Comments on the Further Education and Training Bill, 1998
By Rahmat Omar

1. INTRODUCTION

The Further Education and Training (FET) Bill was published for public comment in August, 1998 and public hearings were held by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Education and Training in the first week of September. Submissions to the Portfolio Committee, including those of SAIDE and NADEOSA, identified a number of shortcomings and limitations in the draft Bill and led to the adoption of over fifty amendments, which appear in the revision and is currently serving before parliament.

The Bill is arranged in eight chapters:
1. Definitions and purpose of the Act.
2. Public Further Education and Training institutions.
3. Governance of public Further Education and Training institutions.
4. Funding of public Further Education and Training institutions.
5. Private Further Education and Training institutions.
6. Quality Assurance and Promotion.
7. General.
8. Transitional and other arrangements.

2. STATUS OF EXISTING LAWS

The FET Bill of 1998 clearly repeals the Correspondence Colleges Act (Act No. 59 of 1965). Chapter Eight on Transitional and Other Arrangements states that the Correspondence College Council and Fidelity Guarantee Fund will continue to exist and perform their functions 'as if the Correspondence Colleges Act had not been repealed', until a date determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. However, it is unclear whether the FET Bill repeals and replaces the previous legislation affecting technical colleges, such as Act 104 and accompanying regulations.

3. THE FET WHITE PAPER AND BILL

The adoption of national policy and legislation for promoting the development of a Further Education and Training (FET) system represents a step forward, particularly since this policy provides, for the first time, a policy and legislative framework that will apply to all colleges and providers of FET programmes.

The FET Bill should be read in conjunction with the White Paper on FET, since it is informed by the policy framework proposed in this document. However, the drafting of the Bill prior to the White Paper resulted in inconsistencies between the Bill and the White Paper, resulting in a narrow focus on a governance framework, specifically on institutional governance in the Bill. A reading of the FET Bill alongside the Higher Education (HE) Act reveals close similarities. In fact, most of the draft FET Bill was a verbatim copy of the Higher Education Act with a few amendments to accommodate the role of provincial governments.

It is acknowledged that certain policy objectives cannot always be legislated. But it is possible, and desirable, to commit the legislature and society to aspire to their fulfilment by giving statutory expression to these objectives. Comments and recommendation by stakeholders as diverse as SAUVCA, SADTU, and SAIDE all focused on this as a shortcoming of the Bill.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF A NETIONALLY COORDINATED FET SYSTEM

The White Paper declares government policy to be the development of a nationally coordinated FET system based on a programme-based definition of further education and training. However, the FET Bill shows significant weaknesses in giving effect to this policy commitment.

The role of the Ministry of Education will be central, not only in the determination of norms and standards, but also in facilitating relationships and coordinating the work of various levels of government, departments of state, stakeholders, and roleplayers. Greater clarity should be provided on the roles and relationships between various structures, in particular:
•    national and provincial levels;
•    the departments of Education and Labour;
•    the National Board for FET (NBFET) and National Skills Authority;
•    the NBFET and the Council for Higher Education (CHE) on the one hand and NBFET and schools authorities on the other.

5. INCLUSIVITY AND FLEXIBILITY

According to the White Paper the programmes-based definition of FET recognizes that further education and training 'takes place in a multiplicity of institutions, such as senior secondary schools, "finishing schools", technical, community and youth colleges, public adult learning centres, non-governmental organizations, training trusts, regional training centres and private providers which deliver training funded by the Department of Labour, and private, for-profit colleges' (White Paper: 4.4).

This inclusive and flexible approach is, however, undermined in the FET Bill, particularly through article 24 (on Registration of private FET institutions) and article 44 (on Offences). As they are phrased at the moment these provisions could have a negative effect on FET provision, particularly provision undertaken by agencies such as non governmental organizations, community organizations, and workplaces.

The Bill does create some flexibility in relation to registration, through provisions for conditional registration and amendment of registration. In reality, however, not many of these agencies are likely to seek registration as FET institutions, since their core mission is not provision of education and training. If the intention of articles 24 and 44 is to protect learners and the public (for example, against 'fly-by-night' operators), then they should be rephrased.

As regards Chapter Five on registration of private providers, attention should be given to possible areas of overlap and duplication between the Ministries of Education and Labour in relation to registration of private providers, such as regional training centres, and others.

6. PROMOTION OF POSITIVE INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE AND ETHOS

In many educational institutions in South Africa, including those offering FET programmes, there is evidence of institutionalized forms of racism, sexism, and violence. In recognition of these problems, the Ministry of Education and the parliament promulgated certain provisions through the South African Schools Act of 1996 and the Higher Education Act of 1997. In respect of FET, however, both the draft Bill and White Paper are silent on these issues.

The Labour Relations Act deals with this matter very prominently. While it does not give effect to concretely enforceable legal entitlements, it does give statutory expression to the aspirations of the Act by stating its purpose expressly as: 'to advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratization of the workplace'.

The South African Schools Act, 1996, and the Higher Education White Paper and Act of 1997 also contain relevant provisions.

The following is contained within the South African Schools Act:
•    a code of conduct;
•    principles and values: the rights of learners (e.g. democracy, non-discrimination and equality, privacy, respect and dignity);
•    rights and responsibilities of learners (including learning and school work, security and care of school property);
•    dispute resolution.

In the Higher Education Act the institutional forum of a public higher education institution is expected to advise the council on issues such as:
•    race and gender equity policies;
•    codes of conduct, mediation and dispute resolution procedures;
•    the fostering of an institutional culture which promotes tolerance and respect for fundamental human rights and creates an appropriate environment for teaching, research, and learning.

The amended FET Bill now includes amendments and additions to the effect that strategic plans of FET institutions 'must address past imbalances and gender and disability matters' (article 9). Similarly the Preamble of the FET Bill contains two additional clauses indicating the desirability of respecting and encouraging democracy, and fostering 'an institutional culture which promotes fundamental human rights and creates an appropriate environment for teaching and learning'.

7. RESPONSIVENESS AND FLEXIBILITY OF FET INSTITUTIONS AND THE FET SYSTEM

7.1 Institutional autonomy
The need to develop responsiveness and flexibility in FET provision at institutional and systemic levels is a central thrust of the White Paper (articles 2.10, 4.1, 5.2. 5.3). This has, however, not been captured adequately in the legislation.

Discussions about promotion of flexibility and responsiveness have usually focused on the need for full institutional autonomy as an essential prerequisite, particularly in relation to appointment and conditions of service of employees.

However, critics of this view have pointed out that, despite the high levels of autonomy in the South African higher education (HE) system, there is a chronic mismatch between the country's human resource needs and what is delivered from the HE system (as pointed out in the HE White Paper). Furthermore, they argue that there is sufficient international evidence to suggest that the steering role of the state is crucial, as in the case of the TAFE system in Australia, which is highly regarded for its responsiveness and flexibility. The TAFE system developed only as a result of policies and mechanisms that combined the roles of partially autonomous institutions with those of national and state government in steering FET institutions within a 'TAFE system'.

The inconsistency between provisions in the White Paper and FET Bill provide evidence that the debate preoccupied the minds of policy makers, particualrly in relation to employment of staff at FET institutions.(See page 12 for a summary of provsions on employment of staff in FET institutions).

7.2 Promoting responsiveness and flexibility though open learning approaches
Both the FET Green Paper and White Paper suggest that responsiveness and flexibility can be promoted very effectively through ensuring that open learning principles permeate the provision of FET, irrespective of the mode of delivery (contact or distance) and the combinations of delivery strategies (including on- and off-the-job learning).

Such an approach will have important implications for:
•    delivery strategies, (including timetabling and scheduling) which can no longer be based on the assumption that learners are full- time and institution-based; and that learning will take place predominantly through face-to- face tuition;
•    resource planning and management both at institutional and systemic level, including development of skills and capacity for entering into collaborative arrangements suggested by the national policy;
•    the creation of support agencies to assist providers in areas such as strategic planning and budgeting, management information systems, development of good quality national courseware, managing collaborative ventures, etc.
•    industrial relations, since demands on staff are likely to change in terms of working hours, teaching on sites other than the institution's own campuses, demarcation of jobs, etc.

Responsibility for the functions listed above reside at different levels. Timetabling and scheduling of classes is primarily an institutional responsibility; resources planning and management is the responsibility of national, provincial, and institutional level management; the creation of support agencies is the responsibility of national and provincial education authorities and industrial relations is, quite obviously, a matter for negotiation and collective bargaining.

Accordingly SAIDE proposed that a differentiated approach be developed to promote flexibility and responsiveness within FET institutions and in the FET system:
•    Issues relating to appointment and conditions of employment of staff that are relevant to the objective of promoting flexibility and responsiveness should be identified for negotiation with relevant stakeholders. In addition to those issues identified earlier, these may include issues relating to criteria for employment of teachers, and other provisions which will facilitate the employment of practitioners from different fields of practice on comparable terms as educators.
•    Issues relating to delivery strategies, resource planning, and management and creation of support agencies should be identified and addressed as part of the implementation strategy outlined in the White Paper, in particular, Chapter Five on Building the New FET system.

8. CONCLUSION

In the next edition of OLTDE we will comment on the White Paper as a policy framework, particularly in relation to aspects of implementation, including the following:
•    The funding framework, even if it is to be 'mode neutral' (as regards delivery strategies through contact or distance learning), should take account of the different functions involved in the use of different delivery strategies and different cost structures arising as a consequence.
•    Increasing the enrolment of learners involved in FET programmes can be done relative cheaply through correspondence education. But increased enrolments do not necessarily translate into increases in the numbers of successful learners, graduating from FET programmes, particularly if the quality of support to learners is poor. For this reason we are anxious to see greater importance being given to quality assurance, if necessary by linking funding and quality assurance.
•    The applicability of the Department of Education's Quality Criteria for Distance Education Programmes. These could also be applied in programmes delivered through face-to-face contact tuition, except for three criteria which are specific to distance education.

Rahmat Omar is SAIDE's Further and Vocational Education and Training Coordinator