based) annually. MIS. chose to specialize in FL priority areas
FL bursaries awarded. # of FL bursaries awarded (national, Data sources: Data source: FLBP Applicants are suitable; the FLBP
district-based and re-awards). MIS. criteria are appropriate and enable
selection committees to identify
applicants who will make good
bursars; bursary applicants apply and
will be accepted to study teacher
education; successful applicants will
accept the bursary and pursue teacher
education studies.
Activities National recruitment campaigns # of promotional materials developed. Data sources: promotional DBE wants to market the FLBP;
by DBE (development of materials; DBE annual recruitment campaign is appropriately
promotional material, promotion Annual management plan for national management plan. targeted.
via radio and social media, recruitment.
roadshows and open days).
District-based recruitment Annual management plan for district Data source: PEDs annual PEDs and districts want to market the
campaigns (distribution of management plan. FLBP; recruitment campaign is
58
promotional materials, talks in based recruitment. appropriately targeted; Principals are
schools, Principals identify willing to identify learners with the
suitable possible candidates). potential to become good teachers.
South Africans apply for the FLB # of applications (national and district- Data source: FLBP MIS. Applicants are aware of the deadlines
(online and district-based based) annually. and application procedures.
applications).
Screening and selection of FL Meetings of selection committees Data sources: meeting minutes; Selection committees apply FLBP
bursars (HEI and district-based (provincial and HEI based). selection reports; approved criteria when selecting bursars;
and re-awards). bursar list. stakeholders are able/willing to
List of approved FL bursars. participate in selection committees.
FL bursaries provided to SA youth # of FL bursaries awarded (national, Data sources: Data source: FLBP Sufficient funds are available to award
who meet FL criteria in terms of district-based and re-awards). MIS. FL bursaries.
merit and priority areas.
Objective 2: To ensure a satisfactory completion rate of funded students in identified priority areas (scarce skills subjects and phases)
Long term Improved completion rate of FL Completion rate (e.g. % of FL bursars Data sources: HEMIS, HEIs MIS, HEMIS/HEI MIS and FLBP MIS are
outcome bursars (viz-a-viz other teacher who complete teacher education FLBP MIS, evaluation survey. capable of tracking student
education students and in programmes in the expected time). progression and graduation.
comparison to previous years)
Average number of years FL bursars
take to obtain a qualification.
Intermediate Increased pass rate (year-on- % of FL bursars who pass each year Data source: HEIs year-on-year Academic support programmes are
outcomes year) of FL bursars (decreased and receive a re-award. pass rates; (should be on FLBP effective – student performance
number of drop-outs/under- MIS). improves.
performing students).
HEIs are willing to provide cademic
performance data to the DBE.
59
Logical hierarchy Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)
Means of Verification; Source of Important Assumptions
Decreased # of FL bursars # of FL bursars that change majors to Data sources: HEIs monitoring HEIs are able and willing to provide
changing majors to subjects not subjects not identified as priority. and tracking system; reports data to the DBE on students majors
identified as priority. submitted to the DBE. and subject changes.
FL bursars are understand and % of FL students who are well Data source: evaluation survey Students understand the scope and
are happy/satisfied with FL informed regarding FL conditions and findings. limitation of the FL bursary (i.e.
conditions, processes,obligations. education-related needs).
procedures, provisions and
obligations. % of FL students who are FL bursary is sufficient for education-
happy/satisfied with FL processes and related needs.
procedures.
Students spend FL bursary
% of FL students who state that the appropriately (i.e. on education-
bursary is sufficient for education- related needs).
related needs.
Outputs Tracking and monitoring systems # of FL bursars identified for academic Data source: HEIs tracking Tracking and monitoring systems are
established and functional. support programmes. system; HEI reports to the DBE used to identify students at risk of
(list of students having changed failing and students who change
# of FL bursars identified as having majors and students receiving majors to subjects not aligned to FL
changed majors to subjects not academic support). priorities.
aligned to FL priorities.
HEIs will collate data and report to the
DBE.
Academic support programmes % of FL students identified at risk of Data sources: Attendance HEIs are willing to run academic
provided and attended by failing who attend academic support registers for academic support support programmes.
students. programmes. programmes cross-referenced
against list of students identified Academic support programmes are
and targeted for support, HEIs.
60
well designed.
Students at risk of failing are willing to

attend academic support programmes.
Students receive FL bursaries on % of FL bursars who receive FL Data sources: NSFAS payment HEIs will be able to support FL bursars
time. bursaries within a stipulated database; HEIs FLBP statements; financially until FL bursaries are
timeframe (to be determined). evaluation survey data. released.
NSFAS disburses FL funding on time.
HEIs have adequate financial systems

and disburse FL bursaries on time.
Activities Tracking systems established for # HEIs with tracking systems in place Data sources: HEIs tracking HEIs have the capacity to establish
academic monitoring of students to monitor teacher education system; HEI reports to the DBE. tracking systems.
(including students that change students.
specialization). Tracking systems will be effectively
utilized by HEIs – students changing
majors and at risk of failing are
identified.
Develop and implement # HEIs with academic support Data source: HEIs reports to the HEIs have the capacity to implement
academic support programmes programmes for teacher education DBE. academic support programmes.
for students at risk of failing students.
Financial support is provided to # Teacher education students Data sources: HEIs FLBP Money is paid on time upon
FL bursars receiving FL bursaries. statements; NSFAS payment commencement of the bursary.
database.
61
Objective 3: To effectively place FL graduates in schools identified as under-resourced
Longer-term Better alignment between Reduction in teacher vacancies in Data sources: PEDs list of teacher FLBP priority areas are aligned with
outcome teacher needs and qualified specific subjects, phases and vacancies; unemployed teachers’ national and provincial needs.
teachers. geographic areas of need. database.
FLBP graduates have specialized in
FLBP priority subjects/phases.
FL bursars will remain teaching in

geographic areas of need.
FL bursars will remain teaching the

subjects/phases they are trained in.
Intermediate PEDs and national have better Feedback from DBE and PED officials Data sources: key stakeholder Better information about teacher
outcomes information about teacher needs regarding awareness of teacher needs. interviews. needs per province informs the review
(per province). and updating of FLBP priority areas.
FL graduates are placed within % FL graduates placed within the Data sources: PERSAL database; Placement within the specified time
the specified time period and specified time period. evaluation survey findings; period (currently 6 weeks) is possible.
appointed into posts. provincial placement and
% FL graduates appointed into appointment lists; FLBP MIS Schools and PEDs are willing to
permanent posts within one year of (should be available). appoint FL graduates into permanent
graduation. posts.
FL graduates accept appointments.

Reduction in teacher vacancies # teacher vacancies per province Data source: PEDs teacher Alignment between skills/
(per province), specifically in (specifically in relation to the FLBP vacancy lists. specialization of FL graduates and
relation to FLBP priority areas. priority areas). teacher vacancies.
62
# of teachers employed exceeds the
number of teachers leaving the system
each year.
Outputs Consolidated list of FL bursars DBE consolidated list of FL bursars due Data source: Collated FL bursar Consolidated list is collated accurately.
due to graduate and in need of to graduate, indicating specializations placement lists.
placement. and preferred province
Lists of teacher vacancies per # PEDs with teacher vacancy lists. Data source: PED vacancy lists. Lists of teacher vacancies reflect real
province. needs.
Lists of teacher vacancies # PEDs with list which “matches” Data source: PED lists which Alignment between bursar
matched against FL bursars due vacancies with FL bursars “match” teacher vacancies with skills/specialization and school needs.
to graduate and in need of skills/specialization. FL bursars skills/specialization.
placement. DBE collates and circulates list of
unplaced bursars.
FL graduates appointed into % of FL graduates matched to teacher Data source: appointment letters; PEDs prioritize placement of FL bursars
posts. needs and appointed. PED list of appointees; FLBP MIS. (as compared to other teachers and
graduates).
Schools are willing to accept FL

bursars.
Activities Students complete placement DBE consolidated list of FL bursars due Data source: Collated FL bursar DBE has accurate data on FL bursars
forms, which are collated by DBE to graduate, indicating specializations placement lists (DBE). due to complete their studies.
and submitted to PEDs. and preferred province.
FL bursars will return forms on time.
FL bursars will provide accurate

information about subjects and
phases.
63
PEDs collect data on teacher # PEDs with teacher vacancy lists. Data source: PED vacancy lists. PEDs are willing to undertake profiling.
vacancies annually.
PEDs know the location of all schools.
Schools provide accurate information

about teacher vacancies.
FL bursars due to graduate are # PEDs with list which “matches” Data source: PED lists which PEDs are willing to undertake
matched with vacant posts. vacancies with FL bursars “match” teacher vacancies with matching.
skills/specialization. FL bursars skills/specialization.
Alignment between bursar
skills/specialization and school needs.
PEDs send DBE list of unplaced

bursars.
DBE collates list of unplaced bursars

and circulates to PEDs.
Appointment of FL graduates into % of FL graduates matched and Data source: Placement data FL bursars will pass their final year and
vacant posts. placed. (DBE and PEDs). graduate.
6 weeks is an adequate time period for

placement.
Schools will accept the appointment of

FL graduates.
64
Table 3: Proposed logframe to guide the FLBP in the proposed changes outlined elsewhere are accepted
Logical hierarchy Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)Means of Verification; Source of Important Assumptions
FLBP goal To address educator scarcity and Supply of teachers specialising in Data sources: PERSAL database, FLBP graduates are qualified to teach
contribute to the supply of priority subjects and phases since FLBP management information priority subjects and phases.
2008. system (MIS), DBE and PED
qualified teachers in priority FLBP graduates are placed in identified
statistics on identified teacher
phases and subjects, targeting Supply of teachers to identified needs and teacher placement. geographical areas of need.
geographical areas of need in geographical areas of need since 2008.
FLBP graduates are committed to
South Africa % of FLBP graduates still teaching in staying in teaching/education.
South African public schools after five
years. # of teachers entering the system
(including FLBP graduates) is equal to
or exceeds the number of teachers
leaving the system each year.
Objective 1: To provide bursaries which attract academically deserving and financially needy students, with a passion for teaching and the potential to become good
teachers, into teacher education programmes, specialising in priority phases and subjects.
Long-term Increased number of suitable # and % FL graduates specialising in Data sources: HEIs’ MIS.
outcome teacher education graduates priority subjects/phases.
specialising in priority areas.
Note that this links to objective 2.
Intermediate Increased intake of suitable # and % FL bursars specialising in Data sources: evaluation survey Suitability is determined in terms of
outcome teacher education students priority subjects/phases. results; HEI MIS’s. academic achievement, demonstrating
specialising in priority a passion for teaching, willingness to
subjects/phases into teacher study priority areas and be placed in
education programmes. areas of need; the bursary will attract
students into teaching; teacher
65
education programmes are aligned
with FLBP priority areas.
Outputs Recruitment activities conducted # of promotional materials developed Data source: DBE quarterly DBE wants to market the FLBP;
(national). reports. recruitment campaign is appropriately
# of promotional materials distributed targeted.
% implementation of annual
management plan.
Recruitment activities conducted # of promotional materials distributed Data source: PEDs quarterly PEDs and districts want to market the
(district-based) reports. FLBP; recruitment campaign is
% implementation of annual appropriately targeted.
management plan.
Applications made to FLBP. # of applications (national and district- Data sources: Data source: FLBP Applications are complete; applicants
based) annually. MIS. chose to specialize in FL priority areas
FL bursaries awarded. # of FL bursaries awarded (national, Data sources: Data source: FLBP Applicants are suitable; the FLBP
district-based and re-awards). MIS. criteria are appropriate and enable
selection committees to identify
applicants who will make good
bursars; bursary applicants apply and
will be accepted to study teacher
education; successful applicants will
accept the bursary and pursue teacher
education studies.
66
Activities National recruitment campaigns # of promotional materials developed. Data sources: promotional DBE wants to market the FLBP;
by DBE (development of materials; DBE annual recruitment campaign is appropriately
promotional material, promotion # of promotional materials distributed management plan. targeted.
via radio and social media,
roadshows and open days). Annual management plan for national
recruitment.
District-based recruitment # of promotional materials distributed Data source: PEDs annual PEDs and districts want to market the
campaigns (distribution of management plan. FLBP; recruitment campaign is
promotional materials, talks in Annual management plan for district appropriately targeted; Principals are
schools, Principals identify based recruitment. willing to identify learners with the
suitable possible candidates). potential to become good teachers.
South Africans apply for the FLB # of applications (national and district- Data source: FLBP MIS. Applicants are aware of the deadlines
(online and district-based based) annually. and application procedures.
applications).
Screening and selection of FL Meetings of selection committees Data sources: meeting minutes; Selection committees apply FLBP
bursars (HEI and district-based (provincial and HEI based). selection reports; approved criteria when selecting bursars;
and re-awards). bursar list. stakeholders are able/willing to
List of approved FL bursars. participate in selection committees.
FL bursaries awarded to SA youth # of FL bursaries awarded (national, Data sources: Data source: FLBP Sufficient funds are available to award
who meet FL criteria in terms of district-based and re-awards). MIS. FL bursaries.
merit and priority areas.
Objective 2: To provide financial support to FL bursars to complete their studies – where possible in the minimum time – and graduate specialising in priority phases and
subjects.
Long term Improved completion and Completion rate (e.g. % of FL bursars Data sources: HEMIS, HEIs MIS, HEMIS/HEI MIS and FLBP MIS are
outcome throughput rate of FL bursars who complete teacher education FLBP MIS, evaluation survey. capable of tracking student
(viz-a-viz other teacher education programmes in the minimum time,
67
students and in comparison to the minimum time +1 year…). progression and graduation.
previous years).
Average number of years FL bursars
take to obtain a qualification.
Intermediate FL bursars receive necessary Feedback from FL bursars regarding Data source: feedback from
outcomes academic and other support the adequacy of support provided. bursars.
Increased pass rate (year-on- # and % of FL bursars who pass each Data source: HEIs year-on-year Academic support programmes are
year) of FL bursars (decreased year and receive a re-award. pass rates; (should be on FLBP effective – student performance
number of drop-outs/under- MIS). improves.
performing students).
HEIs are willing to provide academic
performance data to the DBE.
FL bursars are able to support % of FL students who state that they Data source: feedback from Students understand the scope and
themselves with the FL bursary were able to support themselves bursars. limitation of the FL bursary (i.e.
for the entire academic year. adequately for the entire academic education-related needs).
year.
FL bursary is sufficient for education-
related needs.
Students spend FL bursary

appropriately (i.e. on education-
related needs).
Outputs Tracking and monitoring systems # HEIs who provide information on Data source: HEIs tracking Tracking and monitoring systems are
established and functional. student progress and change in system; HEI reports to the DBE used to identify students at risk of
specialisations to FLBP (list of students receiving failing and students who change
academic support). majors to subjects not aligned to FL
68
Logical hierarchy Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)
Means of Verification; Source of Important Assumptions
# of FL bursars identified for academic priorities.
and other support programmes.
HEIs will collate data and report to the
DBE.
Academic support programmes # and % of identified FL students who Data sources: Attendance HEIs are willing to run academic
provided and attended by attend academic support registers for academic support support programmes.
students. programmes. programmes cross-referenced
against list of students identified Academic support programmes are
and targeted for support, HEIs. well designed.
Students at risk of failing are willing to

attend academic support programmes.
Students receive FL bursaries on # and % of FL bursars who receive FL Data sources: NSFAS payment HEIs will be able to support FL bursars
time. bursaries within agreed upon (to be database; HEIs FLBP statements; financially until FL bursaries are
determined) timeframe. evaluation survey data. released.
NSFAS disburses FL funding on time.
HEIs have adequate financial systems

and disburse FL bursaries on time.
Activities Tracking systems established for # HEIs with tracking systems in place Data sources: HEIs tracking HEIs have the capacity to establish
academic monitoring of students to monitor teacher education system; HEI reports to the DBE. tracking systems.
(including students students.
specialisations) and linked to Tracking systems will be effectively
FLBP. utilized by HEIs – students changing
majors and at risk of failing are
identified.
69
HEIs develop and implement # HEIs with academic support Data source: HEIs reports to the HEIs have the capacity to implement
academic support programmes programmes for teacher education DBE. academic support programmes.
for students at risk of failing students.
Financial support is provided to # FL bursaries disbursed annually. Data sources: HEIs FLBP Money is paid on time upon
FL bursars statements; NSFAS payment commencement of the bursary.
database.
Objective 3: To match FLBP graduates with vacancies aligned to their phase and subject specialisations in schools with shortages of qualified teachers.
Longer-term Better alignment between Reduction in teacher vacancies in FLBP Data sources: PEDs list of teacher FLBP priority areas are aligned with
outcome teacher needs and newly priority subjects, phases and vacancies; unemployed teachers’ national and provincial needs.
qualified teachers. geographic areas of need. database.
FLBP graduates have specialized in
FLBP priority subjects/phases.
FL bursars will remain teaching in

geographic areas of need.
FL bursars will remain teaching the

subjects/phases they are trained in.
Intermediate PEDs and national have better Feedback from DBE and PED officials Data sources: key stakeholder Better information about teacher
outcomes information about teacher needs regarding awareness of teacher needs interviews. needs per province informs the review
(per province). (subjects, phases, geographic areas). and updating of FLBP priority areas.
FL graduates are placed within # and % FL graduates appointed into Data sources: PERSAL database; Placement within the specified time
the specified time period and posts within one year of graduation. evaluation survey findings; period (currently 6 weeks) is possible.
appointed into posts. provincial placement and
# and % FL graduates appointed into appointment lists; FLBP MIS Schools and PEDs are willing to
posts within one year of graduation (should be available). appoint FL graduates into permanent
which match their
70
skills/specializations. posts.
FL graduates accept appointments.

Reduction in teacher vacancies # teacher vacancies per province and Data source: PEDs teacher Alignment between skills/
(per province and nationally), nationally (specifically in relation to vacancy lists. specialization of FL graduates and
specifically in relation to FLBP the FLBP priority areas). teacher vacancies.
priority areas.
# of teachers employed exceeds the
number of teachers leaving the system
each year.
Outputs Consolidated list of FL bursars DBE consolidated list of FL bursars due Data source: Collated FL bursar Consolidated list is collated accurately.
due to graduate and in need of to graduate, indicating specializations placement lists.
placement. and preferred provinces.
Lists of teacher vacancies per # PEDs with teacher vacancy lists. Data source: PED vacancy lists. Lists of teacher vacancies reflect real
province. needs.
Lists of teacher vacancies # PEDs with list which “matches” Data source: PED lists which Alignment between bursar
matched against FL bursars due vacancies with FL bursars “match” teacher vacancies with skills/specialization and school needs.
to graduate and in need of skills/specialization. FL bursars skills/specialization.
placement. DBE collates and circulates list of
unplaced bursars.
FL graduates appointed into # and % of FL graduates matched to Data source: appointment letters; PEDs prioritize placement of FL bursars
suitable vacant posts within 60 teacher needs and appointed into PED list of appointees; FLBP MIS. (as compared to other teachers and
days. vacant posts within 60 days. graduates).
# and % of FL placed graduates in Schools are willing to accept FL

teaching posts which match their bursars.
specialization.
71
Activities Students complete placement DBE consolidated list of FL bursars due Data source: Collated FL bursar DBE has accurate data on FL bursars
forms, which are collated by DBE to graduate, indicating specializations placement lists (DBE). due to complete their studies.
and submitted to PEDs. and preferred province.
FL bursars will return forms on time.
FL bursars will provide accurate

information about subjects and
phases.
PEDs collect data on teacher # PEDs with teacher vacancy lists. Data source: PED vacancy lists. PEDs are willing to undertake profiling.
vacancies annually.
PEDs know the location of all schools.
Schools provide accurate information

about teacher vacancies.
FL bursars due to graduate are # PEDs with list which “matches” Data source: PED lists which PEDs are willing to undertake
matched with vacant posts. vacancies with FL bursars “match” teacher vacancies with matching.
skills/specialization. FL bursars skills/specialization.
Alignment between bursar
skills/specialization and school needs.
PEDs send DBE list of unplaced

bursars.
DBE collates list of unplaced bursars

and circulates to PEDs.
Appointment of FL graduates into # and % of FL graduates matched and Data source: Placement data FL bursars will pass their final year and
suitable vacant posts. (DBE and PEDs).
72
placed. graduate.
# and % of placed FL graduates in 6 weeks is an adequate time period for

teaching posts which match their placement.
specialization.
Schools will accept the appointment of
FL graduates.
Objective 4: To track FLBP bursars, to ensure that they fulfil their service commitments and monitor their performance over time.
Longer-term Better monitoring of funding and Cost-effectiveness of the FLBP, as An evaluation report. Data will be available in future for an
outcome a more cost-effective programme ascertained through a future evaluator to conduct cost-
evaluation. effectiveness analysis.
Intermediate Funds returned to the FLBP R value of FLBP bursaries returned. NSFAS information management NSFAS will be willing to provide this
outcome bursary fund by students not system. data to the FLBP.
teaching in public schools
Accurate data available on the Availability of accurate cost and FLBP information management The FLBP is committed to collecting
service status of FLBP graduates placement data for monitoring and system. this data.
and cost effectiveness of the evaluation purposes
programme
Outputs Mechanism to convert bursaries # of loan agreements with FLBP NSFAS information management NSFAS will be willing to provide this
to loans bursars system. data to the FLBP.
Placement and tracking system A placement and tracking system FLBP information management The FLBP is committed to putting a
system. placement and tracking system in
place.
Annual reports on the status of Annual report on the status of FLBP Annual monitoring reports.
FLBP graduates graduates
Activities Establish a mechanism to convert A mechanism to convert bursaries to NSFAS information management NSFAS will be willing to provide this
bursaries into loans loans system. data to the FLBP.
73
Establish a placement and A placement and tracking system FLBP information management The FLBP is committed to putting a
teaching tracking system system. placement and tracking system in
place.
Monitor FLBP graduates annually Evidence of monitoring Annual monitoring reports.
to ascertain the status of their
service obligations
References
For a full list of references, see the full FLBP implementation evaluation report.
74
Annexure C: Initial Programme Theory Interview Schedule
INTRODUCTION
JET has been appointed to evaluate the implementation of the FLBP for the period 2007 – 2012. This is an
explorative interview. This interview forms part of a set of initial interviews with key individuals involved in the
FLBP since its inception and will inform the development of a draft Theory of Change and programme log
frame for the FLBP to be delivered as part of the evaluation and debated at a stakeholder workshop in August
2014.
The key purpose of the interview is to gain and understanding of the programme’s overall goals, its key
objectives and processes established to achieve objectives, focusing in particular on the inception of the
programme in 2007 and the period up to 2012. The interviews will therefore assist in providing a historical
overview of the programme and its development as well as providing a current Theory of Change and log
frame for the FLBP.
During the interview I would also like to explore your experience, views and thoughts on the extent to which
the FLBP has achieved its objectives, achievements and constraints of the programme design and
implementation, what you see as successes and lessons learnt. I will be asking you structured questions in this
interview to guide our conversation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Information you provide in this questionnaire is strictly confidential. No names will be used in reporting
research findings. Quotes will be anonymous and general themes will be reported on. The interview is a safe
environment for you to share your perceptions and experience. Thank you for taking the time to be
interviewed.
Interviewer: Date of interview:
Name of person(s) Designation (current

being interviewed occupational role)
Length of
involvement in the
Role on the FLBP
FLBP programme
(yr)
Interviewee contact Telephone Email
details
A) CLARIFYING FLBP NEED, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A1. What is the FLBP trying to

achieve?
A2. What is your

understanding of the
problems that drove the need
for the program?
75
A3. In five minutes, please
highlight how the program
was designed/developed and
the key thinking that shaped
the design of the program
A4. What assumptions

informed the programme
design?
A5. Is the need the same as it

was in 2007 when the
program began?
A6. Has the focus of the

programme changed from
2007-2012? In what ways?
A7. What is the overall goal(s)

of the FLBP?
A8. Can we confirm the

objectives of the programme
are the following:
Why are we aiming for each

objective?
A9. What processes and

structures have been put in
place to assist in meeting each
of the objectives of the FLBP?
How successful have these

been in your view?
B) REFLECTIONS ON THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF FLBP
B1. To what extent would you

say the FLBP has achieved its
objectives? (Discuss each
objective separately)
76
B2. Is the FLBP supplying
teachers in the areas
required? Tell me more
Changes…
B3. Are any changes needed

to the objectives to
strengthen the programme in
future?
B4. Would these changes have

any implications for
programme design?
And for change management?
B5. To what extent would you

say the FLBP has achieved its
goals set for 2007-2012?
B6. Is the programme design

relevant and appropriate in
terms of national priorities,
education sector context and
policy, and institutional
environment? Please
elaborate on why you say so
B7. Do you think the program

goals need to change going
into the future? Please
elaborate
B8. What are the major

constraints facing the FLBP
since 2007?

elaborate
77
elaborate
C) LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE FLBP
C1. Implementation:
In your view, what were the

FLBPs key implementation
achievements over the years?
Were there specific

achievements relating to:
Programme Management and

Administration
Recruitment, application and

selection
Monitoring and tracking

systems for bursary students
Training in line with priority

areas
Stakeholder involvement
Other:
C2. Challenges encountered
What were the programme

weaknesses/challenges during
the period 2007-2012 that Identify the key challenges
could be turned into lessons
learnt in the next phase of the
FLBP?
Specify these in terms of the

following:
78
Programme Management and
Administration
Recruitment, application and

selection
Monitoring and tracking

systems for bursary students
Training in line with priority

areas
Stakeholder involvement
Other:
D) PROGRAMME STAKEHOLDERS
D1. Can I confirm the programme stakeholders and their

responsibilities? Our aim is to consider the activities
they are involved in, their outputs/outcomes and key Refer to Proposal pg.17 for initial role descriptions
assumptions
Stakeholder Responsible for: Assumptions Activities Outputs & Outcomes

critical to allow
achievement of
goals/objectives
DBE
HEIs
NSFAS
PEDs
DHET
Other:
D2. As a stakeholder, what are

your views on the
effectiveness of the
programme?
79
E) BUILDING A LOG FRAME AND THEORY OF CHANGE FOR THE FLBP
Does the programme have a log frame?
For the next range of questions, we are going to make notes and linkages on flip-chart paper to guide our
discussion.
The purpose of this is to build a logframe (or logic model) and theory of change that provides information
about the elements that intervene between program activities and the achievement (or non achievement) of
expected results (outcomes). The logic model displays statements in a simple flow chart that outlines the
needed resources (inputs), activities, expected outputs and desired outcomes. Once the model is developed,
the logic of the linkages is assessed.
When the theory on which the evaluation is based is fine grained, the evaluation can track each link in the
chains of assumptions and can show which chains of assumptions are well supported by data collected and
which chains of assumptions break down. This should lead to more effective strategies in future as a result of
implementation evaluation findings.
We will consider one objective at a time and map it out into the logframe provided on the flip-chart
E1. What activities (actions)

should be/have been initiated
to drive achievement of each
objective?
E2. What resources are

required to implement each
activity? How does the FLBP
gain the commitment of these
resources?
E3. What are the tangible

results (outputs) of each of
the main activities?
E4. What other changes in

behaviours are you expecting
to see as a result of what was
gained (the outputs) through
actions (activities)
E5. What external

conditions/contextual factors
may have an effect on
80
implementation of each
activity and its potential to
bring about desired outputs
and outcomes?
E6. Are there any assumptions

at play for activities to reach
outputs or for outputs to
reach outcomes?
E7. What data is collected to

monitor progress of activities
and outputs leading to
achievement of objectives and
goals?
Summary and confirmation
E8. By looking at the elements

of the program described,
please re-cap on the logical
flow of the program from
resources to solving the longer
term problem
(note: a Logic Model should

have no more than 5 activity
groupings)
Are all elements accounted

for thatare relevant to
meeting objectives and goals
set or those that should be
set for future? If not, let us
add missing elements
E9. Have all relevant external

contextual factors been
identified and their potential
influences described?
Move to section F if 30 minutes are available before interview completion
E) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR ASPECTS TO CONSIDER DURING THE RESEARCH
81
E1. Do you have any other
comments that you believe we
should be aware of when
undertaking the
implementation evaluation of
the FLBP?
Confirm interview list and determine who is best placed for an initial interview (Addition of contact details
required for some interviewees):
F) RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION QUESTIONS (TIME PERMITTING)
F1. What is the relationship

between stakeholders in
relation to the selection and
recruitment of FLBP holders?
F2. What recruitment

strategies are in place?
F3. How effective are these, in

your view, in reaching the
target population (youth from
rural and poor areas?)
Elaborate
F4. What are the main

outcomes of the recruitment
strategies in place?
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PROVIDE YOUR VALUABLE INPUTS
82
Annexure D: Report on Programme Theory Stakeholder Workshop
Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme Stakeholder Workshop on Programme Theory
Held 19-20 August 2014 at the Department of Basic Education
Workshop Process and Overview Report (accompanies Theory of Change and Log Frame Report)
Introduction and Overview
JET Education Services has been contracted to conduct an implementation evaluation of the Funza
Lushaka Bursary Programme (FLBP) for the period 2007 to 2012. As part of the evaluation, JET is
required to produce a Theory of Change and Logframe for the FLBP. To assist in this process, a
workshop was held involving a range of stakeholders who participate in the administration of the
FLBP. An initial workshop report was submitted in September 2014.
This report details the approach to the workshop and the key activities undertaken. The workshop
provided an opportunity for FLBP stakeholders to reflect on the vision, goals and objectives of the
programme and to participate in the development of a comprehensive Theory of Change and
Logframe for Funza Lushaka to be submitted as one of the evaluation deliverables.
The discussions held at the workshop were incorporated into the development of the Theory of
Change/Logframe document. A total of 74 individuals (including facilitators) participated in the
workshop over the two-day period, representing a range of stakeholders and including
representatives of the DBE, NSFAS, the provincial education departments, and universities. The
participant lists are available. The workshop was jointly planned and facilitated by JET Education
Services and the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME).
Workshop structure
The workshop consisted of 7 sessions over a two day period. A summary of each session is provided
below.
Session 1 - Introductions, key M&E concepts and terms
During this session, participants were given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with key
monitoring and evaluation terminology used in theory of change and logframe development. These
terms included: Purpose; Programme goal; Objectives; Output; Outcome; Activity; Assumptions;
Indicators and Targets. This session also laid a foundation for understanding the terminology to be
used in the workshop. The agreed definitions for these terms were discussed and explained to
participants and are available at the end of this report.
Session 2- Formulating the purpose, goal and objectives of the FLBP
Participants in groups reflected on their understandings of what the FLBP is trying to achieve. Each
group discussed 2-3 specific objectives and an overall goal for the programme. In the feedback
session these goals, purpose and objectives were discussed in relation to the initial ideas of the
83
evaluation team (based on initial high-level interviews with a group of DBE managers and former
managers involved in the establishment of the FLBP).
In the feedback session, suggested revisions and contributions to the purpose were presented by the
groups and were incorporated into the final Theory of Change/Logframe document, which
accompanies this report.
Session 3 –Key Business Processes of the FLBP
The evaluation team presented their understanding of the key business processes of the FLBP. A
handout explaining the business processes was provided to participants, along with visual displays
placed on the walls of the venue. Through an interactive process, individuals identified at least one
key business process in which they were involved and voted on areas of good and bad performance.
The business processes of the FLBP, as understood by the evaluation team were presented and
described in Annexure D. The main discussion points about what is working well and not working
well in relation to the key business processes were incorporated into the TOC/Logframe document
submitted and were also used to inform the instrument development for the qualitative and survey
components of the research process.
Session 4 – Detailed discussion of key business processes
Individuals were reallocated to groups according to the business process that they identified
themselves as most involved in. In these new groups, delegates have to identify what different
sections are responsible for, as well as what they feel has worked well, and what needs to be
addressed. This was recorded in notes and on the flipcharts provided.
The business model for the FLBP was discussed, delegates rated each process, and they also worked
in groups for each process they were involved in to address aspects they felt were successful and
aspects they felt were poor. They also suggested what could be done to improve their process in the
model.
Session 5 - FLBP timeline
The evaluation team presented a skeleton timeline of the development of the FLBP, highlighting key
activities for the period 2007 to 2012 (the period under evaluation). Participants were requested to
provide information and suggestions about their understanding of key development points, activities
and policy shifts in the FLBP over time. This timeline provided an important basis for understanding
the FLBP over time, and was integrated in the Theory of Change/Logframe document and assisted in
informing the evaluation process and reporting. Groups were also asked to rate the best and worst
performing aspects in the timeline, which helped to highlight key issues requiring exploration in the
research phase of the evaluation.
Session 6 – Building a Logframe for the FLBP
This session was the primary focus of the second day of the workshop and aimed to construct, in
groups, activities and outcomes for the FLBP, based on the first day discussions on objectives. The
84
activities and outcomes identified formed the basis for the further development of the Programme
Logframe for FLBP by the evaluation team.
The evaluation team provided an overview of how logframes are constructed and an example was
presented to the workshop.
Each group was provided with one of the three FLBP objectives, and from that they described the
activities required to achieve their objective, the expected outputs and outcomes. Groups were also
requested to describe the assumptions that they hold that may support or restrict the activities
proposed to achieve their objective.
Session 7- Theory of Change
During this session, the evaluation team described the process of developing a Theory of Change for
a particular programme. A Theory of Change (ToC) is a specific methodology for planning and
evaluation that defines goals and maps what preconditions are necessary to achieve these goals.
They are structured as "If...Then" statements. "If" introduces the scenario or the proposed change to
be made, and "Then" described the expected results from the introduction of the conditions.
A draft Theory of Change was presented to participants and a group discussion then took place to
adapt and improve the draft statement. The revised Theory of Change is presented in the final
document submitted to the DPME and DBE which accompanies this report.
Conclusion:
Delegates were pleased with the results of the activities, and that they were able to participate,
contribute their knowledge and debate the different aspects of the FLBP. The workshop allowed
them to engage with the theory which in government they generally do not do. For some delegates,
the workshop brought context to what people engage with, and provided background that they do
not usually engage with.
Theories of change were developed to address the concern that programmes are not sufficiently
planned and thought through in the design process. Insufficient time devoted to understanding the
nature of the problem being addressed and what the theoretical underpinnings of the project are.
Logframes are increasingly used to articulate results-based approaches to development programmes
at national level and in the non-profit sector. The South African government is increasingly using
these approaches to improve programme design and shared understandings of programme goals, as
part of a focus on building monitoring and evaluation capacity within and across government.
The workshop evaluation forms reflect a workshop that was well-planned, well-attended,
educational for participants and constructive in its results. The facilitator’s guide for this workshop is
attached included below.
85
DEFINITIONS OF EVALUATION TERMS
PROGRAMME PURPOSE
The publically stated objectives of a programme or project (Development Assistance Committee, 2002).
PROGRAMME GOAL
Programme goals relate to the overall mission of the programme and are stated in broad abstract terms.
The programme goal describes the desired state towards which the programme is directed (Rossi, Lipsey
&Freeman, 2004).
OBJECTIVE
Programme objectives stem from programme goals. The programme objective refers to specific
statements of measurable form that will be necessary to achieve the programme goal (Rossi, Lipsey
&Freeman, 2004).
OUTPUT
The final products or goods and services produced for delivery (Rabie &Ackron, 2011).
Information, products or results produced through activities or projects. Outputs reflect what was
expected to be achieved from inputs (Clarke, 2006, CINDI Networks, Handbook on Monitoring and
Evaluation).
OUTCOME
Changes or benefits resulting from activities and outputs. Changes in learning, knowledge, attitude, skills,
understanding, behaviour, practice, decisions or conditions (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007).
ACTIVIITY
The processes or actions that use a range of inputs to produce the desired outputs and ultimately achieve
outcomes (Rabie & Ackron, 2011). In essence ‘what we do’.
ASSUMPTIONS
Conditions outside the control of an organisation or proposed programme that are likely to affect
programme or intervention results and that are assumed will or will not take place (Clarke, 2006).
INDICATOR
Quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure
achievement, reflect changes or assess performance (Development Assistance Committee, 2002).
TARGET
The specific, planned level of result to be achieved within an explicit timeframe (USAID, 2010).
86
JET EDUCATION SERVICES
Funza Lushaka Bursary Programme
Theory of Change Workshop
Facilitators Guide
87
This Document outlines a detailed facilitators guide for the FLBP theory of change workshop which
will take place at the DBE Conference Centre between 09h00 Tuesday 19 August and 12h45
Wednesday 20 August 2014. The facilitators are from JET Education Services (JET) and the
Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME). The Department of Basic Education
(DBE) delegates will participate in the workshop.
Registration will be handled by the DBE and JET (Hazel Mugo). As delegate register they will be given
a name tag with a coloured sticker attached, the coloured sticker will be used to determine working
groups. There will be six groups with a maximum of 12 participants per group (excluding facilitators).
Chairperson: Thandi Lewin
The role of the Chairperson is to ensure that sessions run to time. Most sessions will be facilitated by
the Lead and Group facilitators.
Lead facilitators: Eleanor Hazell: JET; Antonio Hercules: DPME
Group facilitators: Thandi Lewin, Eleanor Hazell, Benita Reddi, Trish Heimann, Monica Mawoyo,
Hazel Mugo
Scribe (for plenary sessions): Dorcas Malahlela: JET
Table 1: Schedule for Theory of change workshop
Timeslot Facilitator Agenda Purpose and Process and facilitator’s Resources

item intended notes required
outcomes of
session
8:30-9:00 DBE Arrival and Ready to start Tea/coffee

coffee on time at 9:00
9:00-9:15 DBE: Gerrit Official Ensure DBE will welcome None

Coetzee welcome delegates feel delegates to the meeting
and welcome, and thank those that
DPME: purpose of explain the have travelled far.
Antonio the purpose of the
Hercules meeting meeting,
introduce the DPME will explain the
facilitators purpose of the meeting
and the format – it is not
a lecture-style
workshop, it will be very
interactive. Due to the
sheer numbers, many of
the sessions will involve
people working in small
88
outcomes of
session
groups.
DBE will introduce the

facilitation team from
JET and the DPME (lead
facilitators and group
facilitators).
9:15-9:20 DPME: Introduce Provide a clear Introduce Session 1: Run Description

Antonio Session 1 explanation of through activity, of session 1
Hercules session 1 and materials and output activity on
explain the (see below) PPP
seating
arrangements
Explain seating
arrangements: the idea
is to have mixed groups
and for people to work
with people they do not
know. Delegates should
sit at the table which
contains a card which is
the same colour as the
card on their name tag.
9:20-9:25 None Delegates Delegates move Delegate

find their to the correct name tags
tables tables with
coloured
stickers;
coloured
card on six
tables.
9:25-9:40 Group Introductio Delegates get to 5 minutes introductions, A4 individual

facilitators ns and know the people 10 minutes workshop handout
workshop in their group; concepts. with
concepts delegates workshop
Groups should nominate
discuss and concepts
“match” M&E a scribe. and
89
outcomes of
session
concepts to the a) In pairs, definitions

correct introduce (jumbled
definition yourself, your up).
role in the FLBP
and the
province/organis
ation you are Per group -
from. Then feed definitions
back to the written on
group about
coloured
your partner (if
odd number, card, blank
Facilitator joins cards for
in) delegates to
b) Match concepts write the
(outlined below) concepts
to their
onto, koki
definitions:
pens,
 Purpose,
 Programme prestik.
goal,
 Objective,
 Output,
 Outcome,
 Activity,
 Assumption,
 Indicator,
 Target
Definitions have been
written onto cards,
groups identify the
concept that goes with
each definition, write it
on a piece of the same
coloured card and stick
both on the group wall.
9:40-9:50 DPME: Feedback The meaning of Facilitator goes through PPP M&E
Antonio on key the key the “correct” concept concepts
Hercules workshop workshop linked to each definition, matched
concepts concepts is checks whether groups with
clarified matched them correctly definitions
90
outcomes of
session
and clarifies if necessary.
Groups to re-organise
concepts and definitions
- if not correctly
matched – which are
stuck on the group wall.
9:50-9:55 JET: Introduce Provide a clear Introduce Session 2: Run Example on

Eleanor session 2 explanation of through activity, coloured
Hazell session 2 materials and output cards,
(see below) and an
example. PPP with
instructions
for task.
9:55- Group FLBP Delegates reflect Purpose and goal 20 Per group -
10:55 facilitators purpose, on and discuss minutes, objectives 40 flip chart
goal and the purpose, minutes. paper, koki
objectives goal and pens, blank
objectives of Groups to nominate a pieces of
FLBP and spokesperson and a coloured
scribe (a different
develop a card, prestik.
purpose person than for session
statement, goal 1).
and 3-4 Group to discuss their
objectives for understanding of the
the FLBP. purpose, goal and
objectives of the FLBP
(scribe to take notes).
After discussion, group

to agree on definitions
for the FLBP purpose,
goal and objectives and
write these onto pieces
of card (same colour as
purpose, goal and
objectives from session
91
outcomes of
session
1).
Stick onto the wall so

that each group can
review other groups’
during breaks.
Answer the following

questions:
a) What is the
overall purpose
of the FLBP?
(Capture as a
statement)
b) What is the FLBP
goal?
c) What are FLBP
objectives (3-4
maximum)?
10:55- JET: Benita Feedback Delegates 2.5 minutes per group None
11:10 Reddi on FLBP provide
purpose, feedback on Facilitator asks the
spokesperson from each
goal and their
objectives understanding group to provide
of the FLBP feedback on either their
purpose, goal purpose, goal or an
objective for the FLBP.
and objectives
Ask spokespersons to
emphasise how their
description is similar or
different to what has
been said before.
Explain that the FLBP

definitions will remain
on the wall and groups
can view each other’s
work during breaks.
11:10- JET: Trish Evaluation Delegates are Short presentation from PPP
11:30 Heimann team’s introduced to JET which explains the
understand the evaluation process followed by the
92
outcomes of
session
ing of FLBP team’s evaluation team to draft

purpose, understanding the purpose, goal and
goal and of the FLBP objectives of the FLBP
objectives purpose, goal for the evaluation and
and objectives outlines these.
11:30- JET: Introduce Provide a clear Run through activity, PPP with
11:35 Eleanor activity explanation of materials and output instructions
Hazell activity (see below) for task.
11:35- Group Compariso Delegates Reading through 5 A4 individual

11:55 facilitators n of identify minutes, discussion 10 handout
delegates similarities and minutes, prepare to with FLBP
and differences feedback 5 minutes. purpose,
evaluators between their goal and
FLBP and the objectives
purpose, evaluation Groups nominate a developed
goal and team’s spokesperson and a by the
objectives understanding scribe (a different evaluation
of the FLBP person than for the team, red
purpose, goal previous activity). pens.
and objectives
Facilitator provides the
group with a handout of Per group -
the FLBP purpose, goal flipchart
and objectives paper and
developed by the
kokis.
evaluation team and
indicates that the group
should read through and
identify differences
between theirs and the
evaluation team’s
understanding,
differences to be
highlighted in red.
Groups to discuss what

they identified that was
93
outcomes of
session
not included in the

evaluation team’s
description of the FLBP
and whether they think
it should be included
and what the evaluation
team included which
they did not. Main
points to be captured on
flipchart paper, including
proposed amendments
(if any) to the FLBP
description.
Activity output:
Differences between
delegates and evaluation
team’s understanding of
the FLBP purpose, goal
and objectives. Flipchart
papers with notes on
suggested amendments.
11:55- JET: Feedback Delegates make 3 minutes per group None

12:15 Eleanor on suggestions and
Hazell differences inputs as to how Facilitator asks the
between they feel the spokesperson from each
delegates FLBP purpose, group to provide
and goal and feedback on similarities
evaluators objectives and differences between
theirs and the evaluators
FLBP should be
purpose, adjusted understanding of the
goal and programme purpose,
goal and objectives. Each
objectives
group to provide
feedback on one
component only.
Explain that suggested
94
outcomes of
session
amendments (flipchart
paper) will remain on
display and groups can
view each other’s work
during breaks.
Explain that more time

will be spent in the
afternoon session
looking at FLBP
objectives and
unpacking these.
12:15- JET: Introduce Provide a clear Introduce Session 3: Run PPP which
12:25 Eleanor session 3 explanation of through activity, outlines
Hazell session 3 materials and output FLBP key
(see below) and an business
example. processes.
12:25- Group Groups Delegates Reading 5 minutes, A4 individual

12:45 facilitators populate identify which group populate FLBP handout
the FLBP business process business process which
diagram their role links diagram 2 minutes each. summarises
most strongly to, FLBP key
and strengths business
and weaknesses Delegates read through processes.
in the process the description of FLBP Blank
flow. business processes and stickers (to
write their names on a write name
blank sticker. Groups on), 1x red
take it in turns in their and 1x gold
groups to come up to dot stickers.
the business processes
diagram and delegates
stick their name where FLBP key
their role fits best in the business
FLBP business processes processes
(where your role links to drawn large
more than one process, on the wall.
choose a process where
95
outcomes of
session
you want to spend

focused time this
afternoon).
Red stickers are to be

stuck on the business
process which is not
working well and the
gold stickers are to be
stuck on the business
process which is
functioning best.
Delegates can chose not
to place their red and
gold stickers if they feel
nothing is working badly
or well.
12:45- DBE (lunch) LUNCH Ready to start At lunch, review where Cards with
13:45 on time at 13:45 names are placed on the business
JET and business process processes
DPME: diagram and regroup written on
Regrouping delegates by key them
business processes. on/behind
Indicate business tables.
process names on the
tables. Ensure sufficient
seating to accommodate
delegates in a group. If
too large, have two
tables for a particular
business process.
13:45- JET: Feedback Describe the Reflect back what have PPP which
13:55 Eleanor on FLBP results of been identified as the summarises
Hazell key business process weak and strong points task
business voting activity; in the FLBP key business
processes provide a clear processes and explain PPP which
diagram; explanation of that we will explore the outlines new
introduce activity and new reasons for this in the groups
96
outcomes of
session
activity groupings next session.
Explain seating
arrangements: for the
next session, delegates
will work in groups
focused on the business
process most closely
related to their work.
They will discuss the
findings of the voting
and answer some
further questions about
their business process.
Delegates should sit at
the table which is named
after their business
process.
Run through activity,

materials and output.
13:55- Group Delegates Delegates are Cards with

14:00 facilitators regroup correctly business
regrouped for processes
key business written on
processes them
activity on/behind
tables.
14:00- Group Delegates Delegates sit in 25 minutes discussing Per group –

14:45 facilitators discuss groups with and mapping business coloured
FLBP key others involved processes, 20 minutes card, kokis
business in a similar FLBP strengths and and scissors
processes business process weaknesses.
Groups to nominate a
spokesperson (who will
97
outcomes of
session
stay behind and describe

when the groups rotate
for feedback) and a
scribe.
For each business

process
a) Describe the key

mechanisms and
stakeholders
that are
involved;
b) Map the
business process
visually on the
group wall (using
coloured card,
kokis and
scissors);
c) Discuss and
capture what is
working well and
not working well
and why on
flipchart paper.
14:45- Group Groups Delegates Rotate every 5 minutes. Group
15:15 facilitators rotate, review others facilitator
review and work and 2 minutes description, 3
taking notes.
provide comment minutes comments.
inputs Groups rotate clockwise
around the room. The
business process
diagram, strengths and
weaknesses is described
by the group
spokesperson (who
remains behind while
the rest of the group
move). The
spokesperson describes
the business process and
98
outcomes of
session
the visiting group ask

questions and comment.
The group facilitator
captures the discussion.
Questions to guide
comments:
 Do you agree
with the steps or
are there other
relevant steps
that should be
included in the
business
process?
 Do you agree
with the
description of
the strengths
and weaknesses
of the business
process?
15:15- DBE TEA Ready to start During the tea break, Coloured
15:30 on time at 15:30 group facilitators put card on six
coloured cards back on tables; FLBP
the tables, as delegates objectives
will return to the original written
(colour-based) large;
groupings, and set up headings on
the group walls with one coloured
of the FL objectives on it, card, prestik.
and underneath, from
left to right cards with
the headings: activities,
outputs and outcomes.
15:30- JET: Introduce Provide a clear Introduce Session 4: Run Coloured

15:40 Eleanor session 4 explanation of through activity, card with an
Hazell session 4 materials and output example
(see below) and an written on it,
example. prestik.
99
outcomes of
session
The purpose is to PPP with

develop a shared instructions
understanding of how for task.
the FLBP is supposed to
work and identify
activities, outputs and
outcomes which relate
to one of the FLBP
objectives.
Go through an example.
Explain that delegates

will be return to their
original groups and will
work on one of the FLBP
objectives.
Note that the groups will

likely not finish this
activity in the last 45
minutes, they will
continue tomorrow.
15:40- Group Delegates Delegates go Coloured

15:45 facilitators regroup back to their stickers on
original (colour) delegate
groupings name tags;
same
coloured
card on six
tables.
15:45- Group Build FLBP Delegates build Aim to cover objective, FLBP
16:20 facilitators logframe a logframe for key activities and objectives
component one of the FLBP outputs during the written
s programme afternoon session. large,
objectives column
Groups to nominate a headings
spokesperson and a written on
scribe (a different coloured
100
outcomes of
session
person than for the card,

previous activities). coloured
card in
Delegates to build a
“activity”,
logframe for one of the “output”,
FLBP programme “outcome”
objectives, the objective and
is pre-determined, but “assumption
the group can suggest ” colours,
amendments to it. koki pens
Note: headings have
prestik.
been stuck on the wall
for activities, outputs,
outcomes from left to
right. Assumptions will
be stuck underneath.
The colours used for the
components should be
the same as for session
1.
To do:
a) The group
decide whether
they are happy
with the
objective and
how it is worded
and have the
option to make
amendments.
b) The group
identify the key
activities relating
to the objective
they are working
on, these are
written onto
cards which are
the “activity
colour” and
101
outcomes of
session
stuck below the

activity heading
on the far left.
c) The group
identify tangible
outputs (things
that are
achieved as a
result of the
activities) and
write these onto
cards which are
the “output”
colour and stick
these below the
output heading.
d) The group
identify the
outcomes
(expected
results) which
they extent to
see as a result of
the outputs,
which link to the
objective.
Outcomes are
written onto
cards which are
the “outcome”
colour. These
are stuck on the
right below the
outcome
heading.
e) At each step in
the chain (i.e.
between
activities and
outputs, outputs
and outcomes
and the
objective), the
group reflect on
assumptions,
102
outcomes of
session
these are
written on
“assumption”
coloured card
and stuck in the
relevant place.
16:25- JET: Thandi Closure End workshop Thank delegates, discuss None
16:30 Lewin day 1 starting time for Day 2
and focus of Day 2
8:00-8:30 DBE Arrival Ready to start None

on time at 8:30
8:30-8:40 JET: Thandi Welcome Welcome Welcome delegates back None

Lewin delegates to day to the workshop. Recap
2, outline focus briefly on day 1 and
of day 2. outline the focus of day
2.
8:40-8:45 JET: Benita Explanation Provide a clear Run through activity, PPP
Reddi of timeline explanation of materials and output description
activity timeline activity. (see below). of activity
8:45-9:00 Group Delegates Delegates Delegates read through A4 individual

facilitators review and review the the FLBP timeline handout
discuss evaluators individually and identify which
FLBP understanding if anything is missing, as summarises
timeline of the FLBP a group they decide FLBP
timeline and whether to add anything timeline
suggest under the following from 2007-
additions. headings (a different 2013,
coloured card to be used coloured
for each): card, kokis,
prestik
a) Policy
b) Design
c) Objectives
d) Stakeholders
103
outcomes of
session
9:00-9:15 Benita Groups Group make 2.5 minutes per group. FLBP
Reddi and populate inputs to the timeline
Group the FLBP FLBP timeline. Groups take it in turns in drawn large
their groups to come up
facilitators timeline on the wall,
to the timeline and coloured
make additions to the card, red
timeline (see the and gold dot
headings above).
stickers
Delegates vote using 1x
red and 1x gold dot
stickers for a point in the
programme history
which was a highlight
and a low point.
9:15-9:20 JET: Benita Recap of Facilitator Describe what has been None
Reddi timeline describes added to the FLBP
activity additions, timeline and what have
highlights and been identified as the
low points of the high and low points of
FLBP timeline. the programme. Explain
that the timeline will
remain on display for the
remainder of the
workshop.
9:20- Group Build FLBP Groups Group facilitators Logframe

10:45 facilitators logframe complete FLBP distribute the evaluation developed
component logframe team’s FLBP logframe. on previous
s building, day, A4
compare their a) The group individual
review their
work from day 1 handout
partially
with the draft complete which
logframe logframe and summarises
developed by compare it to the
the evaluation that developed evaluation
team and by the team’s FLBP
evaluation team.
discuss which logframe.
b) The group
assumptions rework their
hold true and logframe (in
104
outcomes of
session
which are light of the Coloured

flawed. handout) such card, kokis,
that they are flip chart,
satisfied with it
and prepared to
explain it.
c) Depending on
how the group
are doing, could
also look at
indicators and
targets.
d) The group
reflect on
assumptions, for
activities to
achieve outputs
and for outputs
to reach
outcomes, these
are stuck below
and between the
relevant
components.
e) The group
identify
assumptions
which seem to
hold true and
assumptions
which are
flawed. They
discuss and
capture why
some of the
assumptions
were flawed.
f) The group
review whether
the flow from
activities to
outcomes makes
logical sense and
answer the
following
105
outcomes of
session
questions:
- Is the
programme
logic
complete?
- Are all key
elements
accounted
for?
10:45- DBE TEA Ready to start
11:00 on time at 11:00
11:00- Group Groups Delegates 2 minutes description, 3

11:30 facilitators rotate, review others minutes comments.
review and work and
provide Groups rotate clockwise
comment
around the room. The
inputs
objective and logframe is
described by the group
spokesperson (who
remains behind while
the rest of the group
move). The
spokesperson describes
the logframe and the
visiting group ask
questions and comment.
The group facilitator
captures the discussion.
Questions to guide
comments:
 Do you agree
with the
programme
logic?
 Are all key
elements
accounted for?
If not, what is
missing?
 Do you agree
106
outcomes of
session
with the
assumptions?

11:30- JET: Trish Evaluation Evaluation team Explain that the theory PPP on FLBP
11:35 Heimann team’s presents their of change is a summary theory of
understand understanding of the logic/thinking change;
ing of FLBP of the FLBP which underpins the theory of
theory of theory of change programme. change
change diagram
Describe FLBP theory of
change.
11:35- Group Review Groups review Groups to nominate a A4 individual

11:55 facilitators FLBP and comment spokesperson and a handout –
theory of on FLBP theory scribe (a different theory of
change of change person than for the change
previous activities). diagram, flip
chart paper,
Groups discuss FLBP koki pens
theory of change and
revise
statement/diagram if
necessary.
a) Do you think this

statement
encompasses
the thinking
around the
programme? If
not, revise it
11:55- DPME: Feedback Delegate 3 mins per group. None
12:15 Antonio from present their
Hercules groups on revised/amende Ask groups
FLBP d FLBP theory of spokespersons to
provide feedback on
theory of change
change suggested amendments
to the FLBP theory of
change.
12:15- JET: Thandi Wrap-up Delegates Facilitate reflection on None

12:25 Lewin provide learning of the past two
feedback on days, what was most
107
outcomes of
session
their workshop valuable, what you take

experience away from the session
and additional
comments
5 minutes discussion in
groups, 5 minutes
feedback.
Ask for feedback from

each group, specifically
people that have not
spoken in the plenary.
12:25- Group Evaluation Delegates Group facilitators Evaluation

12:30 facilitators forms complete distribute evaluation form per
evaluation forms and provide delegate.
forms. assistance if necessary.
12:30- DBE: Gerrit Closing Wrap-up and DBE reflects on the None
12:45 Coetzee comments closure of workshop and
workshop. achievements over the
past two days.
12:45- DBE Lunch

13:45
In addition to the specific resources required per session, it would be useful to have a bell/buzzer to
use when it is time for the groups to rotate.
108
Annexure E: Evaluation Matrix Linking Questions to Methods and Data Collection Instruments
Table 1: Evaluation matrix questions and data collection instruments
Evaluation Area Evaluation Question Evaluation Methods Used
To what extent is the design of the Programme relevant, appropriate, and technically sound?
Programme Design 1. Is the programme design relevant and appropriate in terms of  Document review of existing documentation on the FLBP.
national priorities, education sector context and policy, and  A literature review of the ITE context in South Africa
institutional environment?  A desktop benchmarking exercise to compare with similar
2. Is the design of the programme conceptually clear, and coherent? national bursaries.
3. Does the programme have a logframe, and does it comply with  Develop of an explicit Theory of Change/Logframe for the
standards for technical good practice? FLBP via interviews with key programme staff involved at
4. What is the underlying Theory of Change (TOC) of the the commencement of the programme and a participatory
programme? stakeholder workshop to test assumptions, contribute to
development process and explore the extent of
stakeholder consensus on the Theory of Change/Logframe.
Selection criteria and 5. Is there a clear relationship between the programme objectives  Interviews with key stakeholders
procedures and the selection criteria (priority areas)?  Results of the student survey
6. Is there any conflict between any of the objectives or selection  Analysis of other relevant data
criteria?
Monitoring 7. Is there an appropriate framework for collection of data towards  Desktop research into available documentation and reports
assessment of the impact of the Programme? (where appropriate, on the FLBP
the particular contributions of stakeholders of FLBP).  Analysis of the Higher Education Management Information
8. What is the current framework? System (HEMIS), PERSAL and FLBP data.
9. How could the current framework for collection of data be more  Interviews with programme staff at the DBE and SITA
appropriate?
What are the measurable results of the FLBP, specifically with regards to supply, and placement of FLBP-sponsored teachers? To what extent has the FLBP been effective in
achieving its major goals, objectives and intended outcomes? Have recruitment strategies been effective?
Goals and Objectives 10. To what extent have the goals and objectives of the FLBP been  Desktop review of available documentation and data.
achieved during the period 2007-2012 (Number of students  Interviews with managers of the programme – to confirm
recruited in priority areas, number funded in ITE programmes in whether their understanding of the goals and objectives
priority areas; Number of students completed within a satisfactory are the same as in the documentation received.
time frame; Number of graduates placed in public schools  Descriptive analysis: comparing the data sets against the
109
generally and specifically in rural and poor schools; Contribution targets and objectives.
of FLBP to the supply of qualified teachers in identified priority  Calculate throughput rates, and compare placement
areas and phase specialization in public schools and rural and poor information. Determine historical trends relating to the
schools particularly, as compared to total supply)? supply of teachers to determine whether the bursary
programme has increased the general supply (looking at
broader PERSAL data).
 Survey of bursary recipients
Effects of Non-funding 11. How did applicants fare that did not qualify for re-award in terms  Survey with bursary recipients
of completing their studies? (completed by self-funding, picked up  Data analysis from PERSAL, HEMIS and FLBP data
the bursary again and completed, changed to other programmes
or dropped out)
Effects of non-placement 12. How did unplaced graduates fare in terms of finding employment?  Interviews with FLBP staff (provincial officials) at PEDs, the
(public schools, SGB posts in public schools, private schools, other DHET and the DBE
places in the education sectors or outside)  Data analysis of HEMIS and PERSAL
 Student survey
Stakeholders Perceptions 13. What are stakeholders’ views on the Programme?  Interviews with all stakeholders involved in the FLBP (DBE,
14. Do views vary for various stakeholders or beneficiaries? DHET, NSFAS, HEIs, PEDs)
 Survey with bursary recipients
 Focus groups with current FLBP recipients still studying.
Management, Coordination 15. How do stakeholders perceive their roles and responsibilities in  Desktop research from FLBP documents.
and Collaboration managing the Programme efficiently?  Interviews with stakeholders (DBE, HEIs, NSFAS, PEDs,
- DBE (overall management, administration, coordination and DHET).
collaboration).  Stakeholder workshop on TOC/Logframe
- HEIs (selection, bursary funds, student support,  Analysis to understand to what extent stakeholders
specialization in subject combinations that match priority understand their roles.
areas; tracking academic progress).  Student Survey
- NSFAS (approval for awards, student contracts, disburse
funds to HEIs and report).
- PEDs (placements, monitor non-placement, track
employment record, sharing good practices, report).
- DHET (their role in management of the Funza Lushaka
bursary programme? Implementation Protocol; design of
initial teacher education programmes; overall teacher supply
110
to meet the demands for scarce skills;

- collaborative structures, including the DBE, DHET and NSFAS
Committee; Dean’s Forum and the Provincial Teacher
Education and Development Committees (PTEDCs)
- Students
- Newly-placed teachers
In relation to all of the core “business” processes of the Programme, to what extent has the Programme been efficient? Have the management and administrative
arrangements underpinning programme implementation been appropriate?
Management and 16. What have been the primary management and administrative  Desktop review – to gain an understanding of the process
Administration structures, mechanisms, processes, and procedures? map(s) that show how management and administration
17. Were these appropriate to deliver an effective programme? works
18. To what extent did they function efficiently?  Confirm structures and processes through Theory of
Change process
 Interviews with HEIs, DBE and NSFAS to clarify the process
map
Recruitment and Selection 19. What recruitment strategies are in place and how effective are  Initial interviews with DBE and desktop review of
they in reaching the target population (youth from rural and poor recruitment and selection process.
areas)?  Confirmation of processes through TOC/Logframe process
20. District-based recruitment – Registration process in HEIs and issue  Interviews with HEIs, DBE FLBP team and PEDs
of promissory letters; mechanisms in place to ensure that  Survey to bursary recipients
recruited students go back to teach in their districts.
21. What were the main outcomes of the recruitment strategy?
22. Was there alignment between the recruitment and selection
processes?
Funding 23. What systems are in place to ensure that bursary funds are  Interviews with DBE and NSFAS
efficiently managed and utilized?  Survey with bursary recipients.
24. Additional question: how is funding allocated?
Stakeholders Involvement 25. To what extent did the various stakeholders contribute to the  Desktop research
administration of bursary funds and achievement of Programme  Interviews with HEIs (Heads of Schools of Education and
outcomes? (DBE allocate funds to HEIs and approve bursary award the Financial Aid Office of every institution)
lists and send them to NSFAS; NSFAS sign Agreements with  Interviews with NSFAS, DBE and PEDs: Student Survey
students, disburse funds to HEI per DBE approved lists and Report;  Focus groups with bursary recipients:
HEIs allocate funds to students and Report to DBE/NSFAS).
111
26. Were these processes effective?

27. Were the processes efficient?
Funding Arrangements 28. To what extent were the funding arrangements sufficiently  Interviews with DBE and NSFAS
flexible and able to identify and deal with emerging challenges  Survey with bursary recipients: Question in survey to
(convenience for students, managing declines by students, HEI graduates on turnaround of funding.
claims on time, etc) during programme implementation?
Beneficiaries 29. To what extent did beneficiaries (funded students) utilize funds  Survey
efficiently towards attainment of outcomes)?  Focus groups with students
30. What is the attitude of Funza Lushaka awardees with regard to  Investigating the “attitudes” of bursary recipients in
receiving money to support their studies and serving in schools relation to the requirements of the bursary to teach in
(Funding, academic activities; specialization in priority areas; public schools, and related issues of motivation of FLBP
conditions of schools, qualification subjects versus priority needs students to enter the teaching profession.
of the school; support at schools; completion of the obligatory
service period and remaining in the teaching profession)?
Training/Student’s Profiles 31. Bursars in terms of numbers, bursary funds spent?  Interviews with HEIs, NSFAS and DBE.
32. Throughput rate?  Survey with bursary recipients
33. Dropout rate?  Analysis of the HEMIS database and analysis of survey data
34. Student profile in the bursary programme? 
35. Maintaining subject specialization within defined priority areas?
36. Student support (academic, accommodation, etc) and
communication with students in HEIs?
Graduation 37. How effective is the process of completion of placement forms,  Interviews with PEDs and HEIs
compilation of a placement database by DBE and making it  Focus groups with students at HEIs
available to  Survey with bursary recipients
38. PEDs on time?
Placement 39. What placement processes are in place and how effective are they  Interviews with DBE, PEDs, HEIs
(Coordination by DBE; placement mechanisms in PEDs (match to  Survey with bursary recipients
vacant posts, applying for a post; placement within specified time  Data analysis of FLBP programme data and PERSAL data
frame)?
40. Is the placement period for graduates realistic?
Accountability and 41. What processes are in place for monitoring and how effective are  Interviews with DBE, PEDs, HEIs. Process map from
Monitoring they (tracking students during their study period in HEIs and TOC/Logframe process
graduates once placed)?
112
Departmental processes 42. To what extent does the DBE manage and coordinate processes  Interviews with DBE officials and other stakeholders .
and resources and ensure adequate resources (human and physical)?
Cost-Effectiveness 43. Has the strategy been cost-effective in terms of the amount spent JET’s understanding from design discussions is that the question
and the outputs achieved? here is about “value for money” and the success of the
44. Was there value for money in terms of the proportion of funds programme investment in relation to its achieved outcomes.
dedicated towards teacher supply in priority areas?  Basic cost analysis
 Interviews with HEIs, DBE, PEDs, NSFAS, and Treasury to
determine perceived value.
Key Results 45.
What are key results for the programme based on available data?  Analysis will provide answers to these questions
46.
What are the key observable trends?
47.
What gaps exist in the data?
48.
If so, what recommendations are offered for data-related
processes – collection, capturing, storage, access, strategic use,
etc.?
Changes 49. Are any changes needed to the objectives to strengthen the  Analysis of findings from previous questions will provide
Programme in future? inputs to respond to this. This relates to business process,
50. What implications would they have for Programme design and measurable results and the design of the programme.
change management?
How sustainable is the FLBP? What key insights, lessons, and recommendations are offered, with a view on the possible scaling up of the FLBP?
Sustainability 51. What is the assessment of the FLBP in terms of programme  Interviews with DBE and NSFAS and Treasury
sustainability and financial sustainability?  Analysis of key data to inform recommendations.
52. To what extent are effective partnerships with stakeholders
included in the assessment?
53. What is the process to assess sustainability? How sustainable is
the FLBP?
54. What budget is available for the FLBP going forward?
55. Is the programme supplying teachers in the areas required in the
correct areas?
56. Are there partnerships to make this sustainable?
113
Annexure F: Final Data Collection Instruments
CATI Questionnaire
Changes made on
final version based
on pilots and call
centre feedback
Changes made on
final version based
on client feedback
Last changes Friday 3 Account: Jet Education Funza Lushaka Bursary 2014
October
Project Code:
CATI questionnaire
General Information
Interviewing method CATI
Interview length 20 minutes
Copy Final
Expected interviewing dates 25 September – 18 October (TBC)
General Programming Notes:
NB – All tables except for Q16 must be in alphabetical order
Hardcode the ID numbers, name and surname onto each new survey based on lists provided.
Introduction and Screener
Good day, my name is {intvrs->name}. I am calling you from Ask Afrika, an Independent Market Research company. We are
currently conducting research on behalf of the Department of Basic Education through a Student Survey with both current and past
bursary recipients to understand student's views and thoughts on the Funza Lushaka (FL) Bursary. We are not selling anything. The
interview may take about 20 minutes to complete. Can I continue and ask you the questions?
(IF YES)
Your participation is voluntary and you are free to stop the conversation or to decline to answer questions at any time. Your
responses are confidential and your personal information will not be used beyond the scope of this study. There will be no
consequences or follow ups as a result of this survey.
114
1. May I confirm that I am speaking to___________?
Section trigger: If no, continue to Q2, If yes skip to Q3
Interviewer notes: None
No Yes Refuse to answer
1 2 77
Continue to Q2 Skip to Q3 Continue to Q2
2. Can you provide an alternative contact number for___________?

Section trigger: Ensure that a 10 digit number is captured. Open end if refuse to answer then terminate
Interviewer notes: Capture correct contact number and phone the respondent.
Number
Open end if refuse to answer then terminate
3. Were you awarded a Funza Lushaka bursary at any stage during your studies
No Yes
1 2
Continue to Q4 Skip to Q5
4. Do you know why your name would appear on a list of students who received a Funza Lushaka teaching bursary to fund their
studies?
Section trigger: If the person still does not know about FL and did not receive funding end call.
If person realises they may have received funding and forgot bursary details continue survey.
Interviewer notes: If the person still does not know about FL and did not receive funding end call.
If person realises they may have received funding and forgot bursary details continue survey.
Reason
The Department of Basic Education, (DBE) is conducting a Student Survey with both current and past bursary recipients to understand
student’s views and thoughts on the Funza Lushaka (FL) Bursary Programme. I will be asking you short or closed ended questions. Your
participation is voluntary and you are free to stop the conversation or to decline to answer questions at any time. Your responses are
confidential and your personal information will not be used beyond the scope of this study. There will be no consequences or follow
ups as a result of this survey.
115
5. Are you willing to participate?
Section trigger: If Yes, continue with interview, if no, terminate interview.
Interviewer notes: Single Mention
No Yes
1 2
Terminate Continue with interview
6. Are you currently studying, have you graduated or dropped out?

Section trigger: None
Currently studying/student Graduated Dropped out (Did not complete

studies, left university)
1 2 3
Continue with interview Continue with interview Continue with interview
7. How/where did you first hear about the Funza Lushaka Bursary programme?
Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Don’t read out.
Funza Lushaka website or brochure 1
Friends and family 2
University information booklets 3
NSFAS offices 4
Schools and teachers 5
District recruitment drive 6
Media, TV or radio (adverts) 7
Community structures (civic organisations, traditional leaders meetings, 8

ward committees etc.)
Other (specify): 9
116
Section A: Biographic Information
Section trigger: The biographic section should be programmed as to come up after the last section in the questionnaire.
8. What is your gender

Male Female Refuse to answer
1 2 77
9. In which age category do you belong?

Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Read out categories slowly.
18-30 31-40 41-50 51+ Refuse to answer
1 2 3 4 77
10. Under which population group would you classify yourself?

Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Only read out categories if respondent hesitates.
Black/African White Coloured Indian Asian Other Refuse to answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 77
11. What is your home language?

Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Only the language that you speak most frequently. Only read out if respondent hesitates.
Afrikaans English IsiNdebele IsiXhosa IsiZulu Sepedi Sesotho
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Refuse to
Setswana SiSwati Tshivenda Xitsonga Other
answer
8 9 10 11 12 77
12. Which province are you currently living in?

117
Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Don’t read out.
Current province
Eastern Cape 1
Free State 2
Gauteng 3
Kwa-Zulu Natal 4
Limpopo 5
Mpumalanga 6
North West 7
Northern Cape 8
Western Cape 9
Section B: Educational background and qualifications
I would now like to ask you a few questions about your background and how you got into education.
13. In which province did you finish high school?

Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Only read out if respondent hesitates.
Province of origin
Eastern Cape 1
Free State 2
Gauteng 3
Kwa-Zulu Natal 4
Limpopo 5
Mpumalanga 6
North West 7
Northern Cape 8
Western Cape 9
14. A. What is the name of the high school from which you matriculated?
b. In which Town/Area/Suburb is the school located from which you matriculated?
Interviewer notes: Capture verbatim
118
A. Name Open end
B. Town/Area/Suburb Open end
15. In which year did you matriculate?

Section trigger: Numeric response
Interviewer notes: Capture verbatim
Year Numeric response
16. What category of pass did you obtain in your Senior Certificate/Matric examination?
Section trigger: None. Do not put table in alphabetical order since we will only read out first 3 options.
Interviewer notes: Spontaneous mention. Only read out the first three responses.
Read out the rest of the list if they do not recognise an option. Ask respondent to stop you once they recognise the correct option.
National Senior Certificate Bachelor’s pass 1
Senior Certificate with Exemption or Endorsement Pass

2
(university entrance pass)
National Senior Certificate Diploma pass 3
National Senior Certificate Higher Certificate Pass 4
Senior Certificate without Exemption or Endorsement Pass 5
National Certificate Vocational (Level 4) 6
Matric equivalent from another country 7
Don’t know 66
Refuse to answer 77
Other (specify):
119
17. a. At which University/ies are you/were you enrolled in for your teacher education studies?
b. For which programme are/were you enrolled
c. When did you start and complete or expect to complete the programme?
d. Did you receive any funding or bursaries?
Section trigger: If current student in Q6, use current tense in questions (i.e. at which university/ies are you enrolled in for your
teacher education studies).
If graduate in Q6, us the past tense in the questions (i.e. at which university/ies were you enrolled in for you
teacher education studies).
Interviewer notes: Capture Response
Abbreviation a. University b. Programme c. Start c. c. d. Funding

Ended/expected Dropped or Bursaries
end out
CPUT Cape Peninsula If PGCE is chosen and Numeric Numeric Response

University of completed in 1 year, Response (i.e.2015)
Technology Skip Q22 to Q25 (i.e.2015)
CUT Central University of

Technology
DUT Durban University of

Technology
NIHE (Mp) National Institute for

Higher Education
(Mpumalanga)
NIHE (NC) National Institute for

Higher Education
(Northern Cape)
NMMU Nelson Mandela

Metropolitan University
NWU North West University
RU Rhodes University
TUT Tshwane University of

Technology
UCT University of Cape

Town
UFH University of Fort Hare
UFS University of the Free

State
120
Abbreviation a. University b. Programme c. Start c. c. d. Funding
Ended/expected Dropped or Bursaries
end out
UJ University of
Johannesburg
UKZN University of KwaZulu-

Natal
UL University of Limpopo
UNISA University of South

Africa
UNIVEN University of Venda
UNIZUL University of Zululand
UP University of Pretoria
US University of
Stellenbosch
UWC University of the

Western Cape
WITS University of the

Witwatersrand
WSU Walter Sisulu University
18. For which Phase have you specialised or are currently specialising?
Section trigger: Based on the option chosen continue to correct table in Q19. If Option 8, 9 or 77 is chosen skip to Section C
Interviewer notes: Single Mention. Don’t read options.
Foundation Phase 1
Intermediate Phase 2
Foundation and Intermediate Phase (FP/IP) 3
Senior Phase 4
Intersen Phase (IP/SP) 5
FET 6
Senior and Further Education and Training (SP/FET) 7
Have not yet chosen (Skip Q19 if and 20 if this is selected) 8
Other: Specify 9
121
Refuse to answer 77
19. Which two majors have you or are you specialising in?
What subjects did you or are you specialising in to teach?
Section trigger: Based on the option chosen in Q18, select correct table. Put options in alphabetical order.
Interviewer notes: Select up to four. Don’t read out options.
Intermediate Phase
Afrikaans 1 Sepedi 9
English 2 Sesotho 10
isiNdebele 3 Setswana 11
isiXhosa 4 Siswati 12
isiZulu 5 Social Sciences 13
Life Skills 6 Tshivenda 14
Mathematics 7 Xitsongo 15
Natural Sciences and Technology 8 Refuse to answer 77
Other (specify):
FP/IP
Afrikaans 1 Sepedi 9
English 2 Sesotho 10
isiNdebele 3 Setswana 11
isiZulu 5 Social Sciences 13
Life Skills 6 Tshivenda 14
Natural Sciences and Technology 8 Refuse to answer 77
Other (specify):
122
Senior Phase
Afrikaans 1 Religious/Biblical Studies 11
Creative Arts 2 Sepedi 12
Economic Management Sciences 3 Sesotho 13
English 4 Setswana 14
isiNdebele 5 Siswati 15
isiXhosa 6 Social Sciences 16
isiZulu 7 Technology 17
Life Orientation 8 Tshivenda 18
Natural Sciences 10 Refuse to answer 77
Other (specify):
IP/SP
Afrikaans 1 Religious/Biblical Studies 13
Creative Arts 2 Sepedi 14
English 4 Setswana 16
isiNdebele 5 Siswati 17
isiXhosa 6 Social Sciences 18
isiZulu 7 Technology 19
Life Orientation 8 Tshivenda 20
Life Skills 9 Xitsongo 21
Mathematics 10 Refuse to answer 77
Natural Sciences 11
Natural Sciences and Technology 12
Other (specify):
FET Phase
123
Accounting 1 isiNdebele 21
Afrikaans 2 isiXhosa 22
Agricultural Management Practices 3 isiZulu 23
Agricultural Sciences 4 Life Orientation 24
Agricultural Technology 5 Life Sciences 25
Business Studies 6 Mathematical Literacy 26
Civil Technology 7 Mathematics 27
Computer Applications Technology 8 Mechanical Technology 28
Consumer Studies 9 Music 29
Dance Studies 10 Physical Sciences 30
Design 11 Religion Studies 31
Dramatic Arts 12 Sepedi 32
Economics 13 Sesotho 33
Electrical Technology 14 Setswana 34
Engineering Graphics and Design 15 Siswati 35
English 16 Tourism 36
Geography 17 Tshivenda 37
History 18 Visual Arts 38
Hospitality Studies 19 Xitsongo 39
Information Technology 20 Refuse to answer 77
Other (specify):
SP/FET
Accounting 1 isiNdebele 23
Afrikaans 2 isiXhosa 24
Agricultural Management Practices 3 isiZulu 25
Agricultural Sciences 4 Life Orientation 26
Agricultural Technology 5 Life Sciences 27
124
Business Studies 6 Mathematical Literacy 28
Civil Technology 7 Mathematics 29
Computer Applications Technology 8 Mechanical Technology 30
Consumer Studies 9 Music 31
Creative Arts 10 Natural Sciences 32
Dance Studies 11 Physical Sciences 33
Design 12 Religion Studies 34
Dramatic Arts 13 Sepedi 35
Economics 15 Setswana 37
Electrical Technology 16 Siswati 38
Engineering Graphics and Design 17 Social Sciences 39
English 18 Technology 40
Geography 19 Tourism 41
History 20 Tshivenda 42
Hospitality Studies 21 Visual Arts 43
Information Technology 22 Xitsongo 44
Refuse to answer 77
Other (specify):
20. What influenced your Major subject choice?

What influenced your subject choices?
Section trigger: None.
Interviewer notes: Multiple Mention
Interest in the subject 1
Marks obtained in that subject at school were good 2
Limited by the university entrance requirements 3
Bursary availability for priority subjects/ Funza Lushaka bursary 4
125
University had space available in the subject (other subjects full) 4
Teacher at school who taught the same subject motivated me 6
Information obtained from career guidance or life orientation 7
I don’t know 8
Other (specify)
Section C: Effects of non-funding
21. a. List the years in which you received the Funza Lushaka bursary
b. In which year of study did you receive the Funza Lushaka bursary?
Section trigger: Link numeric response in A ex 2013, with year of study in B, ex 2 nd year
Interviewer notes: Select option. Multiple Mention.
21. A Received Bursary Year(s 21. B Year of study
Numerical response 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd, year, 4th year,
5th year, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, PGCE
=11th year
22. Were there years in which you did not apply for Funza Lushaka funding?
Section trigger: If yes continue to Q23. If no skip to Q24
Interviewer notes: Select option
1 2 77
Skip to Q24 Continue to Q23 Skip to Q24
23. What were the reasons for not applying for funding?
Section trigger: None.
Interviewer notes: Multiple mention
Late for reapplication 1
Did not meet requirements to progress to next year of study 2
Found alternative means of funding my degree 3
Changed subjects to non-priority areas 4
Changed to a different course/degree 5
126
I Decided I didn’t want to do the obligatory service period 6
Other (Please specify) 7
24. Were there years in which you applied for Funza Lushaka but did not get it?
Section trigger: If yes continue to Q25 and Q26. If no skip to Section D
Interviewer notes: Single mention IF PGCE is selected and completed in one year, then select N/A
1 2 77
Skip to Section D Continue to Q25 Skip to Section D
25. What was the reason for not receiving funding?

Section trigger: Only answer if yes in Q24 and continue to Q26
Interviewer notes: Single mention. Do not read out unless respondent hesitates or is confused IF PGCE is selected and
completed in one year, then select N/A
Late for application/reapplication 1
Did not meet requirements to progress to next year of study 2
Changed subjects/majors to non-priority areas 3
Bursaries were limited so I was not chosen 4
Other stronger students were chosen over me 5
There were not enough funds available 6
I don’t know the reason why I did not receive funding 7
Refuse to answer 77
26. What alternative plan did you make?

Section trigger: Only answer if yes in Q24.
Interviewer notes: Single mention, do not read out unless respondent hesitates or cannot respond
Completed the year of study by self-funding (e.g. parents 1

assisted, got a job etc.)
Completed the year of study by another bursary programme 2

or NSFAS
Completed the rest of the degree by self-funding (e.g. 3
127
parents assisted, got a job etc.)
Completed the year of study by another bursary programme 4

or NSFAS
Picked up the Funza Lushaka bursary again and completed 5
Got another bursary to pursue teaching 6
Pursued another degree 7
I left university (dropped out) 8
Section D: Management, Coordination and Collaboration
27. Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements relating to the management of the Funza Lushaka?
Section trigger: Last two options should only be asked if option 1 or 2 – currently studying or graduated was selected in Q6.
Interviewer notes: Read out.
Agree Disagree
1. It is easy to access the Funza Lushaka application forms 1 2
2. When I applied for the Funza Lushaka bursary, I got a response before the 1 2
academic year started
3. I was aware of the selection criteria and requirements 1 2
4. Bursary funds were distributed in line with the university payment deadlines 1 2
5. The forms for placement in schools, after your studies, were made available 1 2 Only ask if
early 1 or 2
selected
in Q6
6. The placement requirements and rules were properly explained to students 1 2 Only ask if
1 or 2
selected
in Q6
28. Which difficulties or challenges have you experienced with your bursary?
Late payment of tuition fees 1
Difficulties with obtaining funds for accommodation and travel 2
Difficulties with obtaining funds for text books 3
128
Difficulties with registration due to bursary funding not being 4
finalised
Delays in being placed in a teaching position 5
Issues in relation to being declared a defaulter 6
Difficulty with the application process 7
Waited a long time for selection to be finalised 8
Unclear about the priority areas 9
Poor communication about status of placement 10
Section E: Funding and Funding Arrangements
29. Was the funding sufficient to cover your academic costs? (tuition, textbooks, accommodation and meals)
Remove
Interviewer notes: Single mention question
1 2 77
30. Which of the following costs did your Funza Lushaka bursary allocation cover?
Section trigger: If support families was selected continue to Q31.
Interviewer notes: Read out options for y/n response. Single mention.
Yes =2 No=1
Tuition fees 2 1
Accommodation 2 1
Textbooks 2 1
Stationery 2 1
Electronics (laptops, ipads, phones) 2 1
Transport 2 1
Airtime and internet access 2 1
Meals 2 1
Entertainment 2 1
129
Support families 2 1
Clothing 2 1
Other: 2 1
31. Please estimate the amount of money you gave to support your family each month?”
Section trigger: Only answer if support families was selected in Q30
Interviewer notes: Capture numeric
Amount
Refuse to Answer
32. At the end of the year, the balance of the Funza Lushaka bursary amount is paid out to students in cash. Did you have any
surplus funds, from your Funza Lushaka bursary, paid back to you?
Were any balances paid back to you?
Section trigger: If yes continue to Q33, if no skip to Section F
Interviewer notes: Single mention
1 2 77
Skip to Section F Continue to Q33 Skip to Section F
33. What was the reason for you having surplus funds?
What was the reason for you having a balance?
Section trigger: Only answer if yes in Q32.
Interviewer notes: Multiple Mention. Only read out if respondent hesitates or does not know.
Had financial support from family 1
University adjustments to fees or course structure resulted in lower 2

than expected costs
Awarded additional funding through university scholarships 3
Awarded additional funding through another bursary 4
Part time work 5
Spouse 6
130
Section F: Beneficiaries
34. What motivated you to choose teaching as a career? Rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements on a
scale of 1 to 4 where 1 is Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Agree and 4 Strongly Agree.
Interviewer notes: Read out scale and repeat if respondent forgets or misunderstands.
I studied to be a teacher because ……: Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree agree
1. I have always wanted to be a teacher 1 2 3 4
2. I want to share my knowledge of a subject 1 2 3 4
3. I see it as a step to further study 1 2 3 4
4. I couldn't get into my first choice of study 1 2 3 4
5. I want to work in a respected profession 1 2 3 4
6. I was inspired by teachers who taught me 1 2 3 4
7. I think teaching is easier than most other jobs 1 2 3 4
8. I would like to help improve the quality of education in SA 1 2 3 4
9. I want job security and a way of supporting my family 1 2 3 4
10. I received a teaching bursary 1 2 3 4
11. I didn’t really know what other job to do 1 2 3 4
12. I like working with children 1 2 3 4
13. I would like a job that will give me opportunities work in other 1 2 3 4
countries
14. I like the holidays and working hours 1 2 3 4
35. Please state whether you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to how you feel about the Funza Lushaka
bursary?
Agree Disagree
1. Receiving Funza Lushaka funding has assisted me in pursuing a worthwhile degree in 1 2

teaching
2. The bursary assistance I received help me successfully complete all the required 1 2
academic activities for my degree
3. The bursary influenced my subject specialisation choices 1 2
131
Agree Disagree
4. I will make positive changes in the priority areas of under resourced schools as a result of 1 2
the bursary
5. I look forward to teaching in rural schools 1 2
6. It is important to work in public schools to fulfil my obligatory service period 1 2
7. I intend to leave the teaching profession once I complete my obligation to the bursary 1 2
programme
8. I believe I am making a meaningful contribution to the profession 1 2
9. I am worried about the poor social status attached to the teaching profession 1 2
10. I am proud of being a Funza Lushaka recipient 1 2
36. Do you feel that your qualification has prepared you assessing student learning? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 is “not
prepared at all”, 2 is “somewhat prepared”, 3 is “prepared” and 4 is “very well prepared”
Not at all prepared Somewhat prepared Prepared Very well prepared
1 2 3 4
37. Do you feel confident in assessing student learning in order to improve student performance Please rate on a scale of 1 to 4
where 1 is “not confident at all”, 2 is “somewhat confident”, 3 is “confident” and 4 is “very confident”
Not at all confident Somewhat confident Confident Very confident
1 2 3 4
Section G: Accountability
Only ask section to those who have graduated in Q6.

We would like to find out about the success of the placement process and the bursary administration in the questions which follow.
None of this information is in anyway related to NSFAS’s recovery of funds.
38. If you have finished studying, what are you doing to fulfil your obligation to Funza Lushaka?
How are you repaying Funza Lushaka for the bursary you received?
Section trigger: Only ask if graduated selected in Q6.
Interviewer notes: Single mention. Read Out.
Paid/Paying back in service (i.e. you are working at a school to 1 Skip to Q40
132
pay back the bursary)
Paid/Paying back financially (i.e. the bursary has been converted 2 Continue to Q39
to a loan, paying money in monthly instalments)
I am not paying it back (i.e I have been declared breach of 3 Continue to Q39
contract)
I am still awaiting placement 4 Continue to Q39
I have been released from my service obligation 5 Continue to Q39
Other (please specify) 6 Continue to Q39
39. If you are not in service, has anyone followed up on whether or not you have paid back your bursary?
Section trigger: Only ask if graduated selected in Q6.
1 2 77
Section H: Graduation, placement and effects of non-placement
Only for those who dropped out or graduated
I would like to now ask you about the placement process in order to understand where problems arise in the process and how these
challenges could be addressed.
40. Are you currently employed?

Section trigger: If yes, continue to Q42. If no, continue to Q41 and then end interview.
No Yes
1 2
Continue to Q41, Continue to Q42

then End Interview
41. In terms of your placement not being successful, which part of the system would you say was not functioning effectively in order
to ensure your placement?
If you were not placed or did not take up placement, what were the reasons?
Section trigger: Only ask if no in Q40, then move to Biographic information and terminate interview.
133
Tick if yes
Student- I did not complete forms on time 1
Student- I did not submit documentation on time 2
The universities in their role of providing graduation information 3
The provincial office in its role of communicating suitable vacancies for graduate 4
The provincial office in its role of communicating with schools about what teachers they require 5
The district office in its role of informing schools of available graduates 6
The school in its role of requesting teachers for the correct priority areas 7
The SGB in its role of approving placement of suitable candidates 8
The DBE’s role in confirming completion of qualification by graduates 9
42. Are you employed as a teacher?

Section trigger: If yes, continue to Q43. If no skip to Q46
No Yes
1 2
Skip to Q46 Continue to Q43
43. Did you start teaching in a school immediately after graduation (start of the next school year)?
If you did take up a teaching position, how soon after the year you graduated did you start teaching?
Section trigger: Only ask if yes in Q42
No Yes within 60 days Yes but not in 60 Refuse to answer

days
1 2 3 77
Skip to Q45 Continue to Q44 Continue to Q44 Skip to Q45
44. How were you placed in this position

Section trigger: Only ask if Yes in Q42 and Q43
Through the provincial placement database of my first choice of 1
134
province
Through Funza Lushaka and the province in a province not of my 2

choosing
Application through a newspaper advertisement 3 In Q45 do not

ask option 3,6
or 7 in Q45
Through a recruitment agency 4
Directly by the school 5
By the district office 6
Other (specify): 7 In Q45 do not

ask option 3,6
or 7 in Q45
45. Indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Section trigger: Only ask if yes in Q42
Agree Disagree
The Funza Lushaka placement form is simple to understand and complete 1 2
I experienced difficulties with placement 1 2
The school principal was happy with my placement at the school 1 2
The provincial office was helpful in getting me placed at a school 1 2
The district offices were involved in the placement process 1 2
I was inducted and orientated at the school at which I was placed 1 2
I received support and mentoring when I first arrived at the school 1 2
46. If you were not placed: What alternatives have you opted for in light of non-placement or delay in placement?
Section trigger: Only ask if no in Q42
Looked for a job myself 1
Went into a different career in which I could find work 2
Took up a position in a school outside of placement process 3
Approached a recruitment agency for assistance 4
135
Other (specify) 5
N/A Was not placed 77
47. If you are not employed as a teacher where are you working?
Section trigger: Only ask if no in Q42
Non-teaching position in education department 1
Government department 2
NGO/NPO sector 3
Business sector 4
Self-employed/own business 5
Training or lecturing at FET (TVET) college 6
Section I: Employment Detail
48. If employed at a school provide name, EMIS number, province, address and district of the school?
Section trigger: Only ask if yes in Q42. At the EMIS number make provision for Don’t know, a 6 or a 9 digit number please
Interviewer notes: Capture response. For the EMIS number you may capture Don’t Know. The number may be a 9 or a 6 digit
number.
Name National EMIS Number Province Physical address District
Eastern Cape Butterworth
Cofimvaba
Cradock
Dutywa
East London
Fort Beaufort
Graaf-Reinet
Grahamstown
King Williams Towns
Lady Frere
Libode
136
Lusikisiki
Maluti
Mbizana
Mthatha
Mt Fletcher
Mt Frere
Ngcobo
Port Elizabeth
Queenstown
Qumbu
Sterkspruit
Uitenhage
Free State Thabo Mofutsanyana
Fezile Dabi
Lejweleputswa
Motheo
Xhariep
Gauteng Sedibeng West
Ekurhuleni North
Ekurhuleni South
Gauteng East
Sedibeng East
Johannesburg South
Johannesburg West
Johannesburg East
Johannesburg North
Johannesburh Central
Gauteng North
Gauteng West
137
Tshwane North
Tshwane South
Tshwane West
KwaZulu Natal Othukela
Sisonke
Umzinyathi
Umgungudlovu
Ilembe
Pinetown
Ugu/Port Shepstone
Umlazi
Umkhanyakude
Amajuba
Uthungulu
Zululand
Limpopo Capriocorn
Lebowakgomo
Greater Sekhukhune
Riba Cross
Mopani
Tzaneen
Vhembe
Mutale
Waterberg
Mogalakwena
Mpumalanga Ehlanzeni
Nkangala
Gert Sibande
Bohlabela
138
North West Bojanala
Dr Ruth Segomotsi
Mompati
Ngaka Modiri Molema
Dr Kenneth Kaunda
Northern Cape Frances Baard
Springbok: Namaqua
De Aar: Pixley-Ka-Seme
John Taolo Gaetsewe
ZF Mgcawu
Western Cape Eden/Karoo
Cape Winelands
Metro.-East
Metro.-Central
Overberg
Metro.-North
West Coast
Metro.-South
49. If employed at a school is it a public/government or private/independent school?

Section trigger: Only ask if Yes in Q42. If public school in Q49, continue to Q50. If no in Q49, skip to Q51
Interviewer notes: Capture response
Public /government school 1 Continue to

Q50
Private / independent school 2 Skip to Q51
50. Are you employed in a state paid or SGB position?

Section trigger: Only ask if Yes in Q42. Only ask if Public school in Q49.
State paid SGB(school governing body) Refuse to answer
139
1 2 77
51. Are you employed in a permanent or, temporary position?

Section trigger: Only ask if Yes in Q42
Permanent Temporary Refuse to answer
1 2 77
52. What grades do you currently teach?

Section trigger: Only ask if Yes in Q42
Grade R 1
Grade 1 2
Grade 2 3
Grade 3 4
Grade 4 5
Grade 5 6
Grade 6 7
Grade 7 8
Grade 8 9
Grade 9 10
Grade 10 11
Grade 11 12
Grade 12 13
53. What subjects do you currently teach?

Section trigger: Ask question for each grade selected in Q52. Only ask if Yes in Q42.
Mathematical Literacy 1 Mathematics 24
140
Life Orientation 2 Agricultural Management Practices 25
Agricultural Sciences 3 Agricultural Technology 26
Dance Studies 4 Design 27
Dramatic Arts 5 Music 28
Visual Arts 6 Accounting 29
Business Studies 7 Economics 30
Civil Technology 8 Geography 31
Electrical Technology 9 History 32
Mechanical Technology 10 Computer Applications Technology 33
Engineering Graphics and Design 11 Information Technology 34
Consumer Studies 12 Life Sciences 35
Hospitality Studies 13 Physical Sciences 36
Tourism 14 Setswana 37
isiNdebele 15 Sesotho 39
isiZulu 17 Tshivenda 41
Sepedi 18 Xitsongo 42
Natural Sciences 19 Economic Management Sciences 43
Social Sciences 20 Creative Arts 44
Technology 21 Religion Studies 45
Natural Sciences and Technology 22 Life Skills 46
Social Sciences 23 FP subjects 47
Refuse to answer 77 Afrikaans 48
English 49
Other (specify):
54. Would you have studied teaching if you did not receive the Funza Lushaka bursary?
Section trigger: Can ask for those who graduated and dropped out.
141
No Yes I don’t know Refuse to answer
1 2 3 77
55. For how long do you want to remain within the teaching profession?
Section trigger: Can ask for those who graduated and dropped out.
Until I complete my Less than 5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years Entire professional
service obligation career
1 2 3 4 5
Closing
Thank you for your participation in the survey. The DBE appreciates your feedback and wishes you all the best in your career.
142
Student Focus Group Schedule
This instrument is designed to be used for student focus groups of current Funza Lushaka bursary
recipients at universities. Their details must be captured below for record purposes. The information
in the boxes below must be shared with all interview participants upfront.
PURPOSE OF THE FOCUS GROUP
JET has been appointed to evaluate the implementation of the FLBP for the period
2007 – 2012. This interview forms part of a set of key stakeholder interviews. The
purpose of the interview is to explore your thoughts and experiences in relation to
the FLBP, specifically, the achievements and c onstraints of the programme design and
implementation and what you see as successes and lessons learnt. I will be asking
you structured questions in this interview to guide our conversation. By participating
in this interview you will be contributing to t he overall development of the FLBP, as
the evaluation will provide formative feedback on the operations of the FLBP between
2007 and 2012.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Information you provide in this interview is strictly confidential. No names will be
used in reporting research findings. Quotes will be anonymous and general themes
will be reported on. The interview is a safe environment for you to share your
perceptions and experience. The interview is being recorded. This is essential so that
the researcher is able to refer to an audio recording when writing up their interview
notes and will serve as a formal record that the interview took place. It does not,
however, take away from the confidentiality of the process. Thank you for taking the
time to be interviewed.
Start time of End time of

interview: interview:
Reflect briefly below on the interview, your notes will assist the data analysis team to
interpret contextual and other factors which may influence the data
Notes on the interview
Were any difficulties encountered in arranging the interview?
Were you able to build rapport with the respondent(s)? Why or why not?
Was the interview disturbed or interrupted?
Did the group seem comfortable with in the interview? comment on the group dynamic.
Were there any questions which the respondent(s) did not answer or was reluctant to answer? If so which
were these?
Do you feel that the respondents were open and honest and answered the questions to the best of their
ability?
Were the respondents in a hurry to complete the interview?
Were you able to cover all relevant questions?
Do you feel that anything important was left unsaid?
Student information Sheet

143
Name and Surname:
Email address and contact number:
Academic programme and year of study (e.g. B.Ed, 3 rd Year):
Phase of specialisation:
Foundation Phase 1
Intermediate Phase 2
Foundation and Intermediate Phase (FP/IP) 3
Senior Phase 4
Intersen Phase (IP/SP) 5
FET 6
Senior and Further Education and Training (SP/FET) 7
Have not yet chosen 8
Other: Specify 9
Refuse to answer 77
Subject specialisation (e.g. Mathematics, Life Sciences):
What are your reasons for selecting the areas of specialisation which you have chosen?
For how many years did you receive Funza Lushaka funding?
144
Warm up and Objectives (5min)
1. What has been the highlight (the best thing) about being a Funza Lushaka bursary
recipient
2. Do you believe this is a worthwhile bursary programme?
Recruitment (15min)
3. What strategies did FL use in order to inform you about the programme? And were
these strategies effective?
Prompts: How did you get into the programme? Who assisted you? Did you hear about it through the district or
online campaign and how effective were these mechanisms? What worked well and what did not work in terms
of the recruitment (marketing and advertising)?
145
Application (5min)
4. Did you get enough information about how to apply to FL for the bursary? How did you
apply to the programme (districts or online)?
Prompts: Who assisted you with application? Did the districts or schools or universities assist? Is the bursary
application aligned with university applications (suitable in terms of the university open and closing dates)?
What worked well and what did not work in the applications process?
Selection (5min)
5. Do you know what the selection criteria for the bursary are? What are you views of the
selection criteria?
Prompts: Were you given enough information to understand the criteria? Do you think the selection criteria are
applied in a fair and consistent way? How long after applying did you have to wait for a decision? What
worked well and what did not work in terms of the recruitment (marketing and advertising)?
Management and administration (5 min)

6. Have you ever been contacted by anyone in relation to the bursary during the time you
have been studying?
Prompts: Who contacted you? Who do you contact when you need information or assistance? Is the
communication and notification adequately managed? What works well and what does not work well in the
way the bursary is managed and administered?
Funding arrangements (15 min)

146
7. Tell me about the bursary funding arrangements? When does the money get paid out?
Prompts: How long does it take to get information about when funds will be paid? How is it communicated?
Have you ever applied for other bursaries while waiting for a decision about your funding? Is there ever a gap
between the time university starts and the funds get paid? What did you do during that gap period to cover
expenses?
8. How is the bursary money spent?

Prompts: Does the bursary sufficient enough cover all your requirements (tuition, food, accommodation, travel
and books)? Where there surplus funds? How was the surplus funds used? What necessities does the bursary
not cover (teaching practical expenses, laptops etc.)?
9. What works well and what does not work well in terms of the funding arrangement?
Prompts: Do you think that the bursary is a good incentive? Are there other bursary schemes which you think
are better? If yes, why?
147
Placement (15min)
10. Do you have any views on where you would like to be placed?
Prompts: Which phases and subjects would you want to teach when you are placed at a school? What kind of
school would you like to be placed in? Have you visited schools which are under-resourced? What kinds of
schools have you been to for your practical teaching? How did you feel about teaching in these schools (are you
being prepared for this)?
Recipient attitudes to bursary conditions (10min)

11. What are you views about the conditions of the bursary? Were the bursary terms and
conditions made explicit to you?
Prompts: Did you receive any information about the bursary wanting recipients to go back to teach in the
districts they come from? How do you feel about possibly working in an under resourced school? How do you
feel about possibly working in a rural school? If offered a place in an under-resourced or rural school would you
decline? How do you feel about paying back the bursary through service for one year for each year of funding?
Is it fair?
148
Stakeholder Perceptions (35min)
12. Is teaching your first choice as a profession?
13. What do you think about the FLBP? Are you proud of being a bursary recipient? Is it a
good way to get people interested in the teaching profession?
14. Do you think the bursary motivates you to complete your studies in the prescribed time?
15. Do you think that the bursary is a good incentive? Are there other bursary schemes
which you think are better? If yes, why?
149
16. If offered an alternative would you prefer an alternative bursary with no obligation to
work back for the years?
17. What do you like about the programme?
18. What do you dislike about the programme?
General (10min)
19. Do you think you will remain a teacher? Why or why not? Would you remain in an
education related field? What do you think it about the reputation or social status of the
profession?
150
DBE/DHET Interview schedule
This instrument is designed to be used with DBE and DHET officials involved in the management,
coordination and administration of the FLBP. Relevant officials should be interviewed individually.
Some sections of the interview guide will not be relevant to the programme role and responsibilities
of the individual being interviewed. You should only ask questions in sections which are relevant.
INTRODUCTION
JET has been appointed to evaluate the implementation of the FLBP for the period 2007 – 2012. This interview
forms part of a set of key stakeholder interviews. The purpose of the interview is to explore your thoughts
experiences in relation to the FLBP, specifically, the achievements and constraints of the programme design and
implementation and what you see as successes and lessons learnt. I will be asking you structured questions in
this interview to guide our conversation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
interviewed.
Start time of interview: End time of interview:
Name of person(s) being Designation (current

interviewed occupational role)
Length of involvement in
Role on the FLBP
the FLBP programme (yr)
Interviewee contact details
Reflect briefly below on the interview, your notes will assist the data analysis team to interpret contextual and
other factors which may impact on the data

If more than one person was interviewed together, did they seem comfortable with this arrangement or not?
were these?
Do you feel that the respondent(s) were open and honest and answered the questions to the best of their
ability?
Was the respondent(s) in a hurry to complete the interview?
151
If you have limited time for the interview allocate your time in the following way: Responsibilities 2%,
stakeholder relations 6%, recruitment 10%, selection 20%, awarding and disbursement 20%, placement 20%,
management, administration, coordination and monitoring 10% , addressing real needs 6%, sustainability
and general questions 6%.
Responsibilities in relation to the programme
1. What are your responsibilities in relation to the FLBP?

2. What activities do you undertake to do that?
Stakeholder relations
3. Who are the main stakeholders that you interact with in relation to FLBP and how
often do you interact with them?
a. PEDs
b. HEIs
c. NSFAS
d. Treasury
e. Other
2. Is there an MoU with NSFAS? If yes what does it cover?
a. Disbursement of funds
b. Recovery of funds
c. Reporting requirements
4. Would you describe your relationships with these stakeholders as strong/good or
weak/poor? And please explain why.
a. PEDs
b. HEIs
c. NSFAS
d. Treasury
e. Other as described above
5. How can these relationships (outlined above) be strengthened and improved?
Recruitment process
6. How is the FLBP marketed and promoted (advertised)?

a. Are you successful in reaching the young people from rural areas and
disadvantaged backgrounds?
7. What marketing materials are available?
a. Are these widely distributed and used?
b. Probe why or why not.
8. How does the FLBP recruitment process work and what are the timeframes relating
to this?
a. Prompt using the FLBP business process diagram, compare how it works to
the FLBP recruitment business process diagram and note any differences.
9. What is working well in terms of recruitment?
10. What are the problem areas in terms of recruitment?
11. How could the recruitment process be improved?
152
Selection process
12. How does the FLBP selection process work and what are the timeframes relating to
this?
the FLBP selection business process diagram and note any differences.
b. District-based.
c. At HEIs.
d. Are there any provincial or other variations?
13. What criteria are used to select FLBP bursars?
a. Are there any provincial or other variations in how the selection criteria are
applied?
b. Are there any specific issues/challenges relating to application of the FLBP
selection criteria?
14. What is working well in terms of selection?
15. What are the problem areas in terms of selection?
a. Are there any specific issues/challenges relating to the DBE’s involvement in
selection?
16. How could the selection process be improved?
Awarding and disbursement process
17. How does the awarding and disbursement process work and what are the
timeframes relating to this?
the FLBP awarding and disbursement business process diagram and note any
differences.
18. What proportion of the FLBP bursars are: re-awards, district-based and national
awards?
a. What have been the trends in this regard between 2007-2012?
19. Are there variances relating to awarding and disbursement at different HEIs?
a. What accounts for the variance in tuition fees?
b. Do fee variances impact on selection at specific institutions (e.g. if the fees
are high fewer students can be covered)?
c. Are you aware that fees for education programmes have increased since the
introduction of the FLBP?
d. Are you aware of a spike in tuition fees at some institutions (i.e. CUT and
UniVEN) where the main inflow is FLBP bursars?
e. How are distance learning students managed (i.e. at UNISA and UNW)? Is
there a different process and length of time for graduation?
f. How are student allowances determined? Is there a ceiling amount?
g. What happens to unspent FLBP funds? What process is followed to recover
them?
20. What is working well in terms of awarding and disbursement?
21. What are the problem areas in terms of awarding and disbursement?
a. Probe in relation to the role of NSFAS
153
22. How could the awarding and disbursement process be improved?
Placement process
23. How does the placement process work and what are the timeframes relating to this?
the FLBP placement business process diagram and note any differences.
b. How are school/curriculum teacher needs identified and matched against
graduates areas of specialisation?
24. Which provinces are most popular for FLBP graduates to request to be placed in?
25. Which provinces are able to place all/most FLBP graduates and which are not – why
is this?
26. How effective – or not – is the mechanism for placing FLBP graduates who cannot be
placed in their province of first choice?
27. Is the placement period for graduates (60 days) realistic?
28. What happens to FLBP graduates that are not placed within 60 days?
a. Are there issues relating to the relinquishment of the service obligation if
bursars are not placed within 60 days?
29. What actions are taken (and by whom) in the case of students who are:
a. a) not placed in a school;
b. b) decline to be placed in a school;
c. c) leave the country?
30. What monitoring and tracking processes are in place for students who received the
FL bursary but not in their final year?
31. Have there been any recoveries of bursary funds from students?
a. What is the quantum?
32. What is working well in terms of placement?
33. What are the problem areas in terms of placement?
34. How could the placement process be improved?
35. How could the tracking of students be improved?
36. How could the management of defaulters be improved?
Management, administration, coordination and monitoring
37. Is the FLBP adequately managed and coordinated overall and by specific
stakeholders?
a. DBE
b. DHET
c. PEDs
d. Districts
e. NSFAS
f. HEIs
38. Is there sufficient human capacity in place to implement the FLBP key business
processes (recruitment, selection, awarding and disbursement and placement)?
a. DBE
b. DHET
154
c. PEDs
d. Districts
e. NSFAS
f. HEIs
39. Are there adequate/sufficient systems in place to support the FLBP business
processes?
40. What monitoring data is kept in relation to the FLBP by the following stakeholders?
a. DBE
b. DHET
c. PEDs
d. Districts
e. HEIs
f. NSFAS
41. What monitoring data do you need to execute your role and fulfil your
responsibilities in relation to the FLBP?
a. Are you able to access this data?
b. What is the data quality like?
c. How is this monitoring data used?
42. What is working well in relation to:
a. Management
b. Administration
c. Coordination
d. Monitoring
43. What are the problem areas in relation to:
a. Management
b. Administration
c. Coordination
d. Monitoring
44. How could/should the FLBP management, administration, coordination and
monitoring systems be strengthened?
Need for the programme
45. Is the FLBP helping to address teacher supply needs in South Africa?
a. Why do you say this?
46. How are the FLBP priority areas identified?
a. Who is involved in this process?
b. How often are the priority areas updated?
47. Are the subject and phase specialisations of the FLBP graduates aligned with the
country’s needs?
48. Are FLBP graduates assigned to geographic areas of need?
49. Do you have any suggestions as to how the FLBP could better address the teacher
supply needs?
Sustainability and general questions
155
50. Is the treasury allocation sufficient to achieve the FLBP objectives?
51. Do you feel the FLBP is efficient – is the programme achieving value for money?
a. If yes or no, why do you say this?
52. Do you feel the FLBP is effective – is the programme on track to achieve its goal and
objectives?
53. Is there any evidence to suggest that the FLBP will achieve the desired impact
(increased supply of quality teachers in priority areas)?
54. Do you feel the FLBP is a sustainable programme?
b. Probe about funding, business processes, human resources and partnerships.
55. How could the FLBP be improved/strengthened?
156
National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) officials Interview schedule
This instrument is designed to be used with NSFAS officials involved in the Funza Lushaka Bursary
Programme (FLBP). Relevant officials can be interviewed together or separately and their details
captured below.
INTRODUCTION
forms part of a set of key stakeholder interviews. The purpose of the interview is to explore your thoughts and
CONFIDENTIALITY
interviewed.

Name of
Designation (current
person(s) being
occupational role)
interviewed
Length of
Role on the involvement in the
FLBP FLBP programme
(yr)
Interviewee
contact details
other factors which may influence the data

were these?
ability?
157
If you have limited time for the interview allocate your time in the following way: Role in relation to the
programme 5%, stakeholder relations 10%, awarding and disbursement 40%, recovery 20%, management,
administration, coordination and monitoring 12% , sustainability and general questions 13%.
Role in relation to the programme
1. Who at NSFAS is involved in administering the FLBP bursary and how do the different
NSFAS functions relate to each other?
a. How many people work on the FLBP at NSFAS? Who are they and what are
their roles?
2. What are the key activities undertaken by you and your staff to administer the FLBP
bursary?
3. Approximately what amount of your time is allocated to the FLBP bursary
management?
Stakeholder Relations
4. Who are the main stakeholders that you interact with in relation to FLBP and how
a. DBE
b. HEIs
c. Treasury
d. Other
weak/poor?
- DBE
- HEIs
- Treasury
- Other as described above
7. What challenges have been faced – if any - in the coordination of the FLBP between
the NSFAS and the other stakeholders?

8. How does the awarding and disbursement process work and what is NSFAS’ role in
this?
the FLBP awarding and disbursement business process diagram and note any
differences.
b. How is NSFAS notified about FLBP bursars – Do they receive a consolidated
list sorted by institution? Is notification the same for pilot and non-pilot
institutions?
c. How does NSFAS ensure that there is alignment and agreement between the
DBE and HEIs final award list that they receive?
158
d. Describe the internal processes that commences once NSFAS is notified.
e. What documents do HEIs need to submit to NSFAS on behalf of students they
are claiming for?
f. Probe in terms of HEI claims – what do they claim for. Does the claim specify
per student tuition, accommodation, books, etc; or does it only indicate total
claim for per student?
g. Probe in relation to the disbursement of FLBP funds to HEIs – when and how
does this happen?
i. Is there a HEI claim list for funded students?
ii. Is it once off to cover all costs for the year? (explain the process).
h. Does NSFAS receive financial statements from HEIs indicating amounts
disbursed to individual students? when and how does this happen?
i. Probe in relation to submitting the audited financial statements to the DBE.
9. Does the awarding and disbursement process differ in relation to different HEIs?
- Discuss whether these are some institutions that perform better in relation to
the submission of claims
- Whether the processing of funds and disbursement of funds to students is the
same in all the HEIs.
- Discuss HEI’s where a new process is being piloted (UNIVEN UNISA, NMMU,DUT
Sol Plaatje and Mpumalanga) and what this involves.
- Are there any lessons from the institutions participating in the pilot with specific
reference for the FLBP?
10. Please discuss the efficiency of FAOs to process and disburse bursary claims.
11. Please discuss the efficiency of NSFAS to process and disburse bursary claims.
12. What steps – if any - have been taken by the NSFAS to improve the processing and
disbursement procedures of the FLBP?
13. What is working well in terms of the awarding and disbursement process?
14. What are the problem areas in terms of the awarding and disbursement process?
-Discuss the delays in disbursement of funds (reasons for this).
15. How could the awarding and disbursement business process be improved?
Recovery process (part of placement)
16. Does NSFAS have a system in place to track students that receive the FLBP in one
year and then not in the next (or not in their final year)?
17. What information does NSFAS require in order to be able to track students and
recover monies from students that opt not to be placed?
159
a. Elaborate on the information and actions required of students during their
final year of study and the processes to receive this data.
b. -Discuss obligations to provide information to the DBE.
18. Is the placement period for graduates (60 days) realistic, or does it create challenges
for NSFAS? If so, what are those challenges?
19. In what instances is a bursary converted into a loan?
20. Does the DBE notify NSFAS of defaulters or students who are to pay back the
bursary?
a. Discuss when this happens.
21. What happens when a bursary is converted into a loan?
a. Discuss what steps are involved in the conversion of a bursary to a loan.
b. Ask NSFAS to describe instances when this has occurred.
22. How does NSFAS go about recovering funds from students that decide not to accept
a placement?
a. Probe in relation to the electronic statement notification technology used to
communicate with NSFAS debtors.
b. Discuss what challenges if any they may have faced in reaching all their
debtors.
c. If student commence paying, are these funds accounted for to the DBE?
How?
23. Does NSFAS have a database of defaulters and a debt tracking system?
24. How does the recovery system work?
25. What challenges have been experienced with regard to the retrieval of funds from
FLBP graduates that decide not to be placed?
26. What is the repayment rate of FLBP recipients in relation to other loan recipients?
27. What is working well in terms of the recovery process?
28. What are the problem areas in terms of the recovery process?
29. What steps – if any - have been taken by the NSFAS to improve the recovery
procedures?
30. How could the placement and recovery business process be improved?
31. In your opinion, is the FLBP adequately managed and coordinated overall?
processes?
33. Is there effective communication between all the role players that you interact with?
a. Discuss challenges they have experienced.
b. Discuss how communication processes can better be coordinated.
160
34. Is NSFAS able to fulfill their mandate and responsibilities in relation to the FLBP
adequately?
- Role in the administration of the programme.
- Performance of functions in line with the agreements entered between
NSFAS and the students.
- Recovery of funds from defaulters.
- Reporting requirements.
35. What are the challenges that have been faced in performing the various NSFAS
functions? (Discuss these challenges as well as the steps that may have been taken
to address these challenges).
36. To what extent have training and support interventions been delivered to enable
HEIs to better utilize the FLBP funds allocated to them? (NSFAS has this as one of its
objectives in order to improve bursary management)
- Discuss what training if any has been delivered to HEI’s and to whom.
- Discuss the extent to which the training has been effective.
37. What monitoring data do you need to execute your role and fulfil your
responsibilities in relation to the FLBP?
d. Are you able to access this data?
e. What is the data quality like?
f. How is this monitoring data used?
38. NSFAS is expected to submit quarterly reports to the DBE as well as an annual
audited statement. Are any challenges experienced in relation to reporting?

39. Does NSFAS administer any other government bursaries?
a. Are there lessons that can be drawn from the administration of other bursary
schemes as good practice for the FLBP?
40. How are the allowances and amounts per institution determined?
- If yes or no, why do you say this?
objectives?
- Probe about funding, business processes, human resources and partnerships.
44. What are the key recommendations that NSFAS would make to improve the
administration and management of the bursary programme?
161
Provincial Recruitment and Placement Interview schedule
This instrument is designed to be used with provincial officials responsible for recruitment and
placement of FLBP bursars and graduates. Relevant officials can be interviewed together or
separately and their details captured below.
INTRODUCTION
CONFIDENTIALITY
interviewed.

Role on the FLBP

were these?
ability?
162
If you have limited time for the interview allocate your time in the following way: Background 5%,
stakeholder relations 10%, recruitment 20%, selection 20%, placement 25%, management, administration,
coordination and monitoring 10% , addressing real needs 10%.
Background and responsibilities in relation to the programme
1. What are your responsibilities in relation to the FLBP?

2. What are the key activities undertaken by you and your staff to do that?
3. Does your province offer any other bursary schemes aimed at teacher education, or
did you used to?
a. If a teacher education bursary programme was in place between 2007 and
2012 when and why was it stopped?
4. Who are the main stakeholders you interact with in relation to the FLBP and how
e. DBE
f. HEIs
g. Districts
h. Other
weak/poor? And why is this?
a. DBE
b. HEIs
c. Districts
d. Other as described above
Recruitment process
7. How is the FLBP marketed and promoted (advertised) in your province?

a. Probe in relation to district-based recruitment.
b. Are you successful in reaching the young people from rural areas and
disadvantaged backgrounds?
8. How does the FLBP recruitment process work in your province and what are the
timeframes relating to this?
the FLBP recruitment business process diagram and note any differences.
b. Does the Province prepare a management plan and report quarterly to the
DBE in relation to this? Is the management plan communicated to districts
and school principals?
9. What is working well in terms of recruitment?
10. What are the problem areas in terms of recruitment?
11. How could the recruitment process be improved?
Selection process
163
12. How does the selection process work in your province and what are the timeframes
relating to this?
a. Probe in relation to district-based recruitment in particular.
b. At HEIs.
c. Probe in relation to the issuing of promissory letters20.
d. Prompt using the FLBP business process diagram, compare how it works to
the FLBP selection business process diagram and note any differences.
13. What criteria are used to select FLBP bursars?
a. District-based recruitment.
b. Recruitment at HEIs.
14. What is working well in terms of selection?
15. What are the problem areas in terms of selection?
16. Are there cases where district-based awardees do not apply for or gain admission to
an HEI? If so, please explain what happens in these situations?
17. How could the selection processes in your province be improved?
Placement process
18. How are school/curriculum teacher needs identified in your province?

19. How does the placement process for FLBP graduates work in your province and what
are the timeframes relating to this?
a. When do you receive the placement database from the DBE? Does the
database contain all the information you need to facilitate placement?
b. Prompt using the FLBP business process diagram, compare how it works to
the FLBP placement business process diagram and note any differences.
20. Where do the FLBP graduates who want to work in this province come from?
21. Is your province able to place all of the FLBP graduates who want to work here?
a. If yes or no, what are the reasons for this?
b. If no, do you submit a list of unplaced graduates to the DBE?
22. Do you receive a list of unplaced graduates from the DBE?
a. If yes, how do you deal with it?
b. Are you able to place FLBP graduates who want to work in other provinces
but are unplaced?
c. Do PEDs communicate amongst one another regarding unplaced graduates?
23. Within what period of time are graduates usually placed in teaching posts following
graduation?
a. Is the placement period for graduates (60 days) a realistic time for placement
to happen?
24. What happens to FLBP graduates who are not placed within 60 days?
25. Have you had FLBP graduates who have rejected a placement?
a. If yes, what course of action is taken and by whom?
26. How do you deal with graduates who are uncontactable (i.e. do not answer the
phone and do not avail themselves for placement?) - what measures do you take?
20 Issuing of promissory letters by PEDs is described as part of the Awarding and Disbursement business process but should
be asked about here.
164
27. Are graduates tracked into a teaching post and beyond? How does this work?
a. Does monitoring take place to ensure compliance with contractual
obligations (i.e. one year of service per year of bursary) and if so how?
28. What are the consequences for students who do not complete their required service
period?
29. We understand that some graduates are placed in temporary posts, do you you
follow up to assist them to become permanent?
30. How do you manage the placement of FLBP graduates in relation to the placement
of other teachers and graduates?
a. Excess teachers
b. Temporary teachers
c. Other graduates
d. Do FLBP graduates take priority?
31. What is working well in terms of placement?
32. What are the problem areas in terms of placement?
33. How can the placement process be improved?
34. Is the FLBP adequately managed and coordinated overall and by specific
stakeholders? Why do you say that?
a. Overall
b. DBE
c. HEIs
d. Districts
e. Other
35. Is there sufficient human capacity in place to implement the FLBP key business
processes (recruitment, selection, awarding and disbursement and placement)?
a. DBE
b. HEIs
c. Districts
d. Other
processes?
37. What monitoring data are you asked to collect/provide in relation to the FLBP?
a. What data is collected/provided?
b. Who collects the data?
c. When is data collected/provided?
d. To whom is the data provided?
38. What monitoring data do you need to fulfil your role and responsibilities in the
programme?
39. What is working well in relation to:
a. Management
165
b. Administration
c. Coordination
d. Monitoring
40. What are the problem areas in relation to:
e. Management
f. Administration
g. Coordination
h. Monitoring
41. How could/should the FLBP management, administration, coordination and
monitoring systems be strengthened?
Addressing real needs
42. What trends have you noticed in terms of the subject and phase specialisations of
FLBP graduates?
43. Is the FLBP helping to address teacher supply needs in your province?
44. Do you have opportunity to give input into the identification of FLBP priority areas?
a. If so how?
45. How – if at all – does the FLBP take province-specific context and needs into
account?
46. Are the subject and phase specialisations of the FLBP graduates aligned with the
needs of your province?
47. Are FLBP graduates assigned to geographic areas of need?
supply needs in your province?
166
DBE MIS/SITA Interview schedule
This instrument is designed to be used with SITA, DBE and DHET officials involved in the
management, coordination and administration of the FLBP data. Relevant officials can be
interviewed jointly if there is more than one person responsible for this function.
INTRODUCTION
forms part of a set of key stakeholder interviews. The purpose of the interview is to explore your thoughts
experiences in relation to the FLBP, specifically, the achievements and constraints of the programme design
and implementation and what you see as successes and lessons learnt. I will be asking you structured
questions in this interview to guide our conversation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
interviewed.

Role on the FLBP

were these?
ability?
167
1. What is the overall mandate of SITA? [this question is for the SITA officials only]
2. How does support for the FLBP programme fit into that mandate? [this question is for
the SITA officials only]
3. What is your understanding of the purpose of the FLBP data which you process?
4. What is your role and what are your responsibilities in relation to the FLBP?
5. What activities do you undertake to do that?
Monitoring and data management processes
6. Please describe the data management processes followed in relation to the FLBP
data? What is the process from beginning to end?
a. What data is collected and captured at each stage of the programme in terms
of the key business processes?
i. Recruitment and application process
ii. Selection process
iii. Awarding and disbursement process
iv. Placement process
b. By whom is it collected and captured?
c. When is this data collected and captured (provide a sequence of events)?
d. How is data processed? What are the products? (reports, graphs, tables,
presentations etc.)
e. What is the processed data used for?
f. Who has access to this data? (find out about issues of confidentiality)
g. What quality assurance mechanisms are in place to monitor data collection,
capture and processing?
7. What is working well and what are the problem areas in terms of monitoring and
data management? (Probe in relation to issues raised in your notes Jennifer)
8. What is the data quality like at each stage? (Probe in relation to issues raised in your notes
Jennifer)
9. Who are the main stakeholders that you interact with in relation to FLBP data and
monitoring?
a. DBE
b. DHET
c. PEDs
d. Districts
e. HEIs
f. NSFAS
g. Other
10. What data is provided to you by the following stakeholders? (only in relation to
those identified in Q8)
g. DBE
h. DHET
168
i. PEDs
j. Districts
k. HEIs
l. NSFAS
m. Other as outlined above
11. What data is provided by you to the following stakeholders? (only in relation to
those identified in Q8)
a. DBE
b. DHET
c. PEDs
d. Districts
e. HEIs
f. NSFAS
g. Other as outlined above
weak/poor?
a. DBE
b. DHET
c. PEDs
d. Districts
e. HEIs
f. NSFAS
g. Other as outlined above
13. Within SITA/the DBE, who is responsible for data management?

14. Who else is involved in data administration, coordination and monitoring activities
and what role(s) do they play?
15. Is the FLBP data adequately managed?
16. Is there sufficient human capacity in place to implement the FLBP data management
processes (as mentioned above)?
17. Are there adequate systems in place to support the FLBP data processes? Are they
adequate to deal with the nature of the data which is received?
18. Can you recommend any improvements to the FLBP data collection and
management processes?
programme?
g. Are you able to access this data?
20. How could/should the FLBP data and monitoring systems be strengthened?
Data relating to need for the programme
21. Is the FLBP data adequate enough to provide information about whether and how
the bursary is addressing teacher supply needs in South Africa?
22. What data is available relating to national priorities – in terms of subject and phase?
169
c. What is the quality of this data like
d. Who is involved in collecting and processing this data?
e. How often are the priority areas data updated?
23. Can FLBP data map/match students to areas of need?
Do you have any suggestions as to how the identification of needs and mapping
graduates to areas of need could be improved?
24. To what extent is the FLBP data able to produce information about programme
efficiency (whether it is achieving value for money)?
25. To what extent is the FLBP data able to produce information about programme
effectiveness (whether it is on track to achieve its goal and objectives)?
26. Do you feel the way in which FLBP monitoring and data management takes place is
sustainable?
27. How could the FLBP monitoring and data management be improved/strengthened?
170
National Treasury Interview schedule
This instrument is designed to be used with National Treasury officials involved in the Funza Lushaka
Bursary Programme (FLBP). Relevant officials can be interviewed together or separately and their
details captured below.
INTRODUCTION
CONFIDENTIALITY
interviewed.

Name of
Designation (current
person(s) being
occupational role)
interviewed
Length of
FLBP FLBP programme
(yr)
Interviewee
contact details

were these?
ability?
171
Role and responsibilities in relation to the programme
1. Please explain the role that the Treasury plays in the management, administration and
coordination of the FLBP?
2. In your perception, is the role that the Treasury plays clear and well-articulated?
- Discuss what their role is and whether they themselves understand what this role is.
3. What challenges has the Treasury faced in fulfilling its role in relation to the FLBP?
Stakeholder Relations
4. Who are the main Stakeholders that the Treasury interacts with in relation to the FLBP and
how often do you interact with them?
a. DBE
b. NSFAS
c. Other
5. How would you describe your relationship with the stakeholders with whom you interact
with (is it strong/good or weak/poor and why is this)?
a. DBE
b. NSFAS
c. Other (as outlined above)
6. In your opinion, do all the stakeholders involved in the programme fulfil their roles and
responsibilities as expected?
- Discuss the roles of NSFAS, the DBE, PED’s, HEIs and students.
- Explore the challenges that they feel have been faced by the other stakeholders and the
improvements that they recommend to be made.

1. Please discuss the Treasury requirement that the FLBP is administered by NSFAS.
- Explore why this decision was made and what the benefits and challenges are.
2. What challenges have been faced in the coordination between the Treasury and the other
stakeholders in relation to the FLBP?
a. Discuss challenges that have been experienced in the delayed processing and
disbursement of funds.
b. Discuss challenges relating to the differences in the planning cycles of the Treasury,
government and HEIs.
3. Treasury allocates funding to the FLBP after each new financial year in April. Please
elaborate on this process in relation to the way in which FLB funds are allocated.
4. What support is provided – if any - by the Treasury to the different stakeholders to ensure
the efficient use of the FLB funds that are allocated?
5. How does the Treasury monitor the use of the funds that it disburses towards the FLBP?
-Discuss measures in place to ensure the sufficient utilisation of funds.
- How does the Treasury ensure that there is efficiency in the utilisation of these funds?
- Information should be provided in reports received from DBE regarding progress relating
to the FLBP. When are these submitted and how are the targets monitored?
172
- How could this process can be improved upon?
6. Please explain the strategies in place that are used in the retrievement of bursary funds after
students graduate (NB may not be able to answer this question as it is primarily the
responsibility of NSFAS).
- Explore the SMS system used to contact bursars.
- Discuss the processes in place to address defaulting bursars.
- Discuss how funds are reversed from bursars that do not take up the bursary after it has
been allocated to them.
7. Does the Treasury have an interest in bursars who do not fulfil their service obligation and
owe funds to the state?
- Discuss whether any reports on this are provided.
- Discuss also whether reports on the processes involved in loan conversion are provided
to the Treasury.
8. Does the NT disburse funds to any other government department other than DHET for any
other bursary schemes? If yes, please identify the departments and the basis of this
provision?
9. Please discuss whether the bursary schemes referred to above have similar processes to the
FLBP and whether there can be any lessons learned from the other bursary schemes?
Funding
10. Is the funding sufficient to the running of the FLBP?

- How and when the amounts to be allocated decided?
11. What are the intentions if any to increase the funding allocation for the FLBP?
-Discuss this given the aim of the FLBP to increase first time enrolments to study teacher
education by 10% each year.
12. Has there been any motivation from the DBE to increase the funds allocated to the FLBP?
- If yes, explore the extent to which this is linked to the performance monitoring and
evaluation targets of the DBE.
13. What would be the challenges of such an increase in the funds available to the FLBP?

15. If yes or no, why do you say this?
16. How could the FLBP be improved or strengthened?
18. If yes or no, why do you say this?
objectives?
173
University officials involved in financial/bursary administration
This instrument is designed to be used with university officials from financial aid offices involved in
the administration of the FLBP. Relevant officials can be interviewed together or separately and their
INTRODUCTION
JET has been appointed to evaluate the implementation of the FLBP for the period 2007 – 2012.
This interview forms part of a set of key stakeholder interviews. The purpose of the interview is to
explore your thoughts and experiences in relation to the FLBP, specifically, the achievements and
constraints of the programme design and implementation and what you see as successes and
lessons learnt. I will be asking you structured questions in this interview to guide our conversation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Information you provide in this questionnaire is strictly confidential. No names will be used in
reporting research findings. Quotes will be anonymous and general themes will be reported on. The
interview is a safe environment for you to share your perceptions and experience. Thank you for
taking the time to be interviewed.
Start time of
End time of interview:
interview:
Name of person(s) Designation (current

being interviewed occupational role)
Length of
Role on the FLBP involvement in the
FLBP programme (yr)
Interviewee contact
details
Reflect briefly below on the interview, your notes will assist the data analysis team to interpret
contextual and other factors which may influence the data

were these?
ability?
174
If you have limited time for the interview allocate your time in the following way: Responsibilities 2%,
stakeholder relations 6%, recruitment 10%, selection 20%, awarding and disbursement 20%, placement 20%,
management, administration, coordination and monitoring 10% , addressing real needs 6%, sustainability
and general questions 6%.

1. Describe your responsibilities in the Funza Lushaka bursary programme?
– Discuss what key activities are undertaken to fulfill their responsibilities
- Do they feel their role and responsibilities are clearly articulated?
- Discuss what challenges they have experienced in fulfilling their role.
- Explore what further support they feel they require to fulfill their role.
2. Who are the main stakeholders you interact with in relation to the FLBP?
a. DBE
b. HEIs
c. Districts
d. Other
– Explore how they feel the relationships with the Stakeholders they interact with
can be strengthened and improved.
–Discuss the communication processes between the different role players that they
interact with and the effectiveness of this communication.
3. In your opinion, do all the stakeholders involved in the programme work well
together and fulfill their roles and responsibilities as expected?
-Probe whether the different units at the HEI like FAO, Fees office, accommodation
etc work well together.
- Discuss what challenges they may face in relation to the other stakeholders.

4. How does the awarding and disbursement process work?
- Prompt using the FLBP business process diagram, compare how it works to
the FLBP awarding and selection business process diagram and note any
differences.
- Probe regarding how students are notified that they have received a bursary.
- Probe how they work with a DBE approved bursary award list to claim from
NSFAS including the document which are required to be submitted to NSFAS.
- Probe how the declining of the bursary by some students is addressed and
how replacements are managed.
- Probe regarding how funds are allocated to a student once funds are
released by NSFAS? (What happens and how many tranches is the bursary
paid in?)
5. In the event that there are delays in the disbursement of funds, does the HEI support
students and if so how?
6. What is working well in terms of the awarding and disbursement process?
7. What are the problem areas in terms of the awarding and disbursement process?
175
-Probe in relation to NSFAS and the financial aid office at the HEI.
-Probe in relation to disbursement.
-Are there delays in the payment of bursaries to learners of the FLBP? What
have been the reasons for such delays?
- Probe in relation to whether the HEI provides support to learners in the event
of delays
8. How can the awarding and disbursement process be improved?
Placement process
9. What role do you play – if any – in collating and providing student placement
information to the DBE?
- Do you encounter any challenges in this regard (e.g. students not submitting
complete information, students’ not submitting information on time).
10. Is there sufficient human capacity in place fulfil your role in the delivery of the FLBP?
11. Are there sufficient systems in place to support your role in the delivery of the FLBP?
12. What monitoring data are you asked to collect/provide in relation to the FLBP?
a. What data is collected/provided? (For example students signed
contracts or information on desired placement)
b. Who collects the data?
c. When is data collected/provided?
d. To whom is the data provided?
programme?
14. What have been the challenges if any that you have experienced in collecting the
monitoring data that you require?
15. How could/should the FLBP monitoring systems be strengthened?

16. How are the tuition fees calculated?
- We understand there has been a spike in tuition costs at some institutions
(i.e. CPUT and UniVEN) where the main teacher education intake is FLBP
bursars, are you able to comment on this?
17. Do you feel that the funds provided by Funza are sufficient to provide students with
a full-cost bursary (i.e. which covers registration and tuition fees, books, stationary,
accommodation, transport and food)?
18. What other bursary programmes are available to education students at your
institution?
- Discuss how they advertise these other bursaries and what information they
have available to students.
176
19. Do you feel that the FLBP is a sustainable programme?
20. What suggestions would you make for the improvement of the FLBP?
177
Deans and Academic Coordinators at universities Interview schedule
This instrument is designed to be used with university deans and academic coordinators involved in
the administration of the FLBP. Relevant officials can be interviewed together or separately and their
INTRODUCTION
JET has been appointed to evaluate the implementation of the FLBP for the period 2007 – 2012. This
interview forms part of a set of key stakeholder interviews. The purpose of the interview is to explore
your thoughts and experiences in relation to the FLBP, specifically, the achievements and constraints
of the programme design and implementation and what you see as successes and lessons learnt. I
will be asking you structured questions in this interview to guide our conversation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Information you provide in this questionnaire is strictly confidential. No names will be used in
reporting research findings. Quotes will be anonymous and general themes will be reported on. The
interview is a safe environment for you to share your perceptions and experience. Thank you for
taking the time to be interviewed.

Name of Designation
person(s) being (current
Length of
FLBP FLBP programme
(yr)
Interviewee
contact details
Reflect briefly below on the interview, your notes will assist the data analysis team to interpret
contextual and other factors which may influence the data

If more than one person was interviewed together, did they seem comfortable with this arrangement or
not?
Were there any questions which the respondent(s) did not answer or was reluctant to answer? If so
which were these?
Do you feel that the respondent(s) were open and honest and answered the questions to the best of
their ability?
178
If you have limited time for the interview allocate your time in the following way: Role in relation to the
project 2%, stakeholder relations 10%, recruitment and selection 40%, disbursement 20% placement 10%,
management, administration, coordination and monitoring 10% , sustainability and general questions 8%.

1. Describe your role and responsibilities in the Funza Lushaka bursary programme
(FLBP)?
- Discuss the extent to which they feel their role is clearly articulated.
- Discuss the challenges experienced if any.
- Discuss what further support they feel they require if any.
2. Who are the main stakeholders you interact with in relation to the FLBP?
a. DBE
b. HEIs
c. Districts
d. Other
– Discuss whether they feel these relationships are strong/good or weak or
poor.
– Discuss how they feel these relationships can be improved.
3. To what extent do you feel that the different agencies that interact to deliver the
FLBP work well together?
-Probe on the working relationship between the NSFAS, DBE and PED’s.
-Probe whether the different units at the HEI like FAO, Fees office, accommodation
etc work well together.
-Discuss whether they feel all the agencies in the programme fulfill their roles and
responsibilities as expected.
Recruitment and Selection Process

4. Please describe the application procedures that potential students follow when
attempting to join your institution and when applying for the FL bursary?
-Discuss in relation to the district recruitment process and the online application
process.
-Elaborate on whether and if so how they market the FLBP to attract students.
5. What is working well in relation to the recruitment and application process at the
HEI?
6. What is not working well in relation to the recruitment and application process at
the HEI?
-Probe instances where students apply for the bursary but not to the institution.
- Probe whether students face challenges in paying the application fees.
7. How could the recruitment and application process be improved?
8. What is involved in the selection process of FLBP bursary recipients into your
institution?
179
- Discuss the selection criteria used to select FLB recipients.
- Discuss the HEI selection committee and who is involved, as well as their level of
participation.
- Discuss participation in district-based selection (organized by the PED).
- Discuss the preparation of students’ academic results for election (for both new
applicants and reaward cases)
- How long does the process take?
9. What is working well in terms of the selection process?
10. What is not working well in terms of the selection process?
11. How could the selection process be improved?
12. Who do you understand to be the intended recipients of the FLBP?
- Discuss whether the programme is reaching the target recipients.
13. Has the FLBP been successful in attracting more students into teacher education and
specifically into identified priority subjects and phases?
14. What have been the enrolment trends since the FLBP was introduced?
- Elaborate on which subjects and phases FLBP bursars are specializing in.
- Discuss whether the programme is attracting students who are willing to fill
posts in rural areas.
- Discuss whether there are subjects and phases that are being neglected because
of the FLBP (e.g. in the WC fewer students are studying Afrikaans because this is
not a priority subject but Afrikaans teachers are needed in the WC).
15. What other bursaries are available to teacher education students at your institution?
16. How do you view the FLBP recipients compared to students that receive other
bursaries or who do not receive bursaries at all?
- Probe in relation to their motivation to become teachers.
- Discuss their academic performance in comparison to other education students
(where a comparison can be made).
17. How does the awarding and disbursement process work at your HEI?
- Prompt using the FLBP business process diagram, compare how it works to the
FLBP awarding and disbursement business process diagram and note any
differences.
18. What has worked well for the university in terms of the awarding and disbursement
of the FLBP?
19. – What challenges has the university experienced in relation to the awarding and
disbursement of the FLBP?
- Discuss challenges they may have experienced in the disbursement of funds from
NSFAS.
180
- Discuss challenges the university may have faced as a result for example delays in
the disbursement of funds (for example, students registering late or dropping out
altogether)
- Discuss the challenges students may face as a result of delays in payment.
- Discuss support provided by the university to students in the event of long delays
in the disbursement of bursary funds.
20. How could the awarding and disbursement process be improved?
Placement Process
21. What is required of FL students in the year in which they will graduate?
- Elaborate on the actions required of students during their final year of study.
- Discuss the HEI’s obligations to provide the DBE with information and what
challenges if any they have had.
- How is the DBE informed when students who received the FL bursary for one or
more years - but not in their final year are going to graduate?
22. What role do you play in ensuring that there is adequate communication between
the DBE, Provincial Education Department and FLB students during their final year at
your institution?
23. What do you feel could be improved with regards to the placement of students into
schools after they graduate from your institution?

24. What processes are in place to monitor Funza Lushaka students during their study period at
your institution (Funza and non Funza students)?
- If they monitor students, what does this involve?
- Discuss monitoring students academic performance.
- Discuss monitoring when students change the subject areas that they applied for when
they received the bursary.
- Discuss how the monitoring data is used.
-
25. How do you think that the process to monitor Funza bursars can be improved?
- Discuss this in relation to monitoring their academic performance.
- Monitoring their choice of subject areas.
- Discuss what support they would need to make such improvements.
26. What kind of support does the HEI provide to underperforming students?
27. Apart from academic support (described above), what other form of assistance do
FLBP students receive if any?
- Do they feel the support FLB receive is enough (academic and non-academic)?
- Discuss what other forms of support they feel FLB require (how this can be
improved)?

181
28. Do you feel that the FLBP takes province-specific context and needs into account?
supply needs in your province?
30. With the view to sustainability, how can the FLB programme be strengthened?
- Discuss in relation to programme management.
- Discuss in relation to meeting teacher supply needs.
182
Annexure G: Completed FLBP interviews and focus groups
Table 1: Schedule of completed FLBP interviews and focus groups
Name of
Participants Job titles Institution Mode of interview Date of interview
Gerrit Coetzee Director: ITE DBE face to face
Professor Graham
Hall Former consultant: FLBP Wits face to face
Former consultant:
Dr Trevor Coombe DBE/DHET Cape Town telephonic
Chief Director: teacher
Dr Whitty Green education DHET face to face
Palesa Tyobeka DDG: Districts DBE face to face
Firoz Patel DDG: Planning DHET face to face
Mphumzi Rululu Financial aid officer CPUT face to face 23/10/2014
Dr Ivan November Assistant Dean and Funza
and Fadeelah academic coordinator and
Karriem secretary to assistant dean CPUT face to face 23/10/2014
Student focus
group 6 final year students CPUT face to face 28/10/2014
Faculty of humanities
administrator and bursary
Mr T Williams and and loans division bursary
Mr M Klaasen officer CUT face to face 22/10/2014
Researcher and advisor in
Martin Gustafson the office of the DG DBE face to face 6/10/2014
Deputy
Director:curriculum
Ms Florence implementation and
Modipa quality improvement DBE face to face 6/10/2014
Diane Parker Acting DDG: Universities DHET face to face 21/10/2014
Edna Matsepo
Mokoena DUT face to face 13/10/2014
Chief Director: Education National
Spencer Janari and related departments Treasury face to face 23/10/2014
Financial administration
officer: bursaries and
Ms C Mally and faculty of education
Ms B Du Plessis academic coordinator NIHE face to face 23/10/2014
Student focus 3 student recipients (2007-
group 2012) NIHE face to face 23/10/2014
Professor Aletta
Delport and Ms Academic coordinator and
Muriel Geswint bursary administrator NMMU face to face 23/10/2014
Student focus
group 7 students NMMU face to face 24/10/2014
Mr Enrico Pienaar
and Mr Msulwa NSFAS bursary manager
Daca and CEO NSFAS face to face 22/10/2014
Student focus
group 5 students NWU (MF) face to face 20/10/2014
183
Name of
Professor Dawid
Gericke, Ms Head school of Education,
Inonge Kalula, academic coordinator, NWU (MF) face to face 20/10/2014
Ms Bogadi sito
and Mr Kurt administration officer and
Swartz financial administrator NWU (MF) face to face 20/10/2014
Mrs Triens Jacobs
and Mr Danie
Hefer bursary administration NWU (PT) face to face 23/10/2014
Mr Terrence
Naidoo and Mr Placement and
Small Nkosi recruitment coordinators PD KZN face to face 16/10/2014
Mr Gerhardt
Botha and Mr Coordinator district based
Chibo recruitment PED EC face to face 21/10/2014
Senior human resource
officer: human
resources/strategic
Mr D Molosioa development- bursaries PED FS face to face 20/10/2014
Mr Khodumo Acting DD HR: recruitment PED FS face to face 20/10/2014
Assistant Director:
Mr J Ndala Recruitment and selection PED GP Telephonic 11/09/2014
DCES: teacher
Ms Z Rabothata development PED GP Face to face 17/09/2014
Director: recruitmetn and
Ms E Ndlebe selection PED GP Face to face 7/11/2014
Mr LM Langa Placement coordinator PED LP telephonic 13/10/2014
Director: teacher
Ms Suzan Malima development PED LP face to face 3/10/2014
Mr Hennie de
Beer Placement coordinator PED MP telephonic November
Mr Richard former provincial
Thwala coordinator PED MP face to face 1/10/2014
Ms R Tyler Director PED NC telephonic 12/11/2014
Ms Marubini
Lukhaimane, Mr
Thabo Sechele Director: HRD, district-
and Mr Dan based coordinator and
Ngwenya placement coordinator PED NW face to face 21/10/2014
Ms Cheryl le Roux
and Mr Alfred Coordinators district based
Shasha recruitment PED WC face to face 12/09/2014
Mr Rudolf
Oosthuizen and
Mr Rudolf Joost Coordinators placement PED WC face to face 25/09/2014
Dr Bev Moore academic coordinator RU face to face 22/10/2014
Professor Moses
Makgatho Academic coordinator TUT face to face 8/10/2014
Sipho Nkwana Financial administrator TUT face to face 8/10/2014
Professor Rob
Sieborger Academic coordinator UCT face to face 14/10/2014
184
Name of
administration officer
Ms Belinda Harry (Elondon and Alice) UFH face to face 20/10/2014
Acting Dean, Head of
Prof George School of further and
Moyo, Mr A continuing education and
Kganedi and Ms N school of general and
Bambiso continuing education UFH face to face 20/10/2014
Student focus UFH Alice
group 6 final year students campus face to face 21/10/2014
Faculty of Education
Ms A Majiedt bursary administrator UFS face to face 21/10/2014
Prof D Francis and Dean of Education and
Dr Moreeng academic coordinator UFS face to face 21/10/2014
Student focus
group 6 students UJ face to face 20/10/2014
Dr Thabile
Ntombela and
Samukelisiwe Administration officer and
Mngomezulu academic coordinator UKZN face to face 13/10/2014
Student focus
group 5 students UKZN face to face 14/10/2014
Mr Michael Davids financial aid manager UKZN face to face 13/10/2014
Dr Satsope Maoto,
Ms Dolly HOD, administration
Ramaphoko and officer and academic
Dr SK Singh coordinator UL face to face 2/10/2014
Johannes
Mashiyana financial administrator UL face to face 2/10/2014
Student focus
group 6 students UL face to face 2/10/2014
Naome Olamijulo Designation? UNISA face to face
Steven Shabangu College of Education UNISA face to face
Dr MP Mulaudzi Dean (previously academic
and Mrs TJ coordinator) and
Phadziri administration officer UNIVEN face to face 3/10/2014
Ms M Nkuna Financial administrator UNIVEN face to face 3/10/2014
Prof Sibiya, Ms
Deirdre Smook Dean and academic
and Nokuthula coordinator and
Mbokazi administrator UNIZULU face to face 15/10/2014
Student focus
group 9 students UNIZULU face to face 15/10/2014
Ms E Schilling and Administration officer and
Dr LD Beukes academic coordinator UP face to face 17/10/2014
Ms V Moses Financial administrator UP face to face 17/10/2014
Prof Arend Carl Academic coordaintor US face to face 9/09/2014
Mr Chris
Liebenberg Administration officer US face to face 9/09/2014
185
Name of
Professor Zubeida
Desai, Dr
Rajendran Education Dean, Academic
Govender, Dr coordiantor (B Ed),
Nadeen Moolla, academic coordinator
Mr Ryan Adonis (PGCE), FLBP coordinator
and mr Terence and recruitment and
Plaatjies application coordinator UWC face to face 29/09/2014
Dr Jean Place, Ms
Mfundo Mbatha, Academic coordinator,
P administration officer, Wits face to face 24/10/2014
Professor Sarita
Rodman and Ms head of administration and
Minette Botha administration officer UJ face to face 24/10/2014
Dr C Mantlana
and Ms Acting Dean of Education
Nombulelo Faculty and administrative
Monoana officer WSU face to face 22/10/2014
Ms Aruba Nyati FLBP administrative officer
and Ms Namkla and financial officer WsU face to face 22/10/2014
Mr Haroon
Mahomed Director: CPTD DBE face to face 10/10/2014
Ms Leticia
Munday Director: HR DBE face to face 14/10/2014
Mr Mfela
Mahlangu and Mr
Mishumo
Mamburu Deputy Directors: HR DBE face to face 14/10/2014
Mr John Maluleke Deputy Director: ITE DBE face to face 21/10/2014
Ms Lesedi Magano Deputy Director: ITE DBE face to face 14/10/2014
Mr Majaha
Hlatshwayo Assistant Director: ITE DBE face to face 23/10/2014
Ms Lulekwa Chief Education Specialist:
Tshambula ITE DBE face to face 23/10/2014
Mr Anton
Raubenheimer Chief Director: GITO DBE face to face 16/10/2014
Mr Andre Taylor Senior Manager SITA face to face
Mr Kennedy
Ratshitanga Deputy Director: ITE DBE face to face
Academic coordinator NIHE-MP telephonic November
SUBTOTALS: 9 student focus groups with 47 students
73 one on one and group interviews, with 112 participants
186
Annexure H: Comparative analysis of relevant bursary programmes
and key lessons learnt
1. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide a fairly broad review of two bursaries in South Africa and
two bursaries on teacher education in the United Kingdom. The focus of the review includes the
bursaries, goals and objectives; target groups; recruitment and selection, awarding, management
and administration, monitoring. Finally, where information is available, the focus is to establish the
effectiveness of the bursary programmes in achieving the set objectives. The review will extract and
highlight key features in the conceptualisation, implementation, and impact of these bursaries that
might be of relevance to the on-going improvement of the FLBP.
2. South African bursary schemes

The review of South African bursaries will focus on the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (DAFF), and the Department of Social Development (DSD) bursary programmes. These
bursaries have been selected because they are nationally focused, and the DSD scholarship’s focus
on social development is important for the schooling sector as social workers provide services across
the education sector. Further, the DSD scholarship, like Funza, has a service component, where
students have to pay back the bursary through service, although they get a salary during their
employment.
2.1 Goals and objectives

DSD scholarships are offered as part of a recruitment and retention strategy to address critical and
scarce skills within social development. The Master List of Scarce and Critical Skills of 8 August 2006
(DoL, 2006, cited in HSRC, 2008), indicated that 21 020 social and community workers were required
to fill positions within the labour market. Eight years later, in 2014, social workers are listed on
DHET’s Top 100 Occupations in Demand (DHET, 2014b). Social workers are in demand and they play
a critical role in the implementation of state welfare programmes especially related to social
problems related to unemployment in South Africa (HSRC, 2008). Specific examples of the scope and
extent of the social problems social workers are required to attend to include; Firstly, the
vulnerability of children as a result of HIV and AIDS. In 2006, government and social workers
affiliated to NGOs were able to reach only 200 000 of the estimated 1.2 million AIDS orphans, and
the rest had to fend for themselves (Pretoria News, 30 September 2006, cited in HSRC, 2008). Social
workers are also needed for counselling and case management of those affected by HIV/AIDS (The
Herald, 4 December 2006, cited in HSRC, 2008). Secondly, social workers have high caseloads of 63 –
300 each, which can result in negligence (Sowetan, 28 October 2005, cited in HSRC, 2008).Thirdly,
social workers are needed to intervene in cases that involve substance use and abuse, those
receiving social grants for foster care, older persons, people with disabilities, and people involved in
criminal activity (DSD, 2012).
Given this context of the shortage of social workers, DSD developed the Recruitment and Retention
Strategy (DSD, 2009), aimed at among other things, increasing the number of actively employed
social workers through attracting and retaining social workers. The Social Services Practitioners
Scholarship Policy is a key lever in the recruitment of students wanting to study and qualify with
187
social services qualifications (DSD, 2012). A key objective of the policy is to address the “shortage of
social services practitioners through the training and development of selected potential candidates
eligible to study towards a social work profession” (DSD, 2012: 6).
Based on the same principles of scarce skills and redress that inform the DSD, the Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) introduced the External Bursary Scheme in 2004 in
response to government’s call to bridge the skills gap, promote rural development and to eliminate
skewed participation in the agricultural sector in South Africa. The scheme is used as a vehicle to
create a pool of researchers, scientists, skilled professionals and technicians in areas regarded as
scarce and critical in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The bursary scheme is implemented through
an approved policy (DAFF, 2013)
2.2 Recruitment and selection

The DSD bursary is mainly focused on redress and is aimed at learners who are not employees of
DSD; those who have completed social work degrees but are unable to graduate because they have
outstanding debts to HEI, learners who come from disadvantaged communities, war veterans’
families and relatives, learners from rural areas with no access to electronic media and social media;
learners residing in places of safety, learners from child headed households, and social services
practitioners in the NGO sector. The bursary is also awarded based on a means test, to learners from
socio-economic contexts where the combined household income is not more than R15 000/month.
The DSD scholarship application process is open from 1 September to 31 October each year for the
following year’s selection, and it is advertised through the departmental and provincial websites,
posters in provincial offices and universities, and visits to rural and peri-urban areas (DSD, 2012).
DSD does not acknowledge all applications but communicates only with shortlisted candidates.
Selection is done at provincial level by a selection committee comprising the Head of Department
(HOD) or Executive Manager/General Manager, Human Resources and the Chief Director Welfare
Services and other competent persons delegated or selected by the HOD. Selections are considered
final when approved by the DDG Social Services and Families. Provincial departments issue
promissory notes to selected and approved students, and all successful students will sign a contract
(DSD, 2012). The DSD scholarship guide emphasises the importance of passion in pursuing social
work:
Social Work is not just a profession but a calling. Therefore students who REALLY want
to pursue this noble profession must be very passionate about this profession and must
be willing to assist the disadvantaged South African communities with all their
problems regardless where they are, especially in rural communities. In an event that
you might not be passionate about this profession, please look for other alternatives.
Many government departments also provide bursaries that are in line with their
mandate …. (DSD, 2014).
However, it is not clear how passion is determined in the selection process.
To improve placement in rural areas, DSD’s recruitment strategy is focused on students from deep
rural areas where there are no social workers, so that as graduates they can work in their
188
communities which often experience extensive social challenges and are out of reach of public or
private institutional service points to address these multiple challenges. Applicants are recruited by
practicing social workers and a profile of each student with all supporting documents is kept in a file
(Meeting between DSD and DBE, 31 July 2014).
The National Education Training Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development in South Africa was
developed by the Department of Agriculture in 2005, in consultation with various key stakeholders
in the agricultural sector. This strategy highlights priority skills needs and constraints within the
sector and categorises needs within five broad areas: agricultural production; agricultural
engineering; agricultural economics; agricultural development; and veterinarians (Department of
Agriculture 2005).Examples of degrees that have been funded in line with these categories, include:
 Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.)

 B.Sc. Bioresource Engineering
 B.Sc. Viticulture and Oenology
 B.Sc. Food Science
 B.Sc. Agric. Entomology
 B.Sc. Agric. Plant Pathology
 B.Sc. Soil Science
 B.Sc. Agronomy
 B.Sc. Pasture Science
 B.Sc. Genetics
 B.Sc. Forestry and Wood Science
 B.Sc. Marine Biology
 B.Sc. Oceanography and Marine Biology
 B.Sc. Ichthyology, specialising in Aquaculture
 B.Sc. Zoology, specialising in Marine Biology/Ichthyology
 Nat. Dipl. Food Technology
 Nat. Dipl. Forestry
 Nat. Dipl. Oceanography
 Postgraduate (B.Tech Hons, Masters and Ph.D.) in relevant agriculture, forestry and fisheries
study fields linked to the DAFF priority research projects (DAFF, 2013a).
Priority areas are also based on identified needs by the various directorates in DAFF. The DAFF
bursary is advertised in June or July each year for the following year’s intake, and advertising is
through national mass circulation newspapers like the Sunday Times and Business Day, regional
newspapers like Cape Argus, on notice boards at schools and tertiary institutions, municipalities and
district offices. Advertisements are also on the DAFF website. Potential applicants can access
application forms through tertiary institutions and when they have been submitted, they are
captured and sorted according to fields of study advertised, to compile a preliminary list of
shortlisted applicants. The shortlisted candidates are reviewed by the National Bursary Committee
which makes the final selection based on the number of bursaries available for the year, determined
by the available budget. During the selection of students for awarding, some students are included
189
on a waiting list so that they can be awarded a bursary if others on the first choice list decline to
accept the bursary (DAFF, 2013b).
The selection criteria include academic performance based on the most recent academic reports,
appropriate fields of study as determined by DAFF, financial need, gender and disability. Candidates
are considered in line with DAFF’s employment equity plan and the demographics of the country.
Bursary recipients must be South African citizens. A 14-point system, which takes into account race,
gender, disability, academic performance and the economic and financial status of the candidate is
also applied to the selection process. To mitigate high failure at university, achieving 10 points out
of the 14 point system is used as a minimum score, or if a score below 10 points is achieve by a
candidate an average of 60% academic performance in Maths and Physical Science is used taken into
account to consider eligibility for funding. Applicants going to an FET should have a minimum or
average score of 60% in Maths and Physical Science. Selection is also more favourable to those who
have already started their studies and those who are at postgraduate level to enable them to
complete their studies (DAFF, 2013b).
Since 2005, the bursary has received under 2000 applications each year, a low figure given the
extensive advertising that is invested in. More than 30% of these applications each year are not
relevant to the focus of the program because they are based on courses not being funded by DAFF,
even in cases where the courses are clearly and explicitly specified in the adverts (DAFF, 2006; 2007;
2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013a).
2.3 Awarding
For the DAFF bursary, award letters are forwarded to the successful candidates who are then asked
to confirm their acceptance of the award and to provide letters of proof of acceptance by their
respective tertiary institutions. Institutions where the students have been accepted are then notified
of the bursary sponsorship. Students then receive contracts that set out the terms and conditions of
the bursary, to sign (DAFF, 2013b).
2.4 Management and administration

The DSD bursary scheme has a coordination structure responsible for effective implementation of
the programme. These stakeholders and their roles are described below:
Table 1: DSD Social work scholarship implementation stakeholders
Designation Role
Director-General of DSD  Approves the annual budget
Deputy Director-General: Social  Approves the number of scholarships awarded on an annual basis.
Services and Families or any
delegated official at Chief
Director level
Provincial head of Department  Recommend the successful candidates to the Department
 Sign the scholarship contracts on behalf of the Department.
 In his/her absence the HOD must delegate an official to sign the
contracts on his/her behalf on an annual basis
Provincial coordinator  Ensure compliance with the Scholarship Framework
 Facilitate the short listing of applicants
 Keep records of the minutes
 Facilitate the selection of suitable candidates
190
Designation Role
 Keep files and records of the learners
 Issue promissory notes to successful students to enable them to
register
National programme manager  Draft the operational plan and budget of the Programme.
 Advertising of the Scholarship opportunities.
 Coordinate and manage the final selection process.
 Facilitate the settlement of the accounts of the students
 Establishment of relations with relevant stakeholders
 Conduct Orientation Programmes of new students at all universities
 Provide support to all students at all universities
 Promote the Scholarship Programme in deep rural or peri-urban
areas.
 Monitor performance and provide progressive information regarding
performance and achievements of the objectives of the Programme.

Higher Education institutions  Inform the Department about the de-registrations of students.
 Inform the Department if the student has changed the field of study.
 Inform the Department about abscondments.
 Submit the signed Schedule of Particulars to the Department to
ensure effective settlement of students accounts.

Source: DSD Social service practitioners’ scholarship policy, 2012
The responsibilities of stakeholders for the DAFF bursary are highlighted below:
Table 2: DAFF external bursary scheme implementation stakeholders
Designation Responsibilities
Minister of Agriculture, Forestry Formulates the strategic vision, allocates budgets and
and Fisheries quality reviews, and the ratifies the appointment of the National Bursary
Committee.
National Bursary committee The committee is accountable to the Director-General and they meet
(comprising 12 members – twice a year and as and when necessary. The committee monitors the
representatives from provincial implementation of the External Bursary Scheme policy and procedures,
departments of agriculture, approves the final list of bursary recipients, and awards bursaries to
forestry and fisheries, the Land successful applicants using the 14-point system criteria as guide.
Bank, the Agricultural Research
Council and the Director of DAFF
Sector Education and Training
Director of DAFF Sector Chairs the bursary committee. The office of the Director acts as the
Education and Training secretariat of the committee, responsible for all matters relating to the
committee, e.g. legal matters, writing of minutes, communication,
arranging meetings and other administrative logistics, as well as
coordinating the recruitment and selection process. The directorate is
responsible for the overall management and administration of the
bursary. The Directorate transfers the annual budget (funds) for the
scheme to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) for
administration and the NSAFS provides the Department of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries with an audited financial statement each year.
Source: DAFF External bursary scheme policy and procedures, 2013b
191
It is important that both schemes involve the executive level and top senior management as this
signals the significance of the programmes. Involvement of provincial level personnel is also
significant as this is an integral level of service delivery. Particularly for the DSD scholarship,
involvement of the province is important because placement of graduates is at the provincial level.
Data management of the DSD scholarship is manual. Details of students are captured on a locked
spread sheet. Provinces recruit and capture information per university, and DSD verifies with
universities if lists are captured correctly. NSFAS submits reports to DSD. If a student fails and cannot
continue with the programme it is difficult to expect them to pay back given their poor background;
though a clause to refund is included in the contract as required by National Treasury. In some cases
a student is advised early to look for other funding from NSFAS or Eduloan. If a student manages to
catch up, the bursary is reinstated. It is made clear to students that if they do not submit their end of
year results or on completing their studies, it is breach of contract. Files are kept and updated by
provinces that have an important role in the management of the scholarship including:
 Creating files for each scholarship recipient;

 Recording student results, which are submitted by 5 June, for funding not to be
discontinued;
 Providing a report on re-awards; a student who fails is suspended and repayment
demanded;
 Organising and facilitating orientation, which is an important component of the scholarship.
Orientation for first year students takes place in March or April and involves engagement
with the students to discuss the bursary agreement (done later in the year from August up
to just before exams). Enough time is allocated for the orientation to clarify all issues to
avoid having students who take up the bursary and not complete, as well as refuse to work
in a rural area. Students also ask questions and raise concerns, for example, that they need
supportive educational resources like laptops. All key stakeholders including the DSD, people
from the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Financial Administrator are required to attend
the orientation session, so that everything about the scholarship is made clear to students
(Meeting between DSD and DBE, 31 July 2014).
2.5 Financial arrangements

Both the DAFF bursaries and DSD scholarships are administered by NSFAS. There is a Memorandum
of Agreement between DSD and NSFAS. Both DAFF and DSD pay the bursary allocations from their
budgets into the NSFAS. The NSFAS does not receive the funding for the scholarship and bursary
directly from the National Treasury.
The DSD scholarship and DAFF bursary are explicit about what is funded and what is not (inclusions
and exclusions) and so there are no gray areas about what academic related costs are. The full cost
scholarship covers registration, study and examination fees; provides a field work/practical stipend;
covers accommodation and meals at university residences and other places which have entered into
formal agreements with universities, or else at other places that the student can find if there is no
university accommodation. The bursary also covers special equipment for people with disability. The
scholarship however does not cover computer hardware and software, membership affiliations, gym
membership, private doctors’ fees, bridging courses, and repeat courses or modules. The maximum
192
amount that can be paid annually to each student is determined by the national department. The
scholarship will be paid for a maximum of seven years for UNISA students and a maximum of five
years for full time students - three extra years for UNISA students and an extra year for full time
students to complete their studies. Students are not allowed to change their field of study while on
the scholarship and they are also not allowed to have another bursary (DSD, 2012). Universities
provide DSD with the fee structure (Meeting between DSD and DBE, 31 July 2014).
The DAFF bursary covers registration, tuition, accommodation, prescribed textbooks, and makes
provision for a stipend in the form of a monthly allowance for meals, travelling etc. for both
undergraduate and postgraduate students. High school learners get funding for school fees,
stationary, prescribed textbooks, school uniform once every two years, and boarding fees should
this be required (DAFF, 2013b).
It appears as though, for the DAFF bursary, funds are apportioned according to two types of costs
and paid out to students by the university in that way. The policy specifies that any cash accruals in
the students’ accounts from unutilised funds for tuition, books and accommodation shall be
returned to the NSFAS. Any cash accrued in students’ accounts as a result of unutilised funds for
meals and allowances shall be refunded to students once a request for funds is approved by the
department and payments shall be subject to set maximums. Refunds for discontinuing a course or
for dropping out shall be returned directly to the NSFAS by the institution and the department shall
be informed in writing of such refunds. The DAFF separation of expenses in this way seems useful, as
it gives students the option to spend their allowance how they see fit. At the same time, the unused
funds can be reinvested in the bursary scheme.
While the DAFF bursary covers accommodation, there are clear specifications with respect to what
kind of accommodation outside the university will be paid for or cannot be paid for. All university
accommodation is paid for but in order for private accommodation to be paid for, the student
should present proof that he/she applied for accommodation within the institution on time and
could not be accommodated in the institution’s residences and hence, requires private
accommodation. An accommodation allowance will then be paid, and the External Bursary
department can perform a verification process, if deemed necessary. Private accommodation is
prioritised for first-year new bursary holders who cannot be accommodated at institutions’
residences because of late application for admission. The allowance for private accommodation is
determined using the institutions’ residences as a guideline. Students living in a private residence
will complete forms providing details of the accommodation and landlord. If current bursary holders
apply for university accommodation late and failed to be accommodated, or they prefer to stay in
private accommodation while the university residence is available, only 50% of the cost of university
accommodation will be paid to them. Students who stay at home with parents/spouses or guardians
do not qualify for residence allowance but are entitled to a subsistence/travel allowance equal to
30% of the institution’s residence fees.
Book allowances vary depending on the field of study, and institutions advise DAFF on the book
allowance required by their students for a particular field of study and for a particular academic
year. Meal allowances also vary based on advisement from institutions. Institutions provide an
estimate of the amount required to cover meals for the year. The full amount or instalments thereof
shall be paid to the institution. Meal allowances for students in private residences are paid over in
193
instalments and they are based on predetermined maximums, comparable to institutions of learning
with full catering residences. Meal and residence costs are only paid during term time, and expenses
in this regard incurred during holidays will only be considered under special circumstances and will
need to be authorised by DAFF. Students staying at home with parents/spouses/guardians do not
qualify for a meal allowance. The budget available for the bursary at the beginning of each academic
year, as well as that which will be available at the beginning of the financial year will determine the
amount of monthly allowance/stipend offered to bursary holders.
If a bursary recipient has a DAFF bursary, s/he is not allowed to accept any additional
sponsorship/bursary that will impose an obligation on him/her to accept employment at the end of
the study programme. This is a strange condition given that DAFF itself does not have an obligation
to provide employment or internship opportunities to graduates. The bursary recipient can accept
an additional sponsorship without contractual obligations, but they must inform DAFF of the value of
the other sponsorship/bursary so that DAFF determines how the additional amount can contribute
to the bursary recipient’s expenses, depending on the level of study. Another restriction is that a
bursar cannot have both provincial and national department of agriculture bursaries concurrently or
switch sponsors between the provincial and national departments of agriculture because the
funding for these bursaries are from the same source.
2.6 Monitoring and evaluation

The national and provincial departments are responsible for monitoring and evaluation against
realistic and relevant performance measures, targets and timeframes (DSD, 2012). DAFF has quite
extensive monitoring mechanisms including bursary monitoring meetings once every semester,
counselling, analysing bursar’s results, and visits to bursars’ residences. Monitoring meetings
involve convening bursars in each province, where matters on orientation, induction and bursary
administration processes are discussed. Specialists in various careers being funded by the bursary
are invited to motivate the students. Counselling of bursars is periodic, and is done telephonically
and in person, to support bursars’ academic progress. Those who fail the first semester will be
visited on campus and counselled to determine reasons for failure to employ corrective action and
inform bursars about possible cancellations of the bursary if academic performance does not
improve. Funding for failing students becomes conditional upon improved results. Year end results
are also analysed to make recommendations for continued funding. The bursary mostly encourages
bursars to stay in university residences, and where this is not possible, students are visited at their
private residences to determine suitability of the residence for academic success. If the residence is
deemed unsuitable bursars are encouraged to find more suitable accommodation.
2.7 Placement
The DSD scholarship contract is signed by the student with the department at provincial level, and
the contract binds the student to work for the provincial department for an equal number of years
as the sponsorship. When students have completed their studies, the provincial departments should
place them at the appropriate department or NGO. Should a student not be placed within three
months of completion of their studies, they are released from their contractual obligation and they
are free to look for their own employment. Students are also released from their contract when they
have served the full contract period, or if they die or suffer permanent incapacity (DSD, 2012).
According to DSD, the critical weakness in the bursary scheme was the placement of graduates by
194
the provinces. The example provided by DSD was of 112 graduates produced in the Free State but
only 62 graduates placed in 2013. This is despite the fact that National Treasury allocates money to
provinces annually to facilitate the employment of these social workers. MECs refused to sign an
MOU which holds them accountable. In the past four years students recruited from urban areas like
Soweto are not willing to work in rural areas (Meeting between DSD and DBE, 31 July 2014).
DAFF is not obliged to offer employment or experiential training such as internships after completion
of studies. This is a major weakness with this bursary and defies the logic of the objectives of the
bursary to provide skills to the agricultural sector and increase the number of scientists in the sector.
Placement would be a major measure of the need for the bursary and if students are not placed, this
would signal problems with the demand forecasting. However, even if the bursars are not placed,
DAFF is still contributing critical skills to the sector.
2.8 Contract deviations

On the DSD scholarship, if a student decides to work elsewhere other than where the department
has allocated them, or they terminate their contract early, the outstanding period of service will be
calculated in monetary value to determine the debt the student should repay. This debt will be
recovered from the student through legal processes within three years, upon agreement between
the student and the department.21 If a private sector organisation is interested in offering
employment to the student after graduation, the organisation will buy out the contract of the
graduate from the department at the going rate at the time of the buyout (DSD, 2012).
3. International bursary schemes

Although there are several bursaries on initial teacher training, for example, the Australian
Queensland Step into Teaching programme; Canada’s Alberta’s language bursaries;22 and the
Remote Teacher Education Programme (RATEP) also in Australia (Lonsdale and Invargson 2003), the
review selected only those schemes where information about the business processes could be
discerned, as business process was a key theme to the review. This narrowed the review down to
two schemes, the initial teacher training (ITT) training bursary, hereafter referred to as the ITT
bursary; and the Further Education Initial Teacher Training (FE ITT) Bursary Initiative, both in the UK.
Goals and Objectives

The FE ITT was introduced in 2000 when there were recruitment difficulties and gaps in the provision
of certain courses at further education (FE) level. The bursary was aimed at attracting high calibre
people to train, qualify, and teach in the further education sector. This was in response to high
vacancy rates and an ageing work force in the FE sector (York Consulting Ltd, 2004). Similarly, the
ITT bursary is aimed at attracting and retaining high quality graduates into the teaching profession.
The bursary is for graduates, as well as Advanced Level (A Level) students) who want to train for
primary school teaching (National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015).
21 Without access to the evaluation report of the DSD bursary, it was not possible to determine the success of debt
recovery.
22
http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/role/pd/bursariesfr.aspx
195
Recruitment and application
In 2014/2015, the FE ITT bursaries were aimed at trainees taking a specialist teaching qualification in
English, mathematics or special educational needs (SEN). However, trainees on generic programmes
could also access the bursaries if the providers thought the combination of course content, teaching
practice in the subject specialism and existing qualifications equipped them to teach English and
mathematics from basic to the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), or to teach
students with SEN. The providers’ role in selecting suitable candidates is critical. Providers select
students and also recommend any additional specialist training and teaching practice trainees might
require. Applicants are funded for the professional qualification and not the basic degree.
Candidates who want to teach maths should ideally have a mathematics degree; or a joint degree
with mathematics; or a degree like physics or engineering, where the mathematics element is
significant. However, other degrees are considered, subject to the ITT provider’s judgement that the
applicant has the necessary underpinning knowledge, skills and capacity to teach mathematics to
students from basic to GCSE and level 3. Applicants who want to train to teach English language,
should have an English language degree, or a humanities degree with a significant English language
or linguistics component. Like for maths, other relevant degrees are considered. There is no specific
subject requirement for those who want to specialise in SEN teaching - providers have the discretion
to judge the applicant’s suitability to teach students with SEN in FE. FE ITT bursary applicants should
be studying towards the full-time, pre-service PGCE or Certificate of Education.
An evaluation that was conducted in 2003 by York Consulting Ltd to determine the impact of the
bursary concluded that the bursary was a contributor to the substantial increase in the uptake of FE
ITT, with applications increasing by 124% between 1998 and 2002. Between 1998 and 1999, FE ITT
enrolment increased by 39 applications. In 2000, at the start of the bursary, there was an increase of
1130 applications, and in 2001, bursary applications increased by 1 208. The high number of
applications meant that there was a larger pool to select from and this would promote the quality
imperative, as the bursary would be awarded on a more competitive basis.
As a result of the bursary, several institutions which had not previously provided teacher training
introduced full time teacher training, and they reported that they would not have been able to run
the course without the bursaries as students would not apply. The evaluation also found that a
majority (64%) of respondents would not have applied for teacher training without the financial
assistance the bursary provided and just over one tenth (13%) of respondents highlighted that the
bursary encouraged them to apply, as they would not have done so. In this regard, the bursary
enabled 77% of applicants to gain access to FE ITT. Of these 77%, 68% went on to qualify and get a
teaching post in FE. Another positive element of the recruitment strategy and the bursary was to
enable women and younger people to access FE teaching opportunities. Over three quarters of the
students on the bursary were female and the dominant age group awarded the bursary was in the
25–34 year age group.
The priority subjects for the ITT bursary are Biology, English, Geography, History, Music, classics,
Design and technology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Computing. Specific requirements for
eligibility include a degree in the subject, and higher degrees with experience. The ITT bursary
scheme awards core and discretionary bursaries - core bursaries are mostly awarded to trainees who
have the minimum lower second (2:2) pass requirement for their degree and also to other trainees
196
with relevant academic qualifications such as Masters, PhDs, overseas and medical degrees.
Discretionary bursaries are awarded to applicants who have more experience and potential than
their degree class would suggest (National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015).
Selection and awarding

For both the FE ITT and ITT bursaries, the degree pass or classification is very important to determine
the level of funding for specific priority areas. In this regard, the bursaries are merit bursaries in
specified priority areas. The British classification for different levels of achievement for degrees is
outlined below.
Table 3: British undergraduate degree pass classification
Class Marks Level

First 70+
Upper Second 60–69
Lower Second 50–59
Third 45–49
Ordinary Pass 40–44
Source: Wikipedia
The York Consulting Ltd evaluation of the FE ITT found that methods of recruitment and selection
varied across institutions as institutions operated independently and were tasked with recruiting the
most appropriate and suitably qualified people onto courses. For reputational purposes, institutions
are most likely to select the better candidates so that they achieve excellent retention and
throughput rates. During the pilot in 2001 – 2003, selection was in three phases and included an
interview, a written test and group observations. Students were interviewed by mentors in the
college in which they would train, to assess their suitability for the training placement. In most
institutions, heads of department used their extensive experience during interviewing of candidates
to assess the suitability of applicants to teach adults in a college environment. Although there were
no explicit rules about selection in the bursary, some criteria started emerging from the evaluators’
engagement with college principals. Principals indicated that in their interviewing and assessment of
students for selection, they looked for the following:
 students must have a 2.2 degree or above;

 a good academic past record;
 Maths and English at level 2;
 quality of experience counts over the level of degree;
 experience of working with young people;
 awareness of social, economic and political issues;
 students must be assertive;
 students must have the ability to solve problems;
 planning and organisational skills (York Consulting Ltd, 2004: 30)
Importantly, except for the requirements for the degree class, the Department for Education (DfE)
did not provide an explicit definition of high calibre and left it at the discretion of institutions to
decide how high calibre could be defined. However, because of the lack of clarity, institutions used
197
their discretion to award the bursary to all their enrolled students, indicating that they envisaged
systemic problems if they taught some students who were funded and others who were not.
Institutions who followed this logic distributed the bursary on a first come first served basis. They
would follow the normal recruitment procedures and offer the successful recruits a bursary, and
close recruitment when they had offered the number of places equivalent to the number of
bursaries they receive from DfE.
The current academic requirements for the FE ITT are that applicants:
 Must have at least a 3rd class degree to access a bursary for mathematics,
o At least a 2:1 degree for the English language or SEN bursaries.
o With a 3rd class degree applicants must have at least a grade B at A level maths
(Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2014).
 Selection for the ITT bursaries is based on the degree classification held by the trainee for
the subject specialism in which they wish to train to teach. Also dependent on the
specialisation the applicant wants to pursue, ‘A’ level results may be used to establish
eligibility.
 Applicants must have at least a 2:2 to access a bursary in most shortage subjects, and at
least a 2:1 for non-shortage subjects. It is not necessary for candidates to have secured a
physics, chemistry, mathematics or computing PGCE place prior to selection (National
College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015).
Financial Arrangements
The UK Departments for Business Innovation and Education provide the funding to institutions that
manage the recruitment, application and selection, and award of the bursaries. All the admin work is
done in the institutions. During the FE ITT pilot the bursary amount was £6 000 but this has been
revised and differentiated according to priority area and the degree classification of the applicants as
follows.
Table 4: Bursary allocations for FE ITT
FE ITT Specialisation Degree Class

First 2.1 2.2 Third
Mathematics £20 000 £20 000 £15 000 £9 000
English £9 000 £4 000 No bursary No bursary
SEN £9 000 £4 000 No bursary No bursary
Source: UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2014, p. 8
As the table shows, maths specialisations receive a bursary for all degree classes, but the amount is
differentiated according to the pass level. The other specialisations do not offer bursaries for 2.2 and
third class passes.
The allocation of bursaries for ITT is similar to that of FE ITT, and is reflected in the table that follows.
This allocation distinguishes merit by awarding different bursary amounts for different degree
classifications, so it is clear how the merit criteria work.
198
Table 5: Bursary allocations for ITT for 2014/5
Bursary Tier High priority areas

Degree Physics, Computing Chemistry Languages Secondary, Primary
Level Maths Primary Maths
Specialists
1 First* £20,000 £20,000 £20,000 £20,000 £9,000 £11,000
2 2:1* £20,000 £20,000 £15,000 £15,000 £4,000 £11,000
3 2:2* £15,000 £15,000 £12,000 £12,000 ineligible £6,000
4 Other £9,000 ineligible ineligible ineligible ineligible ineligible
*Or equivalent as set out in equivalence data in Section 4 and 5
Source: National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015: 8
Bursary recipients who hold the ITT scholarship are not eligible for an additional bursary. Bursary
awards should be paid in equal monthly instalments over the duration of the course. The standard
payment months for full-time courses are October to July of the academic year. The payment
structure for bursary awards for different bursary amounts are provided in policy document, and are
available for FE ITT and ITT. The examples provided below pertain to ITT.
Table 6: Bursary payment guidelines for different types of awards for full-time study
Bursary award Payment schedule

£4,000 10 equal monthly instalments of £400, from October to July
£11,000 10 equal monthly instalments of £1,100, from October to July
£12,000 10 equal monthly instalments of £1,200, from October to July
£15,000 10 equal monthly instalments of £1,200, from October to July with additional
payments of £1,500 in February and £1,500 in July or the final month in which the
trainee completes the course
£20,000 10 equal monthly instalments of £1,400, from October to July with additional
payments of £3,000 in February and £3,000 in July or the final month in which the
trainee completes the course
Source: National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015: 34 - 35
An advantage of spreading the payment across 10 months is that it helps students with financial
planning and it also enables withdrawal of the bursary if students do not pass their exams. In this
regard, the funding becomes a motivation for success. Guidelines are also provided for disbursing
bursaries for part time students, as outlined below.
199
Table 7: Bursary payment guidelines for different types of awards for part-time study or modular
courses
Bursary award Payment schedule

£4,000 1. 2 equal payments of £2,000 at the start and end of the course or
2. 2 equal payments of £1,333 during the course plus 1 of £1,334 or
3. Flexible payment plan for modular course ensuring that no more than £2,000 is
paid in one instalment
£6,000 4. 2 equal payments of £3,000 at the start and end of the course
5. 3 equal payments of £2,000 during the course
8. 3 equal payments of £3,000 during the course
11. 2 equal payments of £3,666 during the course plus 1 of £3668
£15,000 Flexible payment pattern of instalments, the total of which should not equal
£12,000, with 2 additional payments of £1,500 at the end of the first half of the
programme, and upon completion of the programme
£20,000 Flexible payment pattern of instalments, the total of which should not exceed
£14,000, with 2 additional payments of £3,000 at the end of the first half of the
programme, and upon completion of the programme
Source: National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2015: 36 - 37
Institutions are expected to manage payment to students and also to make necessary adjustments in
case of withdrawals from courses. Bursaries are fixed for the duration of the course, and the
emphasis is not only on attracting quality candidates but also on encouraging successful retention
and completion of the course.
Monitoring
Policy provisions for monitoring of initial teacher training programmes apply for both FE ITT and ITT.
Data is collected from multiple sources. Providers of training are responsible for keeping full records
of all trainees receiving bursaries, including their academic qualifications before starting their ITT.
Trainees must be in receipt of the degree on which they are assessed, prior to starting the course.
The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the National College for Teaching and
Leadership (NCTL) can ask institutions for students’ details at any point during the academic year, for
monitoring, so records must be kept up to date. Because of the limitation of bursary funds, records
and any updates must be submitted promptly to NCTL so that funds are released. Records received
after the 15th of each month may be carried forward to the following month, and funding
adjustments will be made to bursary payments for that month. Inaccurate or incomplete
information will result in delays in disbursement of funds.
200
When a bursary recipient has been recruited in a school, the school is required to give partner data
about itself to the partner ITT. The dates of training of the trainee are required for the monitoring.
Bursary recipient data is collected via the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Initial Teacher
Training In Year Record. Providers need to submit trainee level data. When the data has been
imported into the HEI Data Management System (DMS) for each trainee, providers are expected to
indicate the Lead School and up to five schools where the trainee will be undertaking their training
during their ITT course, if they are in the School Direct initiative of initial teacher training. Providers
who are not compliant with data requests may be deemed non-compliant and this can lead to
withdrawal of accreditation, obliging a lead school to look for a new accredited provider. A system of
submission of data by different agencies involved in the training is likely to provide accurate data
because it is triangulated from the different sources.
The NCTL verifies bursary payments against bursary recipients’ records, and where there are
variances, for example, unclassified degrees, the NCTL seeks explanations from providers. Providers
will bear the cost of any mistakes in the awarding of bursaries, for example, giving a higher bursary
amount for specific specialisation than would be expected. Providers also keep data on applications,
recruitment and employment outcomes, and they are required to share this on the School Direct
hub, an online platform for people working in ITT to share their experiences and best practice.
Placement
The placement situation of the current bursary programmes is not clear, but in 2003, the evaluation
of the FE ITT highlighted the placement difficulties of a bursary programme that did not do proper
demand analysis to recruit beneficiaries. A constraint to the bursary programme during that period
is that there were not enough college teachers to teach the priority areas, so colleges kept
enrolment in courses like engineering and science to a minimum and enrolled many students in
social science specialisations in subjects such as English, History, Psychology and Sociology, who
ended up being unable to find permanent employment in FE because of the level of competition.
Because these two bursaries are not service bursaries, students find their own jobs, and their
placement would naturally depend on demand.
4. Key lessons and conclusions
The following lessons can be drawn from a review of the four bursary programmes:
Programme Design
 Bursaries are a useful way of addressing skills shortages and attracting academically talented
people to train and fill the skills gap.
 Bursaries that are linked to skills shortage focus on not only attracting the right candidates,
but retention and success are important. In this regard, placement of graduates is an
important aspect of the bursary business process.
 Recruitment strategies have to be diverse and far reaching to attract large numbers of
applications. The more applicants the better the pool to select the best students from.
However, the downside of large volumes of applications is the administrative workload to
sort them and select the right candidates, which may delay finalisation of the selection
process.
201
 The DAFF bursary and UK bursaries criteria for merit highlight standards that can be used for
determining merit, for example, 60% for Maths and Physical Science for matric for the DAFF
bursary, and the linking of various bursary amounts to various degree classifications in the
UK. It is possible to use similar classifications for the PGCE programme, and offer
differentiated bursary amounts based on graduate degree classification. This is likely to
attract even better quality students as better degree classification equals a better bursary
amount.
 DAFF does not pay accommodation and meals for students who stay at home. Instead they
get a travel allowance.
 To avoid difficulties with students reneging on their responsibilities, bursary conditions have
to be specified upfront. The DSD and DAFF bursaries are good examples of clarification of
conditions, as they have orientation meetings with bursary recipients where the conditions
are elaborated and students get a chance to ask questions.
 Other areas of redress are retention and success. The articulation gap between high school
and university has been well documented in research, and students need to be supported to
complete their programmes. DAFF’s bursary programme has this component of student
support, assessing the suitability of students’ accommodation arrangements outside
campus, and providing academic support through counselling and tutorial programmes. The
UK bursary programmes emphasise the importance of a bursary not just to attract quality
students but also to enable them to persist and succeed in their degree programmes
 Bursary conceptualisation should involve national level policy structures as well as local
government delivery structures, especially where placement is required. Multi-stakeholder
involvement will also enable different sets of expertise for the successful implementation of
the bursary. All bursaries reviewed involved collaboration between national structures and
stakeholders at delivery points, e.g. providers, provincial departments, and schools etc.
Selection Criteria
 In South Africa, redress is an important consideration in offering bursaries, therefore even
where students are recruited on merit, it is important to give preference to students from
low socioeconomic backgrounds. In this regard, a means test as implemented by DSD is
useful as this promotes access to higher education by poor students.
 In the pursuit of quality, what is meant by quality ought to be explicitly articulated. For the
DSD, the issue of passion for the job is highlighted, although this is difficult to measure. The
UK programmes have indicated other important qualities for example experience working
with young people, social awareness, problem solving skills, planning and organisational
skills. The only criterion that can be evaluated on paper are results, and others can be
discerned through interviewing and engaging with applicants.
 It is important for students to be accepted by a university before they apply for any bursary.
They need to meet university admission criteria first, and any bursary will not convince the
university to enrol them if they do not meet the admission criteria.
 Sometimes academic results alone are not sufficient in determining the quality of students.
In the UK, the bursary programmes make use of written tests as well as interviews for the
202
selection of students. This way they are able to assess for other qualities that can make a
good teacher.
Operations
 Policy guidelines are an important lever for implementation of a bursary programme, as they
can set out the parameters and scope of the bursary, and provide an accountability
mechanism should stakeholders be in breach.
 Determination of bursary amounts is important especially in contexts where many students
do not access higher education because of financial constraints. In such contexts, it is
commendable to employ financial prudence so that bursary budgets can fund more
students. At the same time, it is important to give full cost bursaries so that students can
persist with their studies and graduate successfully. The DAFF allocation of funds for the
bursary is useful for structuring bursaries. The bursary is split into two – there is a portion for
fees and accommodation and books; then another portion for meals and subsistence. If
there is any money left over from the fees, book and accommodation account, it is returned
to the NSFAS, but any money left over at the end of the year from the subsistence portion
will be given to the student.
 Another way in which the bursary expenditure can be controlled is to determine the cost of
private accommodation based on the going rates for university accommodation. This will
avoid defrauding of bursary funds if students collude with landlords to charge more for
private accommodation.
 A longer placement period does not necessarily solve placement problems. DSD has a three
month period in which to place students before they are released of any obligation with the
bursary, but some graduates are still not placed after this time. What is needed is a systemic
approach to placement which has buy in from all stakeholders involved in the placement
and receiving process.
 Disbursement of bursary funds in instalments helps students with their financial planning.
Planning
 Demand and supply analysis is a crucial element of bursary programmes, as students have to
be placed as a cost effective measure. So, it is useful to know exactly what the priority areas
are to recruit students, and what the numbers needed are so that students can be
successfully placed when they graduate.
 Monitoring data is required as a mechanism to ensure accountability in the implementation
of the bursary programme. The UK examples, where all stakeholders are responsible for
providing monitoring data to a central management system, keeps all stakeholders informed
and provides opportunities for getting more reliable data that can be triangulated because it
is from multiple sources.
203

FLBP Report Annexures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FLBP Report Annexures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FLBP Report Annexures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FUNZA LUSHAKA BURSARY

Prepared for the DPME and DBE by

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................4

Annexure A: Document Review ..........................................................................................................6

Goals and objectives .................................................................................................................................. 6

Programme design .................................................................................................................................... 6

Programme Management and Administration ......................................................................................... 8

Recruitment, application and selection criteria ...................................................................................... 16

Training and Student Profiles .................................................................................................................. 18

Funding arrangements ............................................................................................................................ 22

Monitoring and tracking systems for bursary recipients......................................................................... 29

Graduation and placement ..................................................................................................................... 30

Annexure B: Programme Theory and Logframe ................................................................................. 35

Section 1: The need for the FLBP ............................................................................................................. 35

Section 2: Programme design, stakeholders, purpose, goal and objectives ........................................... 40

Section 3: Theory of change, Key Business Processes and logframe ....................................................... 46

Annexure C: Initial Programme Theory Interview Schedule ............................................................... 75

Annexure D: Report on Programme Theory Stakeholder Workshop................................................... 83

Annexure F: Final Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................ 114

CATI Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................ 114

DBE/DHET Interview schedule ............................................................................................................... 151

Provincial Recruitment and Placement Interview schedule .................................................................. 162

DBE MIS/SITA Interview schedule.......................................................................................................... 167

National Treasury Interview schedule ................................................................................................... 171

University officials involved in financial/bursary administration .......................................................... 174

Deans and Academic Coordinators at universities Interview schedule ................................................. 178

Annexure G: Completed FLBP interviews and focus groups ............................................................. 183

2. South African bursary schemes ...................................................................................................... 187

3. International bursary schemes ....................................................................................................... 195

4. Key lessons and conclusions ........................................................................................................... 201

Figure 7: Funza Lushaka business process……………………………………………………………………………….…….. 10

Figure 8: Age profile of beneficiaries when first registering……………………………………………………….….. 20

Figure 9: Racial composition of Funza Lushaka beneficiaries (2007 – 2013)…………………………….……. 20

Figure 11: Phase specialisations of bursars (2007 – 2013)……………………………………………………….……. 22

Figure 1: FLBP programme theory…………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 47

Figure 2: Recruitment and application process…………………………………………………………………….……….. 52

Figure 3: Selection business process…………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 53

Figure 4: Awarding and disbursement business process……………………………………………………………..… 54

Figure 5: Placement business process…………………………………………………………………………………………… 55

Table 10: Funza Lushaka Bursary current priority areas…………………………………………………….…..… 7

Table 11: Phase allocations in 2012…………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 8

Table 12: Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders………………………………………………………………… 11

Table 13: District based recruitment selected beneficiaries…………………………………………….……….. 16

Table 14: Funza Lushaka Bursary Recipients 2007 – 2013…………………………………………..…………... 17

Table 17: Highest and lowest bursary amount within institutions……………………………………………. 27

Table 19: Academic progress of 2012 bursars……………………………………………………………..…………… 29

Table 21: Provincial placement of Funza Bursars……………………………………………………………………… 31

Table 22: Provincial placement policies……………………………………………………………………………………… 32

Table 1: Stakeholders key to the FLBP and their roles……………………………………………………………… 42

Table 2: FLBP Logframe…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57

Table 1: Schedule for Theory of change workshop…………………………………………………………………… 88

Table 1: Evaluation matrix questions and data collection instruments.......................................... 109

Table 1: Schedule of completed FLBP interviews and focus groups…………………………………….……… 183

Table 1 DSD Social work scholarship implementation stakeholders…………………………….……………... 190

Table 2: DAFF external bursary scheme implementation stakeholders………………………………………. 191

Table 3: British undergraduate degree pass classification………………………………………………….……… 197

Table 4: Bursary allocations for FE ITT…………………………………………………………………………………….… 198

Table 5: Bursary allocations for ITT for 2014/5…………………………………………………………………………. 199

Goals and objectives