8
Catholic
Institute of Education
SUBMISSION
ON EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2007 IN TERMS OF NOTICE 553 OF 2007.
Introduction:
The Catholic Institute of Education
welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Education Laws Amendment Bill B33 -
2007. This submission will provide comments in the order in which they appear
in the draft bill. In some instances proposed insertions to the Bill will be
provided in relation to the clause that these may support. The numbering of the
Education Laws amendment Bill will be used as reference points and where
appropriate reference to the primary legislation will be stated.
Comments on
the Bill:
We recognise the need to rationalise
various pieces of legislation to ensure that the repeal of the Further
Education and Training Act of 1998 and the promulgation of the Further
Education Training Colleges Act receive the appropriate changes in policy and
legislation. This also applies to the Auditing Professions Act 26 of 2005. It
must be noted however, that in repealing Acts, due diligence is taken to ensure
that amendments such as these are tabled at the time of the tabling of a new
Act or alternatively that transitional arrangements are made. The Further
Education Training Colleges Act should have amended legislation related to it
and these should not have to be done in another piece of legislation. Technical
requirements such as these should not be allowed to remain as they may lead to
unnecessary litigation. Furthermore, the effects of new legislation on existing
legislation need to be outlined to allow for meaningful public participation in
the tabling of new legislation. In the interest of public participation, all
changes that a piece of legislation will make have to be stated.
Amendments
to the National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996.
Definitions
We recommend the insertion of a definition of the National Education
Training Council at (xi) in the definitions section. This would mean
all other definitions after xi would remain but increase by 1 in the clause
number. This clause would read
(xi) “National Education Training Council” means a body in terms of s11
(1) established by the Minister to advise him or her on any matter contemplated
in s11 (3) or any matter identified by the Minister. The council must represent such national organisations representing college
rectors as the Minister may recognise for
this purpose, the organised teaching profession, such national organisations
representing parents as the Minister may recognise for this purpose, such
national organisations representing students as the Minister may recognise for this purpose and such other national stakeholder bodies as the
Minister may recognise for this purpose.
S
1
In terms of s(1) of the Education
Laws Amendment Bill, we are concerned that this substitution would delete
clauses 5 (1)(a)-(f). Unless the National Education Training Council represents
the bodies which are to be deleted by this bill, this would limit the
accountability of the Minister in relation to public participation in drafting
regulations and policy. Furthermore, the establishment of the National
Education Training council is a discretionary function. It must be made clear
that the intention of the Bill is to ensure representative participation and
not enabling the Minister to make new policy unilaterally. The Minister must
also provide for public participation through the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act and this should be stated in this clause.
S 2
We are in
support of this technical amendment.
S 3 (a)
In terms of s 3 (a) of the Amendment
bill, we are opposed to the substitution. This would limit the participation of
various stakeholders as it removes the need to establish constituent bodies and
other advisory bodies to advise the Minister. It is important to note that the
Minister has the final say in directing policy but that sufficient engagement
with stakeholders is needed. Consultation with stakeholders does not limit the
scope of the Ministers work but provides an opportunity for the public to
engage in providing advice. The removal of s 11 (1) subsection (a) and (b)
would undermine the role of public participation.
S 3(b)
We are opposed to the substitution
that is proposed as it offends the need for consultation.
Amendments
to the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996.
Definitions
We welcome the changes to the
definitions as proposed in s 4 of the Amendment Bill in its entirety.
S 5
We welcome the insertion of s 5A to
the Schools Act in terms of s5 of the Amendment Bill.
We would also recommend that that a
clause s 5B, be inserted which places an obligation on the MEC for Education in
each province to appropriate from their Education budgets adequate money to
ensure that the minimum norms and standards are applied in their respective
provinces. This provisioning clause should ensure the application of the norms
and standards.
Possible wording.
S 5B
The MEC
for Education in each province must ensure that from appropriated revenue,
allocations are made to ensure that the minimum norms and standards in s5A are
applied in respect to that province.
S 6
We welcome this section in its
entirety.
S 7
We welcome the insertion of s 8A. We
would recommend that this section be linked to current regulations and policy
around safety in schools so as establish the intention behind random search
seizure and drug testing. Although we note that current policy has been
unsuccessful at stopping the mischief it was designed to deal with, the
creation of s8A does not repeal these policies and where the two work together,
this must be noted.
We would also recommend that s 8A
(2) which empowers the Principal or his/her delegate to conduct certain
activities be done in the presence of a Police Official. Where it is reasonably
impossible for this, the Principal may in the absence of the Police conduct the
search. This would ensure the safety of staff at schools in the case of serious
issues.
We are concerned about the purpose
of a body search as this raises some questions around the right to privacy and
dignity of the learner. Furthermore, the intention to perform body searches on
children suspected of possessing drugs is open to abuse. In the case of
searching for dangerous weapons, body searches may be justifiable and should
not violate the bodily integrity of the learner.
We are also concerned about urine
tests. Other drug testing methods such as testing hair samples are more
effective and can show long term use which a urine test may miss. The need to
have someone watch as the sample is produced is problematic. This also does not
mean that all drugs will be detected and learners may be able to overcome the
issue of testing by using prescription drugs with the same effects as banned
drugs. In the
We would also recommend that
parental consent is considered in all matters prior to the testing of a
learner. One practical way to do this would be to request that the Principal
needs to contact the School governing body and inform them of his/her decision
to perform a random search, seizure or drug test. Between the Principal or the
School governing body, a decision can be taken on who needs to inform the
parents.
Possible
wording
Substitution
of s 8A(2) with
The
Principal or his or her delegate in consultation with the School governing body
may, at random search any learner or property of the learner for dangerous
objects and illegal drugs, after taking into account all relevant factors
including -
insertion
of s 8A(2)(f)
(f) that
reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that notice to search the learner
has been given to the parents or guardians of the said learner.
S 8
We are in support of s 8 of the
Amendment Bill.
s 9
We are in support s 9.
S 10
We are in
support of s10.
S 11
We are in
support of the insertion of s 58 B with the following reservation.
It is important to note that s 58 B
(5)(b) pertaining to the withdrawal of powers of a governing body must be
exercised with discretion. While the Schools Act empowers the Head of
Department to take this action, we must recognise that School governing bodies
are publicly elected bodies. As such any remedy to remove the powers of a
school governing body must show that this is necessary and the effects of this
removal, is in the best interest of the children in a school. It should also be
shown that the removal of the powers of the School governing body do not lead
to a situation which is worse than one where the School governing body is in
place.
We are fully in support of the
insertion of s58C
S
12
We are in
support of this clause.
Amendments
to the National Students Financial Aid Scheme Act 56 of 1999.
We are in support of s 13, 14, 15, 16
,17 and 18 of the Amendment Bill.
Amendments
to the South African Council of Educations Act 31 of 2000
We are in support of s 19, 20 and 21
of the Amendment Bill
Amendments
to the Adult Basic Education and Training Act 52 of 2000
We are in support of s 22, 23 and 24
of the Amendment Bill
Amendments
to the General and Further Education Training Quality Assurance Act 58 of 2001
We are in support of s 25 and 26 of
the Amendment Bill.