The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Following the public outcry, Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga has done the right thing by requesting that regulations published in the Government Gazette amending the Senior Certificate are immediately reversed. If implemented, these policy proposals would decimate South Africa's already beleaguered education system, and it is essential that they are in no way, shape or form introduced. It is clear that Minister Motshekga, by her own admission of being completely unaware of the announcement in the government gazette, does not know what is going on in her own department. What remains of grave concern is that the minister only reversed the process because, in the words of her spokesperson, "she was under the impression [the proposals were] still part of an internal process". These comments create the unmistakable impression that the minister supports the proposals, but simply does not want to implement them right away, and wants them kept out of the public domain. What gives further credence to this view is that the minister's spokesperson is also on the record stating that the proposals had only been scrapped "for the time being", and that the status quo will be "maintained this year". This, quite clearly, is greatly problematic, and also stands squarely in contradiction with the comments by deputy minister Enver Surty, who claimed yesterday "we have no intention to change the pass marks or university endorsement for candidates." Which is it? No intention to introduce these regulations at all, or no intention "for the time being"? The minister must state categorically that she is abandoning all plans - publicly gazetted, part of an internal process, or otherwise - which would cause what former UCT vice chancellor Mamphela Rampele rightly labelled as "dumbing down and a move towards mediocrity" yesterday. We will also be submitting the following written question to the minister:
1. With regard to her statement, in response to her department's policy proposal to reduce a matric distinction from 80 to 70 percent, that she was "not sure of the reasons behind her department's plan"; that it was "quite strange" and that she would have to familiarise herself with the proposals (a) why was the minister unaware of the proposal (b) in what sense is the proposal "quite strange" (c) what was her involvement in the policy process that lead to the development of this proposal (d) how does this proposal exemplify the pursuit of excellence in education (e) what are the reasons for the proposal and (f) what are the ramifications for university exemption and (g) what steps will the minister take to ensure she is no longer excluded from the legislative process and is fully informed of the initiatives undertaken by her department?