Date: 25/11/2003
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Debate on education Bills, NCOP
SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROFESSOR KADER ASMAL, MP, ON THE OCCASION OF THE DEBATE ON THE EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL AND THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL, National Council of Provinces, 25 November 2003
The introduction of this piece of legislation marks a turning point in our history, because for the first time an education Bill does not introduce any new policy directions. We have reached a stage where our education policies and systems are all in place, and we have no need for any radical new departures. And therefore the major components of this Bill represent only a fine-tuning of the system - a minor amendment to align other bits of legislation, and to deal with emerging problems that have arisen in the implementation of our laws. In many ways therefore, this Bill is a symptom of our political maturity, which requires only minor amendments to legislation on an annual basis.
This Education Laws Amendment Bill seeks to amend a number of existing laws: the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Act (our first Act after liberation, passed in 1995), the Schools Act of 1996, the Employment of Educators Act (of 1998), and the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act of 2001. Many of the amendments are not contentious, need very little explanation, and I am sure will receive the support of everyone. Other clauses seek to improve the efficiency of the system, which should also be supported by all parties.
The more technical amendments are as follows. Firstly, an increase in the number of seats allocated to teacher unions on the SAQA Board, on the basis that there are now three national teacher unions, not two as before. I hope this can be supported.
Secondly, we seek to amend the Employment of Educators Act. We do so to correct some of the references to other clauses, and also to allow the employer to appeal a finding or sanction of a Presiding Officer. Employees currently have this right, of course. But because we appoint an independent Presiding Officer to oversee our disciplinary proceedings, we have had cases where the sanctions meted out to teachers were highly inconsistent, and sometimes seemingly unfair. In some cases, the sanctions were simply too light in comparison with other decisions in similar cases. This is where the Head of Department must have the right to appeal, so that the matter may be reconsidered by the MEC. So this amendment is necessary in order to ensure consistency and fairness in our disciplinary procedures.
The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act (the "GENFETQA" Act) is amended in order to formalise the new name for this Council. They have chosen the name Umalusi (the shepherd), signifying their role in protecting and advancing standards in education, and we seek your approval for this. I am sure you will agree that Umalusi sounds much better than GENFETQA. I regret only that we did not change the short name of the Bill at the same time!
The major substantive amendment proposed by the legislation relates to the so-called "top-up" payments to teachers. This practice of school governing bodies paying state-employed teachers additional income has created enormous complexities in the system, and needs to be regulated. In some cases, the provincial Department of Education has been taken to court to try and enforce the continued payment of a perk, after the governing body has decided not to continue with this. It also has the effect of criminalizing teachers, who may be charged under the Employment of Educators Act for not having permission to receive extra income. Our aim is to reconcile the two laws, and to ensure nobody is prejudiced.
The legislation therefore proposes that before a school governing body makes any additional payments to teachers, they should receive the approval of the department. This in turn will require certain steps, including the assurance that all parents are aware of the intention, that explicit provisions are made in the school budget for this, and that there is transparency in regard to who gets the top-up, what this is for, and how much it entails. We have too many cases where parents are not aware of these matters, and where the payments seem to be a case of "perks for pals", determined only by the principal. This is undemocratic, and contravenes the principle of transparency in the management of school budgets, which contravenes the whole spirit of the Schools Act, and is not acceptable.
I have received a number of complaints from teachers where they have felt that the payments to some created serious and invidious challenges for many.
Provincial departments will be required to ensure that top-ups are only paid for genuine cases of extra work. State employees should never be paid extra for doing the jobs for which they are already paid by the state. Only where there are duties that go beyond the "call of duty", such as additional extra-mural activities, or some special responsibilities for educational leadership, should departments give approval. An agreed set of criteria will be used by all departments, which will ensure consistency in the application of the law. I must also mention that we already have a Performance Management System, whereby good teachers can be rewarded, so performance cannot be considered as a basis for additional rewards.
I am pleased to report to you, for those pessimists who believe that requests for approval will be caught up in administrative tangles, that we have built into the law an obligation for provincial departments to reply to any requests in a specified time, failing which the school may appeal to the MEC. I can also report that we have already begun to plan for implementation, subject to the approval of this Council, to ensure that we have a uniform approach across provinces to the matter. It is my expectation that over time these approvals will give us a good sense of where there are pressures in the system, which will allow us to perhaps respond to these in our salary negotiations with teacher unions. If, for example, schools are having difficulty getting teachers to perform certain essential education duties, and need to pay additional amounts for these, we should look at whether the state should in fact be providing for such needs.
There has been a lot of mischief making on this issue, with attempts to score political points by misrepresenting the amendment. Newspaper headlines have echoed the uninformed cries of those who have benefited from the current arrangements, claiming that there is to be a "ban on top-ups". The legislation proposes no such ban. It only seeks to ensure that additional payments are properly planned and budgeted for, that they are approved by all parents of the school, and that the provincial departments are aware of the intention to do so.
I am sure you will agree this is not unreasonable in the context of state employees in a public education system. We do not allow any other public servant to receive additional payments from the public, so this is a special dispensation for teachers. If a policeman does so, he or she will be charged with fraud. I cannot imagine any private sector employer agreeing to allow its employees to receive additional payments from someone else. No other country in the world would allow such a situation either, so we are creating an international precedent. The least we can do therefore is to ensure that in allowing the practice to continue, we ensure that it is done in an orderly fashion, and with the full approval of the provincial departments as employers.
The National Council of Provinces is being asked today to take a stand on the matter of public education. Some political parties claim to defend the interests of public education, and then propose privatised approaches, including a system of vouchers, which will undermine the very system of public education. A public education system has state-employed teachers at its core, who are accountable to the provincial Departments of Education for their work. The call by some parties to deregulate this environment, and allow a "free market" for teachers, will completely erode the foundations of our system, and result in a very messy system, with teachers more concerned about pleasing the governing body than in performing the duties they are paid for. I am sure you do not want our schools to move in that direction, and therefore call on you to support the Bill.
I am also here to call on the National Council of Provinces to support the Higher Education Amendment Bill. The most important part of the Bill is the provision for the establishment of the National Institutes for Higher Education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.
The establishment of the National Institutes will be historic not only because it signals a new beginning for higher education, but also because it introduces a new institutional form. The National Institutes for Higher Education are not being established as autonomous higher education institutions as is the case with existing universities and technikons. Instead, and as indicated in the National Plan for Higher Education, the National Institutes for Higher Education "would serve as administrative and governance hubs for ensuring the coherent provision of higher education programmes in response to regional needs through programme collaboration between higher education institutions" currently operating in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.
The higher education needs of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape are now addressed as part of the government's new institutional landscape for higher education. The needs of our people in all nine provinces will now be met. I wish to thank the National Council of Provinces for supporting the Bill. We all celebrate with our people in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.
Issued by: Ministry of Education
25 November 2003
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Debate on education Bills, NCOP
SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROFESSOR KADER ASMAL, MP, ON THE OCCASION OF THE DEBATE ON THE EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL AND THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL, National Council of Provinces, 25 November 2003
The introduction of this piece of legislation marks a turning point in our history, because for the first time an education Bill does not introduce any new policy directions. We have reached a stage where our education policies and systems are all in place, and we have no need for any radical new departures. And therefore the major components of this Bill represent only a fine-tuning of the system - a minor amendment to align other bits of legislation, and to deal with emerging problems that have arisen in the implementation of our laws. In many ways therefore, this Bill is a symptom of our political maturity, which requires only minor amendments to legislation on an annual basis.
This Education Laws Amendment Bill seeks to amend a number of existing laws: the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Act (our first Act after liberation, passed in 1995), the Schools Act of 1996, the Employment of Educators Act (of 1998), and the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act of 2001. Many of the amendments are not contentious, need very little explanation, and I am sure will receive the support of everyone. Other clauses seek to improve the efficiency of the system, which should also be supported by all parties.
The more technical amendments are as follows. Firstly, an increase in the number of seats allocated to teacher unions on the SAQA Board, on the basis that there are now three national teacher unions, not two as before. I hope this can be supported.
Secondly, we seek to amend the Employment of Educators Act. We do so to correct some of the references to other clauses, and also to allow the employer to appeal a finding or sanction of a Presiding Officer. Employees currently have this right, of course. But because we appoint an independent Presiding Officer to oversee our disciplinary proceedings, we have had cases where the sanctions meted out to teachers were highly inconsistent, and sometimes seemingly unfair. In some cases, the sanctions were simply too light in comparison with other decisions in similar cases. This is where the Head of Department must have the right to appeal, so that the matter may be reconsidered by the MEC. So this amendment is necessary in order to ensure consistency and fairness in our disciplinary procedures.
The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act (the "GENFETQA" Act) is amended in order to formalise the new name for this Council. They have chosen the name Umalusi (the shepherd), signifying their role in protecting and advancing standards in education, and we seek your approval for this. I am sure you will agree that Umalusi sounds much better than GENFETQA. I regret only that we did not change the short name of the Bill at the same time!
The major substantive amendment proposed by the legislation relates to the so-called "top-up" payments to teachers. This practice of school governing bodies paying state-employed teachers additional income has created enormous complexities in the system, and needs to be regulated. In some cases, the provincial Department of Education has been taken to court to try and enforce the continued payment of a perk, after the governing body has decided not to continue with this. It also has the effect of criminalizing teachers, who may be charged under the Employment of Educators Act for not having permission to receive extra income. Our aim is to reconcile the two laws, and to ensure nobody is prejudiced.
The legislation therefore proposes that before a school governing body makes any additional payments to teachers, they should receive the approval of the department. This in turn will require certain steps, including the assurance that all parents are aware of the intention, that explicit provisions are made in the school budget for this, and that there is transparency in regard to who gets the top-up, what this is for, and how much it entails. We have too many cases where parents are not aware of these matters, and where the payments seem to be a case of "perks for pals", determined only by the principal. This is undemocratic, and contravenes the principle of transparency in the management of school budgets, which contravenes the whole spirit of the Schools Act, and is not acceptable.
I have received a number of complaints from teachers where they have felt that the payments to some created serious and invidious challenges for many.
Provincial departments will be required to ensure that top-ups are only paid for genuine cases of extra work. State employees should never be paid extra for doing the jobs for which they are already paid by the state. Only where there are duties that go beyond the "call of duty", such as additional extra-mural activities, or some special responsibilities for educational leadership, should departments give approval. An agreed set of criteria will be used by all departments, which will ensure consistency in the application of the law. I must also mention that we already have a Performance Management System, whereby good teachers can be rewarded, so performance cannot be considered as a basis for additional rewards.
I am pleased to report to you, for those pessimists who believe that requests for approval will be caught up in administrative tangles, that we have built into the law an obligation for provincial departments to reply to any requests in a specified time, failing which the school may appeal to the MEC. I can also report that we have already begun to plan for implementation, subject to the approval of this Council, to ensure that we have a uniform approach across provinces to the matter. It is my expectation that over time these approvals will give us a good sense of where there are pressures in the system, which will allow us to perhaps respond to these in our salary negotiations with teacher unions. If, for example, schools are having difficulty getting teachers to perform certain essential education duties, and need to pay additional amounts for these, we should look at whether the state should in fact be providing for such needs.
There has been a lot of mischief making on this issue, with attempts to score political points by misrepresenting the amendment. Newspaper headlines have echoed the uninformed cries of those who have benefited from the current arrangements, claiming that there is to be a "ban on top-ups". The legislation proposes no such ban. It only seeks to ensure that additional payments are properly planned and budgeted for, that they are approved by all parents of the school, and that the provincial departments are aware of the intention to do so.
I am sure you will agree this is not unreasonable in the context of state employees in a public education system. We do not allow any other public servant to receive additional payments from the public, so this is a special dispensation for teachers. If a policeman does so, he or she will be charged with fraud. I cannot imagine any private sector employer agreeing to allow its employees to receive additional payments from someone else. No other country in the world would allow such a situation either, so we are creating an international precedent. The least we can do therefore is to ensure that in allowing the practice to continue, we ensure that it is done in an orderly fashion, and with the full approval of the provincial departments as employers.
The National Council of Provinces is being asked today to take a stand on the matter of public education. Some political parties claim to defend the interests of public education, and then propose privatised approaches, including a system of vouchers, which will undermine the very system of public education. A public education system has state-employed teachers at its core, who are accountable to the provincial Departments of Education for their work. The call by some parties to deregulate this environment, and allow a "free market" for teachers, will completely erode the foundations of our system, and result in a very messy system, with teachers more concerned about pleasing the governing body than in performing the duties they are paid for. I am sure you do not want our schools to move in that direction, and therefore call on you to support the Bill.
I am also here to call on the National Council of Provinces to support the Higher Education Amendment Bill. The most important part of the Bill is the provision for the establishment of the National Institutes for Higher Education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.
The establishment of the National Institutes will be historic not only because it signals a new beginning for higher education, but also because it introduces a new institutional form. The National Institutes for Higher Education are not being established as autonomous higher education institutions as is the case with existing universities and technikons. Instead, and as indicated in the National Plan for Higher Education, the National Institutes for Higher Education "would serve as administrative and governance hubs for ensuring the coherent provision of higher education programmes in response to regional needs through programme collaboration between higher education institutions" currently operating in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.
The higher education needs of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape are now addressed as part of the government's new institutional landscape for higher education. The needs of our people in all nine provinces will now be met. I wish to thank the National Council of Provinces for supporting the Bill. We all celebrate with our people in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape.
Issued by: Ministry of Education
25 November 2003
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
