2.6 DEVELOPMENTS WITH REGARD TO EDUCATOR PROVISIONING According to House (2000:13) no government in liberal democracies can survive without
2.6.13 THE UNFOLDING OF THE 2004 PPN DEBACLE IN KZN
accouchement leave (in this regard prior approval must be obtained) or sick leave in excess of thirty days (KZN DEC 2002d:1). The same procedure as that for the appointment of temporary educators is followed when it comes to the appointment of substitute educators. (KZN DEC 2004b:1-2). Moreover, the number of substitute educators budgeted for is totally inadequate to cater for the number of educators who proceed on sick or accouchement leave. This, then puts added financial pressure on SGBs to pay substitute educators for state-paid permanent educators who are on official leave.
The TLSA (1999a:12) notes that if SGBs cannot raise the necessary funds to pay the salaries of substitute educators, they are accused of being incompetent and are unfairly contrasted with SGBs that have greater fund-raising skill and potential. The pity of it all is that the anger of school communities is turned mainly inward against SGBs. It should indeed be directed against those responsible for school policies based on economic imperatives, instead of on educational and ethical considerations.
Pardesi (2004:2) avers that there is, in most provinces, insufficient allocation in terms of the MTEF processes for substitute educators in relation to the number of educators on leave. Lewis (2002:1) at a conference on HIV/AIDS and the Education Sector highlighted the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic on educator productivity and, therefore, called for a review of policy on substitute educators.
not in the spirit of national agreements. As a matter of fact similar allegations were leveled at the KZN DEC in the declaration of the 2002 PPN. Owing to mounting dissatisfaction by the unions that the learner-educator ratio for 2002 was in no way an improvement on the previous years ratio, the SADTU and the National Teachers Union rejected the PPN pending further negotiations (Mdlalose 2003:25). However, the department argued that in terms of its budgeting system there was no extra money that could be used to employ more educators over and above the already declared PPN and, therefore, the declared PPN stands (KZN: DEC 2002c:1).
In terms of the MTEF Consultation Report tabled at national ELRC, the first meeting to begin consultation on the PPN for 2004 was scheduled for April 2003, but owing to the unavailability of accurate statistics and petty bickering as to whose responsibility it was to call the consultative meetings, deliberations on the PPN only began in September of that year (ELRC 2003b). The KZN MEC pointed out that the MTEF budget provides for three years guaranteed funding and hence, the figures for 2004/5 and 2005/6 were already known. Consequently, provinces were expected to work within the baseline figures and, therefore, it was not possible to obtain funds above that which constituted the baseline.
The MEC pointed out that the MTEF allowed for the employment of 74 000 educators which translated to a learner-educator ratio of 35.4:1. The unions were far from happy with this situation and tabled a proposal that a ratio of 30:1 be considered for 2004. The MEC pointed out that a ratio of 30:1 was unaffordable and urged the unions to work towards a ratio of 32:1 for 2004/5. The department claimed that they projected a decrease in the learner enrolment for 2004 and consequently the number of learners would decrease the ratio. The unions disputed this and further argued that education in the province should be funded at 40% of the budget and not 35%. They added that given the underfunding and no provision being made for curriculum transformation posts, their demand for a ratio of 30:1 was not unreasonable. Further, the unions questioned the accuracy of the statistics on educator and learner numbers presented by the department.
The MEC pointed out that his was a political office and in terms of post provisioning regulations he was obliged to consult on the creation of the posts and, therefore, would
not venture into the administrative domain. The MEC added that the process of consultation had commenced and may well continue (KZN ELRC 2003a:1-5).
Whilst the consultative process was still in progress, the KZN DEC in November 2003 issued Circular HRM 83 of 2003 which declared PPNs for 2004. The unions pointed out that the final consultative meeting with the MEC had not taken place, therefore, HRM 83 of 2003 was premature. The SADTU argued that ‘you cannot distribute posts before the MEC creates posts’ (KZN ELRC 2003b).
The MEC at the MTEF Consultative Meeting scheduled for December argued that he was aware of the release of the PPN by the department which was necessary for planning for 2004. Unions indicated that they were unhappy with the consultation process thus far and believed negotiations in the KZN ELRC were in bad faith. Whilst the unions were discussing the PPN, the officials from the department were implementing the PPN. The unions, therefore, called for an immediate withdrawal of HRM 83 of 2003. They argued that the PPN process for 2003 first be concluded and the 8 000 vacancies that that existed must first be advertised and filled before implementing the 2004 PPN. The unions pointed out that in August, agreement was reached in the filling of vacancies but the department did not honour the agreement. The unions indicated that they were prepared to agree to the 2003 PPN for the commencement of 2004 and consult further on improvement in the PPN. The Department though was not prepared to compromise. The unions expressed their disappointment at there being no agreement especially since they were not consulted on the PPN circulars that went out to schools (KZN ELRC 2003b:1- 6).
In terms of HRM 83 of 2003, before schools closed for the year the PPN was to be implemented. Educators declared in surplus were to be identified as well as vacancies that may exist. In terms of the department’s management plan, surplus educators were to be matched to vacancies over the December holidays and moved to their new schools on the first school day of 2004. Resultant vacancies were to be advertised in February 2004 (KZN DEC 2003a: Annexure G).
When schools reopened, the department failed to complete the process of moving educators declared ‘additional/surplus’ to their schools to vacant posts. The SADTU in the meantime informed its membership of the controversy surrounding PPN for 2004 and called on its members to protest against the forceful implementation of PPN 2004 by the department (SADTU KZN:2004a; 2004b;2004c). Union members engaged in a protest march in Durban and vowed to extend their demonstration to other regions in the province. SADTU spokesperson, Mbuyiseni Mathonsi said that teachers were calling for the suspension of the PPN because the process was flawed (The Mercury 2004e:2).
The need for accurate and up-to-date data on learners and educators is paramount to educator post provisioning in any province. In KZN, there has always been controversy over the statistics presented by the department of education with regard to learner and educator numbers. The department has often been accused of presenting unreliable statistics as well as carrying ‘ghost’ learners and educators on its database. Owing to accusations from the unions that the department had no verifiable statistics on learner numbers, the department in the meantime engaged in a mammoth exercise to verify learner numbers submitted by principals. Department of education officials engaged in a headcount exercise which ran for two weeks. The audit found that many schools had manipulated their enrolment figures so as to qualify for an improved PPN. The MEC thus declared that he had doubts that the province had 2.5 million learners. He added that more than 70% of the 505 schools visited had inflated their numbers and had given frivolous reasons for the mismatch. The MEC indicated that the count would have a big impact on the learner-educator ratio (The Mercury 2004d:1).
Based on the schools’ 10th day enrolment statistics, verified figures from the headcount and queries raised by various schools regarding their PPN calculation, the department issued Circular HRM 28 of 2004 which entailed the issuing of a final PPN report (based on a learner-educator ratio of 34.4:1) to schools as well as an amended management plan for the implementation of the PPN. In terms of the management plan, educators declared
‘additional/surplus’ to their schools were to be moved to vacancies on the first day of the new term (KZN DEC 2004c:1/ Annexure). The action by the department was once again
a unilateral one. Educator unions were not consulted which should have happened in terms of provisions of the Employment of Educators Act, 76 of 1998 and collective agreements in the national ELRC. The SADTU vehemently opposed the implementation of Circular HRM 28 of 2004 and argued that it won’t be party to its implementation. The union informed its members that it was seeking legal advice on the viability of interdicting the department from proceeding with the implementation of Circular HRM 28 of 2004. Further, the union indicated that it had sent a memorandum to the MEC, Narend Singh outlining its demands on the PPN issue (SADTU KZN 2004b:1).
The MEC in an attempt to resolve the stand-off over the PPN issue called a meeting of all educator unions. The meeting, however, was not fruitful in offering anything new, except by way of increasing the number of substitute educators in the system. The SADTU in the meantime outlined its programme of action against implementation of the PPN which included a provincial march to the Pietermartizburg legislature as well as a total shut- down of schools (SADTU KZN 2004c:1). The SADTU also called for the resignation of the MEC as well as for the department’s CEO, Prof. C. Dlamini to be fired. The National Teachers Union (NATU) as well as the Parents Association of KZN was far from happy with the final PPN. They argued that whilst the provincial norm was 34.4:1 the actual class size will be far in excess of this (The Mercury 2004a:5).
The first term of 2004 was brought to a close with educators who were declared
‘additional/surplus’ being issued with letters indicating the new schools they were to report to in the new term. Further, the contracts of temporary teachers were terminated.
In the province, the PPN issue was becoming a political one. The country was in the midst of its third democratic national elections. The KZN province was under the rule of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the MEC belonged to the IFP. The SADTU, on the other hand, was aligned to the African National Congress (ANC) which was the ruling party in the national government but was an opposition party in KZN. The SADTU overtly canvassed in the province for the ANC in the April elections. The MEC, just prior to the elections, placed full page advertisements in the main provincial newspapers
outlining events around the PPN issue. The advertisements accused the SADTU of
‘turning education into a political football for purposes of vote-catching’ (Post 2004a:16).
The SADTU in reaction to the MEC’s advertisements also bought space in provincial newspapers and explained its view on the PPN issue as well as attack the MEC and his political history (Daily News 2004:6).
The SADTU took the PPN issue a step further by making a High Court application for a court interdict. This led to the implementation process being halted. The halting of the implementation process of the PPN midway through the process resulted in chaos at schools. The educators who were moved to vacancies were unsure as to whether they should return to their previous schools. Moreover, the Department released vacancy lists (Circulars HRM 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41) and called for applications to these vacancies. In order to prevent confusion the department issued Circular HRM 54 of 2004 which indicated that surplus educators who have been placed and moved to new schools must remain where they are and not return to their original schools. Further, applications for advertised posts will continue to be received by the department but no further processing will be done (KZN DEC 2004e: 1).
In the meantime the outcome of the 2004 general election saw a shift in political power in KZN from the IFP to the ANC. The SADTU in a communiqué to its members pointed out that the results of the 2004 general elections ‘have brought about the possibility of an immediate solution’ to the PPN problem (SADTU KZN 2004d:1-2). The appointment of the new MEC for education, Mrs Ina Cronje towards the end of April brought some respite to the PPN debacle. The SADTU then engaged in a meeting with the MEC and called for:
• All processes relating to the 2004 PPN be reversed
• An audit of all educator posts in the province be done
• The immediate filling of all educator posts created in terms of the 2003 MTEF and PPN
• Meaningful consultation on PPN 2004
• The provincial ELRC be convened for the development and determination of the 2005 PPN to enable the MEC to finalize the process of consultation as required by law by 15 June 2004 (SADTU KZN 2004e:1-2).
The MEC committed herself to resolving the PPN debacle. She called for a fresh round of consultations with all stakeholders. Consequently, the MEC in terms of Circular HRM 54A of 2004 called for the ‘staying of’ PPN 2004 and all other processes related to it (KZN DEC 2004f:1).
The MEC after consultation with educator unions in June 2004 declared that ‘the 2004 PPN has been nullified because it was the product of a process that did not comply with the provisions of the Employment of Educators Act and related regulations’ (Post 2004b:3). This declaration by the MEC meant a reversal of the PPN process for 2004.
Consequently, educators who were transferred to schools based on the 2004 PPN had to return to their former schools (KZN DEC 2004g:1). The net result of the nullification of the PPN, however, meant that schools were to operate outside of a PPN for 2004. The unions pointed out that this is in fact good news in the sense that schools will benefit if their educators who were declared surplus return to them, because they will be getting more educators (Post 2004b:3). Further, the schools affected due to the withdrawal of educators are not jeopardized because they are permitted to employ temporary educators in place of those educators who have moved to their former schools (KZN DEC 2004g:1).