Motshekga’s proposal to remove deadlines to fix schools slated

'We cannot play games and take our time'

Basic education minister Angie Motshekga has called for patience. File image.
Basic education minister Angie Motshekga has called for patience. File image. (Freddy Mavunda)

Basic education minister Angie Motshekga has gazetted proposed changes to the Norms and Standards for Public School Infrastructure.

In the proposal, Motshekga wants the law that gives deadlines to eradicating pit toilets, providing electricity, water and building proper classrooms and fencing in schools to be changed.

There should be no deadline as to when these should be done.

The gazette, which was published on June 10, has received backlash from civil society organisations and education unions, with some saying it was “sneaky”.

They also called on the department to try to understand why these timelines were important.

July 10 is the last day for comments on the proposed new laws.

Equal Education (EE) researcher Elizabeth Biney said: “The timelines as stipulated in the SA Schools Act meant that government has a clear, defined goal and guidelines of how to do away with infrastructure backlog that we are experiencing in the sector.

“By removing them they are indicating that they do not have any urgency or plan to put the necessary effort and commitment to reduce the backlog. They are basically trying to say that they are trying to take their time to do their work, which is unacceptable.

“These infrastructure conditions impact on learners’ experience, enjoyment of schooling and performance. We cannot be playing games and taking our time with these issues,’’ said Biney.

She said if the proposals were implemented, it only meant that the department is absolving itself from fixing public school infrastructure.

''The idea or thought of wanting to remove those timelines is dangerous. We have a lot of schools in this country without the necessary buildings or infrastructure and services that allow conducive learning and teaching to take place.

“The pupils who go to these type of schools are constantly putting their lives in danger and they are fighting against all odds to get the education they deserve and need. It is unfair and very dangerous.’’

Section27 lawyer Demichelle Petherbridge said: “Section27 is very worried by the proposed removal of important accountability mechanisms that exist in the current regulations. This removal will potentially stop us from properly holding the state accountable on its progress.'' 

National Professional Teachers Organisation of SA executive director Basil Manuel said the department is using the proposed law to prevent itself from fulfilling its obligation of serving pupils.

''Now they are removing the timelines and are saying they will fix infrastructure if they can, when they can, if there is money available, when resources are there…

“These are general things. With these general things, if there is a call that the replacement of mud schools must be done in the next five years, they will say they will only do it if the money is available. It could be 50 years from now. That is a problem.

''The current deadlines are important in the sense that they put pressure on the department and provincial departments to deliver. These issues that we are talking about such as lack of electricity and mud schools, these are dignity-based issues. If we don’t get these things right and free the government from its obligation, then what are we saying,’’ said Manuel.

National Association of School Governing Bodies general secretary Matakanye Matakanya said the removal of deadlines is unacceptable.

''The removal of these timelines does not help because if there is a complaint that a certain school has not been fixed within a year or so, the government can simply respond and say there was no deadline according to the proposed law,’’ said Matakanya.

Section27 and EE also raised concerns about how the whole process unfolded.

Petherbridge said the organisation is concerned about the public participation process.

"...Specifically that the call to comment on these important regulations was not well publicised, and that we were only informed about these proposed amendments through other civil society organisations.”

Biney said the gazette was confusing and it would be difficult for other people who may be interested in making comments on the matter to understand it.

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon