The Governors’ Alliance is a SGB Association made up of a substantially large number of public school governing bodies in Gauteng.

The Govenors’ Alliance wishes to thank the Education Portfolio Committee for the opportunity to make a submission into the Education Laws Amendment Bill.

Over the years there has been a litany of reports of cases in which learners have been found guilty of misconduct after a fair hearing, the matters have been referred to Heads of Department with recommendations of expulsion. The SGB’s have engaged the Heads of Department regarding suspension, pending the HOD’s decision on expulsion. Invariably, there is swift response from officials insisting that the learners found guilty of serious conduct return to the school and classes. On the other hand, and despite procedural regulations prescribing time limits for response, the HOD’s or their delegates delay the decision for long periods of time, and sometimes simply do not respond. What is the upshot of this other learners see how ineffectual disciplinary measures are, when perpetrators of serious misconduct return to school and hang around with impunity interminable. In many cases HOD’s or their delegates make no attempt to interact with SGB’s regarding their recommendations.

We have Regulations for School Safety Policy and on the Management of Drug Abuse but what use are they when sanctions are ineffective and unruly and criminal elements cannot be isolated or removed from the school community.

Timeframes set invariably do not get adhered to by departmental officials and this may further impede the expulsion process being recommended by the SGB.

SGB’s have past the point of frustration at the obstruction of their attempts to maintain order and discipline at their schools.

We are talking about "serious misconduct" reference is made to the Gauteng Schedule 1 and 2 type offences –

-seriously threatens, disrupts or frustrates teaching or learning in a class

-distributes, or is in the possession of any test or examination material that may enable another person to gain an unfair advantage in a test or examination

-engages in any act of public indecency

-sexually harasses another person

-is in possession of, consumes or deals in any illegal substance or other harmful

substance

-engages in fraud

-engages in theft, or otherwise acts dishonestly to the prejudice of another person

-is in possession of any dangerous weapon

-murders any person

-rapes any person, or engages in any sexual activity which amounts to an offence in law

-etc

Timeframes mentioned in the ELA –

-5 days suspension of learner

-within 7 days after the suspension a disciplinary proceedings must be conducted

-if disciplinary proceedings are not conducted within seven days after the suspension of the learner, the governing body must obtain the approval of the Head of Department for the continuation of the suspension of such learner

-HOD to consider the recommendation by the governing body and must decide whether or not to expel a learning within 14 days of receiving such recommendation-a learner or the parent of a learner who has been expelled from a public school may appeal against the decision of the Head of Department to the Member of the Executive Council within 14 days of receiving the notice of expulsion

Recommend - Timeframe be set for the MEC to respond to the appeal

The question remains what happens to this learner during this "time of contemplation" by the HOD and the MEC in the case of appeal. The rights of the other learners, the educators and staff at the school need to be seriously considered in the process.

The amendments relating to Norms and Standards require no comment – they do not substantially alter the existing provisions.

The thrust of the new Section 35 (1) is in the specific empowerment of the Minister to determine "quintiles" as defined. Parameters already exist for such quintiles to be determined in the current Norms and Standards so that it is not a new concept.

The real problem lies in the determination of the percentage of learners, or schools as it is variously put in different sections, who or which go into the quintiles. The current criteria for allocation are inherently discriminating and unfair. The norms are based on the relative poverty of the school community, but the criteria are based on the location and facilities of the school. In many cases the majority of a school’s community comes from the poorest, or almost poor, of the poor, but the school gets treated as one of the least poor.

When it comes to the funding of recurrent cost allocations (running and minor maintenance and repair, minor renovation, minor capital costs) when is a school poor, or the poorest of the poor, and when is it the least poor. Do the learners from an informal settlement attending a suburban school cease to be the poorest of the poor when they step into the suburban school?

Why is the power and duty in 39 (2) (b) given to SGB’s if the Minister can, effectively nullify that power by prescribing on all such matters.

It is difficult to understand the reason for Section 39 (2) (c ). All SGB’s have to go by, is actually tendencies, which for many reasons may not be accurate. SGB’s are not entitled to demand details of gross income according to which to make such an assessment. Hence, the estimates will not be reliable. Perhaps the rider –

"according to established trends" should be added to make better sense of this.

The "adequacy bench mark level" can be lauded, but in order for the level to be accurate, realistic and flexible. The size of the school, and the needs of the school would differ considerably and would need to be carefully considered. A one size fits all would not work.

The concern here is how would the poorest of the poor in a community ever raise funds for any extras at the school if no fee is to be charged. We doubt whether the "adequacy bench marking level" would ever be adequate to bring all schools up to an acceptable standard to deliver acceptable education standards to all.

41 (1) It is recommended that the power to take action such as the recovering of school fees be given to the school represented by its SGB.

Section 41 (3) this section requires reconsideration.

Recommendation reword this section to read –

Section 41 (4)

The provisions in this section are unreasonable. SGB’s do not have the power similar to that of SARS to require parents to disclose their income. That disclosure comes only when a parent applies for relief under the applicable Exemption Regulations. It is only then that a SGB can ascertain whether or not, or to what extent a parent qualifies for exemption. The SGB cannot force a parent to apply. The SGB can notify, inform and invite, but no more. When all that elicits no response, the institution of action is inevitable.

The only prerequisite for the institution of action of non payment of school fees should be the written notification of the parent, served by hand, or forwarded by pre-paid registered mail to the parent calling upon the parent to pay the arrears or submit an application for exemption within 14 days from the date of service or despatch of the notification.

"The parent must comply with the criteria of exemption for paying of schools fees by applying for full or partial or conditional exemption to the SGB, within the first term. No action may be instituted before an application for exemption or partial exemption from the payment of compulsory school fees, has been adjudicated on by the SGB."

Section 41 (5)

Recommend that this whole section to be deleted.

Section 41 (6) – A public school may not attach the dwelling in which a parent resides.

This amendment is supported.

Section 41 (7) – A learner may not be deprived of his or her right to participate in all aspects of the programme of a public school despite the non-payment ……………….

Section 42 (a) (Section 42 Financial Records and Statements of Public School) already provides that the SGB of a public school must keep records of assets of the school. In terms of Section 20 (1) (g) a SGB must administer and control the school’s property. It admits of no doubt that sound administration would require the disposal of, say redundant or worn assets on the best terms possible, and the replacement of the latter, when necessary.

If that is not enough, it will suffice to insert a provision expressly requiring a SGB (and not entitling the HOD) to compile and maintain an inventory of all assets owned by the public school. A provision can be addressed to the effect that such inventory must be audited annually, simultaneously with the audit provided for in Section 43 (Section 43 SASA - Audit or examination of financial records and statements).

The question of donation or transfer of public school assets is already governed by Section 37 – especially Section 37 (6) (b) and (d).

The proposed Section 58A (3) is simply unreasonable and unacceptable. We question the provisions especially for the prior consent of the MEC.

Recommendation –

"to control the sale or alienation of public school assets, a provision prohibiting same except when reasonably necessary in the best interests of the school and, subject to Section 37 (6) (d) at market related consideration."

The Governors’ Alliance wishes to emphasis the need for the relook of the intentions of the Education White Paper No. 2 which stated –

"…. Appointments will be made by departments of education on the recommendation of and in consultation with school governing bodies. This balances the prerogatives of governing bodies with the necessity for government decisions, while providing strong safeguards against arbitrary administrative action. The Ministry of Education appreciates that the responsibility of making teaching staff appointments would be the clearest indication of the extent to which real devolution of decision making power to the school level has taken place. All public school governing bodies would have the authority to recommend the appointment of teachers to their respective provincial education department. For most governing bodies, this represents an extraordinary gain in authority and influence …."

We further suggest that careful thought be given to all the good and democratic reasons why SGB’s were given the right of prior recommendation of educators to posts at their schools in the first place.

New Section 6 (3) (a) – (m)

Clearly, it is the intention to take the game away from SGB’s. The HOD can effectively disregard interviews held, performance and presentations in interviews, and appoint a faceless person in a manner which, in practice, will lead to that appointment becoming permanent.

New Section 6B – "Conversion of temporary employment to permanent employment"

This provision especially when considered against the background of the above one needs to ask is there any meaningful role for SGB’s in schools.

"The HOD may ……convert the temporary ………into a permanent appointment…………..without the recommendation of the governing body or the council, as the case may be" Recommend delete last line of 6B.

The concept of devolution initially espoused has been reversing to centralisation with increasing impetus and public schools and their communities find themselves in virtually the same position that they were in before 1992 – disempowered and fearfully marginalized.