3
SADTU
RESPONSE TO THE FET COLLEGES BILL (dated
Introduction
The South
African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) welcomes the opportunity provided by
the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Education to engage with the FET
Colleges Bill (2006). We firmly believe that the success of a new education
policy depends largely on effective implementation that is supported by all key
stakeholders especially educators. SADTU sees itself playing an instrumental
role in ensuring this success.
SADTU’s response focuses on the following areas:
§
Consultative Process
§
Implications for FET Schools
§
Public Further Education and Training Colleges
Bill
The Consultative Process
SADTU would
like to place on record its concern with the manner in which the FET Act, 98 of
1998 is being reviewed, especially that it appears to repeal it and substitutes
it with the proposed FET Colleges Act.
The review
process and the draft FET Colleges Bill seriously undermine the process of
consultation. We make this statement in the light that the following were
already in a state of completion or complete before the Bill was open for
public comment.
§
The National Senior Certificate Policy has
already been promulgated which replaces the FETC (General) which applied to
schools
§
Colleges have already completed or are about to
complete their merger processes
Also at the
time of convening the consultative meeting between the DoE and the Teacher
Unions (
While we
recognize the prerogative of the Education Ministry to repeal as well as
promulgate new laws and regulations it is our feeling that this consultative
process left much to be desired. A major implication for the national
department is to consider the legitimacy of these products that emerge after
internal processes. It would be unwise for the national department of education
to expect buy in and support if they continue to marginalise stakeholders. SADTU therefore stresses the need for
transparency and proper stakeholder participation.
Implications for FET Schools
We recognize
that the Bill as it currently stands appears to address the FET Colleges
sector, however we would like to indicate that the review of the FET Act, 98 of
1998 also has serious implications for schools at the FET-band. FET is at the centre of educational and national socio-economic change
and development. This cannot be ignored; hence we raise the following issues:
Ø
As we discuss the repeal\review of the FET Act
the National Senior Certificate has already been promulgated which has serious
and far reaching implications for the schooling system at the FET phase.
Schools are now no longer able to offer subject combinations as contained in
the now repealed Qualifications and Assessment Policy Framework (QAPF).
Ø
This has implications for the development of
schools at the FET phase in respect to the redesigning of school curricula. The
schools most disadvantaged will be those in historically poor areas of the
country that continue to be plagued by poor quality education that stifles the
life chances of these learners. Hence, the FET schools landscape becomes more
skewed (mostly in favour of the well-resourced schools and the emerging
mega-colleges).
The new
National Senior Certificate policy reduced the subject combination for schools
to “any three NCS approved subjects”. We feel that without a clear program in
terms of how schools would be compelled to improve their curricula offering
will leave formerly disadvantaged schools with the same uncoordinated subject
offering they are currently offering. It should be remembered that the framework
for curriculum development under the FET Act must complement skills development
which necessitates that it must make provision for inputs from commerce and
industry. It is hard to envisage how the curricula make up of the majority of
these schools would be able to achieve this.
The National
Curriculum Framework for Further Education and Training (2000) was clear in its
articulation of what the FET band in the NQF intended to do. Two of the stated
objectives were:
Ø
The framework represents the first policy statement
in our country that integrates qualifications in the school and the College
system. It will replace Report 550, a policy document for schools, and Report
191, a policy document for Colleges.
Ø
Target learners aged 16 and older, and include
adults. Currently (it stated then), there are over 3 million learners, of which
over 2 million are found in secondary schools. We do not believe that the
status quo has changed much from then.
The FET band
could also be interpreted in terms of President Mbeki’s “State of the Nation”
address that addressed a vision for
This was a
strategy;
“To
maximise the potential of the people of South Africa, through the acquisition
of knowledge and skills, to work productively and competitively in order to
achieve a rising quality of life for all (including school going youth), and to
set in place an operational plan, together with the necessary institutional
arrangements, to achieve this.”
The question
we are asking as SADTU, representing 220 000 educator members, is why have the
schools become marginalized from these processes? We believe that prioritising
the FET Colleges at the expense of schools might have serious consequences in
the years to come. To us the present is an opportunity that should not be lost
through sectarian postulations.
We are
raising the above issues because the latest version of the FET Colleges Bill
states it clear on “Application and Purpose of the Act (p3) that;
“the Purpose of the Act is to prohibit
schools from offering further education and training under this Act.”
It is SADTU’s
contention that with this clause public schools have been effectively cut out
of any programs or projects related to the National Strategy on Skills
Development. We reiterate our position that if schools are not supported and
encouraged to become part of the National Strategy on Skills Development, like
the example cited below, FET Colleges alone will not be able to offset
the skills shortage in this country.
We commend
the Western Cape Department of Education for being a trendsetter in showing how
public schools could be utilised for skills development and recommend that this
be not an isolated case.
[A leading Western Cape Education Department (WCED) Engineering and
Education MEC Cameron Dugmore is to
give the keynote address at the celebratory function today (
With this specialised equipment, the
Oval North High is the only
school in
The donation is the result of long
standing partnerships between schools in
Said the principal Mr Na-aim
Kassiem: “
“The school has recently received
the equipment to assist with its roll out as a Focus School in this field.The
equipment brings breadth and width to engineering studies at our school and
will help us in producing top-quality engineers.”]
(Information supplied by the Office of the MEC for Education in the
Therefore a structured program, driven at the
level of the National Department of Education, to assist schools to develop
their curricula to meet the demands of the 21st Century is
imperative. This process should be similar to the Colleges re-development
programme through the Colleges Recapitalisation program. This becomes more
imperative in that the Department of Education in their introduction of the
thirteen
The Question
of Access and Mobility
We can argue
further against the marginalisation of schools on the basis of research done on
the needs of youth in this country.
Some 2.8 million (or 27%) young people are considered to be ‘marginalised’,
or are alienated from society in a number of social and economic spheres. (National Youth Policy) Looking at the figures adapted from the National Youth Policy it becomes
clear that the Colleges alone cannot even make the necessary dent in
solving the problem of skilling the youth in this country. A multi pronged
strategy involving mostly schools has to be fully developed. We are concerned
that FET colleges might become inaccessible to out of school youth due to
college fees.
Another important point for clarity is whether the youth\learners exiting
the
In conclusion our argument is that removing schools from an Act that
would have allowed them to be part of the National Strategy on Skills
Development is short-sighted when one considers the enormity of the skills
shortage in the country.
PUBLIC FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING COLLEGES
BILL
This section
will make specific references to our concerns, questions and need for clarity
in the content of the Bill. Some of the more general issues to be raised:
§
We need to be made aware of the mechanism put in
place to comply with Section 6(2) (e) which deals with ‘merger of public
further education and training colleges’ This deals with the merging colleges
‘satisfying their obligations in terms of the applicable labour laws.’
§
Section 6(5) speaks to pre-merger meeting
between merging colleges. Does the office of the MEC have any oversight role on
these proceedings? If yes, what is the extent of such oversight role? If not,
how does the office of the MEC ensure compliance before declaring the
institution a public FET college? An
alternative question would be whether this role is still played by Merger Unit
located within the Higher Education Branch of the Department of Education. This
information would assist in the event of grievances and disputes. We are aware,
of course, that the majority of Colleges have completed their mergers but would
contend that some disputes can still result as a result of such mergers and
thus would need to be clear about areas of responsibility.
§
The same section speaks to a possibility
existing for workers to be’ laid off due to operational requirements’ Are
educators\workers themselves involved in these pre-merger meeting and what is
the status of their involvement in such meetings.
§
What is the legal and technical process of
transferring state employees belonging to Government Employees Pension Fund
into college\council employees without them forfeiting their benefits? Section
7 (p13)
We would,
henceforth, proceed to deal with the FET as per its chapters.
1. Chapter
One
1.1. The question of application:
SADTU
believes that the terminology used in the Act will create confusion. The Act provides for staff to be classified
as management staff, lecturers and non-lecturers. The choice of the terms “lecturer” and
“non-lecturer” are problematic in that they are not consistent with the terms
used in the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. The differences are as follows –
§
The Bill defines a lecturer as “any person who
teaches, educates or trains other persons or who provides professional
educational services at any further education and training college or
departmental office and who is appointed in the post of any lecturer
establishment under this Act”.
§
In contrast the Employment of Educators Act
defines an educator as “any person who teaches, educates or trains other
persons or who provides professional educational services, including
professional therapy and education, psychological services, at any public
school, further education and training institutions, departmental office or ad
hoc basic education centre and who is appointed in any post or in any educational
establishment under this Act”.
1.2. As is
indicated above, the words “including professional therapy and education,
psychological services” have been excluded from the definition of a
lecturer. This may give rise to the
argument that such persons are excluded from the definition of professional
educational services and accordingly it is submitted that the words “including
professional therapy and education, psychological services” should be included
in the definition of a lecturer to ensure consistency with the definition of an
educator in terms of the Employment of Educators Act. In other words a lecturer
is an educator employed within a further education and training college.
We welcome
the DoE,s compliance with earlier submission on the use of the title
‘non-lecturer’ and its substitution with ‘support staff’.
2. Chapter Two
2.1. Clause 6 – Merger of Public Colleges
§
Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the merger of public
colleges. Sub-clauses (8) to (13) deal
with the employment consequences of such a merger.
§
The
2.2. Transfer
of employees in the case of a merger
Normally, the
transfer of employees in a merger are dealt with in terms of the provisions of
sections 197 and 197A of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“LRA”). The
While
sub-clause (8) provides for the transfer of contracts of employment from the
old employer (“the merging colleges”) to the new employer (“the merged
college”) it does not deal with the transfer of obligations in respect of an
arbitration award or collective agreement binding in terms of either section 23
or 32 of the Labour Relations Act.
Accordingly, it is proposed that a new sub-clause be inserted as
follows –
“The single
merged college is bound by –
§
any arbitration award made in terms of the
Labour Relations Act, the common law or any other law; and
§
any collective agreement binding in terms of
section 23 or section 32 of the Labour Relations Act on any of the public
colleges that are merged into a single college.”
This clause
is based on section 197(5) of the Labour Relations Act.
A further
failing of the clauses is that they fail to place any obligation on either the
merging colleges or the merged college to provide information to trade unions
representing the employees of the colleges.
This may lead to a situation where employees are inadequately informed
about the mergers and misunderstandings may occur. Accordingly it is proposed that a clause be
inserted in the following terms –
“(a) Prior to a proposed merger, the public
colleges that are to be affected by the proposed merger must disclose to trade
unions representing employees at the colleges all relevant information
concerning the proposed merger so as to enable the trade unions to engage
effectively in any negotiation or consultations with the colleges and to advise
their members on the consequences of the proposed merger.
(b) Once a
merger has taken place, the obligation in terms of sub-paragraph (a) rests on
the merged single public college.”
Clause 6(13)
provides for the merging colleges (referred to as “the former employer”) to
undertake rationalisations of its workforce prior to the date of the
merger. SADTU strongly opposes this
provision. Where the merger of one or
more colleges results in a rationalisation of a workforce, such process of
rationalisation and, if necessary, retrenchment must occur within the context
of the staff complement of the merged single college. The fact that rationalisations may occur
prior to the merger will result in situations in which employees are deprived
of their protections under section 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations
Act. In particular, it may result in a
situation in which the criteria used to determine which employees are to be
retrenched are not fair and objective because they only take into account the
employees of one of the merging colleges and not all the colleges. It is evident that where a retrenchment may
occur because of a reduction of the staff complement, the competing claims of
the different employees from all the colleges that are to be merged must be
considered and such a process can only occur after the merger and be effected
by the single merged public college.
A further
failing of sub-clause (13) is its failure to refer to section 189A which deals
with rationalisations by employers employing more than 50 employees. It is quite inappropriate that this reference
should be excluded.
Accordingly
SADTU submits that sub-clause (13) should be deleted from the Bill. The law concerning retrenchment is dealt with
in the Labour Relations Act itself and the inclusion of sub-clause (13) in the
Bill merely serves to confuse its application.
In the
alternative, if this submission is rejected, the
3. Chapter Three
GOVERNANCE of
PUBLIC FET COLLEGES.
§
What does ‘the determination of language policy
by college council’ section 10(2) (b) mean in practical terms? What are the
processes involved in this determination?
§
[Section 10, sub-section (b) makes provision for
organized labour to submit nominations to Provincial MECs to serve on College
Councils, whenever such calls are made. The position is supported by SADTU if
it guarantees the ‘voice of organized labour on the College council.]
This section has been
deleted – we suspect that it could have been because of SADTU’s submission below.
SADTU had proposed that:
Representatives of labour must be restricted to
recognized education sector Unions
The MEC, must after consideration, appoint at
least one nominee from the constituencies prescribed in subsection10 (a) and
(b)
The nomination for the organized labour
representative must come from the educator sector
We would
recommend that the clause that, “the Member of the Executive Council must, by
notice in the Provincial Gazette, or by any other reasonably practical means,
invite nominations for the members contemplated in (4) (b) from
(a)
the public
(b)
organised business; and
(c)
organised labour
be retained
in its original form. We, however, stress that these nominations should be
restricted to recognised education sector Unions, as per our original
submission on the Bill.
4. Chapter
Four
Appointment of Management Staff, Lecturers and Non-Lecturers In Public
Colleges
Chapter 4
deals with the appointment of management staff, lecturers and support staff and
also deals with dispute resolution in clause 21.
We reiterate
our position that the transfer of lecturers to Council employees will be met with
resistance. It is the
Clause 21 – Dispute Resolution
Clause 21 is
headed “dispute resolution between colleges, lecturers and non-lecturers”. However sub-clause (1) merely refers to
disputes about “the payment or employment conditions of a lecturer”. Section 21 is inconsistent with the Labour
Relations Act which provides for dispute resolution in respect of matters of
mutual interest between employers and employees. The use of different terminology will cause
uncertainty and it is believed that dispute resolution should be addressed by
the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, Public Service Act (to the extent
that they are relevant to non-lecturer staff) and the constitution of the
relevant bargaining councils. The
inconsistency of terminology between section 21 and these other laws will
create considerable confusion and we therefore propose that section 21 be
deleted in its entirety. A further error
is that section 21(4) provides for disputes to be referred to the
5. Chapter Five
Section 22
(a)
We need clarity
on the ‘schools offering FET programs as envisaged by this Draft policy
document vis a` vis National Senior Certificate policy.
If the Bill
envisages that there could be schools offering FET programmes parallel to the
newly promulgated National Senior Certificate policy we need to be clarified on
the process mechanism for this arrangement.
[In
line with the SADTU submission, this has been deleted]
Section 22
(2) (b)
We also need
a discussion on ‘Differentiation’ and what the practical implications are for
this process.
Conclusion.
Despite the
reservations reflected on this submission on some of the aspects of the Bill
SADTU wishes to state that we welcome any review of policies that would
contribute to expedited implementation of education transformation policies.
The time it has taken to fully implement the skilling programs in the FET
sector is a cause for concern thus we welcome processes to expedite this
process.
Submitted by
the Education Desk
SADTU
National Office -