Battle to save the school year not over yet

3 August 2020

Solidarity and the Solidarity Support Centre for Schools (SCS) are ready to contest any further extension of the school year running into 2021 in court. Solidarity and the SCS made this announcement today with regard to the adjusted school calendar and the possibility that certain trade unions may still demand that the school year be further extended into 2021.

In a letter of demand addressed to President Ramaphosa, Ministers Angie Motshekga and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, as well as the provinces’ Education MECs, Solidarity warns that a further extension of the 2020 school year would be catastrophic. Learners are estimated to have lost between 30 and 69 school days depending on the particular grade. However, they would be able to still complete the school year on 15 December provided that there is no further disruption.

According to the published education directives, schools that have been permitted to deviate from the original return dates for the various grades will be allowed to continue their process in deviation of the revised dates.

Although Solidarity welcomes this initiative it is concerned that a further revision of the school calendar may result in an extension of the present school year into 2021, which would apply to all schools. According to the directives the period has already been extended as it is from 24 August to 31 August, a week later than what was announced initially.

“Any further overflow to 2021 will be catastrophic. The extension of the 2020 school year is the result of pressure from certain trade unions in spite of available proof that it is in the best interest of learners for schools to stay open,” says Solidarity Chief Executive Dr Dirk Hermann.

It appears that the biggest trade unions in education, the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) and the National Professional Teachers’ Organisation of South Africa (NAPTOSA) are not impressed by the fact that schools are closed for one month only.

Despite Minister Angie Motshekga’s brave struggle to keep schools open, the precedent has already been set that pressure from trade unions are transformed into centralised action in favour of their demands, without taking into account the unique circumstances of provinces and schools.

“Solidarity and the SCS is of the continuous viewpoint that the decision whether to open or close schools must be made by governing bodies and schools’ managements and not by the state. This principle, as supported by the South African Schools Act and the latest court rulings, should settle the matter,” Hermann concluded.

Click here to read the letter of demand:

Hurter Spies Incorporated

Reg. no. 2008/009761/21

Attorneys/Notaries/Conveyancers

Our ref. D ELOFF/MAT3391

29 July 2020

To: The President of the Republic of South Africa

President Cyril Ramaphosa Union Buildings

Pretoria

By email:

Dear President and Ministers,

RE: CLOSURE OF SCHOOLS

1. We act on behalf of the Solidarity Trade Union (hereafter referred to as ‘our client’ or “Solidarity”). As you may be aware, Solidarity was admitted as amicus curiae, by virtue of its interest pertaining to the closure of schools in the application brought by One South Africa Movement and Mr. Mmusi Maimane against all of the aforementioned addressees in the High Court, Pretoria. Solidarity supported the opposition to the closure of schools by the Minister of Basic Education.

2. The full court, on 1 July 2020, delivered a comprehensive and well-reasoned judgment dismissing the application. The Minister of Basic Education delivered a voluminous and comprehensive answering affidavit in this matter, which our client appreciated, wherein she expansively dealt with an extensive consultation process which has been on-going since April 2020 with all relevant stakeholders pertaining to the phasing in of the re-opening of schools across the country. In particular, the Minister also dealt with the evolution of medical and scientific evidence in relation to the comparative reduced risks that the COVID-19 virus poses to children and transmission of the virus to adults, including educators.

3. The opposition to the relief sought was separately dealt with by the President and the Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (“COGTA”).

4. Low and behold, and to the great disappointment of not only our client, but various other important stakeholders in society, including the Federation of School Governing Bodies in South Africa (“FEDSAS”) and against a formidable body of medical opinion, President Ramaphosa announced on 23 July 2020 on national television that all public schools are to close again for a period of four weeks, with the exception of Grade 12 learners, who are to return to school on 3 August 2020 and Grade 7 learners, who are to return to school on 11 August 2020.

5. This announcement was made even before the phasing-in of certain grades in public schools commenced as per the most recent Directions issued by the Minister of Basic Education, dated 29 June 2020.

6. It is abundantly clear from all reports and information at the disposal of our client that the announcement and decision was influenced by certain trade unions, dead-set that schools had to be closed, irrespective of the consequences thereof. These trade unions, the recent announcement regarding the closure of schools notwithstanding, still appear to be dissatisfied with the closure of the schools for a period of only four weeks, as widely reported in the media and will in all likelihood, once more, exert pressure to bring about closure of schools for a further period of time. It seems that the decision was motivated by an attempt to appease the demands of the various trade unions, which directly resulted in a one-size-fits-all approach throughout all public schools in the Republic.

7. This decision has been made in circumstances where, for instance, foundation phase learners only returned to school on 6 July 2020 in terms of the most recent Directions of the Minister of Basic Education dated 29 June 2020, (save for exceptions in respect of schools that have applied for the earlier phasing-in based on readiness as per the Directions) since the closure of the schools on 18 March 2020, following the implementation of the Level 5 national lockdown which commenced on 27 March 2020. This afforded foundation phase learners with a mere 16 school within which they not only had to be orientated as to the health protocols in place to curb the spread of the virus, but had to adapt to attending school following an absence of almost four months.

8. The disruptive effect that this sudden decision has had on young children is simply unconscionable. Furthermore, this does not even take into account learners of other grades and the impact of the already strained curriculum due to the effective loss of more than three months of contact learning in schools.

9. Of significance is that the closure of the schools based on pressure from trade unions, has been decided completely out of the legislative framework i.e. the existing Alert Level 3 Regulations and the Directions issued by the Minister of Basic Education and outside of the framework of the South African Schools Act, 1996 (“Schools Act”). The decision has simply been announced on national television and on the grassroots level of public schools immediately given effect to as if it has the force of law and with effect from 27 July 2020.

10. All of this has occurred, knowing that constitutional rights cannot simply be flouted in this unlawful and unconstitutional manner. Our constitutional democracy and the values that it entails cannot be governed through presidential decree or simply based on a decision of cabinet. The rule of law must be respected and adhered to.

11. Against this background, we deal with certain grave concerns:

11.1. The ultra vires and unconstitutional nature of the announcement;

11.2. The surreptitious sidestepping of the South African Schools Act;

11.3. Future potential closure of schools.

THE ULTRA VIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL NATURE OF ANNOUNCEMENT:

12. The announcement made by the President that all public schools are to be closed amounts to a gross violation of the rule of law and is unambiguously unconstitutional.

13. Currently, there have been no amendments to the existing Alert Level 3 Regulations issued in terms of section 27(3) of the Disaster Management Act, 57 of 2002 (“DMA”) by the Minister of COGTA, which have promulgated and confirmed the closure of schools. Moreover, no further Directions have been issued by the Minister of Basic Education, who is the competent and empowered functionary to issue directions in respect of the re-opening or closure of schools. If not in terms of the said legislative powers, then only in terms of the Schools Act. We return to the latter mentioned Act herein further.

14. In the absence of amended Regulations and/or Directions, the de jure position therefore remains that schools are allowed to remain open, alternatively re-open in terms of the Directions issued by The Minister of Basic Education dated 29 May 2020 as published in the Government Gazette no. 43372 and amended until 29 June 2020.

15. Our client is aware of a number of circulars sent from various offices of provincial heads of education departments which purports to give effect to the announcement of the President. It is unlawful, unconstitutional and beyond the scope of empowering provisions to use circulars, or the like, as a back door to implement a decision to close schools and constitutes a gross violation of the rule of law.

16. You are no doubt aware of the judgment issued by his Honourable Justice Fabricius in the Pretoria High Court in the matter of Skole-ondersteuningsentrum NPC and two others v the Minister of Social Development and two others under case number 24258/2020, dated 6 July 2020 in terms whereof it was ordered that private pre-schools were entitled to re-open immediately, subject to the appropriate and/or prescribed safety measures being in place.

17. In paragraph [44], read with paragraph [46] and [48] of the judgment, the court dealt with the

legal status of, inter alia, circulars based on submission presented by the applicants and the amicus curiae, in the context of the Disaster Management Act, 57 of 2002 (“DMA”) and the regulations made thereunder. The court found that a circular fell outside of the parameters of the Regulations and/or Directions, was ultra vires, lacked authority and infringed the principle of legality.

SURREPTITIOUS SIDESTEPPING OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS ACT:

18. The unlawful closure of schools not only violates the rule of law through its circumvention of existing lockdown regulations, but it grossly ignores the Schools Act.

19. Section 16(1) of the Schools Act provides as follows:

“(1) Subject to this Act, the governance of every public school is vested in its governing body and it may perform only such functions and obligations and exercise only such rights as prescribed by the Act.”

20. The preamble to the Schools Act refers, inter alia, to the upholding of the rights of all learners, parents and educators and promote their acceptance of responsibility for the organisation, governance and funding of schools in partnership with the State.

21. This partnership model has been referred to in the judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court in the matter of Mpumalanga Department of Education v Hoërskool Ermelo 2010 (2) SA 415 at paragraph [55] and [56]. It needs to be mentioned further that learners and parents of learners and educators are all represented by school governing bodies which are democratically composed and with the primary function to look after the interests of the school and its learners. The governing body of a school is meant to be a beacon of grassroots democracy in the local affairs of the school, as stated in paragraph [57] of the aforesaid judgment.

22. In the matter of Federation of Governing Bodies v MEC for Education 2016 (4) SA 546, the Constitutional Court elaborated on the democratic and participatory manner in which school governing bodies are designed to function in order to advance the legitimate interests of learners in a school. The Constitutional Court also referred to the important principle of cooperative governance between school governing bodies and the MEC and Heads of Departments and cautioned against undue dominance of school governing bodies by a provisional executive.

23. Section 16(4) of the Schools Act states:

“(4) The Head of Department may close a public school temporarily in the case of an emergency if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that the lives of learners and staff are endangered or that there is a real danger of bodily injury to them or of damage to property.”

24. Section 16(1), read with section 16(4) and the aforesaid partnership model and principles of cooperative governance clearly require the respective heads of provincial education departments to act in cooperation with the various school governing bodies regarding the closure of the respective schools. The Schools Act therefore requires that each school be consulted through its school governing body regarding the potential closure of that particular school where the circumstances under section 16(4) require the closure of a public school temporarily in the case of an emergency.

25. This section calls for a context specific consideration of a situation in a particular school and cannot be used for purposes of a general measure to be applied country wide to create a one- size-fits all approach in terms of which all public schools are closed irrespective of the compliance of schools with health protocols and measures to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. In addition to this, the Directions issued by the Minister of Basic Education considered that the re-opening and phasing-in of schools would be context specific, depending on their readiness and compliance with the prescribed health protocols. The Minister’s Directions, therefore, gave due consideration to the provisions of the Schools Act which apply alongside her Directions.

26. The recent announcement in respect of the closure of schools by the President and the ostensible instructions issued to heads of departments to implement this decision, or give effect thereto, directly violate the provisions of the Schools Act and completely disregard the obligation placed on heads of provincial education departments to consult school governing bodies. Moreover, it contravenes the principle of cooperative governance, which compels the government and its departments to cooperate with schools governing bodies.

27. The one-size-fits-all and top down approach that government has followed regarding the recent closure of schools is unlawful and irrational. The initial and prevailing position that was adopted in the Directives of 29 May 2020 correctly and rationally provided for certain schools to remain open subject to compliance with health measures to curb the spread of the virus. The blanket closure of schools does not give adequate consideration to each particular school’s ability to safely and effectively re-open and remain open.

28. The aforesaid decision and announcement also disregarded the opinion of a strong body of experts that opined that, taking into account all considerations, including the peak of the COVID-19 infection rate (which was foreseen months ago when the Directions regarding the re-opening and phasing-in of schools were gazetted) that it is in the interest of learners, the economy and the country as a whole that the education of learners not be disrupted further and that public schools remain open.

29. The irrationality of the decision is not only to be measured against the overwhelming body of medical evidence, but also illustrated by the fact that the closure of schools only applies to public schools and not independent schools.

FUTURE POTENTIAL CLOSURE OF SCHOOLS:

30. Our client has reason to be concerned that the trade unions that have demanded that schools be closed are still not satisfied with the closure of schools for a four week period, as already mentioned above and that further pressure and demands will mount before the schools are to re-open on 24 August 2020.

31. Our client is further concerned that any subsequent and further closure of schools will have enormous adverse effects on all South African learners. By early August, some South African children will have lost between 30 to 59 school days, on average, depending on their grades. The effect of any further closure of schools will be catastrophic, to say the least. In this regard, you are reminded that, in terms of the preamble of the Schools Act, schools and the education that it provide contributes to the eradication of poverty and the economic well-being of society. Any further closure of schools, therefore, will have a devastating effect which outbalances the risks posed by the virus.

32. It is widely known that the Level 5 lockdown was aimed at affording the country an opportunity to equip the country’s healthcare services to deal with the spread of the virus and the ultimate inevitable peak in infections that the country is experiencing at current. It was initially assumed that schools were high risk areas for the spread of the virus and that children were extremely vulnerable. Overwhelming medical evidence, since then, points to the contrary. In fact, children are at a very low risk of contracting and spreading the virus as was accepted by and heavily relied upon by the Minister of Basic Education in opposition to the relief sought in respect of the closure of schools in the One South Africa Movement case mentioned above.

33. Without dealing with the medical evidence in detail, such evidence clearly suggests that the risk of death from COVID-19 ranges from a 1-in-76 878 chance (0.001%) for those aged 0-19 years, the exact age group of South African learners.1.

34. Moreover, the medical evidence was further canvassed and referred to in the judgement of Justice Fabricius, as referred to above.

CONCLUSION:

35. We place on record that our client reserves its rights to urgently approach the High Court for appropriate relief to prevent any further unlawful, unconstitutional and irrational decisions as regards closure of schools and/or any further disruption of the academic year.

36. Moreover, any further decision of whatever nature which may result in the prolonged closure of schools beyond 24 August 2020 will leave our client with no alternative but to urgently approach the High Court for appropriate relief to prevent any further unlawful, unconstitutional and irrational decisions as regards closure of schools and/or any further disruption of the academic year.

Yours faithfully,

DJ Eloff

HURTER SPIES INC

Per. Daniël Eloff

And to: Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Nkosazana Clarice Dlamini-Zuma

And to: The Minister of Basic Education

AM Motshekga

CC: The Minister of Education, Western Cape Province

CC: The MEC for Education, Gauteng Province

CC: The MEC for Education, Free State Province Fidel Castro Building, 55 Elizabeth Street, Floor 16 Bloemfontein

CC: The MEC for Education, Limpopo Province

CC: The MEC for Education, Mpumalanga Province 1200 Government Boulevard Riverside Park Building 5 Nelspruit

CC: The MEC for Education, North West Province

CC: The MEC for Education, Northern Cape Province

CC: The MEC for Education, KwaZulu-Natal

Footnote:

1 Servaas van der Berg & Nic Spaull ‘Counting the Cost: COVID-19 school closures in South Africa & its impact on children’ (15 June 2020)

ENDS

Issued by Werner Human, Deputy Chief Operations Officer: Strategy, Legal Affairs and Research, 3 August 2020