Western Cape Provincial School Education Amendment Bill: briefing

Education (WCPP)

17 April 2018
Chairperson: Mr B Kivedo (DA)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Western Cape Education Department explained the proposed changes to the Western Cape Provincial School Education Act, and said that the introduction of the Bill was a requirement for regulating provincial policy developments.

The amendments included changes to definitions in the Act, and the roles of the Head of Department, the district director, principals, deputy principals, circuit managers and subject advisors. There was also an amendment related to provincial competency that included deletion of reference to the South African Schools Act, stating that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Provincial Minister may determine policy which was to be pursued in respect of education in schools in the province, considering various principles.

However, the amendments which drew the main attention of the Committee referred to the proposal to allow the sale of liquor at schools under certain conditions, and for the provision of intervention facilities and alternatives to expulsion. The Department said the barring of liquor sales had had unintended consequences, such as parents not attending school functions, school fund-raising functions failing, and rural schools being unable to host community functions. The intervention facilities would be to allow learners who had been recommended for expulsion, to undergo specialised therapeutic programmes for up to 12 months, subject to parental consent, and thereafter to return to school.

Several Members expressed discomfort and concern regarding the provision for alcohol applications in the policy, as the social consequences of alcohol consumption was detrimental to the education agenda. They also sought clarity on the cost of the proposed therapeutic interventions. A community education activist asked how the Department would break the taboo of looking at therapeutic intervention as a misnomer by society, and even by the teachers of the students in need of intervention.

Meeting report

Western Cape Provincial School Education (WCPSE) Amendment Act

Adv Lynn Coleridge-Zils, Director: Policy Coordination: Western Cape Education Department (WCED), said the WCPSE Amendment Act had been promulgated in December 2010, published on 30 August 2016 and had been out for comment until 23 September 2016. There was a need to legislate provincial policy developments. National developments related to changes in mandate involved adult education and training. The Bill was a requirement for regulating provincial policy developments,

Amendments of section 1, 2 and 3 included deletion of the definition of “adult education” and the insertion of the following definitions: ‘Chief Evaluator’ as contemplated in section 11A(2)(a); ‘circuit manager‘ means the head of a circuit office in an education district who executes functions that have been allocated by the district director or the Head of Department; ‘collaboration school,’ as contemplated in section 12C; ‘donor,‘ a person contemplated in section 12C(2)(a) or 12D(1), who provides funds or property to a collaboration school or a donor-funded public school for the purpose of supporting that school so as to develop a sustainable model for improved education outcomes; ‘donor-funded public school,’ as contemplated in section 12D; ‘evaluator’ of schools appointed in terms of section 11A(4)(b) etc., in section 1.

Amendment of Section 3 was related to provincial competency and includes deletion of reference to the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act 84 of 1996): Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Provincial Minister may determine policy which was to be pursued in respect of education in schools in the province, considering various principles.

Amendment of section 4 was related to adult education - the Department of Higher Education and Training’s mandate -- and included the deletion in subsection 4(1)(b) to the reference of adult education (previously provided that the Provincial Minister may provide for adult education).

Section 9A inserted a new provision, where the Head of Department (HOD), district director, principal or operating partner may conduct monitoring and support of curriculum delivery by the educator in the classroom or authorise the subject advisor, deputy principal, HOD or subject head. The principal may be monitored by the HOD, district director, circuit manager or an authorised representative or an operating partner. The HOD may make rules for monitoring and support. The Education Council may provide the Provincial Minister with an advisory report. The Provincial Minister must consider the advisory report and inform the Chairperson of the Education Council of his or her decision. The Minister establishes a School Evaluation Authority (SEA), and appoints a chief evaluator and assessors according to section 11A. The SEA writes a report with findings and recommendations which are published.       

Adv Coleridge-Zils said Section 12(1) made provision for collaboration schools and donor-funded schools as additional types of public schools. The technical amendment to this section was that s12C provides for the establishment of new collaboration schools and the declaration of existing schools as collaboration schools by the Provincial Minister. Provision is made for matters pertaining to governance of these schools and for the appointment of staff by the governing body. With donor- funded schools (s12D), a further provision is made for the establishment of donor-funded schools and the declaration of existing schools as donor-funded schools by the Provincial Minister.  Provision is also made for matters pertaining to governance of these schools and for the appointment of staff by the governing body. The section provides for intervention facilities and alternatives to expulsion. The Minister may establish intervention facilities subject to availability of resources, facilitate learners who were recommended for expulsion, suspended or as a sanction, to therapeutic programmes and interventions up to a period of 12 months, subject to parental consent. This was to allow access to education, and after completion of the referral, the learner would return to school.

Section 14 dealt with removing the requirement for the concurrence of the Provincial Minister responsible for financial affairs in the Province, when the Provincial Minister responsible for education entered into an agreement with the owner of private property to provide a public school on the private property concerned.

S16(6)  dealt with removing the requirement for the concurrence of the Provincial Minister responsible for financial affairs in the Province, when an agreement was entered into between the Provincial Minister responsible for education and the prospective owner of immovable property for the alienation of land owned by the state which was occupied by a public school.

S18 removed the obligation to comply with section 33 of the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act 84 of 1996) in respect of the closure of a part of a public school, and S20B(1)(a) was a technical amendment, removing the requirement to consult with the Education Council when the Provincial Minister makes regulations relating to basic infrastructure and capacity at public schools.

On the exception to the prohibition of alcoholic liquor (S45B), applications for the sale or consumption of liquor on school premises or during school activities had to be sanctioned by the HOD.  The sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor on school premises or during school activities would be subject to any conditions imposed by the Western Cape Liquor Act, 2008, and any other conditions set by the HOD, principal or governing body. The sale or consumption of alcoholic liquor would not be permitted during school hours. The HOD may, after due process, or in the case of an emergency without due process, withdraw the approval for the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor on school premises, or during school activities. The HOD may, on good cause shown by the school, reverse or suspend his or her decision. Provision was made for an appeal process. The HOD may issue guidelines to schools on the consumption or sale of alcoholic liquor on school premises or during school activities.

S63 empowered the Provincial Minister to make regulations on the following:

  • the funding and governance models for collaboration schools and donor funded public schools (cI);
  • the norms and standards for the granting of subsidies to independent schools (cJ);
  • the promotion and progression of learners at public schools (cK);
  • the norms and standards for an intervention facility (cL);
  • the admission of learners to public schools (cM);
  • the procurement of goods and services relating to education in the province (cN);
  • the monitoring of, and access to, an independent school (cO); and
  • the procedure for registration as an independent school (cP).  

 

Discussion

Mr T Olivier (ANC) expressed discomfort on areas covering the regulation of the sale of liquor (Sec45B), giving the HOD responsibility for monitoring collaboration schools (Sec9(1)), deletion of the reference to the South African Schools Act in slide 6, and the idea of an operating partner. He asked for clarity on these areas.

Adv Coleridge-Zils responded that removing alcohol provision had had unintended policy consequences, as parents no longer attended school functions. Many schools had lost revenue from school activities, and could not raise funds. The Department had given schools an opportunity to make an application for access to this facility in specific circumstances. In rural communities, schools hosted functions for communities and they could make applications for these. The HOD had to take into account the “alcohol harms” reduction strategy and the Western Cape liquor act, so the school had to have rules on its practicality.

Operating partners were expected to have a skill set of curriculum advisors, and financial and human resources specialists to help with the monitoring and running of schools. They also arranged training for educators, so that the staff was empowered, but this applied only to collaboration schools.

Donors wanted to have majority status in governance, and the governance model they had agreed on was the most ideal. The Department was trying to equip governing bodies to be up to par with competitive schools in terms of standards so that they could level the playing field. The practical questions involved looking into changes to the present model, which was not working.

Provincial competency tried to provide for a policy that the South African Schools Act (SASA) did not provide due to the change in times and the environment. 

Mr C Dugmore (ANC) asked if there had been a process of looking at different policy interventions when this development policy was brought forward. Had the Department been approached by private donors to initiate this, or had it been a departmental decision? What other policy had it been weighed up against, and where had the request for alcohol provision at the schools exactly come from, as there were different institutional cultures at various schools?

Ms L Botha (DA) referred to the alternative to expulsion, and asked about the definitions of “intervention” and “therapeutic,” and how it would differ from the current situation. How did the period spent in the intervention affect the learners’ schooling? She also sought clarity on the process of parental consent. How had the challenges in the collaboration schools been taken into account? How did the Department foresee the operationality of the SEA?

Mr L Max (DA) asked about the timeframe for the regulations on page 10. He expressed his discomfort regarding the liquor application due to its moral implications, but looked forward to the public engagement.

Department’s Response

Dr Sigamoney Naicker, Chief Director: WCED, said the definition of “intervention” was broad, but looking into any systemic disruption, therapy was the use of support personnel, such as a therapist. The intervention did not disrupt the academic programme of a child, and was a parallel programme. In the case where a learner was isolated, it would be an extreme situation, but the learner would still be doing math’s literacy. The school set up was similar, but it would depend on the nature of the learners’ challenges.

Ms Botha asked where the intervention centre would be for an extreme case. What would make it more successful than the conventional interventions already in place?

Dr Naicker said if the learner was located far away, they would have to be brought to the facility. There would be a resident therapist at the facility, and as it was a specialist facility that was being established, this would make the intervention unique.

Mr Olivier asked for an idea on the cost implications of implementing this policy, and if any budget had been allocated to it.

Dr Naicker said the costing was being done, and it had been included in the budget, but the final figures had not been established. The Department was trying to maximise the use of unused structures, and a facility for a pilot programme had already been located.

Adv Coleridge-Zils said the Department would have to obtain prior parental consent, excluding routine sporting activities. A lot of different avenues had been considered, but it had been the budget constraints that had determined the course of action. The alcohol provision had been changed quite extensively. The principal was in charge of the governance of the school, but the operating partners, due to their capability, were given a stake in the management, but within one governing body.

Mr Sandile Banjwa, director of the education advocacy group USiba Loluntu in Gugulethu, asked how the Department would break the taboo of looking at therapy intervention as a misnomer by society, and even by the teachers of students in need of intervention. He asked which schools had approved the alcohol provision, as it was a detrimental move.

Dr Naicker said the issue of stereotypes and attitudes towards psychological intervention was being handled in the support services and outreach teams that had been rolled out to help, but the education White Paper the Department had just published tackled barriers to learning, and this was one aspect that needed further intervention. There was a need to make parents aware and build information packages so that they could realise the value of these interventions in the education space. He urged working with Mr Banjwa on the awareness drive for the interventions.

Mr Dugmore (ANC) asked for further engagement on the structure of the governing bodies, and proposed a follow-up on the contradictions in the development policy with existing agreements and policies.

The meeting was adjourned

Present

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: