Editorial
When Minister Buti Manamela presented the Department of Higher Education and Training’s 2026/27 Annual Performance Plan (APP) to Parliament on 30 April 2026, he described it as more than another annual compliance document. It was framed as a reset, a shift away from box‑ticking toward measurable results and improved system performance.
South Africa’s post‑school education and training sector undoubtedly requires renewal. Years of governance instability, infrastructure backlogs, funding uncertainty and student support crises have eroded confidence across universities, TVET colleges and community learning centres. If this APP marks a genuine shift toward delivery, it will be welcomed. But ambition must align with capacity.
The Department deserves credit for engaging constructively with the Auditor‑General’s proactive review. Weak or unclear indicators, unrealistic targets, and verification gaps were identified in the draft plan, and in response, the Department refined definitions, strengthened internal quality assurance, and improved alignment between outcomes and measurement. That correction matters: clearer indicators strengthen oversight and signal a more structured approach to planning. However, improved drafting does not in itself expand fiscal space or resolve implementation constraints.
The core test remains coherence. If reform rhetoric is to translate into renewal, targets must align with resources, sequencing and institutional capacity. A reset cannot be defined solely by refined indicators or newly drafted bills; it must be demonstrated through adequately funded institutions capable of delivering on stated ambitions.
Over the medium term, the vote reflects cumulative baseline reductions of R6.13 billion. NSFAS absorbs R2.1 billion in cuts over the MTEF period, universities R2.15 billion, and the Skills Levy baseline declines by R1.3 billion. Infrastructure and TVET allocations are also reduced. In 2026/27 alone, the net baseline decrease amounts to R757 million. These are not technical adjustments; they constrain institutional capacity.
The tension is evident. The Department is expected to expand access, improve student success, increase doctoral output, grow artisan production and strengthen workplace‑based learning, while operating within a tightening resource envelope. Measurement reform enhances accountability. It does not increase funding.
Some targets have also been revised downward. The proportion of university lecturers holding doctoral degrees declines from 54% to 53%. TVET colleges meeting governance standards fell from 100% to 80%. The percentage of qualifying employers paid mandatory grants drops from 85% to 80%. Procurement set‑asides are reduced from 48.6% to 42% for women‑owned businesses, from 30.6% to 29% for youth‑owned enterprises, and from 81.9% to 70% for black‑owned businesses. These adjustments may reflect fiscal realism, but they amount to a reduction rather than the systemic reset the language suggests. Some may characterise this as a downward reset. Yet the term ‘reset’ typically implies a structural reconfiguration, a reconsideration of purpose, design, and operating logic. Reduction, by contrast, alters scale without necessarily altering structure. Shrinking a system is not the same as remaking it, and the distinction is worth keeping in view when the language of reset is invoked.
To be fair, the APP contains substantive commitments. It aims to produce 22,000 artisans in 2026/27, bringing the cumulative target to 122,000 by 2028/29. It further projects 91,800 workplace‑based learning placements this year, bringing the five‑year total to 500,000 over the 2024–2029 planning cycle, and the establishment of 13 new Centres of Specialisation toward a medium‑term target of 90. In the TVET sector, enrolment is set to reach 650,000 students in 2026/27, including 36,000 through online provision, while four Trade Test Centres are expected to become operational this year as part of a five‑year goal of 28 by 2028/29. It includes infrastructure initiatives such as the TUT Giyani campus and expanded medical and veterinary training facilities.
The APP is accompanied by several legislative processes, including the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Further Amendment Bill, 2024; the Skills Development Amendment Bill, 2024; the Continuing Education and Training (CET) Amendment Bill, 2022; the Higher Education Amendment Bill; the NSFAS Amendment Bill; and the Post‑School Education and Training Central Application Service Bill, 2024. While these instruments signal regulatory activity across the system, from SETA grant governance to CET institutional configuration and student funding oversight, they largely represent refinements and realignments within the existing post‑school architecture rather than a wholesale redesign of it. Their eventual impact will depend less on their formal passage and more on whether implementation capacity, funding stability and institutional accountability are materially strengthened.
The 2026/27 APP presents a more technically polished plan operating within fiscal constraints. Whether it becomes the foundation of genuine renewal in the post‑school sector will depend less on the precision of its language and more on whether the system is financially and institutionally equipped to deliver what it promises.
The real test, therefore, will not lie in the targets’ ambition, but in whether the system is properly resourced and structured to meet them.
