Now that the polite applause has died down for Angie Motshekga, the Minister of basic education, and she has bared her soul to the nation in various media interviews, one has to ask what her appointment will really mean for education in South Africa.
She arrives amid panic within the ruling party and in broader society over growing social and economic problems spawned by the failing education system, such as Eskom’s electricity crisis, crime and unemployment. Motshekga could arrest the decay, some have said, because she is tough and this is a necessary skill to become the South African education system’s “Ms Fixit”.
But her track record as a provincial minister of education in Gauteng shows this expectation is over-optimistic at best and misplaced at worst.
Her administration in this province has been described as a “disaster”. If appearances are anything to go by, one visit to the depressing dump they call the Gauteng department of education in Commissioner Street, Johannesburg, confirms that something is seriously amiss. A “don’t-care” attitude pervades the building, while many people are inaccessible and unhelpful.
This criticism could still be dismissed — after all, the core business of education is not practised in bureaucratic spaces — but this excuse cannot apply to Motshekga and her department’s lacklustre implementation of the “no-fee schools” policy of 2006, the recent non-payment of bus administrators and the disconcerting silence on mass union meetings during school hours prior to the election.
Of equal importance is her failure to undo the two-tier system that has developed in the province, with suburban schools maintaining high levels of performance and township schools gripped in a silent crisis. Running on empty, township schools have very little quality learning and teaching going on in their classrooms. But the positive performances of the former model-C schools have masked the department’s failures.
Motshekga is said to have lost her focus in about 2006 — the year in which she discovered Jacob Zuma.
From then on hardcore ANC politics rather than education dominated her diary. Some insiders believe her sidekick and “fixer” Panyaza Lesufi, a senior official, was essentially running the department, covering for her.
But he could not stand in as she bunked meetings of the Council of Education Ministers (CEM), the all-important interface between the national and provincial ministries on policy and implementation.
Ironically, it was Motshekga’s decision to sacrifice education on the altar of politics that elevated her to Zuma’s Cabinet. It is sad that her predecessor, Naledi Pandor, opted out of education rather than staying on as a minister in the split education department. Pandor is on record for her opposition to the ANC’s decision to divide the department. As a result she was moved to the ministry of science and technology.
Even if one overlooks Motshekga’s poor performance in education in recent years, she has not in her first 10 days in office said anything that inspires hope and confidence for the next four years.
She has spoken of getting back to the basics, of more support for teachers, the importance of mothertongue education, of working with the unions, tackling the shortage of teachers and improved service delivery from the provincial departments of education.
Nothing new but, critically, Motshekga at least appears to understand, perhaps because she has been part of the problem, that the provincial conundrum will make or break any plan she may have. Teachers need support and they have not been getting this from provincial departments, which lack leadership, skilled officials and passion for education.
If she can find a way to manage her relationship with the provinces in a way that won’t encourage them to invoke their constitutional right to run their own affairs, she will go a long way to earn respect.
But her announcement to the media that she intends capping fees to prevent wealthy schools from excluding learners on the basis of poverty is less encouraging and signals the start of the destruction of the public education system.
These schools are largely ex-model C — some former Indian, coloured and black schools — that have been charging fees to supplement their government subsidy. They use their fee income to employ more teachers and to upgrade and maintain their facilities, thereby providing quality education. They make up only about 3 500 of the 26 000 schools in the country and have clearly taken a financial burden off the state.
This is the bedrock group of schools that produces most of the 140 000 matriculants who have the skills to enter the higher education system. Capping their fees will not make sense — it will make it difficult for them to offer high-quality education and to manage themselves, even if the government boosts their subsidies. Undoubtedly, capping will affect quality and this will force parents to send their children to private schools. Teachers will follow learners to private schools and middle-class interest in the sector will flounder, ultimately destroying the one part of the system that works.
Also consider that the system of exempting poorer parents from school fees was a form of capping. The thinking behind this was that if the exemption formula allowed even middle-class parents to pay discounted or no fees, schools wouldn’t push up their fees.
As with several other provisions in the norms and standards for school funding, the system of exemption has been flawed and is being reviewed. It will be interesting to see how the idea of capping school fees is included into a revised policy.
Motshekga has also spoken of outcomes-based education (OBE). She spoke of a “review” and of “streamlining” it. Another review will cripple the system, but there is room to strengthen what is already there.
What is needed now is for learning materials to be delivered to schools and for the administrative workload of teachers to be reduced.
OBE was introduced 10 years ago and the time for teachers and learners being guinea pigs while the department fiddles is over.
During the past four years the focus of the education authorities has been quality and the trend has been to get back to basics. Children should be learning to read, write and count again and teachers should start the day on time, come prepared and teach every day of the academic year.
The fact that it is not happening yet in every nook and cranny proves the depth of the education crisis and quashes the efforts that have already gone into the embattled schooling system.
South Africa does not need a batch of new policies. It just needs the right people to put them to work for the desperate children and parents of this country.
Sadly, Motshekga does not seem to be the right person to get basic education back on track. As in Gauteng, she could piggyback on efforts that preceded her appointment. But this may not carry her for the full four years. If Motshekga fails, she will not only be the worst appointment in the Zuma Cabinet, given the critical importance of education, but the mother of another lost generation.