UNITED CHRISTIAN ACTION
SUBMISSION ON THE REVISED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 2002

General Introduction

By way of introduction, we need to consider the role of the legislature parliament, in containing the executive arm of government. The legislature and therefore the Education Portfolio Committee as a segment of legislature, is elected by the people. This is democratic. Theoretically legislature should reflect the interests of their constituency and accountable to the people. The executive and the office of Minister Education is appointed. The executive can only operate within framework granted by the legislature. Hence the legislature represents the people and limits the power of the executive. This is a system of checks and balances.

However, all these amendments, seek to empower the Office of Minister, thus removing power from the people and furthermore making role of the legislature (at least as it was intended) redundant. Such a heavy system is destined to become corrupted and is inherently undemocratic and is a threat, regardless of how people may trust distrust) the intentions of our Education Minister. Inevitably another person will one day sit in the office of the Minister of Education, and they will ml all the powers that could be passed by this portfolio committee, should I choose to grant them. That next minister could be a Robert Mugabe-type figure, or worse. I appeal to you to consider the long-term implication granting these powers.

It is our thesis, based on the unchanging truth of Scripture, that decentralised model is far superior - with decentralised governance, checks and balances, and local decision-making powers. In practice a bureau sitting in an urban government office judging according to a policy car compete with the attention to detail, intimate knowledge of the condition needs, and sense of ownership and pride which a decentralised model allows and promotes. Such a decentralised model can easily be applied for example, a remote rural setting.

Therefore at its pivotal point, these proposed amendments threaten freedom, democracy and diversity. We will now consider the specific problems posed by this draft legislation.

1) The Education Ministry determining content as opposed to broad outcomes
Curriculum and Assessment
SA. (1) The Minister must by notice in the Government Gazette, determine -
(a) national curriculum; and
(b) a national process for the assessment of learner achievement.
(2) The curriculum and the process for the assessment of learner achievement contemplated in subsection(1) must be applicable to public and independent schools."

We have noted the changes from the draft copy to the present copy: "a national curriculum statement" to "must . ..determine a national curriculum" [SA.(1 )(a)]. The difference between national curriculum and a national curriculum statement is massive. The "statement" indicates broad direction, the "national curriculum" indicates prescribed content (a lack of freedom and the potential for indoctrination). Clarity on the intention and limitations of this phrase is therefore required.

For the Education Ministry to claim that these proposed changes does not mean a prescribed set of content but rather only the determination of prescribed outcomes where the teach decides the content taught and how these outcomes will be achieved, is not what 6A. (1)(a) States. As it stands, it is ambiguous in that it does not limit the Ministry to broad outcomes, but rather gives sweeping powers to determine content of every subject, in every grade. We seek these promises to allow schools and teachers the freedom to determine content (in terms prescribed broad outcomes) to be written into the Act so as to secure the freedoms of the people. Furthermore, the word MUST is despotic.

Recommendations:
Therefore for the sake of clarity, the following amendment should be made:
6A. (1) The Minister MAY by notice in the Government Gazette, determine- a national curriculum statement, however this will be limited to broad terms such that it allows for sufficient freedom of conscience, belief, religion and interpretation.

We have also noted the changes from the draft copy when compared with the present copy this legislation: developing a "national assessment instrument" to "must ... determine a national process for the assessment of learner achievement" [SA.(1 )(b)]. The difference between "national assessment instrument" and a national process for the assessment of learn achievement is massive. "Instrument" suggests an examination type structure, the "process suggests continuous assessment according to the four critical outcomes - knowledge, skill attitudes and values. This is therefore broader as it implies not only "the what" but also "the how, when and where" of learner assessment. This therefore requires clarity on the intention and limitations of this phrase. We therefore propose the following amendment:

6A. (1) The Minister may by notice in the Government Gazette, determine -
(b) assessment guidelines of learner achievement so as to maintain a national standard
However the national assessment instruments will be determined by the provinces and
independent examining boards.

2.One curriculum with prescribed content to be imposed on public and independent
We strongly object to:
6A (2) The curriculum and the process for the assessment of learner achievement contemplated in subsection (1) must be applicable to public and independent schools.

The word MUST is autocratic. The very concept is tyrannical. Many countries in the developed and developing world, including Europe, Australasia, the Americas and Southern Africa allow for independent schools which have the liberty to decide their own curriculum and their own process, means and instruments of assessment. South Africa is seeking to erode this democratic base, by imposing the will of the Ministry of Education, and specifically the office of the Minister, on all schools, public and private. We believe this is reprehensible because:

1 The responsibility to educate children has been given by the Almighty to parents (Deuteronomy 6.7-9). This amendment seeks to usurp this responsibility.
2. This amendment seeks to erode parental choice and therefore the fabric of democracy, replacing freedom and diversity of choice with a one-size-fits-all egalitarian and inflexible model.
3. Standards are linked to diversity, individuality and competition. Therefore this amendment will ultimately cause standards to decline.
4 in a globally competitive economy, it raises serious doubts over the long-term sustainability of the South African education system. A state-controlled bureaucracy is slow moving sluggish and difficult to adapt and change. It is historically accurate to say that man innovations in education have come from the private sector, both in South Africa an abroad. To deny this flexibility and dynamism would be a tragedy for education in our country
5. It fails to respect the constitution, the private property (intellectual included) of schools and the contributions made by independent and religious organisations to education in South Africa.
6. It should never be forgotten that parents pay taxes and above that school fees. School should ultimately be accountable to parents. For the State to force its will on public school is one issue but to force its will on functioning, independent, self-governing schools is another.
7. the intentions of the Minister need to be questioned in terms of his agenda. The Minister f Education has been in the media as saying that he questions the philosophy of some of the Independent Examining Bodies (and NOT their standards). The question is, what philosophy is the Minister seeking to impose on public and independent schools alike?
8. It raises questions over the status of international students and those writing internationally accepted and accredited exams.

Recommendations:
A) We therefore recommend that the contributions of independent and religious schools be noted, protected and allowed to develop further according their own values and specific needs.
B) We recommend a voucher system be introduced to facilitate parental choice (seIf-governance) and ownership of education in the interests of creating a culture of learning. This voucher system can work in terms of tax rebates and facilitates the creation and maintenance of independent schools in poorer communities.

3) A national curriculum and process of assessment applied to all educational institutions
It is noted that these attempts to impose a national curriculum and process of assessment are
extended to:
· The Further Education and Training Act, 1998
· The Adult Basic Education and Training Act, 2000
The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act, 2001 The above reservations and recommendations apply to them.
WE seek clarity on the regulations proposed;

4) Safety and security at educational institutions should be determined at SGB level
Section 61 of the Schools Act
(a) to provide for safety measures at public and independent schools
We assert that the School Governing Bodies must have the liberty to make decisions in this regard as the safety of our children is of utmost importance. Therefore the final decision must be made at SGB level in consideration of their context and need.

5) Redeployment of first year teachers
Section 6A in Act 76 of 1998 (Employment of Educators Act)
It is questionable whether the rationale of the Ministry is sound (the redistribution of quality applicants to rural schools) considering that the 'quality' of "first time applicants" is difficult to assess as they obviously lack any experience or track record. Furthermore, the amendments fail to promote or protect family life, for example, a married person cannot simply be appointed to a rural community without consideration given to his/her marriage and family commitments. It is further noted that:
· Forcing first year teachers and those teachers returning to the system after a break, to be deployed by the Ministry to rural and other areas, may discourage teachers from return to the system and discourage students from choosing teaching as a profession.
· Forcing schools to employ someone is undermining the role of the school governing body. The independence of the school governing body must be protected and maintained especially as regards the employment of teachers.
· Undermining the role of school governing bodies as regards employment of teachers is to make the role of the school governing body redundant. This could lead to an exodus of concerned parents who sacrificially sit on these school governing bodies without remuneration (we support the voluntary nature of these school governing body positions and maintain that they shouldn’t be professionalised).
· The care, concern, passion, vision, attention to detail, intimate knowledge and understanding of the needs and context of a school governing body is vastly superior to a state bureaucracy trying to appoint teachers. We foresee that schools may sit for months without teachers and schools might receive the "wrong" teacher for the post because the DoE failed through red-tape, inefficiency and work overload. There is a difference between a "qualified teacher" and a "suitable teacher". Only a school governing body can truly employ a "suitable teacher".
· These moves undermine the Ministry's commitment to self-governance of schools and school governing bodies, as they were originally intentioned. This is therefore a breach of trust.

Recommendations:
In principle we support the need for rural development (especially of schools), however believe this can be better achieved through programmes that facilitate self-governance and long-term sustainability. These include:
A policy can be drawn-up to help assist rural schools in making them attractive to teach (for example, cheaper living expenses, therefore financial savings for teachers). This could be promoted at Teacher Training College Level, especially for first year teachers. This should not be forced, but should serve as recommendations only.
Where possible, it should be compulsory for teacher training students to do a "teacher practical" at a rural school. However, safety should be of paramount importance and should Ire provided for.
SGB training can be implemented with special emphasis on rural schools so as to increase self-governance, which will improve marketing, positive profiling, and standards an employment conditions of rural schools.

Conclusion:
Thank-you for this opportunity to present. In conclusion we would like to draw your attention to some of South Africa's educational goals which include among others: entrepreneurship, creative initiative taking and self-reliance. We believe these are goals worth perusing. believe that they are best served by promoting (not undermining) the role of independent schools and school governing bodies. May the Ministry be truly tolerant of the rich diversity of communities, religious and ethnic groups in South Africa, by promoting diversity, democracy and openness through a decentralised model of education (as opposed to a nationalised centralised one, specifically in the office of the Minster).