By Charmaine Ndlela

The MEC for Education, Lindi Masina, and the Deputy Minister of the Department of Basic Education (DBE), Dr. Reginah Mhaule, visited the Isiqalo-Semfundo ECD Centre in the Govan Mbeki Local Municipality on Monday for a special event dedicated to supporting early childhood development.

Joined by the Govan Mbeki Local Municipality mayor Nhlakanipho Zuma, the officials handed over learning kits, school stationery, and other essential resources to five Early Childhood Development (ECD) centres in the municipality: Sinethemba, Sithembele, Isiqalo-Segundo, MaAunties, and Mahlubi.

The visit formed part of the Bana Pele drive, an initiative aimed at ensuring that all ECD programmes are regulated and comply with legal requirements.

The drive also focuses on quality assurance, ensuring that all centres meet established minimum norms and standards.

“The drive recognises the diverse contexts in which ECD programmes operate and seeks to support them in meeting these standards,” said Masina.

This initiative follows the launch of a new ECD registration drive by the Department of Education in April 2025.

Guided by the department’s 2030 Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Development Programs, the eCares system enables the government to deliver high-quality services to young children.

During her address, Mhaule highlighted the impact of the ECD Mass Registration Drive.

“Since the implementation of the ECD Mass Registration Drive, more than 7 million children are now able to access early foundational learning opportunities,” said Mhaule.

Educators at the event expressed appreciation for the continued investment in the foundation phase, calling it a confirmation of the government’s commitment to quality education from the very first step.

Masina commended the department’s efforts to empower every child.

“Together, we are building a generation of confident, capable, and inspired young learners,” said Masina.

She added that the Department of Basic Education aims to professionalise ECD centres and ensure that every child has access to a quality programme that provides three key elements: quality learning and development opportunities, a safe and nurturing environment, and good nutrition.

The revised 2025 National Budget includes R210 million in new funding for the ECD infrastructure grant in 2026/27 and 2027/28, marking the largest fiscal investment in early childhood development in South Africa’s history, supporting the Bana Pele Mass Registration Drive.

In 2025, the Thrive by Five Index showed that only 40% of children in early childhood programs meet developmental expectations, while 81% of Grade 4 students cannot read for meaning, underscoring the urgent need for improvement.

The Department of Basic Education continues to distribute learning resources to ensure that all learners progress together.

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Palesa Nguqu

Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training Dr Mimmy Gondwe has called for a shift in South Africa’s skills strategy, saying the country must move beyond training for existing jobs toward creating new ones through an ‘opportunity-driven’ Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) model.

Gondwe made the remarks during her participation in the Going Global Conference 2025 in London, where she promoted South Africa’s TVET and community colleges as engines for youth employment and innovation.

Invited by the British Council, Gondwe joined international education leaders and met with organisations such as King’s Trust International to strengthen partnerships that can help align the country’s training programmes with global standards and industry needs.

“Our goal is to build strong, sustainable partnerships that will enhance skills development for our youth and create real employment opportunities. International cooperation is key to achieving this vision,” said Gondwe.

Her visit included panel discussions on the future of skills development and the resilience of higher education systems in times of global uncertainty.

Gondwe said the government is intent on repositioning the TVET and community college sectors through international cooperation and innovation. “By leveraging global expertise and resources, South Africa seeks to position its TVET system as a cornerstone of economic growth and social development,” she said.

She said a fundamental rethink was needed of how the country approaches vocational training.

“The distinction between opportunity-driven, supply-driven, and demand-driven TVET models is becoming increasingly important in South Africa’s current skills development discourse, especially as the system transitions toward more agile and inclusive skills ecosystems.

“Historically, much of the TVET college system operated on a supply-driven model. Programs like NATED (N1–N6) and NC(V) were rolled out nationally with little regional differentiation, leading to misalignment with provincial and local economic opportunities.

“The introduction of Centres of Specialisation (CoS) moved towards a demand-driven system which is employer- and industry-led, focusing on current labour market needs. Demand-driven responds to specific skills demands from sectors or employers. However, while demand-driven systems improve relevance, they often prioritise existing industries, sometimes neglecting emerging or informal economic opportunities.

“An opportunity-driven TVET model goes beyond current employer demand to anticipate or create new economic opportunities especially in emerging sectors like the green economy, digital innovation, and community-based enterprises. It is entrepreneurial, forward-looking, and inclusive, seeking to equip learners to generate livelihoods, not just fill existing jobs,” she said.

Among the initiatives under way are the development of industry-relevant curricula, digital learning integration, and international exchange programmes for students and educators, efforts the department says are aimed at modernising training and improving graduate employability.

Gondwe said that long-term reforms should include a future-focused national planning framework.

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Johnathan Paoli

Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela has formally acknowledged the resignation of Dr Karen Stander as chairperson of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) Board, following allegations of racism, bullying, intimidation, and threats to her personal safety.

In a statement issued on Monday, Manamela said he was deeply concerned by the gravity of the issues raised and would meet with Stander later in the day to discuss the matter directly.

“These matters warrant serious attention, and I will engage thoroughly before determining the necessary course of action. NSFAS plays a vital role in expanding access to higher education, and we must ensure that it operates in a manner that is ethical, transparent and accountable,” Manamela said.

A previously scheduled meeting with the full NSFAS board is expected to proceed on Wednesday, where the minister will engage on issues of governance, accountability, and organisational culture.

The department reaffirmed its commitment to supporting NSFAS in delivering on its core mandate — providing financial assistance to deserving students while ensuring that public resources are managed with integrity.

Stander’s resignation letter, addressed to Manamela and leaked to News24, reportedly paints a disturbing picture of dysfunction within NSFAS’s highest structures.

She described the working environment as increasingly toxic, alleging bullying, intimidation, racism and hostility among board members.

“These conditions have made it impossible to continue discharging my duties effectively and in good conscience,” she said.

She claimed that the hostility had extended into her personal life.

“In recent months, this hostility has also extended beyond the professional realm, creating a real and present danger to the safety and well-being of my family.”

Appointed earlier this year by former minister Nobuhle Nkabane, Stander described her departure not as an act of defiance, but one of conscience.

“The concerns I raised during my tenure were never personal nor directed at any individual. They were strictly governance-related observations made in good faith,” she said.

Stander added that her communications with the department were aimed at strengthening oversight and accountability, not discrediting colleagues.

Her resignation comes amid ongoing turbulence at NSFAS, which has been plagued by governance crises, administrative instability and student protests over delayed payments.

Stander herself has previously been outspoken about systemic weaknesses within the organisation.

In September, she warned that NSFAS’s information and communications technology systems were severely flawed and posed significant cybersecurity risks, noting that the systems were misaligned with operational needs and lacked integration.

She also pointed to leadership instability spanning nearly a decade, describing it as a key factor behind organisational dysfunction and reputational damage.

In her letter, Stander allegedly expressed hope that her resignation might allow the board to stabilise under new leadership better suited to its internal dynamics.

She also commended the acting CEO and senior department officials for their professionalism under difficult circumstances, and expressed appreciation for their support.

Manamela’s office confirmed that further communication would follow after his meetings with both Stander and the NSFAS board later this week.

Inside Education reached out to Stander, who refused to comment on the matter at the time of publication.

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Johnathan Paoli

The Gauteng Department of Education has defended its decision to slash subsidies for Quintile 5 schools from R879 to R315 per learner for the 2026 academic year, insisting the move complies with national funding norms and was necessary due to budget cuts.

Department spokesperson Steve Mabona said the revised allocations were finalised on 30 September, the statutory deadline for confirming resource allocations, and that schools were notified in accordance with national guidelines.

“Since the 2021 medium-term expenditure framework, departments have faced budget cuts due to fiscal consolidation by the National Treasury. There’s no additional funding received, and there remains a shortfall in the 2026/27 budget even after implementing the new funding model,” Mabona said.

According to the department, the reduction aligns with the adequacy amount applied to Quintile 4 schools, as the department seeks to balance its books in the face of declining real-term allocations from Treasury.

Quintile 5 schools, typically fee-paying and located in better-off areas, have for several years received a discretionary provincial top-up to close the gap between their funding and that of Quintile 4 institutions. That top-up has now been withdrawn.

While Mabona said the decision was necessary to contain financial pressure and ensure compliance with national guidelines, the move has provoked a storm of criticism from opposition parties, teachers’ unions, and school governing bodies (SGBs), who warn it will trigger higher fees, job losses and larger class sizes.

The Solidarity Teachers’ Network has written to the department urging an immediate review of the cuts, warning that the 66% reduction will push the education system to breaking point.

Johan Botha, head of the network, said teachers and support staff would bear the brunt of the cuts.

“Overcrowded classrooms, rising workloads, and increasing emotional strain will make it nearly impossible for teachers to maintain effective instruction. This will erode teaching quality and ultimately harm our children’s education,” Botha said.

In a strongly worded letter, Solidarity accused the department of procedural failures and loss of professional trust, noting that some schools only received their funding letters after 14 October, well beyond the required deadline.

Solidarity has called on Gauteng Education MEC Matome Chiloane to restore funding to at least Quintile 4 levels pending consultation, release transparent data on how the cuts were determined, and ensure timely payments going forward.

The Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools (FEDSAS) estimates that at least 750 Gauteng schools will be affected by the cuts. Deputy CEO Jaco Deacon said the reduction represents a loss of about R500 per learner per year, or roughly R600,000 annually for a medium-sized school with 1 200 pupils.

“Schools have already finalised their 2026 budgets based on previous allocations. Many now face the impossible task of finding hundreds of thousands of rand to balance their books,” Deacon said.

Gauteng FEDSAS manager Deon Lerm added that the assumption that all Quintile 5 schools are wealthy is false.

“At some schools, up to 35% of fees cannot be recovered. Combined with this sudden loss of more than 60% of the subsidy, the enormity of the provincial department’s decision becomes clear,” Lerm said.

He warned that schools may have to cut School Governing Body (SGB)-funded teaching posts and scale back on staff development, directly impacting classroom quality.

Equal Education researcher Mahfouz Raffee said while Quintile 5 schools are usually located in better-resourced communities, many still serve learners from low-income households.

“This decision will disproportionately affect poorer pupils attending those schools, as their parents will now face higher fees or deteriorating school services,” Raffee said.

The department said schools may apply for fee increases or compensation in 2026.

“We acknowledge the concerns raised, but the department must align with national norms and manage within available resources,” Mabona said.

The department said it would continue to review spending priorities to manage the shortfall and prevent similar disruptions in the future.

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Sioux McKenna

The Sorbonne University, founded in Paris in 1253 and known globally as a symbol of education, science and culture, has announced that, starting in 2026, it will stop submitting data to Times Higher Education (THE) rankings.

It is joining a growing movement of universities questioning the value and methodology of these controversial league tables.

Rankings companies add together various indices that purport to measure quality. The indices include research outputs, the results of reputation surveys, the amount of money they receive in research grants and donations, and how many Nobel prize winners they have ever employed.

Nathalie Drach-Temam, president of the Sorbonne, stated that the data used to assess each university’s performance is not open or transparent and the reproducibility of the results produced cannot be guaranteed.

This echoes wider concerns about the lack of scientific rigour of ranking systems that claim to measure complex institutional performance through simplified metrics.

The problem is that the general public believe that the rankings offer an indication of quality. As a result rankings have enormous influence over the market. This includes the choice of where to study and where to invest funding.

The university’s decision aligns with its commitment to the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, an agreement signed by over 700 research organisations, funders and professional societies, and the Barcelona Declaration, signed by about 200 universities and research institutes.

Both advocate for open science practices to make scientific research, data, methods, and educational resources transparent, accessible and reusable by everyone without barriers. And both recommend “avoiding the use of rankings of research organisations in research assessment”.

The Sorbonne joins a growing list of high-profile institutions abandoning rankings. Columbia University, Utrecht University and several Indian institutes have opted out of major ranking systems. In the US, 17 medical and law schools, including Yale and Harvard, have withdrawn from discipline-specific rankings.

There are five major rankings companies and at least 20 smaller ones. On top of these are a similar number of discipline specific and regional rankings. Together they make up a billion dollar industry. Yet the rankings are accessible without charge.

The rankings industry has increasingly targeted African countries. It sees the continent as a new market at a time when it is losing traction among high profile institutions in the global north.

There has been a rapid increase in snazzy events run by rankings organisations on the continent. These events are very expensive and often quite luxurious – attended by vice-chancellors, academics, consultants and others.

As an academic involved in higher education teaching, I believe that chasing the rankings can harm Africa’s fragile higher education system. There are two main reasons for this.

Firstly, the rankings metrics largely focus on research output, rather than on the potential for that research to address local problems. Secondly, the rankings fail to consider higher education’s role in nurturing critical citizens, or contributing to the public good.

The Sorbonne’s decision reflects a growing body of opinion that the rankings industry is unscientific and a poor means of measuring quality.

Nevertheless, many vice-chancellors are not willing to risk the cost of withdrawing. Rankings might do a poor job of indicating quality, in all its nuanced forms. Nevertheless, they are very good at shaping public opinion. And even if a university chooses to stay out of the ranking by refusing to hand over its data, the industry continues to include it, based only on limited publicly available data.

The ranking industry

Rankings themselves are available for free. The ranking industry derives most of its revenue from reselling the data that universities provide. Universities submit detailed institutional data to ranking companies without charge. That information is then repackaged and sold back to institutions, governments and corporations.

This data includes institutional income. It often also includes contact details of staff and students. These are used for “reputation surveys”. In the case of QS University Rankings, “reputation” makes up more than 40% of the rankings.

This business model has created what can be described as a sophisticated data harvesting operation disguised as academic assessment.

Mounting criticism

Academic research has extensively documented the problems with ranking methodologies. These include:

the use of proxy metrics that poorly represent institutional quality. For example, while many university rankings do not include a measurement of teaching quality at all, those that do, use measures such as income, staff to student ratio, and international academic reputation.

composite indexing that combines unrelated measurements. The metrics that are collected are simply added together, even though they have no bearing on each other. Our students are repeatedly warned of the dangers of using composite measurement in research, and yet this is at the heart of the rankings industry.

subjective weighting systems that can dramatically alter results based on arbitrary decisions. If the system decides to weight reputation at 20% and then make university income worth 10%, we have one order of institutions. Switch these weightings to make the former 10% and the latter 20% and the list rearranges itself. And yet, the quality of the institutions is unchanged.

Rankings tend to favour research-intensive universities while ignoring teaching quality, community engagement and local relevance.

Most ranking systems emphasise English-language publications. This reinforces existing academic hierarchies rather than providing meaningful assessment of quality.

Where new rankings are being introduced, such as the Sub-Saharan Africa rankings, or the Emerging Economies rankings, or even the Impact rankings, they sadly still have the problem of proxy measures, and composite and subjective weightings.

In addition, many of the ranking companies refuse to reveal precise methodological detail. This makes it impossible to verify their claims or understand on what basis institutions are actually assessed.

Researchers argue that rankings have thrived because they align with the idea of higher education as a marketplace where institutions compete for market share. This has led universities to prioritise metrics that improve their ranking positions rather than activities that best serve their students and communities.

The emphasis on quantifiable outputs has created what scholars call “coercive isomorphism” – pressure for all universities to adopt similar structures and priorities regardless of their specific missions or local contexts.

Research shows that striving for a spot in the rankings limelight affects resource allocation, strategic planning and even which students apply to institutions. Some universities have shifted focus from teaching quality to research output specifically to improve rankings. Others have engaged in “gaming” – manipulating data to boost their positions.

Looking forward

Participation in methodologically flawed ranking systems presents a contradiction: universities built on principles of scientific research continue to support an industry whose methods would fail basic peer review standards.

For universities still participating, Sorbonne’s move raises an uncomfortable question: what are their institutional priorities and commitments to scientific integrity?

This article was first published in The Conversation.

INSIDE EDUCATION

Inside Education Reporter

Amanzi, a short film by Newcastle-born Lindani Msibi (26), who is studying an advanced diploma in drama and production at the Durban University of Technology (DUT), has won the award for best editing at the Canada Mobile International Film Festival (CIMFF).

Amanzi trounced entries from 10 countries to take the title. It was also nominated in the best cinematography and best mobile film categories.

Msibi described the nominations and win as “surreal”.

“I didn’t expect Amanzi to travel this far, let alone win an international award. Seeing my name among filmmakers from around the world reminded me why I started storytelling in the first place. Winning best editing was more than a personal victory; it was validation that stories from South Africa can stand tall on the global stage,” he said.

Amanzi, which is the isiZulu word for water, is the story of a woman tormented by ancestral spirits that demand that she embrace her calling as a traditional healer.

Msibi said the film explores the tension between modern religion and ancestral duty, using water as a metaphor for life, struggle, and renewal.

“The idea came from observing how water, something so ordinary, holds deep emotional, cultural and spiritual meaning. It’s about healing, connection and rediscovery. I wanted audiences to reflect on what sustains us, not just physically but spiritually,” said Msibi.

Behind the camera, Amanzi was a collaborative effort. “I was blessed with a passionate and creative team. From the cinematographer who captured the poetry in every shot to the sound designer who gave the film its heartbeat, every member brought something personal. That’s what made Amanzi truly alive,” he said.

Studying at DUT, he added, played a crucial role in his growth as a filmmaker.

“DUT gave me a space to experiment, to innovate and to learn without fear. The mentorship and training sharpened my skills but also helped me find my authentic voice. I learned to think critically about representation and storytelling ethics, which shaped who I am as a filmmaker today.”

Competing internationally taught him valuable lessons about creativity and authenticity, said Msibi.

“The biggest lesson is that your story matters, no matter where you come from. Don’t chase trends, chase truth. Our local stories are rich and layered; the world is waiting to hear them,” he added.

Msibi is already working on his next short film, exploring identity and memory through the eyes of a young South African woman reconnecting with her ancestral past. He also hopes to expand Amanzi into a feature-length project.

“The goal is to keep telling stories that carry both cultural depth and emotional honesty,” he said.

Inside Education