National Professional Teachers' Organisation of SA (NAPTOSA)

PRESENTATION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) ON 31 AUGUST 2001 ON THE EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2001

1. INTRODUCTION

NAPTOSA appreciates the opportunity to participate in the discussion to improve the current legislation on education in South Africa. The invitation to address the Portfolio Committee is proof of the fact that parliament is serious about the concept of democracy and we in NAPTOSA thank you for this.

Written comments have been tabled by NAPTOSA on the 9 April version of the Draft Bills and therefore I will only highlight some of the issues which NAPTOSA raised in its submission and the few concerns we still have with regard to the latest available text of the Bill.

It needs to be mentioned that NAPTOSA supports most of the amendments, especially as they are worded in the copy introduced in the National Assembly, and that the sections mentioned in this presentation are only those where further clarity is needed or where remaining concerns are raised.

  1. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF ACT 84 OF 1996
  2. 2.1 Amendment of Section 11 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by Section 3 of Act 100

    of 1997

    These amendments are supported, provided that the emphasis is on the words "RECOGNISED" and "LEGITIMATE". The amendment must not be taken as an excuse to preclude other student bodies from being established, such as prefect bodies, cultural committees, sport policy/award committees, etc.

    2.2 Substitution of Section 15 of Act 84 of 1996

    NAPTOSA supports this amendment. It is generally accepted that a body can only function within the parameters of the legislation that constitutes it and, therefore this amendment seems to be necessary. It might be quite a good thing to prevent some SGBs from meddling in affairs they have no right or reason to concern themselves with.

    2.3 Amendment of Section 25 of Act 84 of 1996

    These amendments are acceptable to NAPTOSA. There must be a functioning authority at a school and, if the SGB is not performing adequately, the Head of Education must ensure that those functions are performed. The use of the words "sufficient persons" is slightly confusing.

    2.4 Amendment of Section 36 of Act 84 of 1996

    This is generally acceptable to NAPTOSA as it would be unwise for most schools to enter into agreements regarding loans and overdrafts, especially where there is little certainty that they would be able to raise the necessary funds to reduce/repay the loan or overdraft. The fact that it is possible to obtain an overdraft with the written approval of the MEC is appreciated and supported.

    2.5 Amendment of Section 37 of Act 84 of 1996

    Clause 6(b) referring to proposed subsections 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c)

    NAPTOSA supports the principle that school funds should not be abused and that school fees collected from parents should not be paid into trust funds. Proposals are, however, too restrictive. Special trust funds could be utilised for various outreach programmes, e.g. to enhance the facilities and resources of schools and to improve the quality of education for all the learners. They could also be used to provide bursaries for learners, to fund INSET programmes for teachers, to subsidise studies, to provide ABET or literacy programmes for previously disadvantaged communities, etc. Mechanisms could be put in place to prevent abuse of the funds. The Act should be worded in such a manner as to prevent trust funds from being abused or used to circumvent other laws. However, the Act should not prevent the establishment of trusts, provided that the funds are used as indicated above. It may be useful to insist that all trust funds be established subject to approval by the Head of the Department and certain conditions and criteria.

    For example, NAPTOSA could support clause 7 (c) (Page 3) if it is worded more or less as follows:

    "(c) A governing body of a public school may not collect any money or contributions from parents to establish or fund a trust, where the deed of trust has not been approved by the MEC, and if any money or parents’ contributions which were not specifically collected for a trust which meets the criteria for approval by the MEC were paid into a trust prior to 1 January 2001, the trust must pay such money or contributions into the school fund."

    2.6 Substitution of Section 38 of Act 84 of 1996

    NAPTOSA is of the opinion that the use of the word "guidelines" is preferable to "as prescribed by" as this caters for the diversity of conditions at different institutions and in differing types of schools.

  3. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF ACT 76 OF 1998
  4. NAPTOSA supports these amendments as improvements on the current legislation.

  5. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF ACT 98 OF 1998
  6. NAPTOSA supports these amendments as improvements on the current legislation.

  7. CONCLUSION

As I said in my opening remarks, NAPTOSA appreciates the process of transparency and true democracy. I also wish to mention that in general we support the proposed amendments. NAPTOSA’s only concern is that the national legislation tends to become too prescriptive in some instances and that MECs and SGBs should be given more flexibility to manage schools according to the particular circumstances of the school community.