duties. The number of temporary educators in the system is also considerably high because provincial education departments view the employment of temporary educators as a less costly option. Further, parents are being exploited by increasingly being called upon to volunteer their services as substitute educators owing to the demand for substitute educators far exceeding supply in the provinces.
3.5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF A RAM
A RAM is not neutral. It contains a number of basic assumptions regarding what is important and what is not. In other words it consists of ‘systematized subjective opinions’. Similarly, the PPM is based on a number of factors and variables with regard to what is considered important with regard to educator provisioning. However, in deciding on particular factors and variables, micro-political activity can be a strong influence on decision making and be subject to sub-unit power, a factor which is likely to increase in times of financial constraint. Thomas (1999:185-186) has noted in his study that during the process of devising a RAM, its details were influenced by micro-political activity and the priority and preferences of the main change agents. Although the rhetoric was of rationality, the way in which the details of the formula were agreed upon was subject to the influence of powerful individuals.
It must be stressed that RAM’s are constrained by budgets. A RAM does not decide on budgets, decision makers do. Therefore, a RAM does not eliminate the politics of the budgetary process (Field & Klingert 2001:84). It is, therefore, important to note that the PPM does not create educator posts. It can only distribute educator posts. The provincial education budget allocated for personnel expenditure creates educator posts. The determination of the size of the provincial education budget is in fact a political activity with provincial legislatures determining education expenditure.
Key to a RAM is the principle of greater transparency, consistency and rationality (Thomas 1999:183). A RAM such as the PPM should, therefore, make explicit what resources are available and how they will be allocated. The extent to which the implementers of the PPM are able to ensure transparency, however, is a moot point. Field and Klingert (2001:87), therefore, posit that if there is less than total transparency there seems little point in having a model.
A RAM should give organizations a reasonable degree of certainty that the resources allocated will also be the resources available during the financial year and provide them with some measure of stability over the relevant period (Field and Klingert 2001:87).
3.5.2 WHY USE A RAM?
The introduction of a major management tool such as a RAM is usually the result of some kind of pressure. This pressure, according to Field and Klingert (2001:85), normally stems from perceived inconsistencies or unfairness from the user constituency.
Dissatisfaction with dysfunctionalities of existing methods of resource allocation among the interested parties might cause a demand for new methods. Inconsistencies between criteria used by the government in distributing resources and those used at the institutional level might also be conducive to the introduction of the use of a RAM. The PPM was introduced owing to pressure from educators and educator unions. This pressure was largely as a result of claims of unfairness in educator distribution to schools from the educator constituency. However, from the point of view of the education department, the PPM was seen as a major innovation in terms of its strategic and operational planning initiatives.
Thomas (1999:184-185) contends that trends towards formulaic approaches have two principal aims: to change the culture of organizations towards a more entrepreneurial approach by reflecting the pressures of the external environment; and to bring a more rational basis to the allocation of resources. Further, he adds that demands for rationality in the allocation of resources and for strengthening of the planning process have placed considerable emphasis on the need to provide consistent data for decision making at a strategic, tactical and operational level. Abhilak (2000:2) commenting on the application of the PPM, therefore, makes a valid point that effective implementation of the PPM is dependent on accurate data. Educator unions have consistently challenged the department on the accuracy of the data used in determining the PPN of schools. They consistently maintain that the PPNs of schools are flawed owing to the lack of correct statistics in the department’s database.
3.5.3 POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS IN THE USE OF A RAM
Wildavsky (Thomas 1999:185) notes that the initial introduction of formula-based models for resource allocation may imply a radical redistribution of resources compared with previous historic patterns of allocation. Therefore, when a RAM is introduced,
agreement amongst all stakeholders to its implementation is of paramount importance.
When the revised PPM was introduced in 2003, educator unions were far from happy at the manner in which it was implemented. After field-testing of the revised PPM, the unions accused the state officials of not consulting them with regard to the results of the field testing. Consequently, without approval of the unions the revised PPM was implemented.
In most cases, a RAM will in itself change the outcome of the institution’s resource allocation processes. There will be winners and losers. Economic theory suggests that if losers can be compensated this should reduce the resistance to the adoption of such a model. In a survey conducted by Field and Klingert (2001:86) they found that this was an important issue. Two thirds of respondents reported some level of disagreement (signing up to the model does not necessarily mean that people are happy with it), although several were very relaxed about it. However, there are always winners and losers when the ‘pot’ is constrained. The losers will be unhappy. The winners, however, are frustrated because they cannot get their hands quick enough on the resources that the RAM suggests they are entitled to. The data generated in this study aims to identify the institutions and groupings that are ‘winners’ and the institutions and groupings that are ‘losers’ when the PPM distributes posts to schools.
A RAM is not regarded as a fixed and static entity. Therefore, it is important to accept that a RAM may change over time – there may be minor revisions each year. These may be the result of inconsistencies or changed priorities due to the ‘changing environment’, but in all cases there should be agreement amongst all stakeholders to the revisions. Field and Klingert (2001:87) note that when a RAM is first introduced, perfection is highly unlikely and will, therefore, need regular review owing to changes in external circumstances and internal politics. However, they advocate that when changes are made to a RAM, the basic features should be kept for as long as possible to maintain predictability. The PPM was revised in 2002 owing to dissatisfaction with the original PPM. In revising the model, the core of the model was kept intact and new design features were added to the model.
In Field and Klingert’s (2001:87) study, a member noted that RAM’s seem to degenerate over time as concessions to special interests at institutions are incorporated. When this happens it damages the very transparency that the RAM was supposed to achieve.
Further, over time, the insidious growth of new features or calculations can lead to a situation where very few people understand the model anymore. This can lead to users of the model becoming totally perplexed and may call into question issues of transparency of the RAM. The PPM and its subsequent revision have resulted in the model becoming quite complex. The various formulae and calculations make it difficult for principals to verify their educator establishments manually.
3.5.4 EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN THE USE OF A RAM
Equity considerations are important when it comes to resource distribution. It is, therefore, necessary to look at the different conceptions of equity.
Broadly speaking, the concept equity is commonly equated with ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’.
Simkins (1995:222), however, makes the distinction between ‘procedural’ and
‘distributive’ equity – the former concerning fair treatment in terms of rules and procedures, the latter concerning fairness in the distribution of resources and opportunities. The PPM, for example, can be argued to be more procedurally equitable in that it is based on objective criteria (in the sense that the criteria are set out as common rules and not determined by administrative discretion). More challenging and complex questions are raised, however, when the issues of distributional equity are addressed with regard to the PPM.
When dealing with distributional equity, Simkins (1995:222) raises the following pertinent questions:
• What does ‘equal treatment’ mean? Does it mean ‘identical’ or ‘equivalent’ for example?
• Should it be conceived in terms of access to resource provision, of the nature of the educational experiences which the resources provide, or of the outcomes or benefits which result for the individual?
Given the above dilemma, the researcher chose to look at distributional equity from two perspectives in this study, namely, equity in terms of the quality of educators as resource inputs and equity based on the outcomes educators as a resource are intended to contribute.
Simkins (1995:224) advances that if we assume that there is a fixed quantity of resources to be allocated and that learners have different capacities to benefit in terms of learning from a given level of resourcing, then there is a clear choice available. We can attempt to maximize the total learning gain by directing resources to those whom we expect to gain the most or we can direct resources to those whom we judge to be the most disadvantaged. In terms of redress, the PPM in principle directs additional human resources to disadvantaged schools owing to the assumption that by directing additional resources to these schools smaller class sizes will be created which in turn may enhance educational quality. However, it should be noted that for any resource distribution to schools to have any positive effect on learning a full analysis of the existing resource position of individual schools should be done. This should include the quality of the resources a school has and can attract in terms, for example, of teacher qualifications or teacher experience. Such information is important so as not to exacerbate inequity from a distributional equity perspective.