1
11
SAOU
Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie
Translated as “South African Teachers’ Union”
Posbus/PO Box 1807 Wapadrand 0050 ▪ Wapadrandkantoorpark / Office Park Kingboltsingel 90 Kingbolt Crescent Wapadrand Pretoria
Tel (012) 807-6244/6239 Faks/Fax (012) 807-6310 e-pos/e-mail
Geaffilieer by FEDUSA ▪ Affiliated with FEDUSA
COMMENT ON THE FURTHER EDUCATION]
AND TRAINING COLLEGES BILL [B 23B – 2006]
AND ON SELECT COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO
FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAININGCOLLEGES
BILL [B 23A – 2006]
1.General Comments
1.1The SAOU supports the initiative to re-capitalise Colleges for Further Education and Training, and as an active participant in the work of the National Board for Education and Training (NBFET) has long supported the arguments related to the need to re-focus the FET Colleges.
1.2The representation the SAOU wishes to make to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Education therefore is made from a principled position of support, and not from one of opposition or of attempting to undermine an important initiative. The comments and observations that will be made should therefore be understood in that light.
1.3The SAOU utilized the opportunity to comment on the original draft of the Bill, and submitted its comment to the Ministry of Education. The SAOU also had the opportunity of interaction with the Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister and senior officials of the Department of Education. These opportunities for interaction were welcomed and appreciated.
1.4In the view of this Union the Bill now before the Portfolio Committee differs hardly at all from the original draft other than that some aspects of its content have been re-arranged, and the comment submitted to the Ministry of Education is therefore included for the information of the Portfolio Committee as Annexure A. This submission will make some additional comment on labour issues, however, which will amplify remarks made in the original submission to the Department.
2.The Purpose of the Bill
2.1From the preamble to the Bill as well as the Explanatory Memorandum it emerges that one of the purposes of the draft legislation is to enable greater responsiveness to the human resource needs of the country, and more particularly to the skills and employment needs which are being experienced or which are likely at some point in the future to arise. It is also noted that greater relevance to the world of work is being striven after, and these are objectives which can be wholeheartedly supported.
2.2The question which arises is whether these objectives will be achieved, given certain clauses in the Bill, and given certain methodologies which are proposed.
(i)The Skills Shortage
It is not possible to evaluate the degree to which this Bill will make any contribution to the alleviation of the skills shortage in South Africa without having access to the provisions with regard to the curriculum which is to be followed at these institutions. The SAOU does not know whether the Portfolio Committee has had sight of these. Suffice it to say that the proposed upward shift of the intellectual challenges required by those who will follow that curriculum is likely (a) to have an inhibiting effect on admissions; and (b) is likely to exacerbate the already dire situation with regard to the production of certain basic skills which are not emerging as a consequence of the work done by Sectoral Education and Training Authorities. It can be mentioned in passing that it is also not clear what the availability is of suitably qualified staff to deal with the curriculum shifts proposed.
It is not at all clear whence the Asgisa initiative currently being led by the Honourable Deputy President of our country plans to source the providers of skills, and it can fairly be argued that the present Bill is silent on that matter.
(ii)Is there a need for centralised planning and execution of skills development?
It could be argued that the current concerns in our country, and the initiative now being led by the Deputy President, have arisen from the reality that there is no effective planning for the provision of skills in the various disciplines for the foreseeable future, which is precisely why the initiative now being dealt with as an emergency action has become necessary. If it be argued that the State has a duty with regard to skills production, especially in those areas for which it has a responsibility as part of its role to promote the interests of its citizens, there are surely grounds for the argument that centralized planning for skills development is required, together with mechanisms for ensuring the institutional development of those skills.
(iii)The methodologies proposed
The appointment of certain staff in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act removes, at least in part, the senior personnel from the cadre of educators while failing to suggest that they are thereby admitted to the ranks of effective trainers. The assigning of significant functions to College Councils, whose primary composition consists of voluntary participants, does not necessarily bode well for the effective functioning of those institutions. The proposals made for the transfer of other employees to the establishment of the college, on whose behalf the Council will act, opens the way for a significant interruption of the momentum which has been achieved by some Colleges. In short, it is the opinion of this Union that the methodologies proposed, far from aiding the effort to address skills shortages, will place in the way of achieving that necessary objective further obstacles and impediments.
In this regard the Union wishes to quote verbatim from its earlier submission to the Ministry of Education:
In those instances where the education authorities have delegated certain functions to controlling bodies of public education institutions, such as schools regulated inter alia in terms of Section 21 of the SA Schools Act and institutions for Higher Education, the education authorities have intervened in the affairs of those purportedly autonomous bodies in an effort to cajole, persuade or coerce them into undertaking actions which are congruent with the aims of the public authorities. The peculiar situation has arisen that autonomies conferred have over a period of time had to be eroded, not infrequently by means of amendments to legislation or litigation, in order to enable the accomplishment of those social and other goals which the education authorities consider to be important. Given this history of difficulty in managing the balance between the objectives of the State on the one hand and the objectives of school and university communities on the other, especially in cases where these are sometimes widely divergent, this Union questions the wisdom of the management model proposed – it is known that provincial education departments, under whose control FET Colleges will, it is proposed, fall, have been signally willful in carrying out some matters of national education policy; and it is also known that relationships between provincial education departments - or the Department of Education at the national level as the case may be – and governance structures at educational institutions have in a variety of instances been characterized by tensions and stresses which have been counter-productive and costly, both in terms of money and in terms of human resources required to deal with the difficulties.
- The labour provisions of the Bill
3.1The Bill introduces a multi-tiered system – some employees are still to be in the service of the State, but appointed in terms of a different Act, with others to be transferred to the establishments of College Councils once the transitional provisions now introduced as a stopgap measure have expired. This Union has expressed its views on this matter in other forums, but takes the liberty of expressing some of them yet again.
3.2Clause 54 of the Bill (which falls in a section dealing with transitional arrangements) suddenly invokes the provisions of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. It is not clear why the drafter/s of the Bill is/are of the view that the mere mention of this Section of the LRA implies that its inclusion in Clause 54 of the Bill has an initiating character – indeed, there is still no response to the question as to what is to happen to personnel in institution, once the transitional provisions have expired. The answer seems to be that the final outcome will be what it always would have been – potential job losses in the sector which can be ill-afforded, and a set of conditions of service which will have to be dealt with per institution de novo. The SAOU wishes to point out with all the gravity at its command that this is a significant sticking-point and that the possibility of labour unrest related to this issue cannot be ruled out. Given the urgency with which the re-capitalization of colleges must take place, this can hardly be contemplated by the authorities as a desirable outcome.
3.3This Union is not convinced by arguments which suggest that the existence of a national set of provisions will somehow address this problem. We have gone on record as stating that this process does not work with the school system, which falls under the jurisdiction of provincial authorities, and we see no guarantee that the same system, administered by the same authorities, will be any more effective in the case of the FET Colleges.
3.4The amendments to the Employment of Educators Act are deserving of special mention – given that this Act applies to all educators in public schools at the present time, this Union is uncertain about the rationale/s underlying the present amendments and the degree to which they are generally applicable.
- Some concluding remarks
The SAOU very much wishes the re-capitalisation of the FET colleges to succeed. To the question as to whether the Bill under discussion will enable its own objectives fully to be achieved, this Union wishes to place the following conclusions before the Portfolio Committee:
(a)The Bill does not indicate how and in what ways the new structure will make any contribution whatever to the advancement of scarce skills and the enhancement of the products of the FET colleges for the labour market;
(b)The methodologies proposed are similar to those which have been put into place in other arenas and which have not yet been demonstrated to be lacking in defect; and
(c)The possibility of labour unrest with regard to the medium-term effective privatization of the Colleges and potential concomitant job losses could constitute an unfortunate barrier to the accomplishment of what it is that the Bill seeks to accomplish.
October 2006
ANNEXURE A
SAOU
Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie
South African Teachers’ Union
Posbus/PO Box 90120 Garsfontein 0042 ▪ SAOS-gebou/Building Serenestraat 278 Serene Street Garsfontein Pretoria
Tel (012) 348 9641 Faks/Fax (012) 348 9658 / (012) 348 3000 e-pos/e-mail
Geaffilieer by FEDUSA ▪ Affiliated to FEDUSA
COMMENT ON INITIAL DRAFT BILL MADE AVAILABLE
FOR PUBLIC RESPONSE
COMMENTS ON FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL
PUBLISHED IN GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
NO 288066 OF 8 MAY 2006
1.General Observations
1.1The SAOU welcomes the opportunity to make comment on the Bill.
1.2The SAOU further welcomes the intention of the education authorities to seek to address the pressing skills and other needs of the South African community, including the needs of individuals, communities and the economy.
1.3The SAOU notes the following, however:
The Bill proposes a major systemic shift in the role of FET Colleges. Given the nature of this shift, the following comment must be made:
(i)The dismal failure of most provincial education authorities to give effect to national policy in the school sector is not a good predictor of likely success in the implementation of national policy in the FET sector by provincial education authorities.
(ii)If the intentions of the Bill and the proposed re-capitalization of the sector are aimed at enabling greater responsiveness to actual and perceived needs in the skills sector, it is unlikely that this will be achieved within the context of the governance model proposed. In this regard it can be noted that –
(a)The current serious dilemma in the provision of nurses and teachers for the country’s public education and health sectors respectively is at least in part a consequence of actions undertaken by the education authorities which have in effect, totally disabled efforts by the state as an employer to meet the need to staff the public services for which it is responsible[1]. It is the view of this Union that the management model proposed for FET Colleges will have a similar effect[2].
(b)In those instances where the education authorities have delegated certain functions to controlling bodies of public education institutions, such as schools regulated inter alia in terms of Section 21 of the SA Schools Act and institutions for Higher Education, the education authorities have intervened in the affairs of those purportedly autonomous bodies in an effort to cajole, persuade or coerce them into undertaking actions which are congruent with the aims of the public authorities. The peculiar situation has arisen that autonomies conferred have over a period of time had to be eroded, not infrequently by means of amendments to legislation or litigation, in order to enable the accomplishment of those social and other goals which the education authorities consider to be important. Given this history of difficulty in managing the balance between the objectives of the State on the one hand and the objectives of school and university communities on the other, especially in cases where these are sometimes widely divergent, this Union questions the wisdom of the management model proposed – it is known that provincial education departments, under whose control FET Colleges will, it is proposed, fall, have been signally willful in carrying out some matters of national education policy; and it is also known that relationships between provincial education departments - or the Department of Education at the national level as the case may be – and governance structures at educational institutions have in a variety of instances been characterized by tensions and stresses which have been counter-productive and costly, both in terms of money and in terms of human resources required to deal with the difficulties.
(iii)The Bill is having to be assessed in a notional vacuum. It is not clear from the Bill what the relationship of the FET Colleges is to be to other agencies furnishing vocational education and training. It is also not clear how these institutions will relate if at all to the initiatives which have been undertaken by business and industry hitherto, some of which have apparently been terminated. Enquiries suggest that there are few, if any apprentice artisans in training in fundamental skills such as bricklaying, plastering and welding in South Africa in 2006. It is not clear where they are to come from, and reading of the Bill provides little if any information on how the FET colleges are to relate to other training elements within their own sector.
2.The Aim of the Bill
2.1The aim of the Bill must be formulated clearly and accurately. The aim should provide clarity on the intention of the legislator. Only then can the Bill be properly understood, and will it guide important processes such as the development of a curriculum and funding formula.
2.2The aim as formulated is not clear. The first paragraph states that the Bill is “To provide for the regulation of further education and training; to provide for the establishment, governance and funding of public further and education training colleges …”, and is then followed by the preamble in which certain aspects are merely listed as “desirables”. It needs further to be stated that some further education and training is offered in public schools. It is the view of this Union that an insufficient distinction is drawn between such training and the training envisaged in FET Colleges.
2.3In the view of this Union the aim of the Bill should be to provide for education and training in terms of the needs of industry by providing optimal opportunities for learning, the mastering of knowledge and the development among other things of low- to high-level skills in keeping with international standards of academic and technical quality.
2.4The SAOU is unable to support the present wording of the preamble and the paragraph which precedes it. It is proposed that the wording be amended to reflect the proposal at paragraph 2.3 above.
3.Appointment of staff and related matters
The College Council as the Employer
3.1The provision in the Bill that staff are to be employed by college councils, cannot be supported by this Union.
3.2It can be noted that in the case of schools, where staff over and above the approved establishment may be appointed, the staff are employed by the school as the juristic person on whose behalf the Governing Body acts. If the intention of the authorities materializes (and this Union does not support that) staff should be employed by the College on whose behalf the Council acts, and not by the Council.
3.3The Bill is silent or vague on matters which affect personnel most intimately. Examples are these:
(i)What pension fund provisions are to be made?
(ii)What medical fund (and possible subsidy) provisions are to be made?
(iii)How will the question of leave be dealt with, especially accumulated leave?
(iv)What arrangements are to be made, if there is a change of employer, which will enable new employers to meet the current long-term obligations of the existing employer?
3.4This Union is not aware of any member of the staff of a College who wishes to see an alteration in the employer. Are relevant issues to be negotiated only after transfers are a fait accompli?
3.5How are the provisions of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act to be dealt with, and what is the position of temporary employees?
3.6These and numerous other issues should be dealt with explicitly in the Bill, and the absence of a convincing set of transitional arrangements gives cause for concern.
3.7This Union cannot support the provisions which designate the Council as the employer.
A new and separate bargaining structure