Don’t fix what ain’t broken

THE stated intention in the memorandum on the objects of the basic education laws amendment bill (Bela Bill) is to ensure that “systems of learning and excellence are put in place in a manner which respects, protects, promotes and fulfils the right to basic education enshrined in Section 29(1) of the constitution”. The Western Cape government wholeheartedly supports this intention.

While there are some valid concerns that are sought to be addressed in the bill, it’s important to identify the root causes of the problems. In several cases, we believe that the minister is seeking the wrong solutions for the right problems. This cannot be supported.

On analysing the proposals in the bill, it appears that the main issues it purportedly seeks to address arise out of corruption in the appointments process, incapacity of many school governing bodies (SGBs), failure of education departments to manage their staff properly, and inadequate processes of staff appointments. In addition, there are remedies in existing legislation that are clearly not being used adequately.

We believe that if these issues are dealt with and current legislation properly applied, many of the issues of concern will resolve themselves.

The draft amendment bill proceeds from the premise that officials in the education department are somehow more competent and/or objective than parents. We have seen first-hand that this is certainly not always the case.

For heads of department to approve admission and language policies will be an administrative nightmare. More importantly, it takes away a power that was expressly given to governing bodies in a move to make the public school system more democratic.

If policies of schools are problematic, there are remedies. The policies can be challenged individually, and if there are allegations of unfair discrimination against any pupil, they have the right of appeal to the MEC.

We do agree that after taking into account the factors and after following the processes prescribed in the draft bill, the head of department (HOD) should be allowed to force a school to offer another language. It is the case that some schools simply refuse to allow other languages as a method of exclusion, with the consequence that a school may not be optimally utilised. Should a school be required to offer education in another language, they must be given the resources to do so. Regarding the appointment of senior staff in schools, it is correct that the HOD as the employer is not currently represented in either the short-listing process or as a voting member of the interview panel.

What we propose is that a departmental representative of the level of circuit manager or higher be on the short-listing panel and the interview panel.

This would provide for the involvement of the department in ensuring that educational criteria are taken into account during both those processes. It will also enable them to report to the HOD on the process, and if there are any irregularities or allegations of unfairness in the scoring process, they would be able to advise the HOD.

The case law provided in the memorandum does not substantiate the minister’s objective. We support diversity and believe that this must be achieved, but ultimately the primary consideration should be the best person for the school.

In summary, we cannot fix the problems arising from a captured criminal justice system, an ineffective state bureaucracy and lack of skills by providing for increased state interference in schools. The bill must be looked at from the starting point of “fix what is not working” and not “fix what is not broken”.