Engagements on Petition by Hon M Sukers pertaining to closure of Seekoegat Primary School

Basic Education

03 May 2022
Chairperson: Ms B Mbinqo-Gigaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Tabled Committee Report

The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education met with the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) and members of the Seekoegat community on a petition against the closure of Seekoegat Primary school. The petition was sponsored by ACDP Member of Parliament, Ms M Sukers.

The community members were generally opposed to the closure of the school and did not believe more prominent schools provide better quality education than rural schools. There was general confusion about the legislative framework the WCED needed to operate within.

The WCED presented its reasons for closing the school, and, while sympathetic to the community’s position, it needed to act in the children’s best interests. The vision of the WCED was to provide quality education to every child, in every classroom, in every province. WCED was of the opinion Seekoegat Primary School could not provide quality education to its learners. It arranged for the learners to attend schools in nearby towns with hostel facilities.

Members of the Committee said the school’s closure was not in the community’s best interests. The procedures followed were applicable to bigger schools in more urban areas and did not consider the unique position of Seekoegat. There was a need for the development of rural education. The closure of Seekoegat Primary School meant children as young as six years of age had to move out of their communities to attend schools far away. The parents of learners did not have the resources to visit the children in the towns nearby. Seekoegat Primary School offered the opportunity for learners to stay close to their communities and have access to a safe space while receiving an adequate education.

The Committee asked the Department of Basic Education (DBE) to take the Committee through the policies. The DBE suggested the Committee and other stakeholders reconvene to discuss rural education and how the DBE deals with school mergers and closures. 

Meeting report

Hon M Sukers (ACDP) on the closure of Seekoegat Primary School Petition
Ms Sukers gave an overview of the community of Seekoegat, who were predominantly farm workers who lived on isolated farms and earned low wages. Seekoegat Primary School had been in existence for 115 years. It was a public school on private land. The learners boarded at the school on more or less a weekly basis.  The nearest alternative school was in Beaufort-West, approximately 90 kilometres away.

In 2021, Seekoegat had one teacher who also acted as the principal. There were approximately 40 pupils in the school. The Western Cape Education Department (WCED) declared the school non-viable. However, the presentation argued the case of Seekoegat Primary school could not be viewed through the narrow lens applied to schools in more urban areas. The context of the region and its unique set of challenges needed to be considered. The Karoo faced increased high school dropout rates, teen pregnancies, and substance abuse which rendered the children vulnerable.

The closure of Seekoegat Primary school highlighted the failure of the one size fits all approach adopted by government departments. The WCED failed to consult with the children throughout the process and could not ensure adequate public participation. A top-down approach was employed with little regard for the community affected. 

The WCED needed to consider a broader strategy of comprehensive rural development. The closure of Seekoegat Primary School was not in the community’s best interest. The decision to close the school showed a lack of innovative solutions that maximise the limited resources available to the community.

The community of Seekoegat requested the school to be reopened. It asked for temporary teaching supervision and care at the school and the resumption of the school feeding programme, while discussions take place within WCED. It also asked for the school’s assets, owned by the WCED, not to be removed, since the removal would render it impossible to restart the school.

According to the presentation, more research should be done on rural education and the impact of school closure. Policies on rural education were underdeveloped. The community should be empowered to work with the WCED to find more suitable solutions to develop rural communities.

WCED on closure of Seekoegat Primary School
The presentation was led by Mr Archie Lewis, DDG Institution development and Coordination; and Mr William Jantjies, Director: Institutional Management and Governance Planning. The vision of the WCED was quality education for every child, in every classroom, and in every school in the province.

The presentation elaborated on the legislation which guided the closure of schools. Section 33 (1) of the South African Schools Act (SASA) said Members of the Executive Council (MEC) might close a public school by notice in the Provincial Gazette. The WCED followed all procedures and acted lawfully within the legislative framework.

The presentation listed the reasons for the closure of Seekoegat Primary School. The reasons included:
Insufficient learner enrollment with no prospects the school would experience learner growth in the immediate future.
The school offered multi-grade classes.
The school had an occupancy rate of only about 17.5%.
The school was considered a micro-primary school with a capacity of fewer than 135 learners.
The school could not fulfill its financial obligations to its creditors.
The sole educator also served as the principal. One educator could not provide quality education by teaching 19 students over two phases in one class.
The student/teacher ratio was not economically viable.
Learners enrolled at the school could be placed at TeskeGedenk Primary School, Prince Albert Primary School, or Klaarstroom Primary School. These schools had ample accommodation available to learners. These schools offered monograde classes and had qualified educators.
The learners would be included in transport schemes and routes applicable in the area or could reside in the hostel.

There was a national drive to assess micro-schools and close these schools to give learners access to better education in schools with more resources.

A public consultation process took place on 22 October 2020. The community's parents were not in favour of the school's closure. The parents said Seekoegat Primary school had adequate accommodation for the learners. Learners relocated to neighbouring schools at such an early age are not likely to attend school regularly. The learners stayed 30-50 kilometres away from the nearest Learner Transport Scheme pick-up points, with no access to transport. The relocation would impact the parents financially, as these parents would have to purchase new school uniforms.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) asked for a meeting with Mr Brent Walters, Superintendant-General, WCED, to appeal to reopen the school. The meeting took place on 7 February 2022.

The Department said Mr Walters did not have the authority to appeal the school’s closure. A request was made not to remove the mobile units as the community will attempt to open an independent school. The request was granted. However, the WCED could not allocate teachers or teaching assistants to the school.

Mr Jantjies was appointed as a contact person to assist with establishing an independent school. The WCED expressed regret at having to close down the school. The school’s closure was painful because of sentimental values and the parents' fears. However, the WCED operates within a legislative framework, and it had the responsibility to consider the children’s best interests.

Input by Seekoegat community
Pastor Willie Coetzee, a teacher and a community leader of Seekoegat, urged the WCED and DBE to broaden their policies, as it does not fit a community like Seekoegat. There were other small schools, and he referred to a school with only 14 learners which did not have any threat of being closed down. Seekoegat was a unique community and therefore needed a different perspective. The school’s closure would mean young learners would be forced to relocate and grow up without their parents. He pleaded with the Committee to look at the development of rural education and do what is best for the communities. The assumption that the more prominent schools provide better education was not true. It only removes the children from their community.

He recalled an instance where both farm owners and workers sent their children to a school in Beaufort-West. The farm owner had the resources to visit his child on any occasion. However, the farmworker had no idea how his child was doing because he did not have the means to get to Beaufort-West. The case of Seekoegat Primary school presented South Africa with an opportunity to develop rural communities and do away with the procedures which do not work. Some learners had learning disabilities, and the other schools could not accommodate this. Seekoegat offered a space and an opportunity for these children. The DBE only used the number of children and the viability to determine the school’s closure. This was not sufficient for schools in rural areas. The community is standing together and pleading with the Committee to reopen the school.

Discussion
Ms M Sukers (ACDP) urged the WCED and the DBE to consider the unique situation of Seekoegat Primary School. She asked if the decision to close the school was in the community’s best interests. The community members do not have the resources to visit small children if these children get sent to a school and a hostel in Beaufort West. This would be devastating for the parents as well as the children. The Department should look at rural development instead of closing down rural schools. Seekoegat Primary School provided education and a place of safety for the children. The school should remain open for the benefit of the children, the community, and the country at large.


The Department used the number of children to declare the school as non-viable. However, the Department did not consider the entire situation. The situation needed to be looked at from a different perspective.

Dr S Thembekwayo (EFF) directed her question to the WCED. The vision for the WCED is to ensure quality education for every child in every school, but its actions were in opposition to its vision. She asked the WCED to keep its vision in mind when making decisions.

She referred back to Pastor Coetzee’s statement about a school with only 14 learners which did not face the threat of being closed down. She asked how the WCED could justify its decision as fair if this was true; and asked if the WCED was aware of this school and why the same treatment was not applied.

She referred to the presentation made by the WCED which said parents are responsible for buying school uniforms for their children. Uniforms were expensive and it was made clear the parents of the students at Seekoegat Primary School did not have access to many resources. She asked where these parents must get the money to pay for the new uniforms.

In her opinion, there was a problem with consulting the affected parents. She asked about communication with the community and said more engagement was necessary. Closing the school was unfair and needed more research to justify the decision.

Dr W Boshoff (FF+) criticised the definition of what amounts to a viable school and said the WCED was too narrow in its approach. He applauded Ms Sukers and Pastor Coetzee for providing information on how the school’s closure would impact the community. The consequences for society were not dealt with adequately. In South Africa, there had been a drive towards bigger, centralised schools and the closing down of smaller farm schools. There was not enough evidence to prove attending bigger schools was beneficial for children.

He referred to the Cuban education system. One of its ground principles was children were taught near home. Small schools were fundamental in remote, mountainous ranges. The training for educators included multi-grade classes. South Africa should embrace multi-grade teaching as well. Multi-grade teaching was very relevant to large parts of South Africa, where the population was sparse. Farms and schools played an essential role in education and bringing a community together in these areas.

He said in his career thus far, he had dealt with similar petitions where the government wanted to close a small farm school since it was deemed non-viable. He noted a specific case in the Gong-Gong community in 2019 and said it was unfair because this case was dismissed. The set of procedures the DBE followed was devised to regulate education in larger, more densely populated areas where small schools were impractical.

In smaller, rural areas, the situation was fundamentally different. It was challenging to revisit established rules while sitting behind a desk in an urban area. The Seekoegat community’s plea to keep its school open removed the abstractness. The rules did not accommodate all situations. He agreed with Ms Sukers about the rules being more flexible, to accommodate a community like Seekoegat. There was a need to reset the rules. He asked to collaborate with Ms Sukers in her efforts to keep the school open.

Ms N Adoons (ANC) said any school closure by the DBE was always a concern. Schools benefit a community. The people of the Seekoegat community had spoken against the school’s closure and were trying to keep their children in the community. The learners should remain close to the learners’ parents as these learners were still very young.

There were many instances where farm owners would evade farmworkers. It left the farmworkers vulnerable with nowhere to go. She asked if the WCED was aware of these cases; and how the WCED dealt with these cases in all rural areas.

She recalled an oversight visit to the North West and the Free State provinces. Most of the farm schools only had a primary school. Many learners dropped out of school to work on the farms or attended a secondary school far away. North West and the Free State came up with the idea of a mega school because there were no high schools. In the Seekoegat case, she thought young children should remain in their communities. The WCED should develop a plan to maintain the school and allow it to continue operating. Some learners are as young as six years old and need to remain with their parents.

She also asked about the school which allegedly had only 14 learners. She asked for an understanding of why this case was different.

The Chairperson said the WCED said the parents of the learners of Seekoegat Primary School did not participate in the public hearings, which were held during COVID-19. She asked if there were any other issues which would deter the parents from participating. The non-participation did not entirely make sense, as the same parents were not travelling long distances to plead their case.


She suggested the Committee meet with the DBE to go over all policies to understand the situation better.

Learners with special needs attended Seekoegat Primary School, but the alternative schools these learners were sent to did not accommodate learners with special needs. The Chairperson asked what happened to these learners; and also asked for a guarantee regarding the safety of the transportation and hostel facilities for learners who have to attend a school far away from their community.

Ms Sukers said she attended a multi-grade school while growing up, which moulded her into the person she was today. Rural education needed to be looked at through a different lens. The one-size approach did not meet the needs of children in rural areas.


She thanked Mr William Jantjies from the WCED for his contribution to the presentation. She said it was a pity he was not a part of the entire process and only became involved a week before the Committee meeting.

She said when she met with the WCED, it said the community would find an alternative solution. The WCED was also asked to consider an alternative solution. The presentation only focused on turning Seekoegat into an independent school. The Committee was not told informed of other options.

Policymakers had a rigid checklist when deciding to close down a school, which made it appear the Department had done its job. The context of the policy implementation, however, had not been considered. The public representatives on the ground were aware of what was happening and what would benefit the community but were not consulted.

She said she sent communication to the Head of the WCED but had not received any response. There was an apparent lack of communication. Another point of objection was the difference between sitting in an office in Cape Town and working on a farm in a rural area. The WCED failed to conduct a social impact assessment or engage with the affected children before closing the school.

She had several queries about the WCED’s presentation:
Mr Jantjies from the WCED was not part of the WCED’s decision to close the school. Thus, he lacked critical information.
She had a meeting with the WCED in February 2022 where it assured her Seekoegat Primary School could keep its equipment. A week later, people from the Department came to remove the equipment and even threatened to phone the police. This showed an apparent lack of communication within the Department.
The parents of the learners were unable to get to the public hearing. The location was only accessible with a bakkie, but most parents do not have any form of transport.
The WCED claimed Seekoegat could not provide a quality education because of multi-grade teaching. She asked which evidence proved multi-grade teaching was not effective.
The WCED claimed the student/teacher ratio was unaffordable. She asked which socio-economic studies had been done to prove the claim.
The presentation said the WCED was acting in the children’s best interests.
She asked if the WCED would be open to considering other options, such as a collaborative school.
Innovative developments such as online learning would make it possible to have high schools in communities such as Seekoegat.

The WCED was arrogant and treated the community with insensitivity. She asked if it would rather be sued than work together to find a solution. The Department treated the community with contempt because it knew the residents did not have enough money to take the Department to court. She criticised the Minister of Basic Education and the Head of Department of the WCED for not attending the meeting. It showed a lack of concern for the community.

She asked the DBE how long the draft policy on rural education had been underdeveloped. The Committee had been waiting years for the development, and the current guidelines did not suit rural education needs.

Responses
The WCED replied to questions about the vision of quality education for every learner in every school and said the school’s closure was precisely because of WCED’s vision. Seekoegat Primary School’s principal had to teach over six grades. It was impossible to provide quality education to these children.

WCED addressed the questions about the school with only 14 learners who was still allowed to operate. The WCED was closing schools every year. It looked within the context of regulations, at all primary schools with less than 100 learners. The Department planned to close all these schools within five years because the schools were not viable.

WCED addressed the issue of the affordability of new uniforms. The new students were allowed to wear old uniforms until the parents could afford to buy the new uniforms.

Parents were generally given three options regarding the closure of the schools. The first option was to send the learners to hostels. This option ensured the learner’s safety and provided food and assistance with school work. The second option was, if the school did not have a hostel, the students would receive bursaries to stay as private residents. The third option was to provide transport to the learner daily. However, this option did not make sense in the Seekoegat case because the schools were 60 kilometres away.

Parents of learners from Seekoegat Primary School were offered an opportunity to put their children in TeskeGedenk Primary school and Hostel.

The WCED consulted with the parents. There were no provisions in the School Act saying the Department had to consult with the students. The parents could bring their children to consultations if the parents wished to raise an issue.

Mr Lewis said the WCED operated within policies. Officials could not act whichever way the officials wanted to and needed to operate within the framework and legislation. He could not prove bigger schools provided better education, as he had not researched the topic.

Mr Lewis said he did not understand Ms Adoon’s question about the eviction of farmworkers, but replied to her question about where the students go after primary school. He said students attend high schools. The closest schools for these learners were in Beaufort West or Oudtshoorn. These schools had hostels.

Mr Lewis said he would not reply to Ms Sukers queries, and said the Head of the Department was on leave.

Mr Jewel Jonkers, Director: Eden and Central Karoo Education District; WCED confirmed Seekoegat was not being singled out. The district had two schools up for closure. The learners safety, transport, and accommodation had been taken care of. He stressed the decision to close the school had not been taken lightly. The Department considered all matters and operated within policy.

Mr Thembilizwe Hawkers; Circuit Manager: Beaufort West, WCED, said the district’s transport division was busy setting up learners' transport routes to Seekoegat.

Ms Sukers said the route was only busy being set up. It had not been established yet. She also asked Mr Lewis why he did not respond to her queries. Mr Lewis said there was no need to answer because the presentation had already dealt with all the queries.

Ms Sukers asked Mr Lewis how long the policy on rural education had been underdeveloped. Mr Lewis said the responsibility lies with the DBE and not with the WCED.

The Chairperson recommended the Department of Basic Education (DBE) take the Committee through the rural education policy to better respond to the petition.

Ms Simone Geyer, DDG: Delivery and Support, DBE, recommended the Committee and other stakeholders reconvene so the DBE could do a presentation on rural education, and on how the DBE deals with closure and mergers.

Ms Sukers asked if the community of Seekoegat could access the School Fund in the meanwhile.

Mr Lewis replied it could not access the Fund because the school had been closed.

The Committee adopted the minutes for the meeting held on 19 April 2022.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

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: