Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 October 2024 | Story Dr Solomon Chibaya | Photo Supplied
Dr Solomon Chibaya
Dr Solomon Chibaya is a lecturer in the Department of Education Management, Policy, and Comparative Education at the University of the Free State (UFS).


Opinion article by Dr Solomon Chibaya, lecturer in the Department of Education Management, Policy, and Comparative Education, University of the Free State.


On Friday, 13 September 2024 President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill into law but put a pause on two clauses. The two clauses he put on ice, flanked by representatives of his ANC party, were the contentious admissions and language policies. The abject absence of the other members of the ‘coalition’ or ‘GNU’ was evident during the signing and signifies a sense of unhappiness, especially from the Democratic Alliance. Now that the BELAB has been passed into law (except for the highly contested clauses), it has replaced the South African Schools Act (1996) (SASA), which was established post-apartheid to democratise the education system.

 

What problems does it set out to solve?

The BELAB, drafted as early as 2013, sought to enhance the quality of education in South Africa and had significant implications for school governance. Part of the improvement required democratic participation and the progress of mother tongue instruction in a transformative manner. This includes how the school governing bodies (SGBs), composed of parents, educators and non-educator staff members, continue their partnership with the Department of Basic Education at provincial and national levels in school governance. The SGB represents the school and the community in the quest for quality education.

Beyond the aspirations for democratic participation in schools, the proposed Basic Education Amendment Bill made provisions for arbitration and mediation to resolve the conflict between the SGBs and the Department of Basic Education. The media and literature are awash with court cases highlighting the conflict between these two partners of a tripartite partnership due to disputes that seemed only to be resolved by litigation. The disadvantages of such litigations include large sums of money and time spent in litigation and further harm to the child whose best interest both parties vow to have. The provisions for arbitration and mediation are believed to help avert litigations as a choice for conflict resolution. They align with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.

South Africa’s quest to undo the imbalances of the past is envisioned in the new education law; during the apartheid era, the apartheid regime monopolised the governance of schools in a way that ostracised parents. What perpetuated from such a context was the disenfranchising of parents regarding school governance, and they became unenchanted with school involvement, a lethargy that is taking a long time to wear off. Though the advent of SGBs sought to increase the participation of parents through legislating their participation through roles specified in the SASA 84 (1996), echoed in the new law, the policy does not translate into practice. Some SGBs have failed to take up their critical roles in determining the school budgets, language policy, discipline and appointment of new staff, among other roles. The new law now emphasises the control of the head of the department over these issues, especially in the contested clauses.

The irony is that the power that once was given to parents to govern is now usurped. The parents in some SGBs have failed to govern, and yet others have done so successfully. The ones that have done successfully feel they are being punished for the ones that failed to do so. While the SGB’s consultation with the HOD for approval is in line with the arbitration and mediation espoused by the BELA act, a spin-off of cooperative governance related to democratic aspirations, it deviates from the autonomy of the governing body that had seemed to prevail in recent history. A challenge one can foresee in the new law is that the cooperation of parties with unequal powers and motives may throw a spanner in the works of cooperative governance.

 

Why are the two clauses so controversial?

The language policy is a contentious issue, in which most comments in different media on the BELAB seem to dwell on this issue. On one side, there are those who feel some SGBs have the power to keep some learners out of their schools using the language policy, and on another side are SGBs who feel the quality of education in their schools may be compromised by the quest for equality in language integration. The BELAB encourages the language policy to be broader and inclusive. In schools with small numbers, their SGBs seek to protect that space as it is and pride themselves on the prevalence of such conditions.

According to the BELAB, compulsory school attendance will start at Grade R. This is a welcome change in some quarters as it allows early access to education for children. However, to the SGBs, this may present many changes. In schools that are already overcrowded, under-resourced and have a shortage of teachers, this change in the admission policy would add more pressure to these schools. Even schools that are well-endowed with resources must make changes to accommodate changes to the admission policy, which comes with governing challenges such as resource management and distribution. However, according to the National Development Plan (NDP), basic education is vital in building the foundation for lifelong learning and striking a balance may be what needs to be achieved.

 

The state of basic education 30 years into democracy

The state of basic education in South Africa over the past 30 years has been marked by significant progress, challenges, and ongoing reforms. It was only natural that legislation was to be part of the ongoing reform. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the South African government has made efforts to redress the inequalities of the past and improve access to quality education. However, the education system continues to face several persistent issues.

The outcry from communities highlights the prevalence of the apartheid legacy, which is expressed through inequality. There is still a world of difference in availability of resources between schools serving black communities (despite an increase in funding) and the former Model C schools. One would have wanted to see amendments to the legislation that provide a legal framework that eases some of these issues. Of course, it is not about legislating the challenges away but about designing a legal framework that addresses the inequalities regarding resources and access to them in schools.

Another challenge in South African Basic Education is that of performance gaps. Internationally, South Africa consistently performs poorly in assessments such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). This has been an embarrassment to the nation over the past 30 years as the returns do not match the investment in education. Countries that spend less than South Africa have learners doing better in foundational literacy and numeracy skills. The matric pass rate has gradually increased over the last 30 years; however, the concern is that they pass with low marks, limiting their opportunities for higher education and employment. A possible solution through the BELAB is to catch the children early, compulsory education from Grade R. This is now law.

Social issues, especially those that creep in from the communities around schools, affect the operations of schools. The school culture is influenced by many things, including the community in which it is located. Some of the challenges that schools have faced include violence, crime, and bullying, which have become a concern in certain regions, affecting the learning environment. The definition and procedures in relation to misconduct have been reviewed, but they mainly emphasise the rights of children. Unions will most probably be up in arms to protect their members, and parents will also be suing for the protection of their children.

News Archive

UFS staff get salary adjustment of 8,5%
2010-11-03

The University of the Free State’s (UFS) management and trade unions have agreed on a general salary adjustment of 8,5% for 2011. The negotiating parties agreed that adjustments could vary proportionally from a minimum of 7,5% to a maximum of 9,5%, depending on the government subsidy and the model forecasts.

 The service benefits of staff will be adjusted to 10,66% for 2011. This is according to the estimated government subsidy that will be received in 2011.

 The agreement was signed on Friday, 29 October 2010 by representatives of the UFS Management and the trade unions UVPERSU and NEHAWU.

An additional once-off, non-pensionable bonus of R3 000 will also be paid to staff with their December 2010 salary payment. The bonus will be paid to all staff members who were in the employment of the university on UFS conditions of service on 31 December 2010 and who assumed duties before 1 October 2010. The bonus is payable in recognition of the role played by staff during the year to promote the UFS as a university of excellence and as confirmation of the role and effectiveness of the remuneration model.

 It is the intention to pass the maximum benefit possible on to staff without exceeding the limits of financial sustainability of the institution. For this reason, the negotiating parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Multiple-year, Income-related Remuneration Improvement Model used as a framework for negotiations. The model and its applications are unique and have as a point of departure that the UFS must be and remains financially sustainable.

Agreement was reached that 2% will be allocated for growth in capacity building to ensure that provision is made for the growth of the UFS over the last few years. A further 0,16% will be allocated to structural adjustments.

 The implementation date for the salary adjustment is 1 January 2011. The adjustment will be calculated on the total remuneration package.

Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, Chairperson of the UVPERSU and NEHAWU mutual forum, is very pleased with the outcome and good spirit in which the negotiations, “that were concluded in a couple of hours”, took place. The 8,5% increase for 2011 means that for the past ten years the UFS staff has received a 38% increase above inflation in effect. 

 “Not only is this a major achievement in that the staff is much better off, but the salaries compare well with similar institutions in the country,” says Prof. Grobbelaar.

  It is also with nostalgia that the negotiations took place this year, because Prof. Grobbelaar and Prof. Niel Viljoen, Vice-Rector: Operations, both retire in 2011.  Prof. Viljoen was the chairperson of the UFS Council’s negotiation team for the past ten years.

  Media Release
 
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Director: Strategic Communication (actg)
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl@ufs.ac.za
  3 November 2010
 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept