A settlement court order the education department itself agreed to in March has derailed teacher placement plans, compromised its budget, and caused massive instability in schools, claims acting department head Monwabisi Tywakadi.
Tywakadi makes the claims in an affidavit to the Grahamstown High Court in which he strenuously resists a class action brought by some 120 public schools.
He says the department’s R18-billion budget already accounted for 46% of the provincial budget and to seek more from province would “collapse the provincial revenue fund”.
The court settlement he refers to is one the department reached in March with 32 public schools that took it to court with the assistance of the Legal Resources Centre.
In terms of the settlement, the department agreed to reimburse the schools some R30-million in salaries they had paid out to teachers the department acknowledged it should have been paying.
The department also agreed to permanently appoint some 145 teachers to vacant declared posts at the schools. The money has now been paid in full as agreed and most of the posts filled.
But Tywakadi says the cost to the department has been high and subsequent litigation – in which a further 90 schools have opted to join the original 32 schools in their class action – will cause further chaos.
The 90 schools want the department to refund them collectively more than R81-million they have paid out in school salaries as well as to permanently appoint hundreds of teachers to vacant positions.
While not entirely disputing the legitimacy of their claim, Tywakadi says the department already faced a projected over-expenditure of some R650.49-million before taking into account the R81-million claimed by the 90 schools.
“Effectively, no provision has been made for these claims in this financial year. The department of education receives 46.13% of the provincial budget and to seek more will collapse the provincial revenue fund.” He said the department was only able to consider claims of up to R11.8-million subject to verification and correctness of each school’s claim. Even this would increase the projected over expenditure on teacher salaries.
Most of the schools involved in the litigation said the action was a final resort after the department ignored their needs for many years.
They say the failure by the department to appoint and pay vitally needed teachers led to a massive failure in its constitutional obligation to provide basic education to every child.
But, Tywakadi says the settlement had derailed the implementation of a management plan flowing from a 2014 agreement with the SA Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) which specifically provided a procedure for filling vacant substantive posts.
This had created an impression with the unions that the litigating schools were “being preferred and benefited as opposed to other schools in similar positions”.
Bhisho backtracks on ruling
Tywakadi makes the claims in an affidavit to the Grahamstown High Court in which he strenuously resists a class action brought by some 120 public schools.
He says the department’s R18-billion budget already accounted for 46% of the provincial budget and to seek more from province would “collapse the provincial revenue fund”.
The court settlement he refers to is one the department reached in March with 32 public schools that took it to court with the assistance of the Legal Resources Centre.
In terms of the settlement, the department agreed to reimburse the schools some R30-million in salaries they had paid out to teachers the department acknowledged it should have been paying.
The department also agreed to permanently appoint some 145 teachers to vacant declared posts at the schools. The money has now been paid in full as agreed and most of the posts filled.
But Tywakadi says the cost to the department has been high and subsequent litigation – in which a further 90 schools have opted to join the original 32 schools in their class action – will cause further chaos.
The 90 schools want the department to refund them collectively more than R81-million they have paid out in school salaries as well as to permanently appoint hundreds of teachers to vacant positions.
While not entirely disputing the legitimacy of their claim, Tywakadi says the department already faced a projected over-expenditure of some R650.49-million before taking into account the R81-million claimed by the 90 schools.
“Effectively, no provision has been made for these claims in this financial year. The department of education receives 46.13% of the provincial budget and to seek more will collapse the provincial revenue fund.” He said the department was only able to consider claims of up to R11.8-million subject to verification and correctness of each school’s claim. Even this would increase the projected over expenditure on teacher salaries.
Most of the schools involved in the litigation said the action was a final resort after the department ignored their needs for many years.
They say the failure by the department to appoint and pay vitally needed teachers led to a massive failure in its constitutional obligation to provide basic education to every child.
But, Tywakadi says the settlement had derailed the implementation of a management plan flowing from a 2014 agreement with the SA Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) which specifically provided a procedure for filling vacant substantive posts.
This had created an impression with the unions that the litigating schools were “being preferred and benefited as opposed to other schools in similar positions”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos