Author: Malema Seroba

How can monitoring and evaluation as a governance tool enhance accountability in SETAs? Dr Pheaga Jacob Moasa‘s study explored monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as a vital governance mechanism for enhancing accountability within South Africa’s Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs). SETAs are tasked with advancing skills development and contributing to national socioeconomic goals. 

However, several have struggled with corruption, weak governance, and ineffective implementation of training initiatives. The research aimed to develop a framework that integrates M&E into governance structures to ensure transparency, accountability, and effective service delivery.

Background and Rationale

Despite significant public investment in skills development, SETAs have been marred by mismanagement, maladministration, and poor oversight. Billions in training levies are disbursed annually, yet the return on investment in terms of skills outcomes remains limited. The researcher identified the lack of structured and credible M&E systems as a key factor undermining accountability. Consequently, this study sought to determine how M&E can function as a governance tool to improve decision-making and reduce corruption within SETAs such as the BankSETA, INSETA, and W&RSETA.

Theoretical Framework

• The study is grounded in governance theory and the Theory of Change, linking effective oversight to outcomes and impact. Key concepts discussed include:
• Return on Investment (ROI) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) – assessing the value derived from training interventions.
• Value for Money (VfM) – balancing economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
• Results-Based Management (RBM) – ensuring activities produce measurable outcomes aligned with strategic goals.

Methodology

A qualitative research approach was adopted. Data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with executives and staff members from three SETAs. The sample of 14 participants provided rich, in-depth insights into the institutionalisation of M&E practices.

Key Findings

1. Weak M&E Implementation

M&E practices across the SETAs were fragmented and underdeveloped. Only W&RSETA had a dedicated M&E division, while others embedded M&E within project management structures. There was limited automation and data reliability, constraining meaningful reporting.

2. Link Between M&E and Governance

The study confirmed a strong relationship between effective M&E and good governance. Where M&E systems were active, they improved oversight, accountability, and financial management. M&E also helped detect corruption risks and ensure proper use of discretionary grants and learner stipends.

3. Governance Challenges

Common governance weaknesses included:

• Inadequate consequence management
• Poor communication and policy enforcement
• Lack of compliance culture
• Weak risk management and record-keeping
• Minimal collaboration between governance structures

These issues hindered accountability and reduced SETAs’ capacity to deliver skills effectively.

4. Willingness but Low Capacity

While SETA leadership showed a willingness to adopt results-based systems, technical and human resource limitations delayed implementation. The absence of automated tools and trained personnel further constrained progress.

Proposed M&E Governance Framework

Moasa introduced a Tailored Integrated Performance and Skills (TIPS) Framework, designed to align M&E with strategic, operational, and accountability processes in SETAs. The framework emphasises:

• Continuous monitoring through all project stages
• Integration of M&E with risk management and auditing functions
• Building M&E capacity and institutional culture
• Using M&E findings to inform strategic planning and policy refinement

Conclusions: Monitoring And Evaluation

The research concludes that M&E is indispensable for credible governance in SETAs. When applied systematically, it enhances transparency, reduces corruption risks, and ensures that public funds for skills development yield tangible socioeconomic outcomes. The study recommends:

• Strengthening institutional M&E capacity
• Automating monitoring tools for accuracy and consistency
• Embedding M&E within governance and accountability frameworks
• Regular auditing of performance data to uphold reliability

Contribution

The study contributed a practical governance-oriented M&E framework tailored for South Africa’s skills development sector. It provided actionable insights for policymakers, SETA boards, and management to embed accountability and performance measurement within the skills ecosystem, thereby advancing the broader goals of the National Development Plan (NDP) and National Skills Development Plan (NSDP).

What do sports coaching realities look like in South Africa? Dr Desiree Vardhan’s doctoral thesis, “Sports Coaching Realities in South Africa: An Exploratory Study,” investigated the lived experiences of national athletes, sports coaches, and sports coaching leaders within the South African context. Conducted through The DaVinci Institute, it aimed to construct a grounded framework for developing an inclusive and professional sports coaching system suited to developing socio-economic contexts.

Purpose and Methodology

The study sought to understand the dynamics shaping sports coaching realities in South Africa. Using a qualitative, grounded theory approach, Vardhan collected data from 515 participants, including athletes, coaches, and leaders, through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. The analysis employed software to code, categorize, and derive key themes, ultimately informing the creation of a conceptual framework for systemic coaching development.

Key Findings and Themes

The study revealed five dominant themes reflecting the aspirations and challenges of South African sports coaching:

1. Developing an Inclusive, Fit-for-Purpose Coaching System

Participants emphasized the necessity of a system that is athlete-centred and coach-led, ensuring inclusivity, diversity, and access to education and employment opportunities. There was strong support for aligning coach development pathways with athlete development pathways and formalizing professional structures.

2. Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders

Stakeholders called for greater synergy between government bodies, sports federations, educational institutions, and funding agencies. Improved collaboration was seen as vital for ensuring resource distribution, policy alignment, and sustained professional growth.

3. Professionalisation of Coaching Practices

The research underscored the urgent need for professional standards, ethical codes of conduct, and formal recognition of coaching as a legitimate career. Participants advocated for national accreditation systems, peer-review mechanisms, and stronger leadership accountability.

4. Addressing Barriers to Professionalisation

Persistent barriers such as inadequate funding, policy gaps, lack of education opportunities, and poor implementation of frameworks were identified. Many stakeholders remained unaware of or disengaged from the South African Coaching Framework, highlighting a gap between policy intent and practice.

5. Embracing Global Coaching Practices

Participants stressed the importance of international benchmarking and knowledge exchange. They advocated integrating global best practices while maintaining local relevance, particularly through mentorship, networking, and continuous professional development.

Conceptual Framework for Sports Coaching Development

Vardhan proposed a systemic framework incorporating the five themes above. This model promotes open interaction between subsystems—such as education, funding, governance, and athlete development—illustrating a dynamic and interconnected ecosystem. The framework encourages self-improvement, sustainability, and global engagement, positioning coaching as both a profession and a developmental catalyst.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The study concluded that South Africa’s sports coaching environment requires a transformational shift toward inclusivity, professionalism, and sustainability. It recommends:

• Legislative review to support professional regulation.
• Capacity-building programmes for coaches and administrators.
• Integration of coaching education across formal and informal learning spaces.
• Strengthened collaboration between local and international sports bodies.
• Implementation of continuous professional development pathways.

Significance of Sports Coaching

Dr Vardhan’s work contributes significantly to the discourse on sports development and management in Africa. By situating coaching within socio-economic realities, it provides a contextually grounded roadmap for reforming the sports ecosystem, bridging gaps between policy, practice, and lived experience.

In a world that is increasingly undefinable, Dr Morne Mostert embodies the reimagining of education’s purpose and practice. A long-time advocate for thinking as the highest form of human capability, he stands at the forefront of this transformation. In an interview with The DaVinci Institute doctoral alumnus, Dr Mostert explores the evolving purpose of education, the nature of applied learning, and the profound implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on human consciousness, creativity, and capability.

His reflections invite us to think beyond compliance-driven education and to cultivate learning systems that enable students not merely to know, but to think, imagine, and design for a shared future. Dr Mostert’s doctorate focused on an integrated approach to leadership development through systemic leadership learning.

The Future of Learning and the DaVinci Philosophy

Asked about DaVinci’s contribution to contemporary education, Dr Morne Mostert began by situating the institute within a broader global shift. 

“The DaVinci Institute is not just another institution of higher learning. It represents a significant thinking movement, a deliberate effort to redefine learning as the process of expanding capability rather than accumulating information,” he said.

He shared that DaVinci’s focus on applied learning challenges the industrial-era assumption that theory precedes practice. At DaVinci, it is the reverse hierarchy. Practice is not a lower form of knowledge; it is simultaneously knowledge in action and generative of new knowledge

Dr Mostert argued that such an approach is essential in an age where the half-life of knowledge continues to shrink exponentially. Knowledge now expires faster than institutions can validate it. That means that education can no longer be thought of as transmission; it must be conceived of as transformation.

Thinking as a Capability

Throughout the conversation, Dr Mostert returned to the theme of thinking not as a generic skill but as a disciplined capability. 

“When I speak about thinking, I do not mean merely cognition or logic. Thinking, particularly for senior executives, is the ability to make meaning in context, to integrate, to discern, to connect, and to imagine alternatives,” he shared.

He suggested that higher education often mistakes compliance for capability. Many institutions have become agents of obedience rather than agents of curiosity. Students learn to satisfy institutional criteria, but not necessarily to deploy thinking. That is why DaVinci’s emphasis on critical, creative, and systems thinking is so important. It restores learning as a deep human act of exploration.

According to Dr Mostert, the future belongs not to those who know the most, but to those who think best in ambiguity. In complex systems, prediction is impossible. What matters is the ability to sense, interpret, intuit and respond; to navigate meaningfully when certainty is no longer available. That is the advantage of thinking.

Artificial Intelligence and the Meaning of Human Learning

Turning to the rise of AI, Dr Mostert described it as both an opportunity and a profound philosophical challenge. 

“Artificial intelligence already outperforms humans on many cognitive tasks. The question, therefore, is not whether we can compete, but whether we can collaborate and, more importantly, whether we can rediscover what is distinctly human,” said Dr Mostert. 

As technology becomes pervasive, it is stirring the uncomfortable realistion that we may not know much about the nature, art and science of being human.

He noted that while AI excels at processing data, it cannot yet engage in contextual meaning-making. AI can simulate language, but it cannot experience. It can predict, but it cannot imagine with meaning. It can connect information, but it cannot connect emotion. That distinction between computation and consciousness is one of the new frontiers of education.

For Dr Mostert, this has radical implications for curriculum design. If machines can already do what institutions train students to do, then education must investigate what machines cannot: reflection, ethics, judgment, creativity, and the capacity to design alternative, more preferable futures.

On Systems Thinking and the Fifth Industrial Revolution

Dr Mostert emphasised that education must now be understood within a systems context. 

“We are entering what some call the Fifth Industrial Revolution, an era that integrates technology with humanity. But this integration will succeed only if we think systemically, understanding that every action, every innovation, exists within a web of increasingly invisible relationships,” he said.

He elaborated that systems thinking is not about drawing circles and arrows. It is about perceiving wholeness, seeing how elements interact dynamically to produce emergent realities. It is the discipline of intellectual humility.

When asked how DaVinci embodies this approach, Dr Mostert highlighted its integrated model of Management, Leadership, and Innovation. He said DaVinci does not teach these as separate disciplines. It stimulates emerging insights through interdependent modes of thinking, managing complexity, leading meaningfully, and innovating responsibly.”

He added that this orientation prepares students for the ethics of the new economy. 

“We cannot talk about innovation without discussing consequences. Systems thinking compels accountability, the recognition that every design has circular ripple effects. That is what distinguishes a technologist from a responsible innovator,” he said.

Purpose, Curiosity, and the Co-Creation of Knowledge

At the heart of Dr Mostert’s philosophy is the belief that education should be a co-creative process. 

“Institutions do not own knowledge, but knowledge is co-created in dialogue, between learner and facilitator, between theory and practice, between self and society,” he explained.

He noted that DaVinci’s learning model encourages curiosità, a Leonardo-inspired concept of disciplined curiosity. When asked how learners can cultivate this balance, Dr Mostert emphasised the importance of bold curiosity and humble self-direction. He added that to direct yourself is to take responsibility for your learning journey, to interrogate assumptions, to frame your own challenges, and to pursue meaning rather than mere achievement.

The Role of the Educator in a Changing World

On the evolving role of educators, Dr Mostert was clear that in the new paradigm, the educator is not a transmitter of knowledge but a designer of learning experiences. The task is to create conditions where higher-order thinking can occur.

“This means educators must themselves become thinkers able to model curiosity, critical reflection, and ethical judgment. You cannot teach thinking if you are afraid of ambiguity. The educator’s power now lies not in having the answers but in framing stimulating questions,” he said.

Dr Mostert also warned against the commodification of education; adding that when learning becomes a product, curiosity dies. True education is not transactional; it is transformational. It is about awakening capability, the capacity to generate new possibilities in a rapidly changing world.

Reimagining the Future of Education

Asked to imagine the future of higher education, Dr Mostert responded thoughtfully. The future will not be defined by buildings, timetables, or credentials. It will be defined by networks of thinking, communities of practice united by curiosity and purpose.

He envisaged learning environments where technology supports contextual intelligence rather than replaces it. 

“AI will not be the teacher; it will be the mirror, reflecting our thinking to us. It will challenge us to ask better questions,” he said.

Finally, he believes that the future of education depends on our ability to re-humanise learning. The next revolution is not digital; it is existential. He added that we must decide what kind of species we want to be in a world of intelligent machines. Education is the instrument through which that decision is made.

Closing Reflection: Dr Morne Mostert

Dr Morne Mostert’s reflections remind us that the true frontier of education lies not in technology, but in thought. As The DaVinci Institute continues to nurture thinkers, innovators, and leaders capable of navigating complexity with wisdom and care, its challenge is both timely and profound: to reclaim education as the art of thinking, the discipline of meaning-making, and the moral practice of designing a humane future.