Date: 16/09/2003
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Debate on Education Laws Amendment Bill, NA


SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROFESSOR KADER ASMAL, MP: EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL DEBATE, National Assembly, Parliament, Cape Town, 16 September 2003

I want to begin by thanking the House for agreeing to the Higher Education Amendment Act, for which there will be no debate. This will, for the first time, bring about higher education opportunities, in a planned and rational way, to the people of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape, as the legislation establishes national higher education institutes in each of these.

The Education Laws Amendment Bill has had no such easy passage, and I want to address those members who may oppose the proposed legislation, in an attempt to get them to review their position. Typically, the Amendment Bill covers a range of matters in different pieces of legislation, and some have received more prominence than others. Some of these have been described as protecting quality education; in fact they have been more about consolidating existing class differences in public education, with a view to limiting the distribution of knowledge.

With knowledge the most valuable asset in society, the wish to provide only a few with the opportunities to gain an early advantage through schooling is strong, but that is not compatible with a public education system premised on the Constitutional values of justice, equity and dignity for all.

Before I deal with the more contentious aspects let me remind you of some of the other very important elements of the Bill; provisions you may be rejecting. A particular provision is the change of name of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council (otherwise known as GENFETQA). I am sure you must agree that the name of Umalusi is a great improvement, and not just for its sound. Umalusi, "the shepherd", symbolises the important function of the Council in protecting and preserving standards among the huge flock of education providers and assessment bodies which make up the education system.

One problem we have faced in the disciplining of errant teachers is that of inconsistent sentencing. Findings and sentences are determined by the presiding officer, who is appointed on a case by case basis, and these decisions are not always consistent. At present, the person charged has the right of appeal against both the finding and the sentence, but the provincial departments do not have that right. We therefore propose these amendments, so that findings and sentences that might be out of line with similar charges in other cases can be taken on appeal to the Member of the Executive Council in the province or the Minister. I hope that this measure to amend the Employment of Educators Act is supported.

Which leaves but one aspect: the amendment to the South African Schools Act. This provision compels school governing bodies to get prior approval from a provincial department of education to award a teacher an additional amount over and above his or her salary paid by the state. This is a curious piece of legislation for two reasons. One is that it is highly extraordinary to allow any public servant to receive financial favours over and above his or her state salary. So in allowing this to happen, although in a regulated fashion through legislation, we will undoubtedly be stretching the international conventions about benefits in the public service. We certainly do not allow additional payments to magistrates or the police, or nurses, so teachers have a somewhat special privilege here. To merely require that this special dispensation be managed in a transparent and orderly fashion hardly seems unreasonable. You will recall the scandalous case of a school principal in Mpumalanga who received all sorts of extraordinary benefits from the school governing body, a motor car, domestic assistance and groceries - this amendment will help prevent that sort of abuse.

The second point of curiosity is that the legislation simply mirrors an existing provision of the Employment of Educators Act, which already prohibits teachers from accepting additional remuneration without the prior approval of the employer. But as in any employment context, there are two parties - and while we have provisions to penalise the teachers for accepting money which is really victimisation - we have no basis for dealing with the body which paid them, in contravention of the law.

And so we say that if a governing body wishes to recompense a teacher for genuine additional work or effort, they should inform the Provincial Department of the matter, and request authorisation. This is hardly a stripping of the authority of governing bodies, as some have argued, but a genuine attempt to build transparency and accountability into the workings.

I would like to draw members attention to pages 14 and 15 of the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill which details a recent case in Limpopo Province in which is made clear that a financial commitment by a school governing body to a teacher would become the responsibility of the employer, that is the state, if the governing body were subsequently to change it decision on the commitment. Given that school governing bodies are elected afresh from time to time this is just one very good reason why this amendment is necessary.

We have heard too many stories by parents of how they were hoodwinked at the fee setting meeting, where a generic item called "salaries" was included in the budget, without specifying how much, to who, and for what. Democratic decision-making requires this kind of information.

Additional payment for teachers, if contemplated, must be for work that is over and above the normal requirements of the state posts which they occupied. No one should be paid extra for just doing their job. And there is also no need to pay more to reward top performers, as some have claimed, since we now have a system of performance management in place, which rewards good teaching on an objective and equitable basis.

But where a teacher is required to go beyond the call of duty, as many do, we have no principled objection to them being rewarded for this, provided the parents agree. This might include additional time spent on some activity, such as preparations for sports day, school plays, choirs or other events. And extra work should also include additional intellectual effort, since this is an academic profession, where we should reward people who think about what they are doing, and help others to improve. A bonus to a teacher who was asked to lead a team developing cross-curricular themes or materials could also be a valid request.

But we should also be clear that this is not a money making exercise. Most schools have insufficient funds to do anything, let alone pay teachers an additional salary. We cannot allow this practice to further skew the labour market, with teachers more and more resistant to teaching in poor schools, for want of salary "top-ups". We cannot allow the few qualified maths and science teachers to be tempted from public schools in the townships to those in town because of higher pay. We have one public school system, with one salary system. Any deviations from this must be well justified, well planned, and authorised.

Let us also remember that for many years, teachers have voluntarily taken responsibility for a host of extra-mural activities, including sporting and cultural activities. Teachers, even today, spend many hours, often late into the night, to do their bit for the school, whatever it may be. They do this for the love of their children, and the pride of the profession, and many would be contemptuous if offered extra pay. I hope governing bodies are not prompting a system where anything outside the classroom becomes "overtime", where the only motive for hard work is a salary "top-up". This would be a sad day, and in considering requests I will caution provincial departments to consider the real need for such payments, and the possible consequences to the equitable utilisation of teachers.

I see no menace in the Bill. The Council of Education Ministers has been persuaded that additional payments could be permitted under certain circumstances. I would even understand those who opposed the Bill for this reason, and say to them that I will be monitoring the situation, based on provincial reports. If it is being abused, we will amend it again. To those who oppose it because they would like to see the free market operate within our public school system, I remind them of where we have come from - an education system with huge differences and divisions. We are aiming to create a more equitable society, and we can never do so by providing unequal education.

I should also remind the House that there is a transitional provision so as to enable school governing bodies to make appropriate arrangements so the Act will not come into effect until the middle of next year. This will give them sufficient time to make alternate arrangements for 2005.

I have tried to indicate to the House what is in the Bill, and why it needs to be there. I am sure most will agree with our proposals. But for those who had planned to oppose, I implore you to reconsider your stance, and to support the Bill, together with the vast majority of South African teachers, parents, and the South African public. Because we speak for the vast majority of people in this country.

Issued by the Ministry of Education, 16 September 2003