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

Important message to UFS students on NSFAS and financial aid in general
2013-02-01

31 January 2013

Dear Students

There remains some uncertainty as well as misinformation within the student body concerning NSFAS and financial aid in general. This communication is intended to provide the facts on the state of student funding at the University of the Free State (UFS). I hope you find this information helpful and that it would guide you in your decisions as you wait to hear from, or hopefully receive funding from NSFAS or any other source.

  1. Every year the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) determines how much funding is available to fund students at all universities in South Africa; this is determined in part by the student numbers. Universities do not ask for, or determine the DHET allocation and are instructed by government that “NSFAS will ensure that the universities comply with the processes, procedures…for the allocated funds.”

  2. On 14 December 2012 the UFS received notice from the DHET that our total allocation would be R108,331,215.66 and that this amount must be apportioned in the following categories:
    General NSFAS Funding R85,174,275.07
    Teacher Training R2,291,940.59
    Disability Funding R1,265,000.00
    Final-Year Programme R19,600,000.00

  3. The UFS received 5 952 applications for NSFAS funding and with the available funding we can only finance up to 3 000 students on the Qwaqwa and Bloemfontein Campuses, provided that those students satisfy the stringent criteria, e.g. the so-called “national means test” determined for all universities in the country. If we funded more students that the available monies allow, the university would be held accountable by the NSFAS Board and the DHET and this would threaten future funding.

  4. Students apply in the previous year and therefore late applications are less likely to receive funding.

  5. Academic merit also counts, therefore students who fail one or more modules are less likely to receive new or ongoing support from NSFAS. The combination of academic standing and financial need are among the important criteria in decision-making on NSFAS funds.

  6. The UFS is one of the few universities with a very efficient record in using every cent made available to support poor students; we are proud of this record. No money is sent back to NSFAS, except small amounts not claimed by students in the disability category. The university is not allowed to shift funds between categories as described in point #2 above.

  7. Allocations are not based on campus, but need.

  8. The UFS sets aside an additional R35,7 million (in 2013) from within its own budget as bursaries so that we can accommodate as many students as possible. We spend every cent of this funding on students.

  9. The UFS also raises millions in bursaries from the private sector to support poor and promising students, though these funds are often linked to the industry granting the money, e.g. Investec for Accounting students and SASOL for Chemistry students. This recruitment of bursaries is a 24/7 commitment of the Marketing Office and the Faculties and Heads of Departments are also active in raising funds from government agencies, parastatals and the private sector for students in their units.

  10. After almost all our 2013 funds were allocated in favour of students, we calculated a shortfall in the NSFAS allocation of approximately R51 million. We are in the process of making an urgent submission to NSFAS to consider this additional allocation, but we cannot guarantee that this plea can or will be met.

Finally, I want all our students to know that the University of the Free State works very hard to raise every cent we can to provide poor students with funding for their studies. Many of my colleagues, including support staff, who do not earn very much, use some of their meagre personal resources to help a student with money for registration or clothing or food. In fact, the No Student Hungry Campaign that raises more than R600,000 by UFS volunteers annually, is another mechanism for trying to assist students who might have money for studies, but not much else.

We do this because we care, and because this is what The Human Project at Kovsies is all about.

I therefore ask for your patience as we continue our labour of raising the funds that enable every deserving student to continue their studies at the University of the Free State.

Should you have any further questions about NSFAS, please leave an email inquiry on choanet@ufs.ac.za or mallettca@ufs.ac.za and we will endeavour to provide you with the information you require.

Sincerely Yours

Jonathan D Jansen
Vice-Chancellor and Rector
University of the Free State

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