Chairperson, I hope hon members have been encouraged by the previous debate to pay far closer attention to the sentencing practices of the judiciary.
The Bill before the House today has been endorsed by many stakeholders. It seeks to strengthen the statutory measures that support quality in education, sets out the roles and functions of school principals as key managers in schools, and provides measures directed at curbing the scourge of drugs in our schools.
The key features of the Bill are the following. The first key feature concerns the bodies that the Minister is required to consult in the formulation of policy. The National Education Policy Act currently has two sections - section 5 and section 11 - that seem to contradict each other. They are not elegant in formulation and tend to cause confusion in interpretation. To remove that confusion, we have offered a simpler formulation that makes it clear that the Minister of Education may establish a National Education and Training Council and other bodies to advise on any policy matter.
Concern has been expressed in some of the submissions as it is believed that the Minister will want to determine policy alone. I wish to assure hon members that the Minister does not make policy without consulting the public and relevant stakeholders. Currently, trade unions and other bodies engage with the Minister in a wide range of bodies and institutions, for example, the Education Labour Relations Council, as mandated by the Employment of Educators Act and the Forum for National Governing Body Associations, as key examples. I am also pleased to inform members that I have already taken steps to establish the National Education and Training Council.
The second key feature of the Bill is the setting of norms and standards for capacity and infrastructure in schools across the country. Section 5 of the Bill is designed to guide implementation in the provision of infrastructure for learning. It is our intention to alter the character and quality of school facilities in South Africa.
The three Parliaments of our young democracy have played a vital role in ensuring that resources are made available for the provision of education. Much has been done to redress past imbalances. We have come a long way, as the recently published National Education Infrastructure Management System report has revealed.
In terms of success, the report states the following: The number of overcrowded schools has fallen from 51% in 1999 to 24% in 2006; the number of schools with electricity has increased from 11 174 in 1996 to 20 713 in 2006; the number of schools without water has fallen from 8 823 in 1996 to 3 152 in 2006; and the number of schools without on-site toilets has fallen from 3 265 in 1996 to 1 532 in 2006.
Clearly, despite these achievements, a great deal still has to be done. The challenges we have to attend to are the following. It is clear from the Neims - National Education Information Management System - report that even as we built new schools, we continued in some cases to perpetuate the apartheid design of education facilities. Clause 5 of the Bill on norms and standards for schools clearly sets out our demand that all schools must have libraries, laboratories and other learning facilities.
Neims also revealed that we have hundreds of very small schools in South Africa and that this is often an inefficient use of the human resources in education. Furthermore, we have some severely crowded schools that make learning and discipline difficult if not impossible. The Bill, once signed into law, will allow us to set minimum norms for class sizes in a particular phase or quintile. We plan to ensure that we relieve teachers of overcrowded classes and create conditions for effective teaching.
There is no point in setting norms and standards if there is no mechanism in place to enforce them. Clause 58 of the Bill, therefore, requires an MEC and a head of department to comply with the norms and standards relating to schools as prescribed in the legislation. It also provides that MECs shall report to the Minister annually on the progress made in complying with the legal norms and standards.
The third key feature of the Bill is a section that authorises school principals or persons they delegate to search pupils for dangerous weapons and illegal drugs and to seize them. I am certain that given wide community concern about drug trafficking and drug abuse in our country, all members will support this Bill and these particular measures.
In the Bill we also do address that the searching of pupils must be on the basis of reasonable suspicion of finding an offensive weapon or drugs. Such laws exist in other jurisdictions in the world, and we are merely acting as has been provided in other systems and responding to a real concern in education in our country.
The fourth key feature is that of setting out the responsibilities of school principals and the functions that they should execute within the school setting. Many persons, when we referred to an intention to craft such legislation in 2005, suspected that we intended in some way to deny school governing bodies proper powers in terms of school principals and their governance roles in schools. I had nothing of the sort in mind. I intend to assist school principals to execute the role of school manager and education leader within the education system.
The Bill gives attention to school leadership and to the key role of the principal in the promotion of quality learning and teaching. We have made it clear that the principal is in charge of a school on behalf of the state and not on behalf of the school governing body.
The fifth and final key feature of the Bill is the clause in which we address the steps that should be taken in order to turn around an underperforming school. I am sure hon members are aware that we have often had schools that have underperformed for five years or more with no direct action being taken by administrators of education. We have now ensured that there should be formal steps that must be taken to support a school towards a path of recovery. These steps will include putting principals that cannot perform to terms in accordance with the appropriate legislation and, of course, providing them with assistance and support to come up to the mark in terms of ensuring that the school removes itself from the underperformance list.
The clause provides the basis for evaluating schools that are failing. It is a process that we have lacked for a number of years, and I am very pleased that we have now been able to put this in legislation in order to ensure that we support schools to improve and do not allow them to continue in a state of perpetual mediocrity.
We are about to establish a national evaluation unit that will support provinces in identifying underperforming schools and setting them on the path to recovery. I am pleased to note that some provinces have already begun to provide the building blocks for such a process of external evaluation. Secondary schools have begun development plans and are working at targets to improve the performance of learners and support for the development of teachers in their education function.
This Bill we believe provides an essential framework for achieving quality education in our schools and I trust that hon members will support the Bill. [Applause.]
UProf S M MAYATULA: Mandibulele Sihlalo naMalungu ePalamente, lo Mthetho uYilwayo, siwuphetheyo namhlanje, uzama ukulingisa imithetho emithandathu, emibini kuyo inezinto ezininzi ekufuneka sizijongile. Le yokugqibela mine imiba ibalulekile, kodwa ke phaya ekomitini sivene ngayo sonke.
Mandiqale ngayo kuqala. Le mithetho inento yokwenza nelinge likazwelonke lokuzama ukuncedisana nabafundi ngemali yokufunda okanye i-national student financial aid, iSouth African Council for Educators okanye i-Sace ngamafutshane, kunye ne-Adult Basic Education okanye iAbet.
Zonke iinguqu esizakuzenza apho zilungiselela abantwana bethu ukuba bakwazi ukufunda kumaziko azikholeji zemfundo ethe vetshe okanye ii-further education and training colleges okanye iiFETs. Niyakukhumbula ukuba sikwiphulo lokuba abantwana bethu bakwazi ukusebenzisa iizandla zabo, ingabi ngabo bonke abafuna ukubheka ezidyunivesiti. Ithi ke loo nto umntwana esakuliphumelela ibanga lesixhenxe okanye igredi yethoba makazi ukuba unelungelo lokubheka kwi-FET college.
Ingxaki yeyokuba aba bantwana ababinayo imali yokuya apho, kuba zisembalwa zona. Urhulumente kule minyaka mithathu ubeke ecaleni imali engangezi-R600 million. Ukuze ke abantwana bakwazi ukuyifumana le mali sifuna i-National Student Financial Aid Scheme okanye i-Nefsas ikwazi ukuncedisana nabantwana ize iqinisekise ukuba bayayifumana. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Prof S M MAYATULA: Thank you, Chairperson and members of Parliament. The Bill we are discussing is going to amend three laws of which two have a number of things we need to look at. The last four issues are important and the committee agreed on them.
Let me start with them. These Bills go hand in hand with the National Education Policy, which is trying to assist students with funds to pay their fees through the national student financial aid scheme fund, South African Council for Educators, Sace in short, and Adult Basic Education, Abet.
All the changes which were done here would help our children to go and register in further education and training colleges, FETs. You will remember that our aim is to empower our children with skills so that not all of them have to go to university. That means a student who passes standard 7 or grade 9 can register in a FET college.
The problem is that these learners do not have enough money to register and the number of FET colleges is still limited. Government has put aside an amount of R600 million for three years. The National Student Financial Aid Scheme, Nasfas, must make sure that learners enjoy this benefit.]
Let me go now to the National Education Policy Act of 1996, sometimes referred to as Nepa. With Nepa we are making a few amendments here, one of which, among other things, declares that the Minister shall establish a National Education and Training Council, and what we are going to be doing today in this Bill is to try to amend that Bill in, mainly, three ways.
The first way is that we are changing "shall establish" into "may establish". This is in line with other bodies and the experience we had, for example, with the National Board for Further Education and Training. Because it had outlived its importance, we were able to do away with it.
The second way relates to another Nepa amendment and has to do with consultation. When the Minister makes policies, he or she is supposed to consult with the National Education and Training Council. But there has been confusion in some of the submissions we received, because they took this to mean that when making laws you need to consult with the National Education and Training Council, when in fact it is solely for the Minister when he or she is making policy.
We found this in the same Bill, part of which we did not change. Section 6(a) of the Nepa Act reads: Legislation on a matter referred to in section 3, which has to do with the determination of policy, shall be introduced in Parliament only after consultation between the Minister and the council. Some submissions were saying that since there was no consultation in terms of this Bill with the NETC, it is null and void and unconstitutional. But, as we see it, they interpreted this reference to "council" incorrectly as if it related to the National Education and Training Council when, in fact, it related to the Council of Education Ministers.
The third amendment as far as Nepa is concerned relates to the structures that need to be consulted. The original Bill listed these structures: the council, the organisations representing college rectors, the organised teaching profession, and many others. In terms of experience, for example, with Gauteng, which already has such a structure, the officials there said: The problem with this unwieldy body, which is supposed to give advice to the Minister, is, one, that this structure is very big; two, these structures go there and they need mandates in order to be able to give advice, which becomes impossible.
They say that the NETC tends to forget that it is an advisory body with the intention to provide impartial advice on request and focuses on insisting to take on the role of an organisation with executive or regulatory powers. Because of that, we have had to expand that list so that the Minister can bring around people who are going to be advising her on expert issues that relate to education.
The other part that is part of this has to do with the violence that is happening in our schools. We want to arm our schools so as to be able to do something, and what is important is that this does not do away with the principal calling the police when necessary. Let me read what this says: Clause 7(8)(1):
Unless authorised by the principal for legitimate educational purposes, no person may bring a dangerous object or illegal drug onto school premises or have such objects or drug in his or her possession on school premises or during any school activity.
This gives the school something in law to prevent anybody bringing these things into the school. Over and above that, we are arming the school to be able to search for and seize these things. The hon Van den Heever will deal with this.
We also find that our principals' functions have not been defined, and they become confused, especially when it comes to how they relate to school governing bodies. There is a difference between a governing body of a private school and a governing body of a public school. In a private school, the buck stops with the principal and the governing body, but in a public school the buck stops with the MEC, or Minister, or head of department. This means that at any point when the principal is in the school governing body, he or she is there in his or her capacity as representing the MEC.
If it was possible, the MEC and head of department would be in that school governing body. That is why, therefore, this Bill says that if the principal is representing the MEC in the school governing body, how is it possible for him or her to stand against the MEC or head of department. We are trying to prevent that. This Bill goes a step further in that the principal must now, through this Act, be able to report on a yearly basis on the performance of the school.
It also goes a step further to say that in case the performance is bad, what it is that needs to be done pertaining to the principal and educators generally. This Bill is also telling us about the norms and standards of a school. Currently, we do not have one picture when we talk about schools.
Izikolo zethu zingamatyotyombe, uyakufika isikolo singamagumbi amabini, ingekho indlu yangasese, singabiyelwanga, kwaye kungenzwanga nto. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo uthi makubekho into esiza kuthi ukuba uthetha ngesikolo nokuba kuphi na kukho izinto ekunyanzelekileyo ukuba zibe khona. Ukanti ke nalapha ngaphathi esikolweni iSGB mayibe nendlela yokwazi ukuba zikhona na iincwadi apha esikolweni. Kuphindwe kujongwe ukuba igumbi lokufundela lona liza kuba ngakanani.
Ootishala abaninzi kunye neenqununu ukuqala konyaka bamkela wonke umntu esikolweni besenzela ukuba babe namanani amakhulu ukuze babhatalwe, kodwa ufumanise ukuba ngoku abakwazi ukufundisa ngoba abantwana baninzi kakhulu. Lo Mthetho ke uza kukwazi ukunqanda loo nto ukuze sazi ukuba egumbini ngalinye sinabantwana abalinani elithile, nabangenakugqitha kulo. Siyakucela ukuba lo Mthetho uYilwayo wamkeleke. Enkosi. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Some of our schools operate from shacks, others have only two classrooms, no toilets, no fencing and are without any amenities. This Bill emphasises that each and every school must be developed. The SGB must monitor the delivery of school books as well as the size of the classrooms.
Teachers and principals have a tendency to admit large numbers of learners to their schools at the beginning of the year, because they want the Department of Education to allocate them big budgets and one cannot help but notice during the course of the year that they cannot cope with the large number of learners. This Bill will prevent that situation and through it we will know the number of learners in each classroom. We therefore ask members to support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Agb Voorsitter, kollegas ... [Hon Chairperson, colleagues ...]
... the intention behind several aspects of the Bill we are voting on today, including the provision for random drug testing in schools and plans to make nonperforming schools more accountable, is most welcome and supported. While the DA is not convinced that the specific proposals made will be practical, they do at least take some steps towards tackling the drugs crisis that traps so many learners and the thousands of completely dysfunctional schools that fail many more.
Daar is meriete daarin om minimum standaarde vir skole toe te pas, maar ons wil nie h dat hierdie standaarde die maatstaf moet word vir wat as 'n kwaliteitskool gesien moet word nie. Daar is altyd 'n risiko dat minimum standaarde mettertyd as maksimum standaarde beskou sal word. As 'n mens in gedagte hou wat prakties bereikbaar is in terme van 'n minimum standaard vir alle skole, sal dit die maatstaf baie laag plaas. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[There is merit in imposing minimum standards on schools, but we do not want these standards to become the criterion for what is to be regarded as a high-quality school. There is always a risk that minimum standards may, over time, be seen as maximum standards. If one bears in mind what can be achieved in practice in terms of a minimum standard for all schools, the yardstick used will be very low.]
It is unfortunate, however, that there are two aspects of this Bill that the DA cannot support and that therefore make any discussion of the remainder of the Bill irrelevant. During the public hearings on the Bill, the Portfolio Committee on Education heard organisation after organisation objecting to two aspects in particular.
These two aspects were, firstly, the removal of the obligation on the Minister of Education to consult when making policy with those who are at the coal face of education; and, secondly, the insertion of a clause prohibiting a school principal from testifying against the state. These organisations raised cogent arguments against the first of these provisions, saying that it constituted a power grab on the part of the Minister, placing her on a pedestal out of reach of any accountability to the interest groups involved in education.
They objected to the fact that the Minister would no longer be obliged to constitute the National Education and Training Council, even though other legislation does require her to do this. It is a requirement that has now been ignored for 11 years. They also objected to the fact that she will no longer be required to consult with this body, even if it is ever constituted.
In respect of the other aspect of this Bill relating to the right of principals to testify against the state, it has been pointed out that this not only violates the principal's right to equality before the law and freedom of speech, but also the rights of others to have disputes resolved fairly. Any step taken to advance one particular employee over another would never be accepted in terms of labour law and is very likely unconstitutional.
Die wetlike en filosofiese teenkanting teen hierdie wetsontwerp is grotendeels gegnoreer of ontken. Terwyl die komitee 'n hele reeks tegniese aanpassings gedebateer het, het hierdie wysigings die substansile aangeleenthede heeltemal gegnoreer. Met ander woorde, die proses van openbare deelname was 'n klug. Die Minister het geweet wat sy wil h en die komitee was gehoorsaam. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The legal and philosophical opposition to this Bill was largely ignored or denied. Whereas the committee debated a whole series of technical alterations, these amendments totally ignored the substantial matters. In other words, the public participation process was a farce. The Minister knew what she wanted, and the committee obliged.]
Whatever may happen in Parliament today, however, it has become clear over the past weeks that various aspects of this legislation are in contravention of already entrenched education laws and, in all likelihood, the Constitution. It is unfortunate that more effort was not made to resolve these problems before bringing this Bill to Parliament, because it will only make the process of resolving the problems more complicated and acrimonious. The DA will not support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues, the IFP supports clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill, which allow the Minister to establish the council. We are aware that some structures may provide for contestation of powers and it is for this reason that we wish to give the Minister space to provide for better and quality education.
We support the setting of minimum norms and standards. We also support random searches, seizures and testing. Our real bone of contention with the Bill is part 4 of clause 8, which deals with the functions and responsibilities of principals of public schools. Our problem lies with the prohibition on the principal giving evidence against the Minister and MEC or head of department, where they are cited as parties to a case.
We have sought legal opinion on this provision and, after studying this legal opinion, the IFP, unfortunately is compelled to throw the baby out with the bath water. Therefore, we cannot support the Bill. [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, the Bill before us seeks to amend various education laws on the Statute Book. Several technical amendments are made, but I would like to focus briefly on some of the more important substantive amendments. Most important among these are the new measures to deal with dangerous objects and illegal drugs. We are all painfully aware of the violence and killing which are increasingly entering our schools and claiming young victims. As a society, we are outraged by these weapons and drugs and the devastation that they sow among our children and, rightly, we all demand remedies. As legislators we are placed in a very difficult position of having to legislate remedies that are invasive and trample on the democratic rights of children.
On the one hand, it must be our highest priority to protect our children, but, on the other hand, we cannot expect them to value human rights and democracy if we violate their human rights in the process. Provisionally we will support these remedies, but it is possible that upon implementation it will be found that they are inadequate or improper in a democratic society.
Finally, the Bill also provides the Minister with the power to prescribe national minimum norms and standards regarding school infrastructure. I thank you, Chairperson. The UDM supports the Bill. [Time expired.]
Chair, hon Minister, Ministers, measures to address the problem of drugs in schools are welcomed by the ACDP and the objectives of the Bill in general are commendable. However, the ACDP has serious reservations with regard to this Education Laws Amendment Bill, starting with the fact that the amendments effectively remove any mandatory requirement for the Minister to establish an advisory body.
In our view, the fact that several Ministers have failed over a period of 11 years to establish what is at present a compulsory advisory body, highlights the reality that a noncompulsory advisory body has no chance whatsoever of existing if left to the discretion of a Minister.
Efforts to define and clarify the management role of the school principal, while necessary, are cause for concern as conflict between the principal's management and governance responsibilities are not adequately dealt with. Parents and communities expect school principals to be people of integrity and to protect and promote the school's best interests without reservation. It is the opinion of the ACDP that these amendments require a principal to protect the department, even if it means compromising the school's best interests.
We are seeing a very disturbing trend being highlighted in our health sector at present, where those responsible for institutions are expected to cover for the department or lose their jobs. This is shocking and cannot be accepted as the norm. The ACDP is not convinced by the arguments put forward at present and will vote against the amending Bill. Thank you.
Agb Voorsitter, ouers is vennote en mede-eienaars van hulle kinders se onderwys en die staat het nie 'n reg om daarmee in te meng nie. Hierdie wet is net 'n verdere uitbreiding van 'n proses wat jare terug begin het en wat steeds voortduur met die voortdurende afskaling van ouers se inspraak in onderwys. Kinders is aan hulle ouers en gemeenskappe toevertrou en nie aan die staat nie en dit is baie jammer dat die staat dit nog nie besef het nie.
Die VF Plus is baie bekommerd dat hierdie wysigingswet ook nie geldig gaan wees nie, om 'n baie eenvoudige rede en dit is dat die bestaande wetgewing vereis dat wysigings eers gedoen kan word na oorlegpleging met die onderwys- en opleidingsraad. Daardie raad is nog nie deur die Minister ingestel nie en om daardie eenvoudige rede kan die Minister nie wysigings deurvoer voordat sy nie oorleg gepleeg het met die raad wat sy eers moes instel nie.
Dit is dus baie jammer dat hierdie wysiging eers deurgevoer word, sonder 'n behoorlike proses van oorlegpleging en sonder dat daar voldoen is aan die vereistes wat in die wetgewing voorgestaan word. Om daardie rede sal die VF Plus die wet nie steun nie. Baie dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr W D SPIES: Hon Chairperson, parents are partners and co-owners of their children's education and the state does not have the right to interfere with this. This Bill is just a further extension of a process that started years ago and that is still continuing with the ongoing downscaling of the say of parents in education. Children are entrusted to their parents and communities and not to the state and it is a great pity that the state has not realised this yet.
The FF Plus is very concerned that this amending Bill will also not be valid, for the very simple reason that the current legislation requires that amendments can only be made after consultation with the Education and Training Council. This council has not yet been established by the Minister and for that simple reason the Minister cannot pilot through any amendments until she has consulted the council that she must first establish.
It is, therefore, a great pity that this amendment is being piloted through first, without a proper process of consultation and without the requirements advocated in the legislation being complied with. For that reason the FF Plus will not support this Bill. Thank you.]
Chairperson and hon members, an education system is dynamic and never static and it is for that reason that laws related to it should and will be amended to answer to the demands of the day. It will be up to the Minister, who has the barometer of the department, to know when the pressure is high or low and thereupon establish a national education and training council to advise him or her.
During the public hearings much was said about the principal of a school being left as an independent individual. This argument is absurd in the extreme. A principal by virtue of his position is ipso facto in the same ring as the department.
As an education officer in my past life, I used to say that a principal is the department on the spot. There is no way that an appointed person will align himself with the school governing body at the expense of the department. In fact, principals are being empowered through this to run their schools, otherwise the schools will run them down if they do not look up to him.
As matters now stand, the UCDP will find it hard to accept the clause on the prescription of minimum uniform norms and standards in respect of infrastructure and all that, because there are still areas where pupils are taught under trees or in the open, let alone those being taught in mud roundavel hovels, like the chairperson indicated. The clause is, however, an ideal to strive for.
The disruptive conduct of learners in schools calls for random searches and drug testing. There is nothing sinister about all this as long as it is done in a humane and responsible manner by teachers who know that they are to stand in loco parentis to come up as reasonable parents. The UCDP will therefore support the Bill.
Chairperson, on 6 September 2007 we were addressed by the hon Minister of Finance, who painted a grim picture of education spending in South Africa in comparison to countries like India, Turkey and Chile.
It is 13 years into democracy and people are losing patience with the expectations of what we should have delivered to date. The truth is: In education we have the right Minister, with the right department, but policy may not be able to deliver.
Education has experienced major challenges, and poverty has been a cruel hijacker to our success in the sector. Our nutrition programmes and even the no-fee schools have been progressive in opening doors to educate for the less fortunate. We, however, make the plea that these programmes be extended to higher education schooling that qualifies for these services to secure a lower dropout rate of senior attendance and to service our school shortage in the long term.
In terms of the amending Bill, the MF finds value in the alteration, but a number of gaps remain that need to be clarified if the department is to progress in delivery and to inculcate these provisions adequately at school level.
With regard to the dangerous objects and illegal drugs amendments, we note that crime and violence are on the rise in our schools and that we need to ensure that provisions are devised to securely address the matter under all circumstances. The MF will support the Bill. [Applause.]
Chairperson, violence in our schools and underperforming public schools are issues of national concern. The Bill is an attempt to intervene and bring about changes in these critical areas. The role of principals is also brought under the spotlight, especially as it relates to school governing bodies and other matters relating to school administration.
With respect to violence in schools, the carrying of what has been determined to be dangerous weapons is prohibited from being allowed onto the school grounds. Teachers will be given the right to randomly search learners based on fair and reasonable grounds of suspicion validating such action.
We would, however, wish to emphasise distress to teachers who may not be regularly used to procedures relating to searching of persons. Further, it will be far better to leave such practices to trained personnel, such as police officers or others, who are not so closely associated with learners.
The education environment should be nonthreatening and learner-friendly. In a recent newspaper article, security companies are alleged to have refused to conduct patrols in townships and other high-risk areas as they fear for their own safety. For the Bill to be effective in combating crime at schools, all stakeholders should be committed to resolving the issue, otherwise the role of teachers will not only be ineffective but they may also put their lives in danger.
In order to implement the aspect of safety as proposed by the Bill, we must ensure that the police and other safety and security departments have the capacity to assist with the protection of our schools.
The reservation the FD has with the Bill is with reference to clause 16 A(4) which states that a principal in his line of duty as an educator, given any particular issue that may impact negatively on education, should be disallowed to give evidence on behalf of a governing body against the Minister and other officials when it may be in the interest of justice to do so.
Although the FD welcomes the overall merits of the Bill that seek to improve the conditions at schools, we cannot support this Bill because of clause 16 A(4), which will undermine the course of justice. I thank you.
Chairperson, a few months ago, in reply to a series of questions about violence in our schools, the Minister of Education said that many of the incidents of violence in schools stemmed from drug-taking by learners on school premises. She then indicated that random testing of learners for drugs and seizure of drugs and dangerous weapons had become unavoidable options in order to stop this scourge of violence in our schools.
Even though there were regulations in place for safety measures at schools, these did not adequately address the mischief they were designed to remedy, that is to stop the proliferation of dangerous objects and illegal drugs at schools. It had therefore become necessary to strengthen these regulations by way of allowing random searches and seizures and drug testing at schools.
The new regulations provide clear guidelines about circumstances under which searches and drug-taking should be conducted. It is important to emphasise that a random search of any learner may only be instituted if a fair and reasonable suspicion exists that such a learner may be in possession of a drug or a dangerous weapon.
The Education Laws Amendment Bill also explicitly deals with areas of omission from previous pieces of legislation. The South African Schools Act, for example, expressly lists the functions and obligations of the school governing body, but fails to do so in the case of the principal. To remedy this shortcoming, the Education Laws Amendment Bill clearly spells out the functions and responsibilities of the principal of a public school. This is intended to create legal certainty regarding the functions and responsibilities of the principal vis--vis those of the governing body.
The Bill also makes it clear that the principal is officially representing the head of department when he or she is acting as a member of the governing body. There is nothing sinister in this amendment. In fact, it clears up a grey area in which the principal was often caught in the crossfire between school governing bodies and the department, with his or her loyalty being held to ransom.
The principal is the chief executive officer at the school and the demand of the Bill that a principal may not operate in conflict with the instructions of the head of department is entirely in line with the good order and discipline required of school governance. The principal can give evidence on behalf of a school governing body if he or she is not required by the employer to give evidence on his or her behalf. Thus, the aim is merely to give the employer a first preference and not to ban the principal from giving evidence. The principal is also allowed to give evidence on his behalf or on behalf of any other person. There is therefore no question of unconstitutionality if that is suggested.
Voorsitter, die opposisie van die DA teen 'n aantal klousules sowel as teen die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Onderwyswette self kom as geen verrassing nie. Die DA het vanuit die staanspoor van hul bestaan hier in die Parlement te kenne gegee dat hulle nie daarin belangstel dat apartheidsonderwys omvorm na 'n demokratiese en nie-rassige onderwyssisteem nie.
Agb Van der Walt argumenteer dat meer pogings aangewend moes word om ooreenstemming te kry binne-in die portefeuljekomitee, maar met die hantering van hierdie wetsontwerp binne die onderwys portefeuljekomitee het agb Van der Walt haarself nie eers die moeite geverg om die teenvoorstelle van die DA op die tafel te plaas nie.
Dit was duidelik aan haar houding dat wat immers die debatvoering en die uiteindelike uitkoms van die portefeuljekomiteeproses betref, die DA reeds toe-o besluit dat hulle teen die wetsontwerp sou stem. Sy het haar dus nie eers verwerdig om in interaksie te gaan met die prosesse waardeur enige parlementre portefeuljekomitee verplig is om te gaan nie. Daardeur het sy 'n bespotting gemaak van die demokratiese prosesse van besluitneming van hierdie parlement en kom haar party, die DA, maar weereens vandag vorendag met sy tradisionele vooroodeel teen die demokratiese omvorming van ons onderwyssisteem.
Die DA probeer eintlik hierdie parlement oor die jare reeds gyselaar hou met betrekking tot wetgewing in die onderwys. Indien ouerbeheerliggame nie maksimaal in beheer is van skole nie, gaan die DA nie vir so 'n wetsontwerp stem nie. Hulle stel hoegenaamd nie belang in die oorhoofse bestuur en goeie orde relings van die onderwysdepartement nie. Dis al manier waarop hulle glo hulle die transformatiewe aspekte van die onderwyswetgewing kan omseil. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, the DA's opposition to a number of clauses as well as the Education Law Amendment Bill comes as no surprise. Since the DA came into existence here in Parliament they have intimated that they are not interested in apartheid education being transformed into a democratic and nonracial system of education.
Hon Van der Walt argues that more attempts should have been made to reach agreement within the portfolio committee, but when this Bill was dealt with in the portfolio committee the hon Van der Walt did not even bother to make the effort to table the counter proposals of the DA.
It was clear from her attitude, with regard to the debates and the eventual outcome of the portfolio committee process, that the DA had blindly decided that they would vote against the Bill. She did not even condescend to engage with the processes through which any parliamentary portfolio committee is obliged to go. She therefore made a mockery of the democratic processes of decision making of this Parliament and her party, the DA, has today, once again come up with its traditional prejudice against the democratic transformation of our system of education.
Over the years the DA has actually tried to hold this Parliament hostage with regard to legislation pertaining to education. If parent governing bodies are not in maximum control of schools, the DA will not vote for such a Bill. They are not at all interested in the overall management and arrangements for good order of the education department. This is the only way they believe they can circumvent the transformative aspects of the education legislation.]
As far as the National Education and Training Council - the NETC - is concerned, it is clear that the Minister is attempting to break the paralysis that has characterised this body since its inception. The NETC, as it has been constructed, has not met since its inception. At least the Minister is attempting to break that log jam. As far as the allegations regarding excluding trade union bodies are concerned, there is nothing in this legislation which says they will not be consulted.
The Education Laws Amendment Bill is a very important vehicle to effect the changes required in the existing legislation to effectively address the latest demands in education. The ANC urges this House to support this Bill and to continue the trend of transformation required for the effective overhaul of our education system. I thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to thank the members who participated in the debate. I particularly wish to thank the chairperson of the committee for steering the Bill to the point of our being able to debate and vote on it in the House today.
I must say, as usual, that I am very surprised because I certainly thought this legislation would take us to a new phase in the provision of quality education for the children of our country and that, given that, it would be supported by all the members of this House. I can't imagine myself voting against a piece of legislation that says a school has certain basic attributes it must have: classrooms, a library, laboratories, resource centres for media and ITC. Denying that is absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable.
Furthermore, the legislation clearly states that a principal cannot be a witness against the Minister with a governing body unless a court expressly provides for this or the Minister indicates that the person will not be a witness on behalf of the department or the Minister. So, there isn't a muzzling; you are being quite ridiculous in your approach. Of course, we know you have never supported quality education for the majority of people in this country and we are not surprised that you will not vote for this particular piece of legislation. [Interjections.]
We are very happy that some of the parties have indicated strong support, especially for the norms and standards, for the identification of and support for underperforming schools, for ensuring that no school principal gets away with being the head of a school that doesn't have a learning plan, that doesn't support teacher development, that does nothing to ensure that underperformance is actually targeted and addressed by the principal as the leader of the school.
For the first time we have provisions where we can hold our employees accountable for the learning of our children. But we don't only hold the employees in the schools accountable; we are also saying the MECs as well as the heads of department have a duty to ensure that the norms and standards are met. It's very important.
We hope that this House as well as the other House will ensure that these norms and standards, which have been specified for the first time clearly in legislation - in concrete terms - will hold those who hold the money responsible, hon Bhoola, for using it to provide the resources for learning that they must. The Minister of Finance in making comments on education was absolutely right, but if he could give us some financial control, perhaps we would do more than is done by those who currently have exclusive financial control of resources for education.
We really welcome those members who've said that there should be consultation. Obviously, there must be consultation and there will be. We have advertised and called for nominations for the body that I intend to establish. We have received nominations from a range of persons and individuals. All legislation is published and gazetted for public comment; days are set aside for this. Any person is able to comment. So to seek to hold us hostage to a group of some nebulous persons is absolutely ridiculous and this cannot be allowed to stop us from proceeding with the changes that we believe are necessary.
We must ensure, as we implement the search and seizure provisions of the legislation once it is signed into law, that the rights of learners and any person who is searched on the school grounds are of course protected. It's for this reason that very careful steps related to the search processes and to recording of the process, etc, have been set out in the legislation.
The issue of reasonableness has also been articulated in the Bill in order to give that test which is required in terms of the limitation clause in our Constitution so absolutely, with regard to the rights of learners.
I think paramount is the need to protect our children from the scourge of drugs and weapons in our schools. There is too much violence; there are too many drugs in our society; there is too much out there that is a threat to young people. So, I would think we should veer towards the protection of children rather than protecting individuals who are peddling drugs on our school grounds. I think that when we support antidrug measures, we must do so in a balanced way across every sector in society. Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party, African Christian Democratic Party and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).