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

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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