Attention: Professor S. M. Mayatula / Steve Morometsi

Committee Secretary

We thank you for giving us an opportunity to participate in the PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for 30^th August 2005 at National Parliament, Cape Town. We kindly accept your invitation.

We submit the following in response to the proposed Education Laws Amendment Bill (B23 –2005)

We concur that the proposed Amendment regarding disciplinary issues as proposed by Section 9 a, b, c, and d strengthens the rights of learners and the continued access of education.

In our experience, we have seen that an absence of a time frame, results in undue prejudice to the learner /school governing bodies/M.E.C. of education in resolving discipline issues.

However we call for the time to be amended to …..days to working days. This will accord more to reality and avoid unnecessary litigation actions.

We also concur that section 9 (d) strengthens the weaknesses that existed in past legislation in that during the appeal procedure the learner be given access to education in the manner determined by the H.O.D.

This is an important proviso as we are dealing with learners that are impressionable and developing, and not treat them like criminals. Even the criminal justice system of our country seeks to rehabilitate offenders, so why not extend this to learners of our country.

We concur with the proposed Amendments. However we need clarity whether the decile ranking is being scrapped. At present the decile system is being used. The quintile system will create bigger /smaller gaps in funding parity. For example schools presently on decile 9 and who enjoy a larger funding than decile 10 schools, will become absorbed into a disadvantageous ranking.

We agree that the present criteria for funding of the present NORMS and STANDARDS be reviewed annually.

Furthermore the poverty index for provinces like LIMPOPO, KWAZULU NATAL and EASTERN CAPE is taken into account for NORMS and STANDARD purposes. Therefore to apply a "one size fits all" criteria for funding purposes makes vulnerable provinces mentioned, compromise their quest for quality education.

We concur with the proposed provisions.

As regards 4(a) we believe that compelling Governing Bodies to make full disclosure at a Budget Meeting of total, partial or conditional exemptions is a progressive step. Too often, in our experience fee-paying parents do not know these criteria for exemption.

We are also cautious about the effects of revealing the cumulative effect of non – payment of school fees. It can have an unintended culture of non – payment.

4b (5) We concur that no public school may charge registration, administration or other fee, except school fees as defined by section 1.

4b (6) As far as the proposed legislation is concerned

" A public school may not charge a parent of a learner at that school different school fees based on curriculum or extramural curriculum within the same grade."

It is a fact that many of these so called Public Schools with a religious ethos charge a flat fee for all learners that include religious instructions/education (that they do not affiliate/ subscribe to). Therefore learners that attend a school with a dominant religious ethos are forced to pay for what they do not subscribe to.

It is unfair to charge or to force learners to pay for a curriculum that is not consistent with the national core curriculum or for that matter not subscribes to that particular belief.

We agree with the amendments of changes from the latter part of clause 6 to 11.

We concur with the proposed amendment and applaud the legislators for stamping out some of the "abuses" by governing bodies for the non-compliance of school fees, in particular

• suspension from classes
• verbal or non verbal abuse
• denying access to extramural activities
• denying access to nutrition programmes
• withholding school reports or transfers.

We agree with the proposed legislation 58A (1), (2) and (3).

As far as 58A (4), we are concerned of the kind of message it sends when a school governing body, which is a juristic person, cannot have its assets attached. We would like to know whether the juristic person could be liable for breach of payment for example.

We concur with the new amendment as it seeks to fast track the process of appointment and the principles of redress /employment equity.

We hail the efforts of the amended legislation to cater for the plight of CONDITIONALLY TRANSFERRED TEACHERS (C.T.T.) in their absorption as permanent educators. It is our experience that too often the C.T.T’s who are in excess do not get absorbed because the Staff Selection Committees of School Governing Body, label the candidate/s who apply for such vacant position as unsuitable.

Therefore the recommendation to consider all the applications for that post and appoint a suitable candidate temporarily or re-advertise the post is seen as positive.

We also note the time limit imposed and one again we suggest that …days be changed to working days.

We also note with interest amendment 3(f). We feel that this amendment is long overdue and those school governing bodies trying to tinker with the process in light of 3(b) will now be made to make appointment/s that is in keeping with the Employment Equity Act 1998 (Act 55 of 1998).

The Employment Equity Plan for each Province needs to be made available to all School Governing Bodies whenever a vacancy arises. We suggest that it be included in the HRM list advertising these vacancies.

We concur with the amendment on the conversion of temporary employment to permanent employment.

We agree with the repeal.

We once again thank PARLIAMENT for giving us an opportunity to attend the public hearing on 30^th August 2005.

Please let us know whether you would like us also to do a POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. We have the necessary hardware to do the presentation.

If there is any aspect you wish to discuss, please let us know.

Once again assuring you of our sincerest co –operation at all times.

Yours Faithfully

SHABAAN KHAN.