Question NW672 to the Minister of Basic Education
05 April 2017 - NW672
Brauteseth, Mr TJ to ask the Minister of Basic Education
(1)(a) How many provincial departments are currently under the section 100 administration, (b) on what date was each provincial department placed under administration, (c) what were the reasons and (d) when will control of the provincial department be ceded back to the provincial administration; (2) (a) how many provincial departments that were under the section 100 administration had control reinstated between 2011 and 2016, (b) on what date was each department placed under administration, (c) what were the reasons and (d) when was control reinstated?
Reply:
1. (a)(b)(c)(d)
There were two Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) that were placed under administration in terms of section 100(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa – the Eastern Cape in 2010 and Limpopo in 2011.
The main reason for placing these two PEDs under administration, was the detected collapse in essential administration functions, including financial management, human resource management – especially the rationalisation of excess teachers and the appointment of teachers where needed - the transfer of funds to schools in terms of the National Norms and Standards for the Funding of Public Schools, the procurement and delivery of learning and teaching support materials (LTSMs), the management of the National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP) and other Conditional Grants, etc.
2. (a)(b)(c)(d)
The administration in terms of section 100(1)(b) in Limpopo was down-graded to section 100(1)(a) of the Constitution, which allows the PED to continue with the implementation of the section 100(1)(b) interventions, as well as recovery programmes identified for the section 100(1)(a) intervention. The Minister still oversees the roll-out of the section 100(1)(a) intervention in Limpopo in line with her oversight responsibilities in all PEDs in terms of the National Education Policy Act.
The Limpopo Provincial Treasury also placed the Limpopo Education Department under section 18 of the Public Finance Management Act, for the continued failure of the Limpopo Department of Education to effectively and efficiently manage its appropriated funds. This was in the main, one of the reasons that the section 100(1) (b) intervention was downgraded to section 100(1) (a) intervention.
A different situation prevails in the Eastern Cape. In its defence against South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU), the Eastern Cape Education Department argued in the Eastern Cape High Court that the section 100(1)(b) intervention had lapsed. They based their argument on the timeframe that was stipulated in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Minister on behalf of the National Executive and the Members of Executive Council (MEC) for Education in the Eastern Cape on behalf of the Provincial Executive. The High Court agreed with the Eastern Cape Education Department on the basis of facts presented to it. The Minister was not joined in the Application.