2
S2006/
university of the
Introduction
The
Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Education has called for comment on the Further
Education and Training (FET) Colleges Bill (B23-2006) to reach them by
The main
object of the Bill is described in point 1 of the memorandum as “to repeal the
Further Education and Training Act, 1998 (Act no. 98 of 1998)… and to ensure
that all issues relating to … FET Colleges … are dealt with in one Act of
Parliament”. Further, in point 3 of the
memorandum which concerns financial implications, it states: “Seeing that the
Bill is merely a refinement of the current FET Act, no additional costs are
foreseen.” The University agrees that
large sections of the FET Act appear unchanged in the FET Colleges Bill and in
this sense the Bill may be regarded as ‘merely a refinement’; yet some of the
changes proposed are interesting and warrant discussion. Also, the statement that ‘no additional costs
are foreseen’ warrants comment.
The
response that follows addresses
–
general
points (those that are of particular interest to the University as well as some
of those highlighted in the memorandum attached to Bill as the main differences
between the Act and the Bill) and
–
the
financial implications of the changes proposed.
General
points
The
University welcomes any attempt to continually improve the Further Education
and Training (FET) sector. It is in the
national interest to do so, as recently given new emphasis in two key national
projects namely the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa
(ASGISA) and the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA). It is also an important sector in the way it
relates to higher education because not only does it provide entrance-level
students to higher education, but it also presents alternative routes for
further study to students not going into higher education, and in some
instances another route into higher education.
It is in the context of both areas of interest, i.e. the national
interest and the higher education sectoral interest, that the University offers
the following points in comment on the FET Colleges Bill B23 of 2006.
The
long-standing concerns about FET specifically, and about the whole education
and training sector in general, have relevance to the discussion about the FET
Colleges Bill, and include:
-
The
changes being made to the general FET stream, recently named the National
Senior Certificate (NSC), on which the higher education sector has had the
opportunity to provide comment to the national DoE over recent years; much
effort, especially from provincial education structures, will be needed to
implement the NSC in the next few years
-
The
standing of general FET relative to vocational / trade / occupational streams
of FET; this is associated with the unfinalised outcome of the review of the
NQF and the unresolved standing of labour legislation structures (e.g. SETAs
and their ETQAs) relative to the education legislation and structures
-
Unresolved
alternative ‘post-secondary’ options open to students, specifically in the
higher education realm, such as the unsettled identities of some of the new
comprehensive universities, the shift in the control of education colleges to
universities sometimes to the detriment of the national priority for teacher education,
the unresolved fate of agricultural and nursing colleges, etc.
The above
points show that the system continues to undergo extensive change and whilst
this is known and to be expected, perhaps it is opportune to recap on the
over-arching strategy. The FET Colleges Bill
must have been designed to fit in with the strategy, but it does not reveal
what the changes to the national strategy are, nor is the Bill necessarily the
appropriate place to document revisions to the strategy; however it is necessary
to understand the strategy so as to place the Bill in context. For example, what kind of national direction
or guidance will be provided for the provincial departments and for the colleges
and how will this be done e.g. what national structure(s) will direct them? It appears that the NBFET may be replaced (section
50) – what strategy informs this change?
What is the proposed relationship of general FET to trade / occupational
FET and how is it influenced by the as yet unfinalised review of the NQF? None of the above questions is meant to
presuppose that the proposals in the Bill are wrong – e.g. it may be very
reasonable to replace the NBFET – however what our comments highlight is that
the reasons behind the changes that the Bill proposes are not clear.
The
education and training focus which it appears that the FET colleges will
address is an area of national priority because of the skills deficits that the
country faces. We grant that provinces are usually responsible for FET matters
but ask why in this instance, as this is a national priority, the Bill does not
seem to provide for a national competence of sorts, to handle implementation
until the changes are in place?
Provinces have the goodwill but have uneven capacity – and are handling
the roll-out of the NSC – therefore some form of central support could help the
provinces. Furthermore, the schedule of
proposed Colleges appended to the Bill shows how small the proposed College
sector currently is (e.g. only one existing institution in Johannesburg despite
the huge need in the city), relative to the schools sector; given that it is an
area of national priority for growth, it could be disadvantageous to leave the
colleges to be minority voices in every province, rather than give them a special
national voice.
Under
‘purpose and application of the Act’ (section 2), it appears that the colleges
are to have a narrower focus than given to FET institutions under the current FET
Act. This seems to be the case because
of two clauses. First, 2 (1) (a) (iii)
is limited to ‘applied vocational and occupational competence’ which students
need to acquire. Second, 2 (1) (c) will
‘prohibit schools from offering further education and training’; this statement
is written somewhat ambiguously because schools are to offer the NSC which is a
form of FET; we presume that it is the intention to prevent schools from
offering ‘applied vocational and occupational’ FET whilst limiting them to
‘general FET’ which has come to be named the NSC.
Therefore,
if the above limitations have been understood correctly, the FET Colleges Bill
proposes a significant narrowing of focus, relative to the current FET Act –
i.e. it will regulate only FET colleges (as the name suggests) and not all
institutions offering FET. Yet, there is
an exception to the limitation and it concerns the relationship of the proposed
FET colleges to the offering of higher education and training. Section 43 of the Bill provides enabling
clauses for teaching higher education i.e. that, with permission of the
Minister, public FET colleges may teach higher education programmes, under the
authority of a higher education provider. Could the proposed colleges be prohibited from
offering the NSC the way it appears that 2 (1) (c) is meant to prevent schools
from offering applied vocational and occupational courses? If this is the intention, then it is not
clear for what reason the colleges and schools would be limited from teaching
within each others’ areas of FET whilst flexibility is created for colleges to
offer higher education. The reasons may
be logical, but are not apparent. The
Bill appears to introduce flexibility on one front (where colleges would link
to higher education) but apparently not on another (where colleges could link
with the type of general FET offered in schools).
Regarding
43 and the flexibility to allow public (NB not private) colleges to offer
higher education, if this section is to remain in the Bill, permission and
processes need to be managed carefully e.g. criteria and jurisdiction must be
clear. The Bill would benefit from
strengthening section 43. The following
should be considered:
-
It
is not clear why only public FET colleges will be allowed this, and not private
colleges; nor is it clear why a distinction is not drawn between public and
private higher education institutions, i.e. only public FET colleges (and not
private colleges) may enter into an arrangement with seemingly either type of
HE provider, public or private.
-
43
(2) states that ‘quality assurance must be conducted by Umalusi’. If a college is teaching in higher education,
43 needs to be more clear about the Education and Training Quality Assurer (ETQA)
for higher education being the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) of the
Council on Higher Education (CHE).
-
43
remains silent on training in the higher education and training (HET) band – it
merely mentions ‘higher education’ and does not mention training. We grant that the NQF review is not yet
finalised and therefore the nature of involvement of Sector Education and
Training Authority (SETA)’s ETQAs in training at the HET-level remains unresolved. However, if the FET colleges are to be
limited to vocational and occupational courses whilst schools will offer
general FET, it seems more likely that the colleges will find a need to link
with providers in the HET band that are involved more on the training side of
the education and training continuum. Hence,
the silence may need to be addressed, so that unintended consequences are
avoided, and so that the best interests of education and training are advanced.
-
43
(3) states that a public college may only provide higher education programmes
under the authority of a higher education institution’ – but quite how the
higher education institution would provide the authority is not clear – if
enacted it would be important to define the criteria for such relationships
e.g. in regulations under the act.
-
43
(4) (a) requires that permission be sought from the Minister. It should be made clear that there must be
good reason for the motivation.
-
The
definition of further education and training in chapter 1 section 1
specifically excludes higher education (it states ‘below higher education’) and
yet section 43 is enabling a public FET college to teach beyond FET; therefore
a statement may be necessary, saying notwithstanding the definition of FET, the
proposed section applies.
As pointed
out previously, the Bill will pertain to FET colleges not to schools. Therefore, if colleges will be enabled to
offer higher education, a similar provision ought to be made for schools in the
Schools Act 84 of 1996 as amended.
In respect
of relationships with private companies, in chapter 3, section 9 point 6 is a
new clause relative to the FET Act, and it will prevent colleges from forming
companies. The reasons for the constraint
may be logical, but are not presented in the memorandum.
The issue
of access for students leaving colleges and wishing to enter higher education,
is not clear. It appears, as discussed
above, that a distinction is being drawn between FET at schools, and FET in the
proposed colleges. What qualification
will students emerging from the colleges hold?
What will its standing be relative to the NSC? Will there be different levels of exit, within
colleges e.g. after one, two or three years of study and hence what will the
terminal level be? What access (if any) could
such qualifications give students to higher education, and to which type of
higher education institution is it possible that students could gain entry
(e.g. universities of technology, comprehensives, higher education colleges,
universities)? More detail about the exit
qualification, and the proposed articulation with higher education, is
requested.
In section
54, the parties are not defined. This is
of concern because it could lead to a hiatus - the parties should be empowered
to establish new structures and need to be defined by the Bill so that upon
enactment, progress can be made; it should not be left to a post-facto
decision.
In section
58, what will be the transitional arrangements and timeframe be for aligning the
Bill once enacted with the regulations under the current FET Act which,
according to this section, remain in force?
In section
11 (3), the phrasing used in order to describe the composition of academic
board could be read to include all such staff, whereas this is unlikely to have
been the intention of the drafter.
A
significant change proposed is regarding the staffing of the colleges, i.e.
that staff will be employees of the college rather than of the province
(staffing issues are dealt with fairly extensively in the memorandum appended
to the Bill – see points quoted in the appendix to this comment document).
Financial
implications of the changes proposed
Whilst
staff are to be employed directly by the proposed FET colleges, the provinces
will have their say via funding, and we presume that a new subsidy arrangement,
possibly informed in some way by the higher education subsidy model, will be
developed, since section 23 provides for norms and standards for funding.
These two
changes, i.e. to staffing and funding arrangements, represent a significant departure
from current practice and will present the colleges and provinces with
challenges especially during the changeover period. It appears as if some elements of the higher
education steering model are being proposed, but the provincial level of
authority is being retained. Again, an
explanation of the reasoning behind the provisions of the Bill would have been
helpful. Without such explanation, our
concerns about capacity remain – has sufficient attention been paid to
transitional arrangements so as to support the changes in the proposed colleges
and the provinces?
Questions
arise about the provision of money by the state. Whilst the model appears to be new (i.e. what
we infer from mention of norms and standards for funding), it is not clear
where the budget will come from. Two
sources will be discussed: Education and Labour sources of funding.
-
Education:
If the funding is coming from the education budget, will the funding for
colleges be a new allocation of funds over and above the current education
budget, or will the funding for colleges be taken from within the existing and
limited education allocation? Further,
if it is taken from within the education budget, will it be reallocated from
within the FET budget rather than being taken away from the other education
sectors?
-
Labour:
How will the budget allocated to labour be used to support vocational and
occupational FET? The provisions of the
Skills Development Levies Act provide funds for national skills training. How do ASGISA and JIPSA, in their determination
of national priorities, relate to the use of the skills levies for delivering
on these priorities, and how do these two national projects relate to the
changes as proposed in this Bill? How
should the proposed FET colleges benefit from the monies allocated by the
SETAs? This is not clear from the Bill
but is clearly of national concern.
Chapter 5
of the Bill concerns funding of public FET colleges. The equivalent section in the FET Act, to the
chapter 5 section 22 (1) in the Bill, used to include the phrase – now deleted
- ‘apart from FET offered at schools’. Does the change mean that funding of schools
will no longer be ‘apart’ from the funding of colleges? If this is a plausible interpretation
following the amendment, it seems as though section 22 will not make provision
for the funding of the colleges as a separate line item in a budget, and if
this is the case, then there is a fear that the funding of colleges may never
be a priority in one or possibly in any province, since colleges are a minority
relative to schools. If colleges are to
be vehicles to deliver on a national priority for skills, then it may be
necessary to regulate more clearly from the national level what provinces may
do in terms of allocation of funds – and perhaps this is to be done by the
proposed norms and standards mentioned in section 23. Otherwise, provinces could, because of
understandable competing priorities, diminish the funding to this minority
group, the colleges.
C:\Documents and Settings\user\Desktop\A P O\D o E\FET
Colleges Bill B23 of 2006\Wits response to FET Colleges Bill B23 2006 v1.doc
Appendix:
Main differences between the Act and the Bill
With regard
to the differences between the Act and the Bill, point 2 of the memorandum
presents the main differences as:
“2.1 The FET Act
provides for further education and training institutions (FET institutions).
However, in order to differentiate between FET institutions and schools that
offer FET programmes, the Bill now provides for public and private FET
colleges. To this end the Bill defines a college as a public or private further
education and training institution that is established, declared or registered
under the proposed Act, but excluding a school offering further education and
training programmes under the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act No. 84 of
1996), or a college under the authority of a government department other than
the Department of Education.”
“2.2 The FET Act did
not provide for the employment of staff at public FET institutions, because
such staff members were provided for in the Employment of Educators Act, 1998
(Act No. 76 of 1998).”
“2.3.1 Chapter 4 of
the Bill provides for three categories of staff at a public college, namely
management, lecturers and support staff. The management staff consists of the
principal and vice-principal. The management staff is appointed by the Member
of the Executive Council (MEC) responsible for education in a province. The
principal, as the Chief Executive Officer of the college, must be accountable
to both the Head of Department and the MEC.”
“2.3.2 The lecturers and support staff are appointed by the
college. The reason for this is to enable the college to adopt the doctrine of
responsiveness. That is, the college must respond to the needs of the society.
For instance, if a factory approaches a college with a view of asking it to
provide the factory with, say, electricians, the college must immediately
appoint an experienced electrician, either on temporary contract or on a
permanent basis, depending on the circumstances, to train electricians at the
college, However, these staff members will be appointed by the college from the
funds allocated by the State in accordance with norms and standards determined
by the Minister of Education and other income received by the college from
other sources.”
“2.3.3 In the light of the above, speculations that colleges
would raise their student fees so as to cover payment for lecturers and support
staff have no legal basis since the funds will be provided by the State.
Similarly, speculations that lecturers and support staff will forfeit their
privileges such as pension fund, housing subsidies and capped leave are
unfounded. These are covered by section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995
(Act No. 66 of 1995). This section provides that if employees are transferred
from one employer to another employer, they are deemed to be transferred with
all the privileges they enjoyed from the previous employer. To this end, clause
54 of the Bill provides as follows: Subject to section 197 of the Labour
Relations Act, "... the principal, vice-principal, lecturers and support
staff employed by the State continue to be so employed until appointed in terms
of this Act...".
“2.3.4 There are other checks and balances contained in the
Bill, such as those in clause 20(2) and (7), which provides as follows;
"(2) Subject to this Act, the Labour Relations Act, the
Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997 (Act No. 75 of 1997), the Employment
Equity Act, 1998 (Act No. 55 of 1998), and any other applicable law, the
college must establish posts for lecturers and support staff.
(7) The lecturers and support staff contemplated in
subsection (1) must be employed in compliance with the basic values and
principles referred to in section 195 of the Constitution, and factors to be
taken into account when making appointments include, but are not limited to-
(a) the ability of the candidates;
(b) the principle
of equity;
(c) the need to
redress past injustices; and
(d) the need for representivity."; and clause 54(2),
which provides as follows:
"(2) The Education Labour Relations Council and the
PSCBC continue to be the bargaining council to determine salaries and
conditions of employment until the parties agree to establish a new structure
relevant to public colleges". The PSCBC is the Public Service Coordinating
Bargaining Council.”
“2.3.5 The above-mentioned checks and balances should
provide adequate protection for the rights and privileges of lecturers and
support staff,”
“2.4 The Bill authorises public colleges to draft their own
college statutes. If a public college does not have its own Statute yet, it
must use the standard college statute contained in Schedule 1 to the Bill, This
ensures that public colleges always have access to a college statute to assist
in their governance.”
“2.5 The FET Act provides that the MEC may merge two or more
FET institutions. The Bill goes further and provides for the protection of the
employment of the employees. In terms of the Bill the existing rights and
obligations between the employees and employers continue to exist between the
employees and the new employer on the merger of two or more public colleges,
and are subject to labour legislation.
“2.6 The Bill also makes room for transitional arrangements
so as to allow for a smooth transformation from an FET institution to a
college.”