NATIONAL INTERIM STEERING COMMITTEE
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES
(NASGB)

SUBMISSION ON THE ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL, 2000 AND THE EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL-SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS ACT NO 84 OF 96 AS PUBLISHED IN NOTICE NO 1505 OF 2000.

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. This submission on the AGET Bill 2000 focuses on areas in which the National Association of School Governing Bodies has interest and present a general assumption and suggestion to the areas mentioned. It is also worth noting that the current review process of the education policy by the Ministry is a clear indication of its willingness to explore the most and best possible which will ensure delivery in the education system.

    Generally, the NASGB does not have significant differences with the proposed Bill and the amendments made to the SASA no 84 of 96. We have the following comments and inputs to make.

    ON ADULT GNERAL EDUCATTION AND TRAINING (AGET), 2000

    The NASGB welcomes the move to officially introduce the adult literacy sector in response to the economic needs of the country. Based on the statistics provided by the Ministry of Education, literacy among the adult component becomes imperative if the nation is to witness the value of the struggle for educational and economic reform in the country.

    It is also fair enough to say that the better part of the content of Bill itself seems to be an adaptation of the South African Schools Act no 84 of 96.

    Sub-section 3 of Section 4 Chapter 2 provides for the HOD to enter into agreement with the SGB of a public school for the use of facilities of such school. The implication thereof suggests that the HOD should be central over the use of school facilities. This will undermine the relationship between the governing bodies of both institutions.

    The NASGB therefore suggests that the two parties (governing bodies) be given a platform to establish a long lasting relationship which is also aimed at promoting trust between the two governing bodies and community participation in the development of education in their locals. It is also advisable that the two parties can also seek advice from the HOD before any agreement is entered into.

    Sub-section 2b of Section 7 provides for the MEC to close a public centre after officially informing the governing body of such a decision and affording it to make representation. However, the provision makes no mention of timeframes.

    The NASGB suggests that representations should be made within 90 days upon the date of issue of notice of the intention to close a public centre.

    Sub-section 2 of Section 8 Chapter 3 provides for membership of a governing body of a public centre.

    The NASGB welcomes the composition. However, we would also suggest that clause d, e and f of the sub-section should be omitted, as they seem to fall within the co-opted component.

    Sub-section 6 of Section 8 provides for the co-option of a chairperson of school governing body and principal of the school that provides facilities without voting rights. The assumption might be that the party that has direct responsibility of the facilities does not have a say on the decisions taken, which might have a direct bearing on the facilities themselves. This might create a lack of trust between the two parties and as a result tensions could always mount when a decision has to be taken.

    We suggest that the two governing bodies may establish a committee (made of the chairpersons, treasurers and heads of both institutions) to deal with management issues of the facilities and the physical structure of the school in general. This would also help to tie a stronger bond between the two parties in order to address issues jointly.

    Sub-section 10 of Section 8 provides for the HOD to be responsible for governance in a newly established public centre until such time that a governing body is established. However, this proves to be an addition task to the already over-burdened HODs.

    The NASGB suggests that the HOD should establish an interim structure with representatives of all stakeholder groups in the centre. This interim committee should govern the school for a period not exceeding three months extendable by a further three months if a school governing body has not been established.

    Sub-section 1c of Section 11 restricts access to information to the HOD only.

    We suggest that information about the activities of the centre should be accessible to all interested parties and individuals.

    Sub-section 2 of Section 18 provides for application for admission to a public centre to made to the HOD. This provision is practically problematic as it would make admission a cumbersome process which might also be impossible to put in practice. It might also be impossible for the 9 provincial HODs to deal with the estimated 3millon+ illiterate adults, if all adults would wish to apply.

    The NASGB suggests that HODs should draw a framework for admission to adult centres and application for admission should be directed to the head of a public centre.

  3. AMENDMENT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS ACT(no 84) OF 1996

Amendment of Section 14 of Act 84 of 1996 as amended by Section 5 of Act 100 of 1997.

While the insertion about ‘expropriation’ is critical in ensuring that school education activities on private property are unhindered, the NASGB suggests that this provision be made as a separate section which provides for expropriation of ‘land or real right in or over land’ only in the case of failure to achieve an agreement between MEC and the owner of property-as contemplated in section 14.

The inserted section on expropriation should have free access to the piece of land where the school is situated, that is, free movement should be allowed through the un-expropriated land leading to the expropriated island.

Amendment of Section 16 of Act 84 of 1996 as amended by Section 9 of Act 48 of 1999.

The NASGB is concern about giving this open responsibility to the HOD given the limited capacity of the nine HODs to support SGBs. This would also undermine the role which the immediate school community for the unspecified period that the HOD would be responsible for governance at the school.

We suggest that the HOD be given a responsibility to establish an interim governance structure comprised of the stakeholder groups represented in a governing body. The interim structure should govern the school for a period not exceeding three months. This period should be extended by a further three months if a fully fledged governing body has not been established.

Amendment of Section 23 of Act 84 of 1996 as amended by Section 11 of Act 48 of 1999.

We welcome the overall intentions of the insertion. However suggest an adaptation of section 13 and an inclusion of sections 14 and 15 as outlined below.

Section 13: If the membership of a governing body is not representative of the racial composition of the learners of the school may co-opt not more than three parent members with voting rights from that part of the learner community that is not represented.

The use of may allows governing bodies to exercise decision making with respect to ensuring representivity and if this does not happen, the parents from the excluded communities may take the course provided by section 14 and 15.

The increase of the number from two to three makes provision for responsiveness required in multiracial settings. For instance, if there are more than two racial groups underrepresented.

Section 14: Parents from excluded communities that feel under-represented on the governing body may apply to the governing body for co-option anticipate in section 13. The governing body concerned must respond to the application in writing within a period of 90 days upon receipt of the application.

Section 15: In the case where an application contemplated in section 14 is declined, the declined parents may lodge a complain with the MEC will take a ruling after consulting with both parties.

Amendment of Section 61 of Act 84 of 1996

The suggested insertion is not necessary as there are other significant issues to be regulated by the MEC. Continuation of these kind of unnecessary and narrowly insertions will make the Act cumbersome. For instance, there are equally important issues of health ( e.g. availability of running water and proper sanitation) and social welfare ( poverty and child labour) that need to be regulated.

In addition the insertion does not deal with the security issue adequately. There is a dedicated portfolio on safety and security that should be consulted and be used in these cases. The insertion must be completely left out to avoid watering down the powers of the MECs to regulate on anything as and when necessary to do so.