ATC220928: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education concerning the Petition from Hon M E Sukers MP regarding the Closure of the Seekoegat Primary School, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education by the Speaker of the National Assembly for consideration, dated 27 September 2022

Basic Education

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education concerning the Petition from Hon M E Sukers MP regarding the Closure of the Seekoegat Primary School, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education by the Speaker of the National Assembly for consideration, dated 27 September 2022.

The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, having considered the Petition from Hon M E Sukers MP regarding the Closure of the Seekoegat Primary School, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education by the Speaker of the National Assembly for consideration, reports as follows:

The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education received the following referrals from the Speaker of the National Assembly for consideration and report:

“A petition from the community of the Seekoegat VGK Primary School, calling on the Assembly to investigate the closure of the primary school by the Western Cape provincial department of Education. (Ms M E Sukers). Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education for consideration and report.”

On Tuesday, 3 May 2022, the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education convened a meeting to consider the Petition from Hon M E Sukers MP calling for the Re-opening of the Seekoegat Primary School. The Portfolio Committee initiated the meeting to receive a briefing and engage on the Petition by the following stakeholders:

Hon M E Sukers (Petitioner);
Representative of the Seekoegat Community;
Western Cape Education Department (WCED); and
Department of Basic Education (DBE).

Submission from Hon M E Sukers MP

Background - A total of 3 000 rural schools had been closed in the last three (3) to five (5) years. Schools under 135 learners were considered non-viable by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and Provincial Education Department (PEDs) and were closed and learners sent to consolidated “Mega Schools”. Seekoegat (“SKG”) was a deep rural community with learners’ parents being predominantly landless farm workers living on isolated farms. In many cases roads were only accessible by 4x4 vehicles. The distance from these farms to SKG could range up to as much as 50 kilometres and the nearest alternate school was in Beaufort-West (approx. 90 kilometres away). SKG had been in existence for 115 years and was originally a mission school – SKG was a public school on private property. The school consisted of two dormitories, a number of classrooms, a church/school hall and several other buildings. Learners from nearby farms boarded at SKG on a more-or-less weekly basis.

In 2021 SKG had one acting head/teacher and approximately 40 pupils. Just under twenty learners had requested conditional exemption from school attendance at a registered school on condition they were able to attend school at SKG (in terms of s4 of the SASA). Independent schools with under twenty learners could not legally register in the Western Cape and placed the school in a legal “grey area” at present. The school had extensive facilities, a computer lab, catering facilities, hostel amenities and was a fully functional school. One critical function the school performs in the community was as an informal “place of safety”. The school had boarding facilities and welfare agencies place children at risk in the school so that they can board at the school. These children were more in need of basic care and were “at risk” rather than being suitable for placement in a more advanced care setting. They are usually placed at Seekoegat because they have not been attending school. The learners require basic regular care even if it is temporary, of parents or relatives to care for them. Essentially, first tier institutional social support would suffice. There was a critical shortage of places of safety in the greater Karoo area and therefore there was substantial demand.

The Closure Process – The move to close the school was initiated in 2020, although rumours of closure went back many years. The WCED conducted a formal engagement process prior to closing the school and offered no evidence that they answered or considered the representations made by the community in that process. The community believed the process was a tick-box exercise, unfair, lacking in transparency, performed under duress and that the closure of SKG had been decided before the process started. Consultation did not take place in a way in which parents in this vulnerable position could express their true feelings – being landless workers that were easily subject to intimidation. Some of the community were illiterate, did not speak or understand standard Afrikaans and did not have transport to attend SGB and consultative meetings with the WCED. There was no evidence that views of the children were canvassed or considered – with no alternatives tabled or contemplated by the WCED. The school was formally closed by WCED at the end of 2021.

Learners were offered places at other schools and could board at Teske Gedenk Primary School (TGPS) in Beaufort-West, approximately 90 kilometres from SKG. Some learners were placed with other schools in towns at a similar or greater distance away. The WCED undertook to transport learners once a month to their homes from TGPS. The reliability of this commitment is doubtful because of the condition of roads and distances.

The Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) lacked research on the long-term impact of such a move on the intellectual, educational, emotional, psychological, moral development and health of learners who have been removed from their families. Anecdotal evidence show that these learners were prone to school drop-out, drug abuse and recruitment into gangs following their forced removal from their family and rural environment. These were young children ranging from Grade R – 7 with the oldest being 14. No consideration was given to the “at risk” children placed in the boarding facility.

The Rights of the Child
1. The right to family or parental care. Section 28 (1)(b) of the Bill of Rights states that “Every child has the right … to family care or parental care”. “Care” as defined in the Children’s Act includes:

“(e) guiding, directing and securing the child’s education and upbringing, including religious and cultural education and upbringing, in a manner appropriate to the child’s age, maturity and stage of development;

(f) guiding, advising and assisting the child in decisions to be taken by the child in a manner appropriate to the child’s age, maturity and stage of development;

(g) guiding the behaviour of the child in a humane manner;

(h) maintaining a sound relationship with the child…”

The removal of their children to a remote school would limit the parents or guardians’ ability to perform their duty of care to their children as set out in the Constitution and the Children’s Act.

Children’s rights cannot be protected in isolation from family and community. The preamble to the Children’s Act states “…it is neither desirable nor possible to protect children’s rights in isolation from their families and communities …” and that “the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment and in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding …”

WCED process and decisions do not take account of the factors that constitute the Child’s Best Interest. Section 29(2) of the Bill of Rights states “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” The Children’s Act lists the factors that must be taken into consideration when the “Best interests of child” standard is applied. These include “the need for the child to (i) to remain in the care of his or her parent, family and extended family; and (ii) to maintain a connection with his or her family, extended family, culture or tradition…” s7(1)(f).

The continued closure of Seekoegat Primary School/Primêre Skool will isolate children from their families and their community. This will not only negatively impact on the children’s rights and well-being but also negatively impact the community as a whole as it will lose contact with the youth of the community who are this community’s future.

It is the contention of the parents, guardians, learners and the community that the consultation concerning the closure of the school did not take all of these factors into account or give them their due weight and importance.

Failure to consult the child. No effort was made by the WCED to consult the older children as was required by the Children’s Act: “Every child that is of such an age, maturity and stage of development as to be able to participate in any matter concerning that child has the right to participate in an appropriate way and views expressed by the child must be given due consideration,” s10.

The consultation was not thorough and insufficient consideration was given to the difficulties and barriers that the parents and guardians experienced in making their concerns known.

No options considered. Parents were told that there was no alternative to the school closing and the children being sent to the boarding school in the town. No other options were put forward, researched or considered. All affected parties, therefore, contend that this engagement was not meaningful. Learners were thriving and happy at the SKG school, parents, guardians and community valued the contribution the school made to the children’s education. Having the children nearly 90 kilometres away and only seeing them once a month would be a severe limitation of family life and ability to care for the children especially as these were very young children. Many families did not have means of transport to travel to Beaufort-West to see children, assist them, consent to medical care, represent their interests to the school in town, ensure their children were treated fairly in disputes and disciplinary matters and in general advocate for their children. Parents or guardians including children lacked the means of regular communication and were unable to afford cellphones, data etc. Many children were not able to communicate as often telephonically and parents fear they would be unable to effectively parent their children over the phone. Parents feared that if their children were forced to board at a school in town they would be exposed to social ills such as gangsterism and drug-abuse. They were relatively free of these in their rural community. Contact with extended family, aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents would be severely impaired.

Officials seek to forcibly close school by removing equipment. At a meeting facilitated by Hon. Sukers with the WCED’s Superintendent-General Mr. Brent Walters (07/02/2022) it was requested that the WCED need not remove its property and should give an opportunity for the community to look at other options. This was after the school’s formal closure and these events have taken place in the period when the community were keeping the school open themselves. It was not clear if that plea was ignored or the message from head office was not communicated to officials. On 10 February, officials from the WCED came without any warning to the school to remove WCED property. They were refused entry and the WCED called the police. The children were upset because they realized that if all WCED property was removed they would be without a place to sleep, food to eat and equipment to continue their schooling. This action was completely without notice or warning. The property itself and the permanent buildings were privately-owned, and the community was advised to continue to refuse entry until the WCED officials could produce proof that the landowner had given permission to enter the property. Hon. Sukers had to phone the SG to ask him to get his officials to not remove the property. Her appeal succeeded, but only “for a brief period”, and the officials left. This attempt to remove property and leave children without food, accommodation and access to learning was a gross violation of the Best Interests of the Child.

Current Status – The SKG had been closed and the position of the WCED was that it could not be reopened, and that decision was final. The Minister of Education in the Western Cape was apparently powerless to re-open the school in any form. The WCED stated that the community rather take legal action to challenge the school closure. The community was opposed to the closure and refused to allow their children to be removed from their care and placed at schools where they would see them only once a month. Approximately 15 to 20 learners were currently attending the closed school with no supervision by a qualified educator with retired teachers and learning assistants who were assisting. After the school closed the WCED delivered work and textbooks and the community was grateful for this. The community had repeatedly asked for a temporary teacher and learning assistants to be assigned to the school until a proper process of consultation could be completed.

The learners had been recipients of feeding under the School Feeding scheme but this ceased with the official closure of the school. Learners were currently being fed by the community and through charitable contributions. Landless workers with support from a local community that was not wealthy, and a few private donors were keeping children fed – not only with school meals but with all the meals normally provided by a hostel. This showed that the community valued the school and took responsibility for it. Existing WCED staff had been warned not to assist the community in keeping the school running.

Concerns of the Community – The following concerns were shared with the Portfolio Committee:

Limitation of family life and ability to care for their children especially as these were very young children.
A monthly visit home was insufficient to maintain family bonds.
Families did not have transport to travel to distant towns to see children, assist them, consent to medical care, represent their interests to the school, ensure their children were treated fairly in disputes and disciplinary matters and in general advocate for their children.
Parents/Guardians and children lack means of regular communication and were unable to afford cellphones, data etc.
Fear for the well-being of the young children in town was a concern and exposure to social ills.
Fear for the emotional and mental well-being of the children/lack of confidence and embarrassment due to their poverty. Some learners have already not wanted to communicate with their families who they may now come to perceive as poor and unworthy of respect.
Perceived damage to community life.

Community’s Plea – The community pleaded for the following:

At least temporary teaching, supervision and care at the school while discussion takes place with the WCED on the future of the school and alternatives were considered.
Resumption of the school feeding.
School assets owned by WCED not to be removed as their removal would render it impossible to restart the school or interest third-party backers.

Broader Policy Considerations – The WCED referred to the Regulations Relating to Minimum Norms and Standards for Public School Infrastructure. SKG meets all relevant physical norms and standards. SKG was merely considered not “cost effective” but there was no analysis to prove that, other than the notion that if other schools have a 40:1 learner/educator ratio, Seekoegat must have the same and that poor rural children can’t justify a single teacher’s salary. To expect a rural school to follow the norms and standards of an urban school or to apply the same standard to both was completely unreasonable and unfair. There were Quintile 5 schools that had school grounds that included some of the most valuable real estate in the Western Cape and school buildings that are historic buildings worth tens of millions. To use a single measure is by no means pro-poor. The WCED would rather have a poor community take them to court, an action which will cost both those supporting the community and the WCED millions of rands, rather than work with the community to find a solution. Yet, they close the schools on grounds of economy. The WCED and the DBE believed that multi-grade learning was ineffective – what proof did they have for that statement? Montessori schools and many other educational approaches advocate multi-grade learning as beneficial. There were hundreds of unregistered micro-schools or cottage schools in the suburban Western Cape that use multi-grade learning, have less than 30 learners and have 20:1 learner ratios. There were a number of Curricula that allow self-paced learning which makes multi-grade education possible. There were also home-schooling Curricula that could be used in this environment. DBE and WCED appear to be inflexible and lack the ability to approach rural education with the innovation required.

Policy Environment Underdeveloped: The constant references to policy by the WCED was largely irrelevant as these were not policies aimed at rural education. The draft Policy on Rural Education was Gazetted for public comment in 2017 and it was not known how long the DBE and PEDs worked on that policy prior to Gazetting it - but nearly five (5) years have passed and no policy had been published. Rural communities were dying and could not wait five (5) years for a policy.

The national draft Rural Education Policy explains that “(t)he implications of closing small schools in rural areas are far bigger than closing small schools in urban settings. For example, in sparsely populated areas where distances between schools and poor road conditions are not conducive to public transport use, small schools can be the only means of access to education.”

Small schools were also centres of community life, especially where landless people had no access to any spaces for meeting, recreation, or accessing services. It was between 90 and 100 kilometres to the nearest towns. This was recognised by the policy that stressed that rural schools had an important role in fostering a “sense of belonging (both to the community and the school) and connectedness among stakeholders.” The WCED did not understand this nor seem to be willing to follow the spirit of the draft policy. Policy and action should “address the isolation, disconnectedness, shame and distrust, as well as the lack of development often associated with rural communities and schools” which was one of the aims of the draft Policy on Rural Education. The Rural Education Policy had to be integrated and had to recognise the different character of the rural environment. Education, Health, Social Development, Economic development and rural development policies and plans had to be integrated to create a holistic solution. This required the collaboration of various government departments, NGOs and the community.

Financial Considerations - It was conceded that the system faced budget constraints and this could only be addressed through flexible innovative policy development. Billions of tax-payer rands had been spent on upgrading rural schools like Seekoegat. This Capital Expenditure was ignored when financial decisions were made. As can be seen in the SKG case crude measures like pupil ratio are used, not careful financial planning and assessment and no consideration is given to the wasted capital expenditure.

Unexpected Effects Not Planned For - Planning did not contemplate that the very act of closing small rural schools may trigger more rural people to move to towns. Lack of farm workers then leads to the collapse of the rural economy. Then in a few years they will have to leave the towns that used to serve the isolated farms because the rural economy has collapsed and then the schools the children are being sent to now will also be empty and must close triggering further population movement and deepening rural collapse. Just as with soil erosion if you allow it to start then it becomes worse and worse until all the soil is washed away. While it may seem expensive to deal with the first signs it is cheaper in the long run.

The WCED quoted s29(3) of the Bill of Rights concerning independent schools but did not quote it in full because if you look at the full section s29(3)(4) states that “Subsection (3) does not preclude state subsidies for independent educational institutions.” If a school like Seekoegat cannot be accommodated within the inflexible public system then we need hybrid solutions that are public-private partnerships. The WCED already has “collaboration schools” but seems unwilling to consider SKG as a candidate.

Possible Actions for the Committee to Consider - The children needed food and the community could not keep supporting the school out of its meagre resources – how could the NSNP support be reinstated. The children needed a regular teacher and at the moment retired and unemployed teachers were driving to the school to help out – the school needed at least one teacher temporarily assigned to the school and four (4) assistants i.e. a chef, a cleaner, one supervisor for the boy’s hostel and one for the girl’s hostel. Funds were available in the frozen bank account to help the community meet costs such as electricity, water and other utility bills. The school situation needed to be regularised and unless the school is registered, the community could not get broader support from NGOs. Current WCED regulations did not allow for the registration of schools with less than twenty learners. The HOD in Western Cape should approve the individual learners S4 Applications for conditional exemption which had been sent to the WCED. The WCED provided the school with a letter explaining that the learners were individually registered, the special status of the school, and that the WCED was working with the community to register the school. The report on the consultation of the WCED needed to be provided to the Portfolio Committee.

Departmental and inter-governmental (Local, Provincial and National) structures needed to interact with the community to develop a plan for SKG and to report back to the Portfolio Committee. This could provide a model for implementing rural policy in an integrated fashion. When BELA Bill was discussed, the DBE assured the Portfolio Committee that the current community engagement processes were adequate and constitutionally sound – this was clearly not the case. It is requested that the Portfolio Committee schedule a session where experts in community engagement and engagement with children make suggestions on how the BELA Bill could be strengthened. The Rural Education Policy had been in development since 2017 and it is requested that the DBE updated the Portfolio Committee on both the status and substance of the policy (Ms S Geyer has updated Hon. Sukers on the process but it is proposed that the entire Portfolio Committee be updated). The Portfolio Committee needed to conduct close oversight of all policy and regulation making processes. The Portfolio Committee needed to be furnished with detailed quarterly reports on progress. A further proposal is that the DBE must urgently produce an audit report on all policies and regulations under development. The DBE needed to conduct urgent research into the long-term impact on poor learners from rural areas who were separated from family and forced to boarding facilities. The intellectual, educational, emotional, psychological, moral development and health of learners needed to be assessed.

Submission by the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) (Mr A Lewis and Mr W Jantjies)

In his opening remarks, Mr Lewis gave an overview of the vision of the WCED as well an outline of the presentation to the Portfolio Committee in respect of the Petition.

The WCED considered the closure and/or merger of schools under its auspices to be an administrative action, based on the definition of “administrative action” as enshrined in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA). The WCED was acutely aware that such decisions had to be made under an empowering provision, i.e., the decision must be lawful. It also means that the WCED, as a juristic person, was aware that any administrative action taken, that affects a person, must be procedurally fair. By operation of the law, as stated in PAJA, under section 3(2)(b)(1), the WCED understands what procedurally fair meant:

Adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action must be given
A reasonable opportunity must be given to make representations
A clear statement of the administrative action must be given
Adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal, where applicable
Adequate notice of the right to request reasons

Legislation Guiding School Closure and/or Merger - Any decision or administrative action must have an enabling and/or empowering provision, i.e. it must be lawful:

Section 12A (1) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (SASA) states that the Member of the Executive Council may, by notice in the Provincial Gazette, merge two or more public schools into a single school
Section 33 (1) of SASA states that the Member of the Executive Council may, by notice in the Provincial Gazette, close a public school

Conditions/Process for School Closure – The SASA section 33 (2) states that: “The Member of the Executive Council may not close a school unless he/she has –
Informed the SGB of his/her intention so to act and the reasons for such
Granted the SGB a reasonable opportunity to make representations to him/her in relation to such action
Conducted a public hearing on reasonable notice, to enable the community to make representations to her in relation to such, and
given due consideration to any such representations received”

The MEC, (Ms Debbie Schafer) signed a letter on 19 August 2020, directed at the Chairperson of the Governing Body of Seekoegat Primary School, indicating her intention to close said school by 31 December 2020. The Chairperson signed acknowledgement of receipt of the letter on 3 September 2020.

Reasons for Closing the School – Reasons stipulated in the letter included the following:

The school had a learner enrolment of 19 learners (it must be noted that the school has had dwindling enrolment numbers from 2016 when the school had 34 learners).
The school offered the curriculum from grade 1 to 6 (grades 1 – 3 in the foundation phase and grades 4 – 6 in the intermediary phase).
It is thus clear that multi-grade classes were offered in one class group at this school.
There were no prospects that the school would experience learner growth in the immediate future.
Most of the parents of the learners work on the local farms, but they constantly migrated to nearby towns for better work opportunities
The school had 2 classrooms that could accommodate about 80 learners. With a capacity of 80, but an occupancy rate of about 17,5%; it was not feasible.
In terms of the Regulations Relating to Minimum Uniform Norms and Standards for Public School Infrastructure (2013), the school is considered a micro-primary school with a capacity of less than 135 learners.
The school could not fulfil its financial obligations to its creditors, like the food suppliers and could also not afford to pay its hostel staff (school was in arrears with the payment of their salaries).
The school had one substantive post on the Educator Staff Establishment for the 19 learners. This educator, who also served as the principal of the school, was appointed on a contract basis with end date of 31 December 2020.
It was not educationally sound for one educator to teach 19 learners over two bands/phases (foundation and intermediary) as well as over six (6) classes or grades (and on top of that being the principal)
It was also not economically viable and justifiable for a school to have a ratio of one educator to only 19 learners, where the great majority of primary schools have an E: L ratio that tends (→) to ≈1:40. This is not in line with the department’s affordable basket of posts.
Learners enrolled at the school could be placed appropriately at Teske Gedenk PS, Prince Albert PS or Klaarstroom PS.
The schools mentioned in point 12 had ample accommodation available to accommodate the learners of Seekoegat PS.
Teske Gedenk Primary School had a fully equipped hostel in which learners could be accommodated if required.
The three receiving schools offered monograde classes, had suitably qualified educators, and learners would benefit from a wider range of extra-curricular and co-curricular activities.
The learners would have been included in the learner transport schemes and routes applicable in the area and/or they could reside in the hostel.

National Position –

In terms of s5A(1)(a) of SASA, the Minister of Basic Education published Regulations Relating to Minimum Uniform Norms and Standards for Public School Infrastructure on 29 November 2013 in which a primary school of less than 135 learners were declared a micro primary school. In the document “Standard Parameters for Closure and Merger of Micro Public Schools”, Version 1, Draft 2, dated 25 March 2017 of the Department of Basic Education it is stated in point 3(1) that only schools classified as micro schools should be considered for closure. It goes further in sub point (2) where it states if the LEF (learner enrolment figure) was more than 20 percent, a formal request for approval must be submitted to MEC for closure. By implication where the LEF was equal to or less than 20 percent, it was not really necessary to do the formal process. However, the WCED honoured the process prescribed in SASA. The 19 learners at the school were less than 20 percent of 135 (which was 27). Further, the DBE published a document “Terms of reference for the Rationalization, Closure and Merger of small and Non-Viable Schools”. The document stated that the aim of the project of rationalization was to:

Improve quality of education;
Expedite the resourcing of schools;
Promote access to schools; and
Retention of learners and educators in rural and farm schools.

DBE published the “Guidelines for the rationalization of small or non-viable schools” in July 2009. In the guidelines it stated that larger and better resourced schools would contribute to development and poverty alleviation in the rural areas. It also stated the following criteria to consider in closing schools, viz. (i) Number of learners, (ii) Curriculum considerations, (iii) Accessibility of schools, (iv) School infrastructure, (v) The retention of learners, (vi) Attracting and retaining educators, (vii) Public schools on private property. There was a national drive to assess micro schools and to close it in an attempt to give these learners access to better education at “better” resourced schools.

Public Consultation Process - Consultations took place on 18 September 2020 with the SGB and the SGB of the school indicated that they were not in favour of the closure of the school. The public consultation process took place on 22 October 2020 and the parents of the community indicated that they were not in favour of the closure of the school. A summary of the representations made from the parents were as follows:

The uncertainty created by the rumours spread by some of the school closure in 2019, forced parents to relocate learners from Seekoegat URC Primary School and enroll them in neighboring schools.
The school has adequate accommodation for the learners, with 3 classrooms and a fully equipped computer room.
Learners who were relocated to neighboring schools at such an early age were likely not to attend school regularly.
The school no longer had a financial crisis and all current debts had been settled.
Parents were concerned about the Covid-19 virus and the safety of their children in neighboring schools due to the pandemic.
Learners stayed 30-50 kilometers from the nearest Learner Transport Scheme pick up points.
The relocation of learners would have a financial impact on parents, for new school uniforms would have to be purchased.

Even though the consultation process was concluded in 2020, and though the MEC indicated her intention to close the school on 31 December 2020, the school could not close by 31 December 2020, as the submission requesting the final closure, reached the MEC only in 2021. The MEC then signed the submission on 25 February 2021 and she indicated that the closure be done subject to the fact that the school now only closes on 31 December 2021 and that parents be informed immediately by the district and be assisted to reassure them of the safety and beneficial impact for their children if the children move to a bigger school.

Another submission was elevated to the MEC on 17 March 2021 and this submission was signed off on 17 May 2021, in which the MEC added a rider that her approval is subject to the receipt of a report on consultation. A report was submitted to the MEC in September 2021 and the MEC’s decision prevailed.

Management of Assets and Resources - An educator was appointed on contract and completed her contract on 31 December 2021. All movable assets were still on the premises as the relocation of assets was halted on request of Hon. M E Sukers and her delegation. Further to this, the banking account of the school was not closed yet. The lease agreement with the church had been terminated.

Meeting between Hon M E Sukers MP and Mr B Walters (HOD) – On request of Hon Sukers, the HOD Mr Walters, agreed to meet her on 7 February 2022. At this meeting on 7 February 2022, Hon Sukers was accompanied by a delegation. An appeal was made to the HOD to reopen the school and Mr Walters explained that neither he nor the Minister had appeal authority on the closure of a school. The only recourse was a court of law. The school was closed on 31 December 2021 and provision was made by the WCED to place the learners appropriately at other schools. The delegation requested Mr Walters not to remove the mobile units, because they would now attempt to open an independent school on the site – and the HOD agreed to the request.

Hon MP Sukers wrote to the HOD on 1 April 2022, raising concern about the community of Seekoegat PS. In the communication she requested, amongst other things, the following:

The appointment of a teacher;
The appointment of 2 teaching assistants;
The provision of food; and
Assistance to register SKG as an independent school.

The HOD responded to Hon Sukers on 8 April 2022 and pointed out that the WCED could not allocate a teacher to the school because it had been closed and provision had been made for learners at three potential schools. Similarly, two teaching assistants could not be allocated to the school. There were clear criteria contained in the DoRA prescripts on the NSNP and feeding of learners. The prescripts did not make provision to provide food to a school that had been closed. Furthermore, learners had returned 100 percent to school and it was difficult, if not impossible, for other schools to share their stock with Seekoegat PS. Lastly, the details of Mr W Jantjies was provided as contact person in the WCED to assist with the process of establishing an independent school.

Process of Registering an Independent School - Subject to SASA and any applicable provincial legislation, any person may, at his/her own cost may establish an independent school. There were certain compliance/registration documents which the WCED could provide on request. After a year, the school may apply for a subsidy and the school must have a minimum number of 20 learners if the school wanted to qualify for a subsidy. The WCED did not provide any staff, neither did it provide any other resources to independent schools. The standards (curriculum delivery) at such a school may not be inferior to public schools (Please refer to Section 6A and Section 46 of SASA).

Portfolio Committee Observations and Questions

Members queried the WCED vision when it seemed they were doing the exact opposite by closing the school in question.
The WCED was also queried on reports of other schools with similar or lower learner enrolments not being targeted for closure – it seemed to be unfair practice.
With learners having to attend a different school far from home, Members queried who was responsible for paying for uniforms as this was expensive because farm workers may not be able to afford these. Similarly, Members queried who was responsible for payment of learner accommodation to attend an alternate school.
Members had reservations in respect of the public participation and consultation processes followed by the WCED – Members queried whether this was not just a “ticking-of-the-boxes” compliance exercise. It was also noted that the public participation/consultation processes seemed to occur during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Members queried how WCED conducted the public participation process to inform and consult the community about the closure of SKG
Members noted that the WCED was applying and guided by policies, guidelines and rules – but was of the view that the school in question needed a different approach as the closure affected the learners and the community. Farm school not only played an education role – but also an important social role. There was a view that current policies, guidelines and rules were devised for urban/bigger schools and not suitable for the rural/farm school’s set-up. It may be that rules were inappropriate to consider the needs of rural learners and as such needed to be flexible to accommodate our rural/farm schools.
Members queried whether, as an interim/transitional measure, the school could be assisted with registering as an independent school – until such time that policies and regulations could be amended /reset to accommodate rural/farm schools.
Members noted that PEDs did not always appreciate the importance of schools as community assets. Learners needed to be schooled in an environment closest to home and parents.
Members queried how the WCED dealt with learners where farm-workers were evicted from farms.
Members also noted that many learners, after the foundation and intermediate schooling phase, did not enrol for the senior phase and dropped-out to work on farms. Members queried how the Department was able to track, trace and retain such learners in the system.
Members queried whether there were any special needs learners affected by the school closure – and how were they being accommodated.
Members sought a guarantee from the WCED that the transport and accommodation being provided was safe and secure.

Responses:
1. Hon Sukers indicated that she was a product of farm/rural environment and rural education needed to be considered differently. She indicated that the community would look at other alternatives with the assistance from the WCED – but not only the independent school alternative. She agreed that the Portfolio Committee engaged the National Department on the Rural Education policy and its reality and design. Hon Sukers believed the public participation process and consultation with the community was not done fairly with much confusion on the part of the affected community. Hon Sukers gave a detailed response on the points raised in the WCED presentation.

Mr Lewis indicated that it was because of the vision of the Department that they had sought to close the school as it was non-viable and not in the interest of quality education for learners. He further indicated that if there were other schools with similar or fewer numbers, this would be addressed. The Department had embarked on the closure of many non-viable schools in the Province – and would continue doing so. The Department was in the process of closing all primary schools with less than 135 leaners. In respect of learner uniforms, the Department normally had an arrangement that learners continued to wear their current uniform until such time they were able to purchase new uniforms. The Department, with all closure of schools, offered parents and learners three options:
- Learners reside in school hostels;
- Bursaries for learners to reside in private residence; or
- Learner transport is provided daily.

In the case of Seekoegat, learners and parents were offered hostel accommodation for all learners at the Teske Gedenk Primary School. The Department had consulted with the SGB and the community but no consultation with learners as this was not provided for in the rules. The Department operated within the rules, regulations and policies as officials. The closest high school for learners who complete their primary schooling was in Beauford West. The school concerned did not have any learners with special education needs. The transport currently being utilised for learners at Teske Gedenk Primary school was a school bus transporting learners on a fort-nightly basis. The Department was in the process of development and assessment of the transport route for learners from Seekoegat Primary School. The WCED could not respond to the Rural Education Policy as this resided with the National Department of Basic Education.

Presentation by the Department of Basic Education on the National Framework for Rural Education and Rationalisation of Small and Non-Viable Schools (Tuesday, 6 September 2022)

5.1 Presentation Request - Further to the engagements with all relevant stakeholders, The Portfolio Committee requested an additional briefing by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) on the National Framework for Rural Education and Rationalisation of Small and Non-Viable Schools. The additional engagement with DBE would allow the Portfolio Committee to understand the policy and its implication so-as to make informed decisions and possible recommendations pertaining to the Petition at hand. This presentation was received on Tuesday, 6 September 2022 as follows:

National Framework for Rural Education
1. Background - On 11 March 2016, the Minister approved the appointment of the Research Team members to assist the sector with the development of a Rural Education Policy. The draft policy was presented for inputs from different structures within the sector and on 15 December 2017, the draft Rural Education Policy was gazetted for public comments. Several organisations submitted inputs on the policy and a recommendation was made by CEM to convert the Rural Education Policy into the Rural Education Framework. The HEDCOM approved the draft policy on 12 February 2018 and on the 11 May 2018, the draft policy was presented to CEM - and a recommendation was made to reduce financial demands in relation to the issue of small schools. On 7 August 2018, HEDCOM approved the revised draft policy and on 21 August 2018, the draft policy was presented at the Portfolio Committee meeting and was warmly welcomed and appreciated. On 11 November 2018, the draft policy was presented to CEM and a recommendation was made to take the draft policy back to provinces to make a recommendation that the policy be changed into a Framework. The Draft Rural Education Framework was presented at the Inter-Provincial Rural Education Committee meeting held on 2-3 September 2021. On 7 July 2022, the Draft Framework was presented to CEM and was approved.

The Department gave a detailed overview of the pillars of the National Framework for Rural Education in respect of the following:
1. Access and Inclusivity

Defining Rural;
Classifying Rural Schools;
Early Childhood Development;
Inclusive Education;
ICT; and
Infrastructure.

Enhancing community participation;
Recruitment of Education Assistants;
Expansion of pool of educators;
Mobilising the school community; and
Establishing partnerships between schools and local community.
1. Harnessing Existing Curriculum to Better Respond to the Needs of Rural Communities

Agriculture Education for All;
Enhancement of the Teaching of Arts, Culture and Sports; and
Reading, Numeracy, Maths and Literacy and Language.
1. Teacher Recruitment, Retention and Development

Creating a package of teacher incentives;
Establishing Edu-villages;
Recruitment and appointment of Education Assistants; and
Oppurtunities for Education Assistants to access initial teacher education.
1. Support to Schools in Unique Circumstances

Minimum number of teachers to be determined for primary and secondary schools;
Appointment and deployment of interant teams of educators; and
Use of Education Assistants to support teachers.

The DBE is responsible for setting guidelines; developing strategies; monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the policy; and ensuring that resources required for the implementation of the policy are available. The Department to also responsible for establishment of the following:

Rural Education Advisory Committee to advise the Minister on the implementation of the rural education policy; funding rural education programmes; and monitoring and evaluating the impact of policies on rural schools.
Inter-departmental Collaborations to strengthen the support and the delivery of quality education in rural schools.
National Team of key heads of branches that meets to plan, implement and account for the ways in which their branches respond to this rural education policy mandate; and report on other programmes and initiatives that target rural schools.
Inter-provincial Rural Education Committee that comprises officials responsible for rural education from all provinces. This committee will be responsible for the coordination and reporting on activities to support rural schools in providing quality education.

At a provincial level the Department was responsible for the following:

Establishment of a dedicated Directorate or Sub-directorate (guided by the number of rural schools) for rural education.
Establishment of a Provincial Rural Education Committee that interpret national policies, prepare implementation plans and coordinate the activities embracing rural education across their province.
Prepare plans for implementation at individual and school cluster level and plan the placement of Edu-villages and teacher development centres.
Secure the required financial, material and human resources to implement the policy.
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the rural education policy.

At a district level the Department was responsible for establishing to oversee and monitor the implementation process and to support the schools in rural areas. To strengthen this Committee, the Department needed to allocate a dedicated person responsible for rural education in all districts as well as facilitate the training of SGBs in specialised functions arising from the policy.

The SGB’s responsibilities include the mobilising of the to enhance the participation of the broader school community and various stakeholders in school development as well as identifying (cultural, natural, material, social) to support teaching and learning.

The Department further gave a detailed overview of the responses to the National Framework for Rural Education pillars as outlined. The Department also alluded to partnerships, rural youth employment oppurtunities and public private partnerships. In conclusion the DBE indicated that the National Rural Education Framework aimed to ensure that rural schools provide quality education for all learners, in line with the democratic principles of the Constitution as well as the vision of the NDP. This requires overcoming many challenges of concern to the macro environment as well as school level disparities across the public school system.

The DBE gave a detailed overview of the legislative framework guiding rationalisation/school mergers as well as the focus of rationalisation of primary and secondary schools – this included the focus of re-alignment. The aim of the rationalisation and closure of schools was to improve the quality of education, promote access to schools, expedite the resourcing of schools and retention of learners and educators in rural and farm schools. Further to this the Department highlighted the primary objectives and strategic intent of rationalisation as well as the Department’s Constitutional mandate and SASA Requirements. The Committee was also briefed on the concerns about micro-schools.

The Department further gave a detailed overview of the reasons for rationalisation and closure of schools - as well as the conditions for rationalisation or closure of schools. The Director-General has established a Steering Committee from Deputy Directors-General and the Project Committee composed of relevant directorates. Provincial Heads of Departments appointed DDGs to be part of the Committee and the Terms of Reference to guide the operations of the Committees was presented.

In conclusion, the Department further highlighted the role of the DBE and gave a detailed overview of the challenges i.e.:

human resources challenges (lack of dedicated unit).
coordination of different units (infrastructure, legal, finance, Management & Governance, scholar transport).
provision of scholar transport.
provision of infrastructure to receiving schools.
delays in stakeholder engagement.
resistance by stakeholders.
lack of compliance to due process.
political interference (councillors, traditional leaders).
gazetting and implementation.

Portfolio Committee Observations and Questions

Members raised concern that the presentation received and tabled before Parliament was not the reality on the ground - the closure of the Seekoegat Primary School in the Western Cape Province was a good example. None of the processes or conditions that needed to be followed on the checklist as presented had been met.
As Members of Parliament, it was their duty to defend the Constitutional rights of rural communities regarding their right to determine where their children are taught and how they are being educated.
Members noted with concern the information from the WCED regarding the closure of the school as gazetted – but the community concerned was currently being kept open in protest with learners being fed by community donations. Members sought clarity from the Department on being held accountable for the situation.
Members indicated that they have not been provided with statistical figures of schools identified and targeted for closure – Members requested the Department to provide these figures and identify the schools by names, including figures of those educators who were likely to be retrenched.
Members raised concerns over the in-depth oversight by Parliament on rural schooling and the lack of transparency and relevant information from the DBE as well as PEDs (using Seekoegat Primary school as a case in point).
Members agreed that the issue of rationalisation was indispensable and avoidable. Members were of the view that the Department initiated sufficient research on the matter and consider the emotional and social impact that the closure might have on learners when considering closing a school.
It was also queried when the Department informed the Portfolio Committee of the decision to move from having a policy to having a framework on Rural Education. Had the Department also informed the general public of the move and whether the socio-economic impact assessment was done as required by Cabinet when any policy was released for public comment.
Although the Department indicated they had done some research, Members sought information on the research on issues of learner outcome, health, socio and psychological impact on learners etc. to be shared with the Portfolio Committee.
Members also queried the number of schools in urban areas who had extra-mural activities, as this was considered to be one of the elements for quality education and development of children.
Further on the issue of research, Members noted that research and statistics had proven and showed that small and micro schools made teaching very difficult and the smaller the school, the more failures occurred due to the issue of the teacher-learner ratio.
Members were of the view that the Portfolio Committee assisted with some viable modus operandi which will make the process of rationalisation as viable as possible and assist the Department in doing it right.
Another issues that needed to be addressed was the extent to which the Department had adequate consultation with communities and affected stakeholders.
Regarding the role of District Implementation Teams, Members queried the support to learners and parents moving from rural or farm schools into the new schools. They mentioned the merging of non-fee paying schools to fee paying schools with reference to those that come from non-fee paying schools – and queried whether there was a review of the poverty index of the newly merged school. Members further enquired if the new ranking would not disadvantage the learners and their parents pertaining to the unaffordability of the school fees and whether this will not create a problem for them.
Members enquired what plans were in place for the replacement of ICT tablets lost by learners or through theft.
Members were interested to know how the implementation of the pillars of the framework will be monitored and administered, especially in rural areas, and also how the framework is different from the norms and standards.
Regarding Pillar 2, Members enquired the strategies in place to use qualified and unemployed youth in rural communities - and the budget allocation in place for Rural Education Directorate.
Members were of the view that it is good and well to have a Rural Framework and asked if there are any linkages with other departments such as the Department of Rural Development and that of Agriculture for collaborations in terms of making sure that this Framework is effected efficiently.
How did the Department encourage people to make sure that they participate in the Framework and whether there was a budget or plan to for additional grants to make sure that the Framework was implementable?
Regarding research on previously merged schools, Members queried whether learners and teachers were happy in order to ensure full integration. If yes, the Committee should get outcome of such research outputs. Also whether there has been an appeals mechanism in the current Act to appeal to the MEC regarding the rationalisation of the schools and whether these appeals were audited by different provincial departments or through an Independent Schools Electorate or School Evaluation Authority.
Members sought clarity on the countries being benchmarked against by the Department – and whether successes and good practice was being adopted from these countries.
Members queried whether there were challenges in the implementation of the Rural Teacher Incentive.
Members sought clarity on the difference between Rural Education Policy and Rural Education Framework – and the implications/consequences of the Policy or Framework not being followed.

Responses to Portfolio Committee Observations and Questions

Director-General, Mr M Mweli: The Department affirmed that the Framework was a Policy with governance in the country divided into three spheres which are decentralised with defined roles. The National sphere’s role was to develop policy, monitor and support. The Provincial sphere’s role was to provide core education and ensure guidance up to school level. The development of policy was a responsibility given by the Constitution to the National Government – and the Department does develop its policies within the confines of the law. The merger and closure of schools was regulated by the South African Schools Act (SASA) and there were specific provisions that dealt with the issue. The real test was whether the Department had complied with the Act at the all the levels - and they ensure that the schools were complying with the Act. The Portfolio Committee was requested to look at the facts which were tabled and allow those facts to guide those involved as to whether the process or legislation had been followed.

The name “rural incentives” was a colloquialism and was an incentive for educators to teach in areas where it was difficult to attract teachers. The incentive was not confined to rural areas but also extended to townships. The notion of rural incentives was borrowed from the Department of Health; but in the Department of Basic Education, it was a policy to attract teachers to areas that are very difficult to do so. The Policy had been scrapped due to a lack of funding to implement the Policy. The policy had huge benefits but when it came to overtime it was difficult to implement due to budget cuts and other priorities. Also the uneven implementation within provinces and the Council of Ministers unanimously deciding that the policy be withdrawn. The merger and closure of schools was done with best interest of the learner and Members were free to challenge this decision and get the Department to demonstrate that due process has been followed. The decision had been made in the best interest of the leaner as explained and many schools were unable to provide quality education with some of them offering no real education. The Department had data where school mergers/closures had been successful. In actual fact, it was other countries which were benchmarking South Africa and were interested in knowing how South Africa had been able to consolidate schools in rural areas and the entire rationalisation procedure.

Deputy Director-General, Ms. S Geyer: The Department was guided by legislation and policy which was used as a yardstick for all the work that it does. In terms of the budget allocation, there was no categorization in terms of what was allocated specifically to rural or urban schools and was guided by the legislation and policy referred to by the Director-General. The Department was also guided by norms and standards that influenced the way in which schools received staffing which was attached to the number of learners. These norms and standards cut across the allocation of budgets within the entire system - and that all schools in the provinces use these policies. The budget allocated to a school was determined by the number of learners and teachers. There was a minimum number of teachers and learners in order for the school to exist. Schools with less than the required number were put at a disadvantage because they had only one teacher that would have to teach all the grades. This had a negative impact on the quality of teaching and learning as well as the learner’s performance and ultimately the opportunities for learners to access Universities. The Department had a policy on rural incentives which defined exactly how one identifies the rural centres and where it was located. When the policy was drafted, it looked at specific aspects and possible difficulties in rural areas which largely got teachers to teach specific subjects in these areas of rural incentives. It was not a blanket incentive applied across the board. On access to the Department’s policies through the hyperlink, the policies were on the Department’s website for Members to visit. Once the information was gathered from the provinces the same would be shared with the Portfolio Committee.

Deputy Director-General Mr J Ndlebe: It was noted that most concerns raised revolved around the Seekoegat Primary School closed in the Western Cape. The school in question had nineteen learners who were scattered from Grade 1 to 6. The teacher-learner ratio for a primary school stood at 1:40 which meant that the nineteen learners were allocated one teacher who was expected to fill multiple roles. The Department found that it was not workable for one teacher to teach nineteen children in different grades. For better part of the day, the children were not receiving tuition and there was no way that they would have been able to cover the prescribed curriculum. If one was to look at the budget, the cost of running the school would outweigh the cost of closing the school. Even if the Department had the parents pay fees, the same would not cover the costs of running the school. There was research and consultation that had taken place and the PED had indicated that they met with the School Governing Body (SGB) on 18 September 2020. On 22 October 2020, the WCED met with the community members but they were unable to reach a consensus with the SGB or the community. Consultations, indeed, took place but the answer that came from the community and SGB was that they did not agree with the Department’s plan to close the school. What was for consideration was how the Department went about ensuring that the children were getting quality education when in actuality they were not. The policy allowed the Department to identify a place where the children could be relocated, which was done. Therefore, as far as the Department was concerned, a challenge was identified of a small non-viable school with no quality education taking place. The Department then created an environment where the children could be accommodated. Although consultations were not successful, ultimately the MEC had to make a decision that the children needed to receive quality education. It was understood that the community and the SGB disagreed but a decision had to be made for the sake of the children. It became difficult to even provide nutrition to children due to budgetary constraints and other factors.

A decision needed to be made on the social and psychological impact versus the learning the children were receiving. Children were spending a lot of time in school when one teacher was focusing on a group of learners and unable to teach all of them. There was a minimum number that was permissible for a teacher to handle within the multi grades so that all the children can benefit. Regarding the questions that a Member had sent to the Department, the questions were centred on the provincial competencies which the Department needed to go back to the provinces and obtain the information. The Department will provide the information requested once obtained. It was true that the Department had a responsibility to provide quality public education but under certain circumstances, rationalisation was unavoidable as indicated by the Members. The Department is trying to ensure that learners get quality education. On the issue of consultations and the manner in which they were being done, the Committee was reassured that the Department will look into it. The issue of affordability of fees after merger of fee and non-fee schools was a non-issue and had nothing to do with the learners. The South African Schools Act required that children must be admitted to any school irrespective of their ability to pay fees which went into issues of school exemption. Issues of school fees needed not to feature in the merger or closing of schools in rural or township schools. Oversight had been done on schools that had either been merged or closed especially those that had appealed or showed dissatisfaction around the issue. The Department does not close and merge schools at all costs. The misaligned schools in particular villages not connected to any other don’t mean that the Department will at all costs close all those schools and merge them. The Department endeavoured to find ways to resolve issues before deciding to merger or close any school.

On budget allocation, the smaller the school the more difficult it was to find a budget to cover all the expenses for the school. On the role of traditional leaders, it was mentioned that leaders were key to the culture of teaching and learning in a particular area. If a school was affected, the provincial departments needed to consult traditional leaders on the matter. Most of the small nonviable schools were established by the traditional leaders particularly in the Eastern Cape and therefore the Department needed to consult traditional leaders on school closures for the benefit of learners.

The Department would engage with the WCED and collect the requested information and a report to be brought before the Portfolio Committee to indicate how far the Department had gone with the rationalisation process - as well as the numbers and challenges.

Portfolio Committee Resolutions and Recommendations

The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, having considered the Petition from Hon M E Sukers MP on the Closure of Seekoegat Primary School, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education by the Speaker of the National Assembly for consideration, recommends that the Minister of Basic Education and the Department of Basic Education (DBE), in collaboration with the Western Cape Education Department (WCED):

6.1 Engage the WCED to request, collect and report on the status and progress in respect of the rationalisation processes to date (with school numbers and challenges), within 60 days after adoption of the report

6.2 Submit a detailed report on the statistical figures and identified schools targeted for closure/merging – as well as figures for educators who were likely to be negatively affected/retrenched 30 days after the adoption of the report.

6.3 Initiate and commission adequate, in-depth research on rationalisation, merging and closure of schools and the impact on relevant stakeholders (learners, educators, communities etc.)

6.4 Submit a report on the socio-economic impact assessment as required by Cabinet when any policy was released for public comment.

6.5 Report on the role and responsibility of the District Implementation Teams in respect of the support to learners and parents moving from rural or farm schools into the new schools – as well as a report on the review of the poverty index of the newly merged school, before the end of 4th school calendar term in December 2022.

6.6 Ensure the implementation of the pillars of the Framework was adequately monitored and administered, especially in rural areas.

6.7 Ensure consideration be given to strategies to utilise qualified and unemployed youth in rural communities

6.8 Ensure adequate allocation of a budget for the Rural Education Directorate.

6.9 Ensure interdepartmental collaboration with sister departments in respect of the effective implementation of the Rural Education Framework.

Ensure adequate appeals mechanisms are in place to allow for appeals to the MEC regarding the rationalisation of the schools.
Ensure all challenges in the implementation of the Rural Teacher Incentive were adequately addressed.
WCED submit a report on schools with similar learner enrolment numbers who were not being targeted for closure/rationalisation.
WCED address and assist learners with challenges pertaining to accommodation and uniforms for relocating to new schools.
WCED considered alternatives to school closure and found ways to assist the school and learners with a more flexible accommodation of the challenges faced at Seekoegat Primary School. As an interim measure, the WCED considered registration of the school as an Independent School until such time that policies and regulations could be amended/reviewed to accommodate rural/farm schools.
Ensure the tracking, tracing and retention of learners who may have dropped out of the system.

Appreciation

The Portfolio Committee thanked the Members of the Western Cape Education Department, the National Department of Basic Education, Community Representatives of the Seekoegat Primary School and the Petitioner, Hon M Sukers MP for the fruitful engagements on the Petition submitted.

Report to be considered.

Documents

ATC220928: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education concerning the Petition from Hon M E Sukers MP regarding the Closure of the Seekoegat Primary School

Basic Education

Documents

What's wrong with this page?