part a: strategic overview - Department of Education

More documents

Recommendations

Info

� Large numbers of dependents � Low levels of literacy � Small proportions of the population with tertiary education � Low levels of basic household services such as electricity and piped water Using this index the most disadvantaged district (see Graph 6) in the Eastern Cape was Lusikisiki with a score of 0.972, followed closely by Dutywa with 0.970 and Bizana with 0.908. Other districts with high relative deprivation index scores were Mt Fletcher, Libode and Maluti, all of which have high proportions of 7-18 year olds in relation to their total populations, and hence many dependents. Poorer districts such as these should be targeted for greater development assistance and school support. At the other end of the spectrum are the districts of Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, East London and Grahamstown, which, in comparative terms have much lower deprivation index scores and could be considered better off. It should however be noted that the Eastern Cape as a whole is one of the poorest provinces in South Africa. The main winners and losers are shown in Table 29 and 30. The tables show that Umzimkulu District has improved its overall ranking the most, followed by Libode and Cradock. In relative provincial terms, these districts improved socio-economically during the period 1996 to 2001. By contrast, the districts of Queenstown and Maluti experienced a relative decline. In 1996, Queenstown was ranked 20 th in terms of district poverty but by 2001, it had worsened to 16 th position. Similarly, Maluti went from 9 th most poor to 6 th during the 5-year period. Seven districts remained in the same relative position. Graph 6: Comparative Socio-Economic Deprivation by District Bizana Butter wor th Cof imvaba Cr adock East London Ngcobo For t Beauf or t Gr aaf f -Reinet Gr ahamstown Dutywa King Williams Town Lady Fr er e Libode Lusikisiki Maluti Mt Fletcher Mt Fr er e Por t Elizabeth Queenstown Qumbu Ster kspr uit Uitenhage Mthatha Umzimkulu Comparative Soc io-Ec onomic Deprivation by District, 2001 Census 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 0 = Least Po o r, 1 = M o st Po o r 5 Year ECDoE Strategic Plan for 2005-06 2005/06 to 2009-10. 2009/10 March 21 F (4) 2006 Page 65 Page 69
Table 12: Socio-economic Deprivation Index 1996 and 2001 - Main Winners (relatively better off) District Poverty Index 1996 Relative Rank 1996 Poverty Index in 2001 Relative Rank 2001 Rank Improvement Umzimkulu 0.857 8 0.804 12 4 Libode 0.973 2 0.886 5 3 Cradock 0.497 18 0.374 20 2 Cofimvaba 0.876 6 0.860 7 1 East London 0.270 21 0.267 22 1 Ngcobo 0.874 7 0.848 8 1 Fort Beaufort 0.606 16 0.423 17 1 King Williams Town 0.560 17 0.411 18 1 Note that in the poverty index a rank of 1 was assigned to the poorest district and a rank of 24 to the least poor Table 13: Socio-economic Deprivation Index 1996 and 2001. Main Losers (relatively worse) District Poverty Index 1996 Relative Rank 1996 Poverty Index in 2001 Relative Rank 2001 Rank Decline Queenstown 0.389 20 0.436 16 -4 Maluti 0.848 9 0.862 6 -3 Bizana 0.952 4 0.908 3 -1 Grahamstown 0.248 22 0.290 21 -1 Dutywa 0.966 3 0.970 2 -1 Lady Frere 0.824 11 0.810 10 -1 Mt Fletcher 0.882 5 0.898 4 -1 Mt Frere 0.794 12 0.809 11 -1 Qumbu 0.837 10 0.831 9 -1 * An identical poverty index was created in an earlier report using the 1996 Census 1 , so it is possible to identify districts that have improved in terms of their overall provincial poverty ranking and those that have declined. 5 Year ECDoE Strategic Plan for 2005/06 to 2009/10. March 2006 Page 70 5 Year ECDoE Strategic Plan for 2005-06 to 2009-10. 21 F (4) Page 66 part C: background information
Page 3 and 4:
FOREWORD BY THE MEMBER OF THE EXECU
Page 5 and 6:
FOREWORD BY THE MEMBER OF THE EXECU
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables Table 1: Strategic G
Page 9 and 10:
ACRONYMS ABET Adult Basic Education
Page 11 and 12:
e a s t e r n c a p e d e p a r t m
Page 13 and 14:
Gradually, this strategy refocuses
Page 15 and 16:
6. SECTORAL SITUATION ANALYSIS 6.1
Page 17 and 18:
� Key national policy frameworks
Page 19 and 20:
� Public administration must be b
Page 21 and 22:
8.1.4 The Transformation Agenda of
Page 23 and 24:
No Strategic Goal Rationale and Foc
Page 25 and 26:
NUMBER AND IDENTIFICATION OF GOALS
Page 27 and 28:
Strategic Objective 6: HIV and AIDS
Page 29 and 30: � Monthly Reports� � Quarterl
Page 31 and 32: e a s t e r n c a p e d e p a r t m
Page 33 and 34: Table 5: Programmes and Sub-Program
Page 35 and 36: STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PROG
Page 37 and 38: STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 5.6
Page 39 and 40: Table 7: Overview of Programmes Lis
Page 41 and 42: 11.4. Overview of Policies, Priorit
Page 43 and 44: SUB-PROGRAMME: - Purpose - Transfor
Page 57 and 58: SUB-PROGRAMME: SUB-PROGRAMME: - Pur
Page 59 and 60: SUB-PROGRAMME: SUB-PROGRAMME: - Pur
Page 63 and 64: e a s t e r n c a p e d e p a r t m
Page 65 and 66: � ICT professional development of
Page 67 and 68: meal for our poorer children. These
Page 69 and 70: the relative share of the South Afr
Page 71 and 72: Table 10: Distribution of Total Pop
Page 73 and 74: The map shows that the highest aver
Page 75 and 76: Map 1: Population Density Distribut
Page 77 and 78: District Total Population aged 7-18
Page 79: When comparing the school-age popul
Page 83 and 84: 13.4.1 Employment, Income and other
Page 85 and 86: 13.7 Education Profile of People in
Page 87 and 88: 13.9. Programme 2 - Public Ordinary
Page 89 and 90: Total Population aged 14-18 GER Sec
Page 91 and 92: 13.9.4 Over-aged Learners Several o
Page 93 and 94: Table 26 mirrors provincial aggrega
Page 95 and 96: Map 4: Learner : Educator Ration pe
Page 97 and 98: Map 5: Learner: Classroom Ratios pe
Page 99 and 100: The highest performing ex-Departmen
Page 101 and 102: Combined schools with more secondar
Page 103 and 104: LSEN schools. There are 666 special
Page 105 and 106: 14. EVALUATION OF CURRENT IMPLEMENT
Page 107 and 108: 5 Year ECDoE Strategic Plan for 200
Page 109 and 110: The obvious group of small schools
Page 111 and 112: establishment had been largely comp
Page 113 and 114: 15.6 Performance Management System
Page 115 and 116: Table 50: 4: Expected MTEF Figures
Page 117: � Compliance on journal entries:
show all

part a: strategic overview - Department of Education

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?