[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

Chairperson
Honourable Members

I want to thank all Honourable Members who have made spirited contributions to this debate. Taken as a whole, I think we have done our duty by this great subject. We have started to grasp the notion that the education of the people of our country is not, or should not be, a partisan affair. In particular, education is not a field of public life where cheap shots by small-minded politicos are appropriate.

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education, Professor Mayatula, set an excellent tone with his thoughtful, erudite and broad-ranging analysis of the budget and its implications.

I congratulate him, too, on taking his committee members on field visits so that they can see for themselves what is going on in the hinterland of our system. The benefits of first hand engagement with the grassroots were evident, in his own contribution and the contributions of several of his colleagues.

It is therefore rather a pity that Mr Mike Ellis, leading for the Democratic Party, displayed such ignorance and pettiness in his remarks on the work undertaken by the Mandela government in the field of education transformation, for which my predecessor, Professor Bengu, had political responsibility.

I remember the days when the NNP of old try to drive a wedge between Professor Bengu and Dr Blade Nzimande, then chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education. They failed then, just as Mr Ellis fails today. What both the NNP and the DP have not understood is the fact that the Ministers of both the first and second democratic governments, since 1994, have not been carrying out personal agendas, but the policies of the democratic movement. I have contributed to those policies and I stand by them today.

Mr Ellis tried to smear the 1994-99 transformation programme as "communist-socialist engineering". This displays breathtaking ignorance of at least three things: communism, socialism, and our own South African democratic, constitutional, policy and legal framework. It also shows that Mr Ellis has resolutely refused to grow up as a political thinker, but is content with a lazy reliance on the old "rooi gevaar" smear tactics of the old National Party. Shame on you, Mr Ellis. The country has a right to expect more from a senior spokesperson of the official opposition.

Professional discipline

Mr Ellis was on somewhat firmer ground in highlighting the need for greater professional discipline in schools. In saying so, he was echoing the sentiments of everyone with the interests of the system at heart, including, of course, the South African Council of Educators.

But, given Mr Ellis' narrow vision, all he could suggest to deal with the matter was that I should "control the trade unions". This represents a desperately thin and hackneyed response to a social malaise of immense depth and complexity, which I dealt with quite fully in my opening speech. If the DP expects to broaden its narrow electoral base by making a habit of union bashing, they have another thing coming.

Our approach is different. The organised teaching profession are our allies, our social partners, in the work of renewal in our schools--rightly so, necessarily so. Of course, we hold these organisations and their members to the highest ethical and professional standards. Let there be not the slightest doubt about that.

But our approach is wide ranging. We have set up systems to monitor attendance trends. We are preparing the way for "whole school review".

I have already made an announcement on school supervision. Its focus will be supportive of teachers and principals, analytical and developmental.

We are preparing regulations, in collaboration with the provincial authorities, to ensure that there is no ambiguity whatsoever about the right of education department officials to visit schools on official business. My provincial colleagues and I are as one on this matter.

"No go areas" must be a thing of the past. The teachers unions and I are at one on this matter. The very concept is offensive in a democratic school system. If "no go areas" are being enforced by shop stewards or other union officials and members at school level, let it be known that such people are out of line, and they should expect to be disciplined. No unionist or union member will have my support for practices that seek to keep duly appointed officials out of the classroom. That is definite.

But we recognise that a teacher is a professional, and that a teacher's professional prerogatives must be upheld. That is why the new regulations will spell out the protocol to be observed in the management of official visits. Protocol, yes. No go areas--absolutely not.

Mr Ntuli of the Democratic Party made two surprising and contradictory remarks. He said, or seemed to imply, that the DP would persist with its "adopt a school" plan, despite the fact that I have opposed such actions by any political organisation, including my own. I don't know if Mr Ntuli intends to conduct his own defiance campaign. If so, I suggest that he should think again.

He also said that the DP was opposed to the politicisation of education. I am glad to hear it, but the contradiction is plain for all to see. The idea of political parties adopting schools is a blatant party political gambit on the part of the DP. I cannot think of anything that would politicise education faster than an unseemly competition by political parties to adopt schools of their choice. I will not allow it. And I believe this House supports me to the hilt in this position.

Mr Green of the ACDP was on target in calling for new incentives to inspire the teaching profession, and to recognise the good work of those who are doing well under difficult circumstances. In my Call to Action eight months ago, I announced that I would be establishing a system of National Teacher Awards. I am glad to announce that the first National Teacher Awards will be celebrated on 5 October 2000, World Teachers Day.

We recognise that good teachers do not work alone. They work in institutions, in the company of their colleagues. We want to honour the collective work of school management teams, teachers and parents through the school governing bodies, by inaugurating a new award scheme, for Most Improved Schools. These will be conferred in the month of February every year.

Corporal punishment

It is depressing that the ACDP persists in its forlorn campaign to restore corporal punishment in schools. There is no possibility that this government and this Ministry will bring back the cane and the whip. Our task is to uphold human rights, not encourage or legitimate their violation.

It is impossible to believe that an archaic and authoritarian form of school discipline should persist in an era of democracy and the protection of human rights.

I am waiting--impatiently to be sure--for my Department to produce a document that will give professional support to principals and teachers in handling disciplinary problems. The Council of Education Ministers has acknowledged that such a document could be extremely helpful.

But I insist that we do not need such a document merely because corporal punishment has been abolished. We need the document because discipline deals with responsibility, with rights, with relationships, with commitment, with determination to succeed, with consideration and respect.

We have provided for a code of conduct for learners to be adopted by all school governing bodies, on the basis of Ministry of Education guidelines. The South African Council of Educators has adopted a code of ethics for educators. These are major advances. What we appear to need now is practical guidance for principals and educators that takes a holistic view of the school as a community, a code of good citizenship that will assist teachers in their daily task. That is what we have asked the Department to produce.

National literacy campaign

Mr Ellis was shooting in the wrong direction when he blamed alleged failures in our ABET programme on the National Qualifications Framework.. That is as illogical as blaming our failure to solve the problem of backlogs in school infrastructure on the existence of the matriculation examination. In other words, we have a problem in extending provision, and Mr Ellis chooses to attack the new system of quality assurance.

The job of the South African Qualifications Authority in this area is to ensure that ABET programmes fulfil basic requirements of quality, and that the standards on which qualifications are built allow for further progression to further learning. SAQA has fulfilled its obligations in this respect. ABET standards are now registered in the key areas of language and mathematical literacy that are the target of our National Literacy Campaign.

Of course I am concerned about the inadequacy of public funding for ABET, including the National Literacy Campaign. But, in my Call to Action document of last July, I made it clear that public funds are at present insufficient for this purpose. That is why I have laid such emphasis on partnerships in meeting our national education obligations. Tirisano means precisely that.

In Call to Action I drew attention to the fact that all employers in the country, including public employers, had an obligation to ensure that their workers achieved effective functional literacy. Fortunately, there are indeed other major funds that will come in behind the budget allocations for education departments. The Skills Development Act, 1998 is now in effect. Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) are about to be formally established by the Minister of Labour, with a remarkable mandate to promote human resource development throughout every sector of the economy. The National Skills Fund will be a major source of support to assist the unemployed and I am confident that our efforts in literacy education will benefit from these sources. The Umsobomvu Fund for the relief of poverty is another such source.

In addition to these formal sources, I fully expect a major voluntary contribution from social formations throughout the land. It will be the job of the National Literacy Agency to stimulate and mobilise such support, both in cash and kind.
Our goal is to break the back of illiteracy within five years. I am far from pessimistic about our ability to do so, especially given the degree of concern and good will that has been demonstrated for this campaign, both within this House and in the country at large.

Budget matters

Several Honourable Members have referred to a budget cut for education in real terms. They are not referring to Vote 8. If we analyse the figures allocated to the national Department for 2000/2001, it appears that there is a nominal increase of 6,5 per cent. Depending on what figure one assumes for inflation in 2000/2001, it appears that the real value of education spending, particularly for the higher education budget, will be retained this coming financial year.

I made it clear in my opening speech that--apart from conditional grants--the national budget does not cover provincial allocations for education. These are decisions of provincial governments and legislatures, over which neither I nor this House has jurisdiction. In fact, the provincial legislatures have yet to begin their own budget debates. The figures to which Honourable Members are referring are therefore, clearly, provisional.

Provincial education allocations are part of the block grant from the national revenue fund. The education component of the equitable shares is a nominal amount based largely on demographic data. This education component is not a ring-fenced allocation for education, but merely a means of ensuring that the funds available to provincial governments approximate basic needs.

It is this formula that is being re-considered by the Financial and Fiscal Commission, which is responding to representations made by my Department, among others. I indicated in my opening speech that the provincial MECs and I were meeting the FFC this very afternoon to discuss their new proposals.

Provincial governments make their own decisions on allocations by department. On average, the provisional allocations to education take up 41 per cent of provincial budgets in 2000/01, compared to an average of 40 per cent last year.

However, I do not want to sound complacent. I am in discussions with the Minister of Finance--a discussion in which Cabinet has also recently shown great interest--in order to ensure that what is allocated for provincial education systems is (in the first place) adequate, and (in the second place) that it is not raided during the year to meet over-spending elsewhere.

Mr Gaum of the NNP drew some rather dramatic conclusions from his reading of the provisional provincial education budget allocations. He is of the view that the provincial departments will be shedding teaching posts. Allow me to state the position. The government, not just the Ministry of Education, is committed to achieve a better balance of personnel to non-personnel spending. The target for 2004 is that the ratio should be brought to 85% for personnel costs and 15% for non-personnel costs. We are not talking about reducing the number of teachers. Layoffs of temporary teachers in excess will only occur where it is impossible to redeploy them..

The picture is highly dynamic. The rationalisation and redeployment process, which has advanced the equitable distribution of teachers within provinces, will come to an end at the end of June. No fewer than 20 000 teachers have been redeployed to date, a remarkable achievement on which the provincial departments and the teachers unions should be congratulated. There is no policy to exclude newly qualified teachers. But serving teachers must be considered before a new recruit is appointed. The absorption of colleges of education into the higher education system will be concluded this year. It is therefore time for a thorough investigation of supply and demand factors in education, and a survey is currently being conducted by the Department of Education which will inform our proposed national plan for teacher education.

Registration of private higher education institutions

The Democratic Party made a useful comment on the registration of private higher education institutions. Mr Ellis said that they did not support the existence of fly by night institutions that exploit public credulity and offer worthless qualifications . I am glad to hear it.

But he was wrong in suggesting that the registration of private higher education institutions has been brought in only because the fly by nights must be controlled. Mr Ellis must read his Constitution again. Section 29 establishes the right of any person to establish and maintain a private education institution at their own expense, provided that it is registered with the state, does not discriminate on grounds of race, and offers education of a standard at least equal to a public institution.

So, not only is the registration of private higher education institutions (and indeed any private education institutions) a constitutional duty laid on the education authorities, but .so is the obligation to assure the quality of such institutions.

Now, my Department has acknowledged that the process of accreditation and registration has been complex and somewhat troublesome this past year. Early in January 2000, my Department met with representatives of the major higher education providers, in an attempt to resolve some of their concerns. This meeting, as well as numerous engagements with individual institutions, has in most cases led to solutions.

Consultation with private providers does take place and will take place. For instance, a representative of the private providers sits on the committee that makes recommendations on academic programme accreditation.

The registration process is not designed to kill the private sector in higher education, but to promote quality improvement in all institutions--including those that pride themselves on a good track record--and to eliminate unscrupulous operators from preying on the public.

NSFAS/Registration fees

I appreciate Ms Mnandi's concern for those students from poor families who find difficulty in raising the funds to register. It is true that the National Student Financial Aid Scheme funds apply to students once they have registered, not before. In principle, I believe that this is correct, since a student is not a student until registered. However, there may well be genuine cases of need, where a genuine student is turned away by poverty, not for any other reason. I join Ms Mnandi in calling on higher education institutions to do everything possible to facilitate the registration of these students.

My Department is in consultation with NGOs to see how this need might be addressed, but it is an issue on which I will seek further advice.

Conclusion

Once again, I thank all who contributed to this fascinating debate, both those who came to praise and those who came to blame. May the winds of debate continue to blow through the corridors of our education system. It needs and deserves the combined wisdom and energy of all Honourable, Members and all their constituents.

I thank you.

Issued by Ministry of Education, 14 March 2000