Draft Further Education and Training (FET) Colleges Bill: Department briefing
Basic Education
06 September 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE AND NCOP SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
RECREATION: JOINT MEETING
6 September 2006
DRAFT FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING (FET) COLLEGES BILL: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr BJ Tolo (NCOP Select
Committee on Education, ANC)
Co-Chair: Prof S M Mayatula
(PC Education, ANC)
Documents handed out:
Further Education and
Training Colleges Bill [B23-2006]
Presentation on the
Further Education and Training (FET) Colleges Bill
SUMMARY
The Committees were briefed by the Department on the Further Education and
Training Colleges Bill. The Department explained that the Bill sought to
increase the number of learners on programmes in these Colleges, which will
ultimately lead to employment or higher education. The Department noted the
quality of the programmes offered in the Colleges had to be improved and that
steps would be taken, through the Bill, to transform the colleges in this
regard. In determining priority skills programmes for South Africa, two
questions need to be asked notably; what do employees want, and which sectors
require skills. The Bill seeks to introduce flexible programmes to suit a wide
range of needs. The Bill aims to provide legislative support for rapid skills
development and it aims to protect learners and lecturers in the provision of
high quality programmes.
The Committees were impressed by the detailed presentation but raised questions
about the future of existing Colleges, repeal of the 1998 Further Education and
Training Act, the roles of the national Minister of Education and provincial
MECs, funding of the Colleges, the composition of Councils and Advisory Boards
and distinctions between private and public Further Education and Training
Colleges.
MINUTES
Department of Education Briefing
The Department of Education (DoE) presented the draft Further Education and
Training (FET) Colleges Bill. Mrs P Vinjevold (Deputy Director General: FET)
explained that there were two important reasons for wanting to adopt the Bill
by November 2006. Firstly, the Bill directly addresses the issue of skills
development, halving poverty, and reducing unemployment. The Bill would
therefore aide the Department in terms of programmes it intends to introduce in
2007. Secondly, the Department has been in extensive consultation on the
preparation and contents of the Bill with the direct stakeholders (the
colleges, the Provincial Education Departments, lecturers, and students) since
April 2005.
The Department is trying to increase the number of learners in FET College
programmes which it foresees will lead to employment or higher education
opportunities for such learners. By increasing the number of students
especially in programmes that lead to higher education, the Department hopes
to simultaneously address the issue of youth unemployment and provide skills
for economic growth and social development. Currently, an imbalance exists in
the Further Education and Training Programmes in that most developed
countries have a larger vocational education programme provided by their
Education and Training Colleges than Higher Education. The Department’s goal is
to increase the number of learners in FET Colleges to one million learners by
2014. The current provision of FET Colleges is such that the
programmes
(especially the N1 to N6) have become outdated and have not lead to employment.
Programmes
have to both be modernised and made cognitively more
demanding. The Colleges have already started to respond to other types of
programmes
and will continue to do so.
Enrolment in FET Colleges over the last five years has not only doubled but the
race and gender profile of students has changed, and in race terms, this means
that learners are much poorer than they have ever been before, often unemployed
with no workplace experience. This change in profile has had extremely
important consequences for student support and also for the way the programmes
are funded. The Bill deals with a new funding formula. The Bill is the final
and most important piece in the transformation of FET Colleges because it puts
into legislation what the Department has had to simultaneously do in changing
and developing new programmes. The new funding formula has also been finalised.
This means that students will now pay between R2000 and R4000 a year per
programme, but students in quintal one and two may be exempt from this. Each
lecturer is also given R10 000 for their own development i.e. working in
industry to improve their own understanding of responsiveness. The FET Bill
speaks directly to the management and governance structures as well as
staffing. The Bill seeks to make sure that the management, governance and
staffing of FET Colleges responds to the expansion and flexible delivery of
programmes. One of the ways in which the Department has ensured the
transformation of the sector is by insisting on the registration and
accreditation of existing private colleges. The Department has had 400
applications so far.
Since the Bill is tasking the Department to take FET Colleges to a new dimension,
distinct from schools and universities, the Department has had to do three
things in determining the priority skills programmes for FET Colleges in South
Africa. Firstly, it has had to ask what will lead to employment and reduction
of poverty. Secondly, the Department had to look at the sectors in the economy
that had a shortage in skills and thirdly, the Department had to make sure that
it offered programmes for a range of students from part-time to full-time
students. Every one of the programmes offered has a math’s literacy, language
and information technology component to make sure both young and old have the
ability to quickly learn new skills. The Department has streamlined the number
of programmes into 13 sectors according to the Accelerated Shared Growth
Initiative of SA (ASGISA). Each of these programmes has both a theoretical and
a practical component. Ms Vinjevold noted the concern from the public around
the difference between an apprenticeship, a learnership and a national
certificate. It was noted that these programmes were heading in the same
direction, all having a maths and science fundamental component, as well as
theoretical and practical components.
It was explained that the FET Bill provides for the establishment, governance
and funding of public FET Colleges. As far as the employment of staff is
concerned, the Bill provides specifics on this and the transitional
arrangements. It explains how the registration of private FET Colleges is done
and for both sectors, it asserts a quality assurance mechanism. The Bill also
gives attention to the transition arrangements. The Bill aims to provide the
legislative support for rapid skills development, aiming to protect learners
and lecturers in the provision of high quality programmes.
It was explained that communication with all the various stakeholders was first
sought, the Bill then being put out for comment in the latter part of 2005,
where it spent considerable time in the National Board for Further Education
and Training where organised labour, business and the nine provinces are
represented. It was then put out for public comment in May 2006. The Department
has streamlined and amended the Bill in line with all comments received where
they sought to improve the quality of the Bill.
Discussion
The Chair thanked the Department for the briefing, stating that it was very
general. He asked the Deputy Director General (DDG) to go through the Bill
chapter by chapter, as there were delegates present who would be expected to
brief their provinces on the contents of the Bill.
The DDG obliged. Starting with the introduction to the Bill, she explained the
applications and purpose of the Bill noting that many comments were received to
the effect that the application and purpose of the Bill be made clear. It
states that students must acquire knowledge, practical skills and applied
vocational and occupational competence. The purpose of the Bill is also to
separate out school offerings from College offerings.
Ms F Mazibuko (ANC, Gauteng) asked, with regard to the National Curriculum and
schools mainstreaming, how the Bill would differentiate between the two
(schools and FETs).
The DDG responded that there are two separate curricula, one for schools called
a general education comprising of seven subjects, with two languages and maths
literacy or maths education. This general curriculum leads to a National Senior
Certificate and has no practical component. With the Colleges, the emphasis is
on vocational education. There is mobility between them and what is common
between them is the one language, mathematics or mathematical literacy and life
orientation.
The Chair asked the Deputy Director General to briefly explain chapter 2 of the
Bill.
Ms Vinjevold explained that Chapter 2 talks about how to go about establishing
a public college. Chapter 2 sets out the procedures to be followed if an MEC
wanted to establish another FET college such as publishing it in the Provincial
Gazette. The section on the Merger of Public Colleges sets out the requirements
necessary for a merger of Public Colleges. Subsequently, Section 7 looks at the
possibility of establishing a single council for two or more public colleges.
She noted that this was an unlikely possibility but should it be deemed
necessary for two colleges to be governed by a single council, the Bill
provides the MEC the opportunity to establish a single council for two or more
colleges. Section 8 explains how an MEC must go about closing an FET college.
Chapter two really deals with the unlikely event of a college being
established, merged or closed.
The Chair asked if there were any questions of clarity surrounding Chapter 2 of
the Bill.
Ms Mazibuko asked whether the Bill was proposing that a single council govern
all branches of a college.
Ms Vinjevold responded that this was a different issue and that it would be
taking two separate colleges and merging them. It was explained that there
could be a college with many branches that is governed by one council.
She went on to explain Chapter Three of the Bill which sets out the governance
structures of the Public Colleges, of which there are three main ones. The
first is the Council, then the Academic Board and lastly the Student
Representative Council. The Bill provides the composition and means of election
of each of the governance structures. The Bill also allows the Council and
Academic Board to establish additional committees as long as these are approved
by the Council. The Council has to perform three main functions; being the
strategic plan, the language policy, and ensuring that the College complies
with the accreditation requirements. The College Council consists of both
internal and external members. The internal members have a principal and then
there is the Academic Board, one lecturer, one staff member and two students.
The external members are appointed by the MEC and are expected to fulfill
certain functions in the Council, to be representative of the Further Education
and Training Sector and to bring expertise for the reconstruction and development
of the FET Colleges. The balance of the Council is of particular importance,
where 60% are external members. The Academic Board is charged with determining
the academic functions of the colleges and also ensuring that women and the
disabled are promoted in FET College programmes. They are also charged with
establishing internal academic monitoring and quality promotion and ensuring
that programmes are accredited and lead to employment and skills development.
She explained that the most important thing relates to the funding formula,
which speaks to who is employed. The Academic Board makes the decisions as to
which programmes are offered at the FET Colleges. This must represent the
Provincial Development needs. It was noted that lecturers and members of
council and student representatives might sit on this board. The committees
that can be established by either the Council or the Academic Board must assist
the Council or Academic Board in its functions. It was noted that such
committees have already been established by a number of Councils. The rest of
Chapter Three deals with disciplinary measures. The Department has managed to
decrease initiation practices in colleges. The Bill seeks to make sure that the
disciplinary measures for corporal punishment and initiation are regulated.
Finally, the Colleges determine the admission policy to the public colleges
after consultation with the Provincial Head of Education and the Academic Board
of Education. She noted that access to colleges is sometimes determined by the
learners’ ability to pay though the Department believes that the new FET
funding will address this issue. The College Statute (see Bill Schedule)
provides colleges who do not have a Statute, with an example of one, which can
then be amended to suit the particular college.
Mr J O Thlagale (UCDP, North West) noted that the equipment in some of these
colleges was obsolete and could not prepare children for the outside. He asked
whether the Department was saying that children would have a smooth transition
from the colleges into the workplace with the passing of the Bill.
The Chair commented that the question was general and did not relate to the
contents of Chapter three of the Bill.
Mr L Govender (KZN Legislature) asked, with regard to Clause 10(4)(b) of
Chapter 3 and the five external persons appointed by the MEC, how these people
will be identified and whether they would have to apply for such positions.
Secondly, would there be remuneration?
Ms Vinjevold responded that the manner in which external persons are appointed
must be announced in the Gazette. There is a calling for nominations by the
public in the Government Gazette and then the MEC selects from those nominated
according to the guidelines set out. Regarding the payment of council members,
there is no honorarium. However, the college will cover traveling costs to
meetings.
Prof Mayatula asked for clarity regarding the difference in structures of
schools and colleges. He asked whether these colleges had the capacity to cope
with all the new governance and other structures.
Ms Vinjevold responded that the Councils have been in place for three to four
years and are operating relatively well. The Department has made a plea to
organised business to provide community service and expertise. The Councils
have large responsibilities especially given the R1.9 billion allocated to the
development of the colleges. She noted that the Academic Boards were slightly
behind the College Councils and that the Department would have to work hard to
make sure that the Academic Boards worked. She noted that they are growing in
leaps and bounds and are able to apply themselves to particular tasks very
well.
Mr G G Boinamo (DA) pointed out that some colleges were situated in provinces
that were poor and where paying fees was not easy. He asked whether the
colleges would be funded by the Government for their daily operations, or will
they depend on student fees. He asked further whether the employed staff would
be paid solely by the council or by the government and how safe pension for
those staff would be.
Ms H Lamoela (DA, Western Cape) asked how safe the subsidies and medical
schemes of employees would be if circumstances were to change in the colleges.
Ms Vinjevold said she would answer Mr Boinamo and Ms Lamoela’s questions after
explaining Chapter 4 of the Bill.
She went on to explain Chapter 4 of the Bill. The Bill asserts that the MEC
will appoint the management staff of the college (the Principal, Vice-Principal
and Chief Financial Officer). The principal has a performance contract with the
FET College. She noted that many of the principals are due for review as their
five-year performance agreements are nearly over. With regard to the
appointment of lecturers and staff, they are employed under the Employment of
Educators Act. This means that they are employed as teachers in the same basket
as teachers in schools. It has been noted, however, that these institutions are
different in terms of activities and it is thus important to move FET College
lecturers away from the Employment of Educators Act to be employed by the
Council. The main reason for this is the flexibility issue. The second reason
is that under the Employment of Educators Act, the provinces are obliged (if a
post is made redundant) to look at a list of people that are unemployed. She
explained that although a college may try to employ someone for a high level
course for example, the list might have candidates who do not have the specific
skills and qualifications for the position.
It was noted that the Department wants to protect the current staff and that
through the FET Colleges Bill, the Labour Relations Act, the Basic Conditions
of Employment Act and the Employment Equity Act, the lecturers and support
staff would continue to be protected. On the appointment of these lecturers, a
college will look both at the needs of the local economy and society. They will
determine what the programmes are to be offered and would have to consult their
staff to ask if the programme could be offered. They then have to go to the
Council to explain the programmes they will offer and the funding formula
covers the costs of the staff to offer those programmes. Built into this is the
cost of the support staff. It was noted that staff are a little bit nervous at
having to offer new programmes under new employment conditions. The Department
believes that they have established, through the Bill, both protection for the
staff and the way in which the colleges will be funded.
The DDG responded to Mr Lamoela and Mr Boinamo’s questions on subsidies. She
noted that the Department had already begun to deal with issues where college
programmes have changed. It was noted that these staff would have to “up-skill”
themselves to make sure that they are ready to offer these programmes. It was
explained that most lecturers have found a niche for themselves.
Mr M A Sulliman (ANC, Northern Cape) raised the issue of empowerment, asking
for clarity concerning whether the management would employ the rest of the
staff.
Ms Vinjevold responded that the management staff would call for nominations,
and in the normal way, potential lecturers would be interviewed and then
appointed. The council would then approve this but it is important that staff
was appointed by the college first. The staff members will then be accountable
to the principals of the colleges and thus have a performance agreement with
the principal and college.
Ms N M Madlala-Magubane (ANC, Gauteng) pointed out that the current Councils of
the FET Colleges employed non-qualified educators, the majority of which are
white. She asked what would happen if the very same council uses Government
money to continue as before. It was highlighted that there are no effective
monitoring mechanisms for the Government in the Bill.
Ms Vinjevold noted that as far as monitoring is concerned, the Department would
want to make sure that learners receive the best tuition. The way the
Department would want to monitor the Councils is through the funding formula,
which looks very carefully to see what the throughput and the output or
placement rate of the students is. In other words, it looks at how long it
takes a student to acquire the skills and get a job. The Department will be
monitoring this. She noted that colleges have been, until now, very light on
quality assurance, but that this has changed through monitoring. With exams,
for example, the marking will be centralised like the Matric exam and the
practical assessment will also be monitored by UMALUSI.
Mr A H Gaum (ANC) asked, with regard to Clause 27, whether there was overlap
between sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and if they did not refer to the single
principle of equity.
Advocate S Nawa (Legal Services Deputy Director, DoE) responded that equity
refers to fairness. He stated the sub-paragraphs were slightly different but
that they complemented each other, and that they were a form of checks and
balances.
Ms J M Masilo (ANC, North West) enquired whether the Bill made provision for a
student disciplinary code.
The Chair responded that there is a disciplinary code that would be discussed
later.
Prof Mayatula referred to the definition of management staff with particular
reference to the definition of Chief Financial Officer (CFO). He asked whether
this definition was limiting. He also noted that no definition for support
staff existed.
Advocate Nawa responded that when the Bill was initially drafted, it was
suggested that a CFO be part of management staff, in other words employed by
the MEC in terms of the Public Service Act. However, after receiving comments
from stakeholders, it was suggested that the Council itself appoint the CFO,
because if the CFO is employed by the MEC, this would mean that the CFO would
not be a member of the Council. The Council deals with financial matters and excluding
the CFO from the Council would equate to an exclusion from such financial
matters, which makes no sense, as the CFO would not be able to execute his/her
duties of control.
Ms Vinjevold added that support staff was a generic term for all staff. She
stated that the Department would define ‘support staff’ if necessary.
Prof Mayatula wanted clarity on the employer of the lecturers, whether it was
the college or the Council.
Ms Vinjevold said she would get back to him on the issue.
Ms Vinjevold went on to explain Chapter Five of the Bill which dealt with
funding. She explained that the Chapter was divided into two parts, the first
being the responsibility of the State for norms and standards, and secondly,
the funds and financial records. It was important to note that the current
equitable share formula will provide a fair and equitable transparent basis for
the allocation so that the equitable share will continue which means that the
poorer provinces and colleges will continue to be favoured. At the same time
once the money has been allocated according to the equitable share, the MEC
will then determine how much money goes to each college and the MEC must give
each college adequate notice of the funds that will be received in the
following year. At the same time colleges may acquire funds from a range of
sources other than the State: donations, money raised, loans (though there must
be approval by the MEC when applying for a loan), investments, services
rendered and fees from students. There is a range of funding that will come in.
The Academic Board will determine the programmes that will be offered and these
programmes will also be determined by the money that the College receives from
the State and through other means. The Councils must adhere to the Public
Finance Management Act (PFMA); the council keeping records of the proceedings
and preparing income and expenditure statements. The Department of Education
requests these statements four or five months after the end of the financial
year. It was noted that an enormous improvement has been seen in college
financial statements over the last year and that this reflects the improvements
being made in Public Colleges. The Bill also sets out the penalties for failure
to comply with the Act.
Ms B Tumyiswa (Eastern Cape)[Peter: Is she from the EC Provincial
Legislature?] wanted clarity on the fair distribution issue. In talking
about previously disadvantaged and previously advantaged colleges, and donors,
she wanted to know whether colleges have to go through the MEC, and if they do
not, does it mean that those colleges will continue as they did in the past?
She wanted clarity on the role of the donors, whether they had to go via the
Minister or government. She wanted to know whether the Bill covered this.
Ms Vinjevold responded that it is extremely difficult to put into legislation
where donors must direct their funding. One cannot insist that the donors spend
in particular areas. She explained that donors are always asked to work with
the Department and not to make decisions on their own with regard to funding.
She noted that with ASGISA, the Department is able to influence where donors
directed funding. It was noted that the amount of money from donors in
comparison to the state’s contribution is tiny. She explained that the
strongest mechanism that remains was the equitable share. Capital development
is part of the new funding formula and it allows for capital regeneration. With
this funding formula, the Department can address the issue of poor infrastructure.
Mr R Ntuli (ANC) wanted clarity on the appointment of the CFO by the Council.
He wanted to know what the dispensation was before this Bill came about
regarding the CFO as he/she plays as an important role as the principal of a
college, handling large amounts of funds.
Ms Vinjevold responded that Clause 33 of the Bill states that the Council, who
has to report to the MEC, would appoint the CFO. The Councils are also subject
to the PFMA. It was explained that the current regulation where the CFO is accountable
to the Council would be adequate. She noted the Department has strict control
over the money available to colleges through the Division of Revenue Act
(DORA), to prevent fraud.
Ms Mazibuko noted that the demographics (racial and economic) of rural and
urban FET Colleges were vastly different and that funds would usually be
allocated to those colleges in urban centres rather than the rural ones. She
wanted to know at what stage the MEC would intervene to deal with this issue.
The issue of quintals was also raised. She wanted to know how this would be
managed in FET Colleges, given the various pressures on students.
Ms Vinjevold responded that this Bill was linked to the norms and standards for
funding of FET Colleges, and this will become policy once the Bill is passed.
The Bill sets out clearly that 80 percent of the fees will be subsidised by the
State. Also, the students in the first and second quintals will be exempt from
paying these fees. Learners will have to do a means test rather than apply for
exemption from the fees.
Prof Mayatula wanted clarity on Clause 22(3) of Chapter Five. He wanted to know
what type of structure the Advisory Boards were and where they would be
located.
Ms Vinjevold said that each of the provinces is expected to set up some kind of
council that is representative to advise the MEC on the appointment of these
Advisory Boards.
Mr Govender noted that schools were presently being ranked according to
quintals. He wanted to know whether a parent would have to be in a certain wage
bracket to fall into a particular quintal.
Ms Vinjevold responded that this was included in the norms and standards for
funding and it was not appropriate for it to be in the Bill. She explained that
the quintals are determined by the income of the parents.
Mr Gaum asked whether there was a mistake in Clause 24(3) which made reference
to “on overdraft.”
Mr Sulliman commented that the question of the appropriate advisory board, who
appointed them and their composition, was not clear from the Bill. He asked for
clarification on this particular matter.
The Chair noted that the advisory board could be traced to SASA (SA Schools
Act).
Ms Vinjevold felt it would be very useful for the Department to get that
reference so as to add it into the Bill.
Prof Mayatula asked how an individual would be placed in a quintal since
colleges were not.
Ms Vinjevold said that it would be determined by the learners being divided in
terms of the population into certain categories of income. It is a sliding
scale of funding, though the poorest learners would not be required to pay
anything. She explained that the means test would determine the payment to the
colleges.
Mr L W Greyling (ID) noted that it would be helpful to see the norms and
standards. He asked whether, concerning colleges in particular areas with many
exemptions, the college would be getting more funding from government to make
up for this.
Ms Vinjevold explained that the norms and standards are extremely complicated.
She explained that the State would provide 80 percent of the funding for high
priority programmes but on an individual basis, depending on one’s income, one
could get 100 percent of the costs. Other than the norms and standards, the
students will determine extra monies so that there will be a second pro-poor
funding of the colleges. She noted that the Western Cape have already started
this process of fee exemption through questionnaires.
Ms Lamoela noted that a lot of students come from areas where there is seasonal
work and when it is off-season, they cannot afford to pay. She asked whether
there were any criteria for these students and how they would be accommodated.
Mr K Sesele (Free State Legislature) referred to town and township branches of
the same college, asking if they would be funded individually or as a
whole.
Mr S D Montsitsi (ANC) noted that a reference point relevant to the context of
FET Colleges needed to be created, so as to completely distinguish them from
schools.
Ms Vinjevold responded that the Bill refers to an MEC having to create an
advisory body. The Department would make the reference, as to where in the
legislation this is required, available to the Committees.
Ms Vinjevold explained Chapter Six of the Bill which deals with private
colleges. She stated that the Minister of Education has instructed the
Department not to make prescriptions with regard to the ownership of Private
Colleges. The legislation (Bill) seeks to protect the students through the
registration of these private colleges. The Department looks at two aspects
when dealing with private colleges. First, the Department looks at whether
these colleges have sound financial statements which means that they must be
registered as a company. Secondly, the Department looks at the quality of the
programmes that are offered. Only those colleges that offer a full
qualification are registered with the Department and accredited by UMALUSI.
This chapter sets out how to go about registering private colleges. It was
noted that 400 colleges have already put in their applications to the
Department and they are being processed. It was noted that these colleges also
play an important part in skills development.
Ms Mazibuko noted that most learners find themselves in these colleges because
they cannot get into the public FETs. It was pointed out that, due to
circumstances in these colleges, many students drop out or are expelled. She
asked how the Department would protect learners who have paid their fees but
have dropped out due to circumstances or have been excluded for not passing
their exams.
Ms Vinjevold answered that the norms and standards for funding is an attempt to
make sure that the Department can draw many more learners, especially the
poorer ones, into Public FET Colleges. At the same time, private FET colleges
will continue to exist and the Department needs to protect the learners in
these institutions. She explained that without the Act, the Department could
not properly protect learners in these private colleges. She noted that
although there were mechanisms in place, such as a complaints hotline, the
Department’s hands would be tied without the Act.
Prof Mayatula wanted clarity on the definition of the registrar.
Ms Vinjevold acknowledged that the important thing was to establish who the
registrar is because it is a senior government official in education who is the
registrar in Private Colleges.
Mr Boinamo referred to Ms Mazibuko’s claim that learners pay but are expelled
for non-performance. He asked whether this was not a matter of policy pertaining
to a particular college of which the student must be aware before beginning any
programme and making payment.
Mr M I Kweta (Legal Advisor, DoE) responded that when it comes to private
colleges, private law must be taken into account where the learner or parent
enters into a contract with the college. The terms of the contract should deal
with all those issues.
Ms Vinjevold added that the Department wanted to go on advocacy campaigns so
that any learner that registers at a private college asks three or four key
questions. The Bill gives tips to learners to look at the financial statements
and whether the college is registered with the DoE and UMALUSI.
Ms Vinjevold explained Chapter Seven of the FET Colleges Bill which deals with
the promotion of quality which pertains to both public and private colleges. By
law UMALUSI is responsible for quality assuring the programmes. The colleges
themselves, their employment and their finances are determined by the
Director-General, who must also promote the quality in both the private and
public colleges. As far as the programmes are concerned, the Department has
been working closely with UMALUSI to ensure that both the theoretical and
practical components are quality assured.
Chapter Eight was then explained. It was highlighted that colleges are required
by the Bill to provide a strategic plan which the council will look at and
subsequently submit to the MEC, who will publish the annual report of the
colleges each year. The colleges must provide information for inspection to any
person required by the Head of Department or Director-General, who may request
information. In circumstances where the MEC is unhappy with the performance,
he/she may appoint an administrator. Clause 46 of the Bill sets out why and
under what circumstances an administrator would be appointed. Ms Vinjevold
explained that the Department did not have any examples of this as yet.
Regarding name changes, these must go through the MEC and be published in the
Government Gazette.
Prof Mayatula asked if too much is expected of the staff with regard to the
strategic plans and reports.
Ms Vinjevold responded that currently the colleges create three-year strategic
plans that are revisited each year to see if anything differs. She explained
that it was not a case of doing a new strategic plan every year, but it is
about aligning the existing plan to the external and internal changes.
Prof Mayatula questioned the wording of the clause on who may publish the
report, which was worded “either the Minister or the MEC”.
Advocate Nawa explained that it means that it will depend on the discretion of
the Minister whether a certain report can be published by the Minister for
national consumption or whether a certain report can be published by the MEC
for provincial consumption.
Ms Vinjevold stated further that the clause should be read in line with
subsection 2 as the public colleges must prepare and submit a report. The
Minister or the MEC may decide to publish that report or not.
Mr Sulliman referred to Clause 44(3) that refers to either the Minister or MEC
publishing the report. He noted that it refers to ‘may’ which would mean that
no obligation exists for the Minister or MEC to publish the report.
Ms Vinjevold noted that it was not that they may or may not, but the ‘may’
refers to the format to be followed.
Ms Mazibuko raised the issue of name and emblem changes. She wanted to know
whether public hearings would have to occur to effect such name changes.
Ms Vinjevold responded that the name change must be published in the Government
Gazette and that means that a public comment process would take place. With
regard to the emblem, the Department has not taken this into account and does
not think it necessary to include it in the Bill.
Mr Gaum referred back to the issue of the Minister or MEC publishing the
report. He asked if it would not be better to say that a Member of the
Executive Council must publish the report. He noted that this would provide
specific clarity. He also asked whether the Department foresaw a need to
empower the MEC in the Act to make certain regulations with regard to his/her
functions.
Ms Vinjevold responded that the Department would look into whether the clause
should be worded ‘must’ or not, and they will get back to the Committee on
this. She explained that in a relatively small sector with only 50 colleges
where the Minister meets the MEC on questions of regulation, it would probably
be a joint development of regulations.
Chapter Nine dealt with transitional and other arrangements concerning FET
Colleges. Ms Vinjevold explained that these arrangements are extremely
important. She explained that the existing 50 colleges (as named in Schedule 2
of the Bill) will continue to exist and are deemed to be the Public Colleges,
and will not be declared as colleges by the MEC. The members of the Council,
Academic Board and Student Representative Council will hold office until they
are replaced in terms of the requirements of the Bill. The staff, which
includes all staff employed by the State, will continue to be employed until
appointed in terms of the Act, which will occur hopefully in 2007. The
Education Labour Relations Council and the Public Service Commission Bargaining
Council (PSCBC) will continue to be the bargaining council. The staff may
decide that they want to change their bargaining council, but that would be
their prerogative. The applications for the registrations continue. The
National Board for FET (NBFET) continues to exist until an advisory body
replaces it. The disciplinary measures continue, the FET Act of 1998 will be
repealed by the new Act and this Act would be called “The Further Education and
Training Colleges Act, 2006.”
Mr Gaum pleaded with the Department, with regard to Schedule 2, to pay
attention to colleges listed under the wrong provinces. This had to be
corrected.
Ms Vinjevold thanked Advocate Gaum for bringing this to the Department’s
attention. She stated that the error would be fixed.
Prof Mayatula referred to the NBFET, asking whether the Department intended,
through the Act, to do away with it in favour of Advisory Bodies.
Ms Vinjevold said that an Advisory Body for the Minister becomes even more
important, though the NBFET will continue to be called as such until an
Advisory Body in terms of Clause 11 of the Bill replaces it. She explained that
the language needed to be tightened up in the clause so that the intention is
properly communicated.
Prof Mayatula asked for clarity on the repeal of the FET Act.
Ms Vinjevold explained that the schools that offer grades 10, 11 and 12 will
fall under SASA, and the FET Colleges will fall under the FET Colleges Act of
2006. She explained that, in reality, schools have never been part of the FET
Act of 1998. The Department needs to distinguish between curricula that are
offered in the Further Education and Training band. Schools are governed by
SASA while FET Colleges operate at levels two, three and four on the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF), and are governed by the Council.
The Chair noted that we can no longer speak of FET Schools.
Ms Masangwa referred to the presentation and the R10 000 to be given to
lecturers for further training. She asked how this money would be monitored to
ensure that lecturers are using it properly and also whether training would
occur on an ongoing basis.
Ms Vinjevold explained that there are two types of training. The Department of
Education in conjunction with Higher Education Institutions is offering regular
training that everybody has to attend. This is paid for by the Department and
is ongoing. The Colleges must also determine their specific needs and it was
explained that there is not a general time-frame on the acquisition of these
skills. They must, however, spend the money within two years of obtaining it.
The Department is monitoring this very tightly and each college must report on
how exactly its staff is using the R10 000. The Academic Board and the
Principal must approve the training.
Ms Tumyiswa noted a problem with the numbering on Page 28.
The Chair stated that this will be corrected.
Ms Vinjevold explained that the numbering corrects itself on page 29, but noted
that nothing has been left out.
Ms Masilo again raised the question of a disciplinary code of conduct for
students.
Ms Vinjevold responded that it was in the existing statute and is also referred
to in Chapter three.
The Chair thanked the Department for a thorough presentation and briefing. He
also thanked Members of the NCOP for attending the meeting. He encouraged the
provinces to hold public hearings on the Bill.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
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.