No need for SGBs to be disenfranchised

The so-called “jobs for cash” report of a Ministerial Task Team (MTT) has exposed a racket in at least six provinces in which union officials are alleged to have corrupted processes governing the hiring and promotion of teachers and principals.

The price for a post ranged from around R6 000 to more than R30000, throw in a goat or two.

Understandably the unions are up in arms, challenging the MTT report on everything from going beyond its mandate to engaging in “union bashing”.

Having read the rather lengthy MTT report, union responses to it, and the team’s reply – all available online – one thing is clear: this is a solid piece of investigation by eminent persons clearly obsessed with the objectivity of process and outcomes.

On the merits of the findings, there is little to challenge unless you have something to hide.

What has happened should be of deep concern to the public because what such corrupt practices mean, in effect, is not only that the best available educators are not placed in our schools but that children once again get less than they deserve.

Spare a thought also for the hardworking qualified teacher or principal whose aspirations for growth, recognition and leadership are shattered by the corruption of those who are supposed to advance their interests.

In this saga everybody loses – the individual, the school and society.

To their credit this is not a pro-government report, for the MTT takes a hard look at what makes corruption possible in the first place.

For example, weaknesses in HR policies and practices down the line of administration in a province offer ample opportunity for unscrupulous officials to take the gap, so to speak.

Policy ambiguity and the lack of accountability invite corruption in a society where it seems that everybody, from the top to the bottom, steals at the slightest opportunity.

Where administration is weak corruption will fester, and the department of basic education must at least take a good look at its own operations in the provinces.

Where I disagree with the MTT is in some of its recommendations.

It is a common dilemma in education policymaking in South Africa – when you find a dysfunctional school or university, you enact policies that punish all of them in the system.

So, for example, school governing bodies (SGBs), it is proposed, should no longer recommend educators for appointment or promotion beyond a certain level, ostensibly because the processes for doing this are rigged.

In other words SGBs cannot be trusted to make recommendations to fill positions in their schools.

First of all, I am sure there are thousands of schools in which the system works perfectly. Posts are advertised, shortlists are compiled, candidates are interviewed and the best person for the job is recommended on grounds of competence and, hopefully, diversity.

Why take that authority away? Was the original and very democratic idea not, in fact, to have “the people” at ground-level deliberating on choices affecting them directly – like who teaches their children?

Surely a better way of remedying this problem is to fix the dysfunctional schools and to hold corrupt people accountable through the legal process?

This large policy hammer that sees every SGB as a dangerous nail sticking out of the woodwork will, in the long term, do damage to the first principles of our young democracy.

Rather than centralise all authority for teacher appointments at a distance from schools, adding external expertise to the decisions of the local SGB is also a good idea.

But then there is the other South African dilemma – if even top officials in unions and government are implicated in the jobs-for-cash scheme, how are we to identify incorruptible professionals?

Yet what should disturb us even more is the warning carried throughout the report about the need to protect whistle blowers.

Sadly, we have reached a stage where those who expose corruption are in real danger from those who benefit from it.

I can only imagine how many more cases would have become known had it not been for what the report calls a culture of secrecy, misplaced loyalties and intimidation.

Still, the minister must be applauded for her courage in commissioning and seeing through this investigation, given the strength of the majority union within the politics of South Africa.

Whether even half of the most important recommendations will in fact be implemented is hard to predict in our explosive political climate heading into local elections.

For now, many parents will quietly wonder whether the teacher in their child’s class got there on merit.

Professor Jonathan Jansen is vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State