THE CONVERGENCE BILL (NO

THE CONVERGENCE BILL (NO. B 9 OF 2005)

SUBMISSION BY THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS (NAISA)

Introduction

The purpose of this submission is to present an argument, based on empirical evidence, for the equitable treatment of all schools in the Convergence Bill. The argument relates generally to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), and more specifically to television licences and internet access.

NAISA applauds the spirit of the bill which aims to provide universal access to ICTs. However, it wishes to draw attention to aspects of the document that potentially undermine its intent, notably the clause which restricts the Universal Service Fund (USF) to public schools, and by implication excludes independent schools.

NAISA is an umbrella body representing 17 associations of independent schools in this country. As such, it represents approximately 1 400 schools, comprising about 400,000 learners (HSRC, 2002).

Contentious sections in the Bill

Section 80(1)(a) of the Bill provides "for the assistance of needy persons towards the cost of the provision to, or the use by them of communications services". NAISA submits that this clause is laudable in that it acknowledges the inherent disparities in SA and affirms the need for redress.

However, Section 80(1)(c) of the Bill provides that the money from the USF must be used exclusively for the payment of subsidies inter alia -

"to public schools and public further education and training institutions as defined in the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act No. 84 of 1996), and the Further Education and Training Act, 1998 (Act No. 98 of 1998), respectively, for the procurement of communications services and access to communications networks".

There appears to be an internal inconsistency between the two clauses above. While the first clause targets the "needy" in a broader sense, the second restricts this fund to the public school sector, thus discriminating against a large segment of the independent school sector whose conditions are worse than those of the public school sector and whose learners should be regarded as "needy persons". This anomaly appears to be based on the assumption that all public schools and public further education and training institutions are poor (or needy), and that all independent schools and independent further education institutions are wealthy or have no need of subsidies. Neither assumption is defensible as the research cited below reflects:

Independent schools

According to a survey conducted by the HSRC in 2002/3, there are approximately 1287 independent schools in South Africa (more if primary and secondary schools are counted separately). However, it is believed that learners in independent schools comprise about 4% of all learners in schools in the Republic of South Africa. Further, in 2001 the majority of these schools charged fees of less than R6000 per annum, and only 14% charged fees of more than R18000 per annum. The survey also found that 70% of learners in independent schools are black (58% are African).

While low-fee independent schools are entitled to apply for a state subsidy, the maximum subsidy any school can receive per learner is 60% of the amount given to a public school. Most of these subsidised schools cater for the poor and are unable to survive without state assistance. Additional taxation in the form of TV licences will undermine the viability of these schools and could lead to their closure, placing an additional burden on the state to provide compulsory schooling.

Taking into account the estimated number of independent schools that are not members of associations,

Public schools

Not all public schools can be regarded as poor or "needy". Section 21 schools such as Pretoria Boys High, Pietermartizburg College, King Edward’s, etc. are all historically wealthy. These schools charge fees as high as R15000 per annum, while a significant proportion of their expenses are paid for by the state. It should be noted that an independent school charging R15000 per annum receives no state subsidy at all. Such additional income places these public schools at a financial level comparable to high-fee independent schools.

On the other hand, the majority of public schools are not Section 21 schools and are generally poorly resourced by comparison. These schools undoubtedly merit subsidisation by the USF.

In contrast therefore, to the general perception that public schools are poor and independent schools wealthy, the reality is that both sectors now consist of a minority of well-resourced schools and a majority of poorly resourced schools. Significantly, recent legislation reflects a changing approach by government and civil society from one that is punitive to one that acknowledges the value of independent schools in a young democracy. The following examples reflect this shift:

Independent schools and recent legislation

The constitution-making process in South Africa accepts as a core principle that education is a critical part of national economic policy. As such anything that benefits education should be made available to all educational organisations, whether public or independent to promote a robust and responsive education system in a young democracy. Where the benefit relates to public funds, then these should likewise be made available to all educational organisations that are not for gain.

In this spirit, legislation has been changed, or is in the process of being changed to promote a more equitable approach to independent schools. Among these are:

the amendment to the property rates guidelines to recommend exemption to all schools: This amendment, was a product of a magnanimous and correct approach by government to create an equitable environment to support its quest for quality education,

the right of independent schools to self determination in application of the national curriculum statements as long as the statutory minimum outcomes and standards are met, and

the right of independent schools to choose their examinations bodies.

Proposals:

Since education is a critical enabler of national economic policy, conditions should be created to optimise access to quality education whether it is public or independent. The amendment to the national guidelines for property rates reflects such a commitment. We propose that such a commitment be extended to the Convergence Bill where all schools and all further education and training institutions, public and independent, are subject to the same requirements and levies, and afforded access to the same benefits. It is not proposed that educational organisations that operate for profit are entitled such financial support.

6.2 If, on the other hand, the focus is to assist the poor in general terms and educational providers to the poor in particular, then we would need to distinguish the well resourced public and independent providers from the poorly resourced public and independent providers. On this basis we would propose the following alternative wording for section 80(1)(c). Changes are shown in marked up form (words omitted are lined through and new words are underlined):

"(c) to ~~public~~ schools and ~~public~~ further education and training institutions as defined in the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act No 84 of 1996), and the Further Education and Training Act, 1998 (Act No. 98 of 1998), respectively, for the procurement of communication and access to communications networks, ; provided that in the case of public schools they are recognised by their Provincial Education Departments as falling into the lowest three quintiles for socio-economic redress in terms of the National Norms and Standards for School Funding (1998) and that in the case of independent schools and independent further education and training institutions they are registered with the Commissioner for Inland Revenue as public benefit organisations in terms of section 10(1)(cN) of the Income Tax Act 1962 (Act 58 of 1962), and provided further that they are registered with their Provincial Departments of Education or the National Department of Education (as the case may be) for the receipt of state subsidies."

There is a simple and effective test to identify independent educational organisations that are not for gain, and that are appropriately regulated and monitored in accordance with legislation. They can be required to be registered with SARS as public benefit organisations (PBOs) in terms of the section 10(1)(cN) of the Income Tax Act.

Concluding Comments

It must be emphasised that separating under- and well-resourced public schools will not create an administrative burden as there already exists a mechanism for doing this. In terms of The National Norms and Standards for School Funding (1998), the provincial education departments are required to divide all public schools into five socio-economic categories for redress purposes. Thus, for instance, only public schools in the three poorest quintiles might be considered for a USF subsidy to distinguish them from the better resourced public schools.