National Assembly, Cape Town
19 September 2002
Madame Speaker,
Honourable members
I have pleasure in introducing the Education Laws Amendment Bill, which seeks to bring about amendments to five other pieces of legislation. Some of the changes are minor, such as the technical amendment to the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act, and I do not intend to deal with these.
Madame Speaker, my experience with the manner in which this Bill has been commented on during the committee stage has raised some concern. As public representatives who are charged with the responsibility to make laws, we need to demonstrate a higher level of understanding about the legislative process if we are to assist the public to understand the laws we make, and the decisions we take on their behalf. If we ourselves demonstrate ignorance of the draft laws, or even ignore their existence simply to gain political advantage, then we should not expect the public to respect what we do and to take the laws we make seriously.
Therefore as I open this debate, I feel obliged to request all of us to agree at least on the basics and the fundamentals, even if we may differ in emphasis and approach.
Let me outline some of these basics, and demonstrate how they apply to this Bill.
Firstly, we must all agree that the major change in legislation is necessitated by a number of factors, one of which is the direction given by our courts through its judgements. I am singling out this particular factor of court judgements because I want to believe that we all agree that fundamental to our Constitutional order is the principle of the independence of the courts, especially the highest court of the land, the Constitutional Court, and the need to respect their judgements. If the court's judgement implies that something that is being done is unlawful, either because the law is in conflict with our Constitution, or because the mechanisms being employed do not have a basis in law, then the Government is obliged to correct this.
I do not think anyone here differs with what I am saying.
If we all understand this, then we will all understand why we needed to legislate on the age of admission as we do in this Bill. This need arises from the Constitutional Court judgement in the Harris case, which supported the judgement of the high court, which argued that a statement of policy could only be binding on parties it is intended to be binding on, providing it, is expressed in legislation. An admission policy already existed prior to the judgement, and its existence was therefore not in question. The issue was about whether in applying such a policy we would not be discriminating against a specific child, therefore not placing the child's interest first. Unfortunately the Constitutional Court did not deal with this fundamental issue and therefore we still do not have the court's view on whether the admission policy that prescribes an age of entry is discriminatory. Our view that we need such policy in order to ensure equity still stands. However, since the court suggested that unless this is expressed in law, it would not be binding on third parties, and it was not even clear whether it would be binding on provinces.
We had to clarify the situation.
Madame Chair, I thought I should dwell a little bit on this because it underpins two key amendments that this Bill introduces, the admission policy, and the curriculum policy.
On the admission policy we seek to do two things. Firstly we seek to do what the court suggested we should do, namely to ensure that national policy is expressed in and through legislation. In the case of education, hundreds of policy directives have been promulgated as policy. Now, we will have to use regulations. Secondly, we are also amending existing policy by providing that as from 2004 children may be admitted to Grade 1 provided they will turn 6 by 30 June - a six month reduction on the present position. In addition, we have allowed for extraordinary circumstances, but these are limited to ensure that these are effected in an equitable manner.
With regard to the curriculum, again the country already has a curriculum policy, which is currently being followed in all schools, including independent schools. The determination of a national curriculum for general and further education, and its application to both public and independent schools therefore, is both necessary and perfectly reasonable. I do not know of any country with a unitary system, which does not require all schools to follow a national curriculum, and we must do so in pursuit of our goal of nation building. We all know that even the right to private education is subject to some limitations, which includes adherence to the Constitution itself. But key among these in educational terms, is the fact that such provision of education should not be lower than that provided in public education.
The curriculum is the centre-piece of education provision, and we are therefore obliged to set minimum standards in order to be able to arrive at some judgement about how independent schools compare with public education. We will not be legislating for a curriculum - as other countries do - but a curriculum statement. We have emphasised that the curriculum statement comprises minimum outcomes and standards, and we are therefore in no way prescribing to schools or teachers what they should teach, or how. As professionals, teachers must develop the learning programmes which will achieve the prescribed outcomes. Independent schools can therefore explore every possible way to achieve the minimum outcomes and standards we are prescribing, or even exceed them.
Madame Speaker, I have spent some time explaining this, because I have been concerned about the manner in which people have distorted this particular area. These two amendments arise from the proper and the normal process of legislation, and are not based on anything other than giving legislative expression to an already existing situation.
The same applies to the aspect of the assessment of learner achievement. Our wish is to have a national framework for assessment, which will allow us to publish a national set of results, confident in the knowledge that these are based on common processes and standards. This is not intended to stifle innovation in regard to assessment procedures, and is no threat to the future of legitimate assessment bodies, who have worked with us to support and develop the assessment of the national curriculum. At the same time, we cannot allow the existence of international bodies, which offer pupils a qualification based on a foreign syllabus, and with a dubious value in the market place.
I now wish to address the amendments dealing with the process of the employment of teachers. I am aware that there has also been confusion in this regard. So let me try to explain.
The process for the appointment of new teachers needs review. Currently we have a cumbersome process for appointment, which is not in the interests of either the schools or the applicants. Many schools, especially those in rural areas and townships, fail to attract suitably qualified candidates for advertised posts, leaving them with unfilled vacancies. Presently the only way they can fill those posts is if they receive applications from prospective candidates. Surely we will never ensure that these schools receive candidates of quality if we use only one method of recruitment. Many members of this House argue that we must create incentives for people to teach in rural areas. We are beginning to negotiate this with teacher unions. But there is no guarantee that an entirely voluntary system will work.
The present method of recruitment, if it continues to be the only way, will not only be a disincentive, but also an obstacle. This matter needs to be looked at from the side of the prospective employee also. Students coming straight from higher education institutions are required to complete numerous applications and send them to the schools, which they do not know. This procedure does not favour any of the parties concerned, and prevents the rapid appointment of teachers that is required in the face of possible teacher shortages. It also discourages young entrants from entering the profession, as it creates the perception that finding employment, as a teacher is a difficult and cumbersome process. We also have serious problems of racial representivity in school staff-rooms, which we all have agreed must be addressed, and governing bodies have failed to use their powers to promote the necessary changes in this regard.
The amendments we have introduced therefore seek to address all these problems, without deviating from the principle of governing body participation in the appointment of educators. The provisions do not get rid of the processes outlined in section 6(3)a of the South African Schools Act, which lays down the process of the recruitment and appointment of educators. Those who wish to use the existing procedures are free to do so, but where the province has identified applicants, who match the post, then consultation between the governing body and the province is made possible by this amendment.
First time applicants are also free to apply directly to schools. Where these processes are seen to be effective, they can continue, provided that they are not used to exclude people on the grounds of race. But we must allow an alternative route for schools and applicants who are not well served by this approach. The new draft provides for one application to the relevant provincial Department of Education, which will then match applications to vacancies, and make offers to suitably qualified applicants. Any person offered a job on this basis is free to turn down the posting.
Only in cases where the province has invested bursary money in the training of a teacher will there be a limitation of the powers of governing bodies. In such cases, the Department will be required to identify the post to which they wish to appoint the trained person, and consult with the governing body in regard to the requirements prior to making the appointment. This will only apply to a limited category of teachers, and should not be seen as a threat to the functions of school governing bodies. A province cannot spend public money on training teachers and then find that they are not being appointed by governing bodies in schools where they are most needed, as determined by the Province.
Madame Speaker, I am confident that these provisions bring greater efficiency and fairness into the system. The state as employer has a stake in protecting its interest in the employment processes, including ensuring that the rights of prospective employees are protected, as required by our own labour legislation. The powers of governing bodies must therefore not be elevated to the level where they supersede all other principles of our Constitution and legislative frameworks.
The development of performance standards for teachers arises from the Incapacity Code, which this house approved two years ago. At that time I was keen to prescribe these standards, but I was persuaded that these should be collectively negotiated with unions. I agreed to allow 12 months for this to happen, after which I indicated I would return to Parliament if no agreement had been reached. I regret to say that after two years there is still no agreement, and I now intend therefore to determine these. We cannot tolerate a situation where teachers who are incapable of doing their job are allowed to continue teaching.
The banning of harmful initiation practices must be separated from the provision of positive orientation programmes by institutions. We have therefore provided a very clear definition of these practices, and there should be no confusion about the matter. Harmful initiation endangers the mental or physical health of a learner, and undermines the intrinsic worth of an individual. Where any such initiation occurs, teachers may be charged under the Employment of Educators Act, and other participants may have civil actions brought against them. Let there be no doubt about how we feel in regard to practices, which strip the dignity and humanity of our children in the name of tradition.
Finally, the registration of private providers of Further Education and Training is urgently needed. We have already done this for private higher education providers. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of private institutions, many which charge huge fees and offer poor quality tuition. The Ministry of Education has the responsibility to regulate the sector, and ensure minimum standards. We cannot allow the market place to exploit gullible or desperate students, many of whom make a huge sacrifice to further their studies at these moneymaking institutions.
I have been accused of many things recently, including that I am stripping the powers of governing bodies, and that I am centralising control of education. These accusations are completely without substance. I remind you that school governing bodies were and still are a central aspect of the ANC's democratisation of education, so passionately argued for by Blade Nzimande when he was chair of the Portfolio Committee on Education. We created these structures, and have no wish or intention to abolish them.
In a Press Statement which I made after the Council of Education Ministers on Monday this week, I announced a review of the functioning of these structures, with a view to strengthening them, especially in poor and rural areas, where they have not been as effective as we would like them to be.
Prejudice and suspicion are easily fed by misleading claims and irresponsible media reports. Loose talk about this being "the thin edge of the wedge" are alarmist and without any basis. The truth is that we are determined to make our democratic and non-discriminatory system of education work better, and it is with this simple purpose in mind that we introduce the amendments for your consideration and approval.
Issued by Ministry of Education