An Overview Of Education Policy Change In Post Apartheid South Africa

5
An overview of education policy change
in post-apartheid South Africa
Yusuf Sayed and Anil Kanjee
This chapter reviews policy changes in the South African school system since 1994.
The policies reviewed include legislatively authorised policies such as green/white
papers, bills and acts, and procedural policies encompassing regulations and notices,
which provide policy implementation details and clarify or amend particular aspects
of an existing policy. The aim of the review is to provide a comprehensive mapping
of policy in some of the key arenas of education. While there are currently extensive
reviews and critiques of South African education policy, these are confined to
specific issues in South African education, for example, the fees policy (Motala 2005,
2006, 2009; Ahmed and Sayed 2009) or governance (Sayed 2003; Soudien 2004). The
review is guided by two key questions. First, what is the scope and depth of South
African education policy in the post-apartheid period? Second, and this is confined
to preliminary remarks, to what extent does the policy facilitate educational
transformation in the post-apartheid period?
The review is divided into six sections. The first section engages briefly with some of
the definitions of policy and presents the approach used for the review. The second
section provides a background to and chronology of the policy changes between
1994 and 2009 and includes a brief overview of policy development under the three
ministers of education during this period. The third section identifies the main
policies relating to school governance, while the fourth outlines the main policies
relating to school resourcing. The fifth section, which presents the main policies
relating to teaching and learning, is subdivided into policies relating to curriculum,
assessment, and teachers and teaching. Some of the major issues emanating from the
various policy areas are brought together in the sixth and final section.
Theoretical framework
There appears to be consensus in the literature that policies denote processes that
guide future action. The different components identified include a statement of
intent or directive that serves as a guide, the goal or area targeted by the policy, and
the unfolding of this policy, referred to as ‘implementation’ (De Clercq 1997; Haddad
and Demsky 1995). De Clercq (1997) suggests that substantive policies explain what
the government should do whereas procedural policies describe who is going to take
1

T H e Se A r C H F o r quA l i T Y e D u C AT io n i n p o ST- A pA rT H e i D S ou T H A F r iC A
6
action and through which mechanisms. Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002) provide a
useful typology of policies, with four categories. These are: (a) distributive policies,
which are policies that use public resources to produce goods and services that
accrue to some subset of the population; (b) regulatory policies, which are policies
that help government to shape, monitor and control the actions and behaviours of
private companies, nGos and citizens; (c) redistributive policies, which are policies
that specify the use of public resources for various purposes, benefits and costs; and
(d) constitutive policies, which are procedural and rule-making policies concerning
the staffing and operations of government agencies, and electoral procedures.
policy formulation can be dissected into different stages. Haddad and Demsky (1995)
identify the following stages in the process of policy formulation: the analysis of the
existing situation, the generation of policy options, the evaluation of policy options,
the making of the policy decision, the planning of the policy implementation, and
the assessment of policy impact. policy formulation and analysis involve intricate
interactions among policy statutes, stakeholders, implementers and social/political
environments (Brinkerhoff and Crosby 2002; Haddad and Demsky 1995). Thus,
policy analysis should involve a review of all these stages.
While there is consensus about the various processes in policy formulation, the
function of policy remains contentious. The above definitions are premised on
the idea that change is desired and that policy specifies the potential pathway for
this change. Scholars like Sayed (1997) and Jansen (1998) suggest that policies
must be analysed within a socio-historical context. policies are constrained by
the broader socio-political context and must be scrutinised within the context of
power. While policies could indeed be transformative, they also function as symbolic
devices that could promote the illusion of change and help to manage stakeholder
contestation. According to these scholars, processes that create the illusion of
broad-based consultation (Barnes 2006; De Clercq 1997), and the disjuncture
between policy discourses of transformation and actual policy conceptualisation and
implementation, suggest that policy processes also need to be analysed as symbolic
devices, rather than only as substantive processes that guide action.
The current review confines itself largely to the scope and depth of South African
education policy in the post-apartheid period between 1994 and 2009. post-
apartheid South African education was faced with the enormous challenge of
transforming a racially divided, fragmented and inequitable education system. The
chapter asks what the policy responses were to this challenge at the level of the state.
An overview of policy change: Three ministerial periods
Moving from the inefficient and unequal education system of the apartheid era,
the post-1994 education system was marked by a proliferation of education policies
aimed at redressing apartheid inequalities and meeting the needs of a democratic
society. This section traces policy development in the three completed education

An overvieW oF eDuCATion poliCY CHAnGe in poST-ApArTHeiD SouTH AFriCA
7
periods, from 1994–2008, in which Minister Bengu (1994–99), Minister Asmal
(1999–2004) and Minister pandor (2004–09) presided.
Education under apartheid
The most salient feature of the education system prior to 1994 was its fragmentation
and inequality. under apartheid there were 19 racially and ethnically divided
education departments. These included 11 separate education departments for the
‘black’ population: 6 in the self-governing territories, 4 in the ‘independent’ states
(referred to as ‘bantustans’) and a central government department administering
educationfor‘Africans’livinginareasdesignatedfor‘whites’.inadditiontothese,there
were three separate services of a tricameral parliament for ‘indians’, ‘coloureds’ and
‘whites’, which were organised into four semi-independent provincial departments.
Further, there was a Department of national education, with responsibility for
setting national norms and standards, controlling policy and making budgetary
allocations. There were substantial disparities in educational provision among
the segregated departments, with a disproportionate share of resources going to
the departments serving the minority ‘white’ population, resulting in an unequal
distribution of educational facilities and learning resources. The ‘Bantustan’ and
‘African’ departments were grossly underfunded. it is estimated that the apartheid
government was spending nine times more on each ‘white’ learner than it spent
on learners in the worst-off ‘bantustans’ (nDoe 2005, cited in oeCD 2008). The
separate education departments had different curricula, which were biased against
the ‘black’ population, and different systems of assessing learners, which were also
racially based. The resource imbalances were heavily skewed against the ‘Bantustan’
and ‘African’ departments and were characterised by large learner:teacher ratios,
inadequate infrastructure, and unqualified teachers, resulting in unequal access
to education and unequal learning outcomes for these groups. Thus, in 1994, the
newly elected government of national unity was faced with the immense task of
restructuring and rebuilding the education system and redressing the inequities of
the past (oeCD 2008).
Overview of policy changes in South Africa
for the period 1994–2008
in the post-apartheid era, South Africa has seen a proliferation of education policies.
From the national Department of education (nDoe) website1
, it appears that
between 1994 and 2007 alone, 7 white papers, 3 green papers, 26 bills (of which 17
are amendment bills), 35 acts (of which 22 are amendments of existing laws), 11
regulations, 52 government notices and 26 calls for comments covered the whole
education sector from basic to higher education. These exclude some of the policies
presented in 2008.

8
There have been differences in policy activity for the three completed periods in the
post-apartheid era. Table 1A1 (see Appendix 1A) presents policy activity per period.
There was one minister for each of the periods. Minister Bengu (1994–99) was the
first post-apartheid minister of education; the second phase (1999–04) is linked
with Minister Asmal; and the third and most recent completed phase is associated
with Minister pandor (2004–09). What follows is an attempt briefly to track the
process of policy development during these periods, as a backdrop for the discussion
that follows. The comments are confined to policy activity, gauged from policy
documents, rather than dealing with the unique contributions of and challenges
facing each ministry.
1994–99: Minister Bengu
The importance of the engagement with post-apartheid education challenges
is reflected in the number of green papers and white papers in key areas (six in
total). These papers manifest the policy concerns of the time and are revealing in
how these concerns were reflected both in subsequent policy continuity and in
subsequent policy departures. The first white paper, White paper on education and
Training (nDoe 1995), was concerned with the transformation of the education and
training system. it focused on redressing educational inequalities and promoting
democratic governance and equity in the distribution of resources. education White
paper 2: The organisation, Governance and Funding of Schools (nDoe 1996) is an
expansion of ideas developed in the first White paper and proposes a new system
of school organisation, governance and funding. The third and fourth education
White papers focus on transformation of higher education (nDoe 1997) and further
education and training (FeT) (nDoe 1998a) respectively.
The first period remains the most significant because it required the legislation and
frameworks to redress the legacy of apartheid and transform the education system.
numerous acts, including seven key acts, were enacted under Minister Bengu. These
were the South African qualifications Authority (SAqA) Act (no. 58 of 1995), the
national education policy Act (nepA, no. 27 of 1996), the South African Schools
Act (SASA, no. 84 of 1996), the Basic Conditions of employment Act (BCeA, no.
75 of 1997), the Higher education Act (HeA, no. 101 of 1997), the employment of
educators Act (eeA, no. 76 of 1998) and the Further education and Training Act
(FeTA, no. 98 of 1998).
The framework was intended to create a national department of education and
provincial departments of education to unite the previously fragmented, and racially
and ethnically divided education system. parker (2002) affirms that this period saw
the emergence of new structures, role-players and authoritative bodies that were able
to establish commissions and task teams with a legislative authority grounded in
the interim Constitution. in this period, one national and nine provincial education
departments, and a number of statutory and non-statutory councils – such as the
education labour relations Council (elrC), SAqA, the national qualifications

9
Framework (nqF) and the South African Council for educators (SACe) – were
established.
1999–2004: Minister Asmal
The volume of policy activity continued in the Kader Asmal era and 16 acts were
passed during his tenure. The majority of these, however, were amendments of the
laws promulgated during the period of his predecessor. Among the more significant
acts were the South African Council for educators Act (SACe, no. 31 of 2000), the
Adult Basic education and Training Act (ABeT, no. 52 of 2000), and the General
and Further education and Training quality Assurance Act (GFeTqA, no. 58 of
2001), along with a number of education laws amendment and Higher education
amendment acts. The main purpose of the ABeT Act was to accommodate the
regulation and provision of adult basic education. The GFeTqA Act facilitated the
establishment of the General and Further education and Training quality Assurance
Council, which was responsible for the norms and standards of curriculum and
assessment and the issuing of certificates at exit points. The SACe Act made
provisions for the functions and composition of the SACe.
There were two significant white papers during Minister Asmal’s period, both
published in 2001: education White paper 5 on early Childhood education: Meeting
the Challenge of early Childhood Development in South Africa, which outlined
government policy on early childhood education (nDoe 2001a); and education
White paper 6: Special needs education: Building an inclusive education and
Training System (nDoe 2001b), which focused on the creation of an inclusive
education and training system to meet the needs of learners with special needs.
These policy activities (as with the ABeT Act of 2001) suggest that the parameters for
educational intervention and thus the scope of policy activity were being broadened
to include areas not previously tackled. The first two periods can be viewed as the
foundational periods of policy development in South African education, with overall
transformation of education policy and refinement of this policy being the major
objectives.
2004–09: Minister Pandor
There was a marked difference in policy activity in the Minister pandor era. only one
white paper, on e-education, was released, and only three acts were passed during
Minister pandor’s period. Two of the acts passed related to amendments to existing
laws. The education laws Amendment Act (elA, no. 24 of 2005) made amendments
to SASA and additionally made provisions for school funding by means of quintiles
and clarifications on the charging and payment of school fees. The education laws
Amendment Act (elA, no. 31 of 2007), among other things, sought to amend SASA
in order to set out minimum norms and standards for infrastructure and capacity
in public schools. education White paper 7 on e-education: Transforming learning
and Teaching through information and Communication Technologies (iCTs)

10
(nDoe 2004) provided for the inclusion of iCTs in teaching and learning. policy
activity was largely in the form of notices (21) and calls for comments.
This brief summary suggests that the focus in the first decade was largely on the
development, expansion and refinement of policy, whereas the pandor era was
characterised largely by a review of how policy implementation unfolded – albeit a
review confined to specific policy areas, as our later discussion suggests.
School governance
Tables 1B2 to 1B4 (in Appendix 1B) present school governance policies that have
been developed since 1994. in all, 36 policies of different types relating to school
governance were formulated between 1994 and 2008. These include 14 legislatively
authorised policies (4 bills, 2 white papers and 8 acts) and 22 procedural policies, of
which 8 were regulations and 14 were notices. This legislation fundamentally altered
the educational landscape of school governance.
The first White paper on education (nDoe 1995) laid out the basic principles and
priorities for the transformation of a fragmented education system and for redressing
gross inequalities in school provisioning. That White paper outlined the principles
of access, redress, equity and democratic governance. The paper proposed the
establishment of school governing bodies (SGBs) in all schools and emphasised the
need to define the relationship between SGBs and education governance structures
within provincial education systems. it proposed that SGBs be representative of the
main stakeholders in the school: at primary school level the SGB should include
parents and teachers, while at secondary school level the SGB should comprise
parents, teachers and students. The first White paper also introduced the concept of
participative management and proposed that state involvement in school governance
be minimal for legal accountability purposes.
one of the biggest changes in educational governance was the centralisation of
educational planning at the level of the state through nepA. This Act mandates
the minister of education working with provinces through a concept of cooperative
governance to determine national policy for the planning, provision, financing,
staffing, coordination, management, governance, monitoring and evaluation of
the education system. The Act requires the minister to consult with appropriate
consultative bodies in determining national education policy. nepA promotes the
principle of cooperative governance between the national Department of education
(nDoe) and provincial departments of education (pDoes), local government
and other state departments. in 2009 the nDoe was divided into two separate
departments: the Department of Basic education (DBe) and the Department of
Higher education and Training (DHeT), each headed by a separate minister. nepA
calls for close collaboration between national and provincial governments in matters
relating to education and the effective management of the education system; the act
requires that in determining national policy, broad public participation is ensured
as is the representation of stakeholders in the governance of the education system.

11
The first objective of nepA is to mandate the minister of education – and, post-2009,
this would include both the basic education minister and the higher education and
training minister – to determine national policy in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution of the republic of South Africa (1996). Second, nepA requires the
minister of education to establish consultative bodies and undertake consultations
prior to the determination of policy. nepA’s third objective is to provide for the
publication and implementation of national education policy, while its fourth
objective is to make provision for the monitoring and evaluation of education.
The Act further makes provision for the establishment of a Council of education
Ministers, which is chaired by the minister of education, the head of the education
Departments Committee and consultative bodies. The Council of education
Ministers has the responsibility of promoting a national education policy that takes
into consideration provisions of the Constitution, government policies and the
education interests and needs of provinces.
The centralisation of planning in nepA was accompanied by a marked shift to
decentralisation at school level. SASA seeks to provide for a uniform system for the
organisation, governance and funding of schools. The governance and funding of
public and independent (private) schools alike are legislated by this Act. it promotes
access to schools and makes schooling compulsory for all children between the
ages of 7 and 15. it accommodates the establishment and operation of SGBs,
with significant decision-making authority to be shared among teachers, parents,
the community and learners – a move that decentralises power to institutions
and schools. Governing bodies are composed of the school principal; elected
representatives of parents, who have a majority stake; educators; and non-teaching
staff; and, in secondary schools, learners. The basic functions of all SGBs, as laid
down by the Act, include developing and adopting a constitution and a mission
statement for the school; adopting a code of conduct for learners at the school;
determining admissions policy for the school; administering and controlling the
school’s property, buildings and grounds; making recommendations to the head
of the education department in a province regarding the appointment of educators
and non-educator staff at the school; developing a budget for the school; and raising
additional income to supplement state funds – including the charging of school
fees subject to approval of parents of learners, and other fundraising activities. The
Act provides regulations for exemption of parents from paying school fees, which
become compulsory once approved at a meeting of parents. in addition to the
basic functions under section 21, SGBs can apply to the head of department to be
allocated any of the following additional functions: maintaining and improving the
school’s property, buildings and grounds; determining the extra-mural curriculum
for the school and the choice of subject options; purchasing textbooks, educational
materials or equipment for the school; and paying for services to the school.
Table 1B1 provides details of school governance-related bills that were developed
during the period under review. All of the bills presented were amendments to
SASA. The table shows that although 10 bills were presented in the years 1999–2005,

12
in reality only 4 bills were tackled during the period, because a number of bills were
presented more than once. The first three bills, presented in 1999, related to the
proposed five amendments to be made to SASA relating to school governance. The
first amendment proposed was the inclusion of a clause in section 12a to provide
for the merger of public schools and regulate the consequences of such a merger.
The second proposed amendment was in section 16 (status of public schools) in the
subsection regarding the governance and professional management of schools, to
include provisions for the temporary closure of a public school in case of emergency.
The third and fourth proposed amendments related to SGBs. The elA Bill B44-99
proposed an additional function of a governing body in section 21, to facilitate the
development of an ABeT class or centre. The Bill further proposed changes to section
23 of SASA, which deals with the membership of governing bodies of public schools,
to make further provisions for co-opted members to allow parents to be co-opted
as members with voting rights, if the parents with voting rights are outnumbered
by other members with voting rights. Further changes were proposed to section 29
regarding office bearers of governing bodies, to allow any member of the governing
body to be elected as chair in special needs schools. The last amendments proposed
to the Bill were additional clauses related to claims for damages, which abdicate the
state from being liable for any damage or loss caused as a result of negligence.
in 2000 three bills were presented, the second and third being amendments to the
first, the elA Bill B48-2000. Four amendments relating to school governance were
proposed in the Bill. The elA Bill B48-2000 proposed the amendment of section 14
of SASA, which deals with public schools on private property. The bill also proposed
the amendment of section 16 of SASA to provide for the governance of a new public
school until a governing body has been set up. The amendment confers the power
of governance on the head of department. The third amendment relates to section
23 of SASA and makes provision for the co-opting of two parent members, with
voting rights, from the learners’ community, if membership of a governing body is
not representative of the racial composition of the learners of the school. The last
amendment proposed by the Bill concerns section 61 of SASA and makes provision
for the education minister to make regulations to provide for safety measures at public
schools. The bill was further amended by the portfolio Committee on education and
the amendments agreed by the committee were presented in the elA Bill B48A-
2000. The amendments included the removal of the provision for representivity of
governing bodies. Subsequently, the elA Bill B48B-2000 was presented without the
amendment to section 23, to make provision for representivity of governing bodies
by co-opting parents of learners of the schools as members.
in 2001 three bills were once again presented, the last two also being amendments
made to the first. The elA Bill B55-2001 proposed three amendments relating
to school governance. The first amendment was to section 11, subsection (1) of
SASA, which provided for the representative council of learners to be the only
recognised learner body at a school. The second amendment was to section 25 and
made additional provisions regarding the failure of a governing body to perform its

13
functions. An extra subsection was included, which mandates the persons appointed
by the head of department to build the capacity of the governing body within their
period of appointment. lastly, the amendments of sections 36 and 37 render it illegal
for a governing body in a public school to raise money through loans or overdrafts
and for paying monies into a trust. The elA Bill B55B-2001 reflects changes agreed
to Bill B55-2001.
The elA Bill B23 of 2005, among other things, proposed four amendments to
SASA relating to school governance. First, the bill clarifies the manner in which
disciplinary proceedings must be conducted, including by providing for a time limit
within which the head of department must make a decision to expel a learner on
the recommendations of the governing body. The bill further amends section 39
of SASA to clarify issues regarding the charging and payment of school fees and
proposed that school fees not include registration fees, administration or other
fees. The bill moreover proposed the amendment to section 41 of SASA, to ensure
that learners are not excluded from participation in school programmes because of
non-payment of school fees by a parent or parents. The fourth amendment seeks to
protect assets that are essential for providing proper educational programmes in a
school.
Four amendment bills were presented before the national Assembly: the elA Bills
B44-99, B48-2000, B55-2001 and B23-2003. All of these bills were passed by the
national Assembly and adopted as amendments to existing acts. Modifications
made to the elA Bill B44-99 were passed as elA Act no. 48 of 1999 (see Table 1B2).
Similarly, Bill B48-2000 became elA Act no. 53 of 2000, while Bill B55-2001 was
adopted as elA Act no. 57 of 2001, and Bill B23-2005 was passed as elA Act no.
24 of 2005.
in 1997 the Abolition of Corporal punishment Act was passed by parliament. There
were 9 different regulations passed (Table 1B3) and 14 notices and calls for comment
(Table 1B4). These deal, inter alia, with the payment of school fees, age requirements
for admission, and safety in schools. noteworthy are the regulations in 1998 and
2006 exempting parents from the payment of school fees. There were two regulations
and one call for comments on safety, and two notices on the age requirement for
admission (notice 2432 in 1998, and the amendment in 2001).
School resourcing
The main policies relating to school resourcing are presented in Tables 1C1 to 1C3
(in Appendix 1C). The inequities in school funding and resourcing required policy
intervention, and an attempt was made to overhaul the previous system completely.
The basic principles for school funding and resourcing were set out in the first two
white papers. The first education White paper (nDoe 1995), on education and
training, made a commitment to free and compulsory general education while
encouraging voluntary contributions by parents to supplement state funding. The
paper acknowledged that the existing level of budget provision was high, but grossly

14
inequitable. For this reason, it proposed the restructuring of the budget in order
to achieve equity, reduce unit costs, enhance performance, rationalise user charges
and develop new funding partnerships. The second education White paper (nDoe
1996) proposed a new funding system for public schools, based on a partnership
between government and communities. The paper proposed that public schools
be funded partly by public subsidy and partly through the charging of school fees,
which would be compulsory for all parents who could afford them. The paper
proposed that poor parents be exempted from paying school fees and stated that
no child would be refused admission to school. The second White paper reviewed
proposals for reforming school funding presented by the review committee,
which put forward three options. A fourth option as recommended by a team
of international consultants was favoured. The fourth option allowed governing
bodies to determine targets for raising income to supplement allocations from the
provincial education departments. What is evident in the second White paper is a
shift from the commitment to providing free and compulsory education expressed
in the first White paper, to a more cautious approach that explicitly allowed schools
to raise supplementary funding, from parents and other sources, which included
levying of user fees.
The legislative framework for school financing was developed, along with school
governance, in SASA (1996). The school resourcing policies are set out in the
national norms and Standards for School Funding (nnSSF) (nDoe 1998b). The
norms and standards provide for the public funding of schools, charging of school
fees, and exemption of parents who are unable to pay school fees, and public
subsidies to independent schools. in the same year, regulations for the exemption
of parents from the payment of school fees were published, and they provided
categories of exemption and procedures for appeal. The nnSSF policy requires each
province to rank all its schools into five quintiles – from poorest to least poor, on the
basis of equally weighted physical conditions, facilities and crowding of the school,
and the relative poverty of the community served by the school. The norms and
standards require that funding be allocated progressively, with 20% of the poorest
schools receiving 35% of available funds, the next poorest quintile receiving 25% of
the funds, the middle quintile receiving 20%, the fourth quintile receiving 15%, and
5% of the funding being allocated to the least poor quintile schools. This means that
the poorest 40% of the schools receive 60% of the available funding from the pDoe.
According to the nnSSF (nDoe 1998b) document, these norms took effect from
1 April 1999.
As the policy unfolded, it became quite clear that there was a need to review and
amend it. The first two amendments came in 2003, followed by policy activity aimed
at reviewing the current resourcing policy. The policy was finally amended in 2005
and 2007 (elA no. 24 of 2005 and no. 31 of 2007). in 2005 legislation was passed to
amend the norms and standards for school funding by establishing new guidelines
for determining national quintiles, to be used to identify no-fees schools in each
province. A major change experienced is related to what has been referred to as the

15
‘no-fees schools’ policy. Historically disadvantaged schools that met the criteria set
out in the policy were no longer required to generate additional funds, but would
now qualify to receive an additional subsidy from the state. The amended norms
and standards require provincial education departments to assign to each school
a poverty score that is used to rank the schools from poorest to least poor. As with
previous policy, more funding is allocated to the poorest schools on the basis of
quintile distribution, with the poorest schools (quintiles 1 and 2) receiving most of
the available funds. policy activity subsequent to the adoption of the amendments
to the Act to change school resourcing focused on this change. From 2006–08 a
list of no-fees schools in each province was published for the years 2007, 2008
and 2009 respectively. From 2007, the no-fees schools have received a minimum
amount of funding per year from the government. in 2008, the national poverty
distribution table used for national poverty targeting was updated, in an apparent
attempt to refine the basis on which school allocations are made. The 2007 elA
Act, furthermore, mandated the minister of education to establish by regulation
the minimum uniform norms and standards for school infrastructure and capacity
in terms of number of learners and provision of teaching and learning materials in
public schools.
Teaching and learning
This section identifies the main policies relating to teaching and learning. The
section is sub-divided into three interrelated parts. The first looks at policies relating
to the curriculum, the second examines policies relating to assessment, and the third
focuses on policies relating to teachers and teaching.
Curriculum
The policies related to school curriculum and qualifications issues implemented
since 1994 are highlighted in Tables 1D1 to 1D4 (in Appendix 1D). in all, 22 different
curriculum and related policies have been produced. The major curriculum policy
reforms were implemented during the period 1995–97. The curriculum reforms in
the post-apartheid period were intended to purge the biased apartheid curriculum
and replace it with a new curriculum that would promote democratic principles and
be relevant for a multicultural society. This curriculum-restructuring exercise was
accompanied by a process that established national regulatory bodies and initiated
national processes for setting standards, assessing qualifications and promoting
quality assurance.
The first White paper on education (nDoe 1995) laid the foundation for curriculum
reforms. it called for a complete overhaul of the apartheid curriculum, which was
both outdated and discriminatory, to be replaced with a new and flexible curriculum,
which cut across traditional divisions of skills and knowledge and defined standards
in terms of learning outcomes. The paper also proposed an integrated approach
to education and training that would link levels of learning and enable learners to

16
progress to higher levels from any starting point in the system. This White paper
spearheaded the transformation through developing frameworks for curriculum
change and development. Curriculum development and coordination work at
national level was undertaken by the Curriculum Technical Sub-committee of the
national education and Training Forum. With the work of the interim Committee
of Heads of education Departments, the forum’s role was to bring together the major
stakeholders in the curriculum change process that saw the creation of 41 national
curriculum committees (nCCs). national and provincial departments, in addition
to other role-players, were represented by the nCCs. The White paper called for a
transformation in the curriculum, teaching methods and textbooks in education
and training that would enable independent and critical thinking. it further
proposed that the curriculum choice be diversified in the post-compulsory period,
in order to equip young people with skills and education required by the labour
market. Further, the White paper championed the strengthening of mathematics,
science and technology education in order to fill critical skills shortages in the
market. environmental education – using an interdisciplinary, integrated and active
approach to learning – was also perceived to be critical in order to produce an
environmentally literate society and for the sustainable use of resources.
The 1998 White paper (education White paper 4: programme for the Transformation
of Further education and Training) extended the view introduced in the White paper
of 1995 that FeT was at the heart of the integration of the South African education
and training system. on the basis of 130 written submissions by individuals,
organisations and institutions, as well as contributions from provincial workshops
conducted collaboratively by the nDoe and provincial departments on how FeT
could be implemented, the White paper (nDoe 1998) was initiated. This White
paper intended to initiate a process that would lead to initial recommendations
regarding a new, integrated framework for FeT programmes, curricula and
qualifications at schools and colleges.
The intention was to introduce an integrated FeT curriculum, along with the
new FeT Certificate (FeTC) as a recognised exit qualification in 2005. The 1998
White paper further intended to encourage the development of school, college and
employer linkages, and other innovative programmes and initiatives. The particular
emphasis was on promoting linkages that combined theory with practice and that
could offer learners practice and on-the-job training. The ministry of education was
dedicated to providing sufficient funds to encourage the development of new courses
that could support community education and community development initiatives,
including programmes to promote enterprise development, entrepreneurship and
job creation.
The SAqA Act (no. 58 of 1995) was the first legislation to be passed into law by
the first post-apartheid government and provided for the establishment of the
qualifications authority, with responsibility for the establishment of the nqF.
SAqA and the nqF established the scaffolding for a national learning system
that integrates education and training at all levels. SAqA regulates the setting

17
of standards and quality assurance, records learner achievements and registers
qualifications on the nqF, to ensure that skills and knowledge that have been learnt
are recognised throughout the country. The SAqA Act provides for an outcomes-
based system, where skills and knowledge can be measured at the end of the learning
or training period against socially agreed standards. in addition to the centralisation
and control of curriculum in response to the previous racially divided curricula, this
legislation was the cornerstone of the central feature of the new curriculum referred
to as ‘outcomes-based education’ (oBe). The curriculum intended to develop a new
sense of identity, based on dignity and respect for all people, on the principles of
learner-centredness and oBe. oBe entailed a change from the traditional ‘aims and
objectives’ approach to one that was based on learners’ outcomes determined by the
attainment of agreed-upon standards. Curriculum, teaching and assessment were to
be organised with the purpose that learners successfully completed and performed
predetermined learning tasks and goals. oBe lays emphasis on skills, knowledge and
attitudes pertaining to criteria that are established by SAqA. An important function
of SAqA was to oversee the development and implementation of the nqF and the
registration of national standards and qualifications. The nqF aimed to create an
integrated national framework for learning achievements that embraced all levels
of education. Besides enhancing the quality of education and training, the nqF was
intended to accelerate access to, and mobility and progression within, education,
training and career paths. it was further intended to accelerate the redress of past
unfair discrimination in education, training and employment opportunities, in this
way contributing to the full personal development of each learner and to the social
and economic development of South Africa at large.
An important section of legislation in this period was the GFeTqA Act (no.
58 of 2001). in line with the quality assurance system set up by SAqA, this Act
established a quality assurance body known as the General and Further education
and Training quality Assurance Council (GFeTqAC) – more commonly known
as umalusi. This body ensures that ongoing enhancement of quality is achieved
in the delivery and outcomes of the general and further education and training
sectors of the national education and training system. in addition to centralising
and adopting a national curriculum, by promulgating the Act, the nDoe provided
for the monitoring and evaluating of the process of accreditation, through assessing
the suitability and adequacy of standards and qualifications by providers of general
and further education. Besides the creation of GFeTqAC, this Act also sought to
develop a quality assurance framework for the general and further education bands
of the nqF and the regulation of the relationship between the national department,
SAqA, other education and training quality assurance bodies, providers and the
GFeTqAC. Among other functions, the GFeTqAC monitors the suitability and
adequacy of standards and qualifications. it also ensures that providers adopt quality
management systems for learner achievements. it further monitors and reports to
the minister on the performance of departments of education as providers, and
recommends steps to rectify any deficiencies.

18
The establishment of structures to develop and oversee a curriculum-restructuring
exercise was accompanied by a major shift in the school curriculum in 1997, referred
to as Curriculum 2005: ‘C2005’. Subjects were replaced with learning areas, each
of which had a range of statements and outcomes. The learning areas in the new
curriculum restructured the traditional subject disciplines that divided learning into
knowledge and skills as an integrated knowledge system through the integration
of education and training. C2005 and oBe put emphasis on competence of skills,
knowledge and attitudes on the basis of criteria established by SAqA. SAqA
identifies what are referred to as ‘critical outcomes’, which all learners, in any content
area, across the entire education and training system, need to acquire. These include,
inter alia, being able to engage in teamwork, critical thinking skills and problem-
solving skills.
The curriculum-restructuring process began in 1997 with the draft statement of
nationalCurriculumGrader–9,notice1445,andareviewcommitteewasestablished
in 2000. it recommended streamlining the curriculum design and simplifying its
language, and a revised national Curriculum Statement (rnCS), incorporating
the recommendations of the review committee, was introduced in 2002. The rnCS
included comprehensive outcomes and assessment standards, which indicated the
knowledge and skills required for each grade and learning area. it provided a list of
learning area statements in eight areas, which spelt out the outcomes to be achieved
at the end of the learning process. in 2008, the Foundations for learning Campaign
was launched, with the aim of improving the reading, writing and numeracy skills of
all children in grades r–9. The campaign specified how much time could be spent
on a task when teaching these skills in schools. The campaign aimed at increasing
learner performance in literacy/language and numeracy/mathematics.
As the restructuring process unfolded, it encompassed many aspects and two
significant areas: special needs education and e-education. education White paper
6: Special needs education (nDoe 2001b) mainstreamed ‘special’ education and
suggested that vulnerable learners be included in the mainstream system by 2020.
The White paper outlined what an inclusive education and training system is,
provided a framework for establishing such a system and listed the key steps to
be adopted. in relation to the curriculum, the White paper acknowledged that the
existing curriculum was too inflexible and was a significant barrier to learning for
learners with special needs. The paper, therefore, proposed that the curriculum be
made more flexible across all bands of education, to make it accessible to all learners
irrespective of their learning needs. The White paper also proposed that the process
of learning and teaching be flexible enough to accommodate different learning needs
and styles.
education White paper 7 on e-education (nDoe 2004) can be seen as an attempt
to include iCT more fully in the curriculum. Taking cognisance of the fact that
iCTs were central to changes taking place globally, the 2004 White paper set out
the government’s response to developing a new iCT environment in education.
The government, through this White paper, intended to introduce iCTs in schools

19
by creating new ways for students and teachers to engage in information selection,
gathering, sorting and analysis. it further aimed to ensure that every school had
access to a wide choice of high-quality communication services, which would benefit
all learners and local communities. The paper recommended the integration of iCTs
in curriculum, teaching and learning across all bands of the education and training
system.
From the website of the nDoe, it appears that not many bills regarding curriculum
were enacted. Many of the curriculum bills were captured in the elA Bills or Acts. it
is surprising that despite the fact that the curriculum went through several changes,
these were mostly covered by regulations, notices and calls for comments, rather
than by bills and acts.
The assessment system
Assessment policy forms part of the curriculum-restructuring process in the post-
apartheid period. Three key pieces of legislation – nepA (1996), the GFeTqA
Act (2001) and the elA Act (2002) – tackled various aspects of assessment. in
1996, nepA was effected to provide for the determination of a national policy for
education. ‘Assessment’ in this legislation means the process of identifying, gathering
and interpreting information about a learner’s achievement, as measured against
nationally agreed outcomes for a particular phase of learning. it involves four steps:
generating and collecting evidence of achievement; evaluating this evidence against
the outcomes; recording the finding of the evaluation; and using this information to
assist the learner’s development and improve the process of learning and teaching.
This legislation provided instructions on how to conduct an assessment in oBe.
Assessment in oBe focuses on the achievement of clearly defined outcomes,
making it possible to credit a learner’s achievements at every level, whatever pathway
they may have followed, and at whatever rate they have acquired the necessary
competence. This assessment, therefore, requires the use of tools that appropriately
assess learner achievement and encourage lifelong learning skills. This legislation
asserts that the different types of assessment – formative, diagnostic, summative and
evaluative – serve important functions within oBe.
Assessment is to be carried out by an assessment body, which is the nDoe or any
other body registered with the GFeTqAC as a body responsible for conducting
external assessment. There is also an internal assessment component, which
refers to any assessment conducted by the provider. outcomes from assessments
count towards the achievement of a qualification. in 1999, there was an education
amendment bill and this, among others, provided new functions for the examining
board, the director general and the council. The amendment bill stipulated in detail
the functions of the examining body with regard to external examination. For
example, the examining body was to take adequate measures, including measures to
combat irregularities in the examination venues and security measures for ensuring
the confidentiality of examination papers, to ensure the integrity of the examinations

20
by establishing the GFeTqAC (subsequently established in 2001). (See Tables 1e1
and 1e2 in Appendix 1e.)
nepA further provided for an amendment to the national policy for General
education Act of 1984, to provide for monitoring and evaluation through a mandate
given to the minister. Along with the curriculum, assessment policy became part of
the ministerial mandate. in 2001, the GFeTqA Bill was effected. This bill applied
to all education institutions that had been established, declared or registered under
SASA, the FeTA (1998) and the ABeT Act (2000). This bill, among other things,
aimed to establish a quality assurance body to ensure the achievement of continuing
enhancement of quality in the delivery and outcomes of the general and further
education and training sectors of the national education and training system. in
addition, the bill aimed to provide a quality assurance framework for the General
education and Training (GeT) and FeT bands of the nqF. in 2002, an elA Act was
passed that aimed to amend SASA and to facilitate the assessment process of learner
achievement in public and independent schools.
There was also significant policy activity associated with nepA as reflected in the
regulations, and the notices and calls for comments. Two areas of activity were
regulations and notices clarifying and specifying the assessment policy in line with
C2005, and policy dealing with the rules, regulations and bodies mandated for
certification. Table 1e3 (in Appendix 1e) provides detail of two regulations that
have been enacted in this regard since 1994. First was the regulation for issuing of
certificates by the GFeTqAC, which was provided in 2003. in 2005, a regulation
specifying the national protocol on assessment for schools in the General and
Further education and Training bands was assembled. This protocol provides
requirements and exemplars for the design of portfolios, reports, record sheets,
schedules and learner portfolios.
Table 1e4 (in Appendix 1e) lists notices and calls for comments that have been
set up since 1994. in 1998 a notice was issued on assessment policy in the GeT
band (Grades r–9) and ABeT. This policy outlined new assessment practices to
be applied in Grades r–9 and ABeT that were in line with the newly introduced
oBe. The assessment policy stipulates that assessment in oBe should focus on the
achievement of clearly defined outcomes and credit learner achievement at every
level; should require the use of tools that appropriately assess learner achievement;
and should consider continuous assessment (CASS) as the best model for assessing
outcomes of learning throughout the system and for enabling improvements in the
teaching and learning process.
Examinations
exams were retained in CASS, but the curriculum-restructuring exercise succeeded
in placing these in a broader context of learning. At the major exit points, however,
exams remained a significant part of the assessment process.

21
in South Africa the stakes for the Senior Certificate (SC) were high, as this remained
the only systemic performance benchmark in years. The policy on the management
and administration of the national SC, released by the ministry in 2007 (Government
Gazette 30048), prescribes procedures and protocols to be followed for quality
assurance – from the preparations, through seating, to the publication of results. The
current system replaces the SC, which was based on the old syllabus, and introduced
the national Senior Certificate (nSC), based on the new curriculum. The first sitting
for the nSC ‘matriculation’ examinations was in 2008.
Whole school evaluation
prior to the introduction of whole school evaluation (WSe), the education labour
relations Council (elrC), a statutory body for bargaining and negotiations on
education matters, tabled its famous Collective Agreement 4 of 1998, which promoted
the development appraisal system (DAS). its aim was to facilitate the personal
and professional development of educators in a transparent manner with a view
to identifying areas of strength and weakness and to drawing up programmes for
individual development. The ideal was improving teaching practice and education
management through lifelong learning (Class Act 2007). Although the DAS was
welcomed by leading unions, scholars argued that it was ambitious, complex and had
time-consuming content. The bone of contention with bureaucrats was that the DAS
sought to escape monitoring by rendering teachers as competent professionals; this
led to the introduction of WSe (nDoe 2009: 17).
in 2001, a policy on WSe was enacted. This encompassed a shift in terminology
from ‘inspection’ to ‘whole-school evaluation’ for school effectiveness. WSe aimed
at encapsulating school self-evaluation as well as external evaluation. it provided
for schools to receive advice and support in their continual efforts to improve their
effectiveness. The policy places particular emphasis on the need to use objective
criteria and performance indicators consistently in the evaluation of schools. it
recognises the importance of schools as places in which the quality of education is
ultimately determined. This policy places focus on the school as a whole rather than
simply on individuals and their performance.
The elrC Collective Agreement 8 of 2003 (elrC 2003) attempted to integrate
different education quality management programmes. The integrated quality
management system (iqMS) combined three earlier systems – DAS, WSe and
performance management – in an attempt to combine both the development and
the performance appraisal of educators. The iqMS was introduced in the hope of
addressing the primary concern about monitoring and evaluation by ‘streamlining’
the instruments used at the time. Some provinces did change to the WSe practice
after the iqMS was introduced. However, there still appears to be confusion among
practitioners about the status of these varying policies and how they relate to one
another, and it seems there is a lack of clarity on differences between DAS and
performance management. The policy language in the iqMS is said to be abstract

22
and ambiguous and open to multiple, conflicting interpretations; for instance, with
regard to rating descriptors and performance standards.
Teachers and teaching
As with the other areas, the major policy changes occurred in the immediate post-
apartheid period. Among several issues related to teaching, the education White
paper of 1995 (nDoe) articulated how the training of teachers could be achieved
with regard to quality. (See Table 1F1 in Appendix 1F.) This White paper indicated
that the education ministry regarded teacher education as one of the central pillars of
a national human resource development strategy and that the growth of professional
expertise and self-confidence was the key to teacher development. The responsibility
of the national government was therefore to provide a facilitative and regulatory
mechanism under which the institutions and bodies responsible for programmes
would have latitude to design and deliver them. related to ensuring quality, the
1995 White paper asserted that the pDoes and faculties of education in universities
and technikons (as they were then known) would be responsible for the redesigning
of teacher education programmes, in line with new values, goals and principles of
national education and training policies determined by the minister. Such policies
would include a qualification structure expressed in terms of minimum criteria and
competences, and would facilitate qualitative improvements. Thus, this qualification
regime would contribute to a new system of accreditation for teacher education
and training institutions, which accorded with the nqF and provided for quality
assurance and portable credits.
As already mentioned, in 1995, SAqA was introduced to provide for the development
and implementation of a national qualifications framework (the nqF) and to
establish a South African qualification authority. The specific objectives of the nqF
related to teachers and aimed to create an integrated national framework for learning
achievement; to facilitate access to and mobility and progress within education,
training and career paths; and to enhance the quality of education and training. in
1996, SASA was enacted to provide for the existence and functions of the SACe.
This Act further stipulated the expected qualifications of educators. (See Table 1F2
in Appendix 1F.)
We have seen that in 1996 nepA was initiated to provide a fresh policy on the
salaries and conditions of employment of educators. This Act made it possible for the
conditions of service that had initially been instituted by the apartheid government
to be replaced, and thereafter a BCeA (popular summary) was initiated in 1997, to
provide a summary of the working conditions for teachers, among others. The Act
stipulated conditions of service for workers, apart from employees of the national
Defence Force, national intelligence Agency, and South African Secret Service, and
unpaid volunteers working for charities. This legislation can be viewed as an attempt
at replacing the apartheid system in the domains of teachers and teaching. it reflects
attempts to standardise and centralise authority regarding teachers and teaching

23
conditions, as well as to regulate the profession. Subsequent policy activity refined
and cemented these reforms.
Key sections of legislation set out the processes for the appointment of educators
and the regulation of crucial aspects of teaching, such as conditions of service and
discipline. in 1997, an elA Amendment Act was enacted to enable public schools
to appoint educators and non-educator staff additional to approved establishments.
This Act additionally enabled the education minister to determine the requirements
for the appointment, transfer and promotion of educators employed by the state. in
1998, the eeA (no. 76 of 1998) was passed. Among many other intentions, this Act
provided a mandate for the employment of educators by the state, and regulation of
the conditions of service, discipline, retirement and discharge of educators employed
by the state. This Act coincided with the FeTA in 1998 (nDoe 1998a), which had
similar objectives. in 1999, the elA Act (no. 48 0f 1999) intended to amend the
employment Act of 1989. Basically, this Act was amended to provide timeframes
within which a governing body or council must make its recommendations when an
educator is appointed. This was an acceptance of the elA Bill.
The elA Act and Bill of 2000 intended to insert issues that were omitted in the eeA of
1998. procedures for dealing with minor and serious misconducts alike, particularly
related to teaching, were now provided. For example, educator misconduct that
warranted dismissal comprised theft, bribery, fraud or an act of corruption with
regard to examinations or promotional reports. Further, committing an act of sexual
assault on a learner or on another employee; having a sexual relationship with a
learner of the school where the educator is employed; and seriously assaulting, with
the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to, a learner or another employee, were
inserted as serious offences.
These 2000 elA Acts and Bills further provided procedures related to taking action
against poor performance of teachers. For example, if the employer is of the view that
an educator, whether on probation or a permanent staff member, is not performing
in accordance with the job that the educator has been employed to do, the employer
must give written reasons to the educator as to why it is necessary to initiate the
procedure in respect of poor performance; and, after serving the written reasons
referred to, must meet with the educator, or the educator and the educator’s trade
union representative or a fellow employee, if the educator so chooses. The elA Act
of 2002 also inserted a section on first appointment after a break in service of an
educator.
in 2001, two bills and two acts were enacted to amend provisions of the 1998 eeA in
relationtooffencesandpenalties,andtoamendthe1998FeTAandprovideforquality
assurance in the General and Further education and Training bands. This provided
control over norms and standards of curriculum and assessment. The approval, in
2000, of the SACe Act (no. 31) had paved the way for promoting the professional
development of educators and aimed to initiate, maintain and protect ethical and
professional standards for educators. With regard to professional development, the

24
council was expected to promote, develop and maintain a professional image and to
advise the education minister on matters relating to the education and training of
educators. Further, the council was to suggest the minimum requirements for entry
to all the levels of the profession and the standards of pre-service and in-service
educator training. The council was also to provide the requirements for promotion
within the education system. With regard to ethics, the council was to compile,
maintain and review a code of professional ethics for educators who were registered
or provisionally registered with the council.
in 2005, a bill and an act were enacted to provide for the refinement of the process
of the appointment of educators to new public schools, public FeT institutions and
public adult learning centres. The elA Bill B23-2005 provided quality assurance
in the General and Further education and Training bands. in 2006, a bill on FeT
colleges was enacted to provide for the employment of staff at public FeT colleges,
for the registration of private FeT colleges and for the promotion of quality in FeT.
Table 1F3 (see Appendix 1F) shows that within this analysis period, two regulations
were established, in 1998 and 1999. These regulations aimed to provide for the
employment of educators by the state; for the regulation of conditions of service,
discipline, retirement and discharge of educators; for advising the minister on
policy and strategy for the development of the national education and training
system; and for focusing on terms and conditions of employment (consistent with
the eeA). in 2001, there was also a notice on terms and conditions of employment
of educators, which specified minimum requirements for the appointment of
educators. in 2006, notices were given that improved educators’ welfare. First was a
notice on improvement in conditions of service, which determined the cost-of-living
adjustment of 5.3 per cent for educators on salary scales 3 to 12 effective, 1 July 2006.
This notice followed an earlier notice, in January, regarding the introduction of an
employee-initiated severance package. Another notice aimed to determine the policy
procedure for incapacity leave and ill-health retirement as applicable to educators.
A call for comments was also sent out on the draft document National Policy
Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa (nDoe 2006).
Taking stock of policy change: Concerns, gains and contradictions
An attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive mapping of South African
education policy in the post-apartheid era. This mapping has identified certain key
areas and described policy activity in the identified areas. What are also crucial are
the brief analysis of each policy and the assessment of its successes and failures.
A comprehensive evaluation of policy activity is beyond the scope of the current
chapter and the analysis is confined to an examination of policy scope, the extent to
which policies revealed an engagement with education inequities, and some of the
policy debates that have emerged. each of the areas is reviewed separately and then
drawn together in the Conclusion, through a focus on the major issues emerging
from the different areas.

25
Governance
School governance has been the focus of considerable policy activity and debate.
one of the biggest challenges in this area was to develop a unified education system
from a fragmented, racially divided system. policy activity directly and very early
on tackled this challenge, and new legislation ushered in a unified system that
mandated the minister of education to determine national education policy. The
concept of cooperative governance also provided relative autonomy to pDoes to
meet educational needs within the parameters set by national government. The
centralisation and location of executive power in the national education ministry
was one the biggest successes of post-apartheid education policy. it allowed the
ministry to rule on and overhaul all aspects of apartheid education and was central
to any policy restructuring attempts. The centralisation of national planning was
accompanied by a process of greater decentralisation and democratisation of
school governance. in a break from apartheid education, educational legislation
focused on creating greater autonomy for schools through the creation of SGBs. The
functions of the SGBs were wide ranging and included, inter alia, the collection,
administration and management of school resources, the appointment of educators,
and the determination and implementation of school admission policy.
The legislative framework proposed by SASA and nepA transformed educational
governance in South Africa. What is striking is the volume of policy activity in
relation to governance, and specifically school governance (almost all of the activity
pertained to SASA). legislation clearly specifying the functioning and composition
of SGBs is the main focus of the Act, with the extent of policy activity reflecting
significant concerns about the composition and functioning of SGBs. one of the
biggest concerns was the extent to which SGBs might not be representative of
diversity. There was also a concern about the power of SGBs to exclude learners, and
legislation was established with the aim of ensuring that learners are not excluded
because of an inability to pay school fees. An interesting trend was also the extent
to which issues like safety, discipline, and even initiation practices are devolved to
SGBs, which gradually accrue the large burden of administrative functioning.
The success of this policy has been a matter of considerable debate, and two main
criticisms have emerged. First, the policy was presented as an attempt at democratic
governance by the state. it was presented as a continuation of the ‘people’s education’
struggles of the apartheid era, and as a policy that in the post-apartheid period would
entrench the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution. This policy discourse has
been challenged, with scholars arguing that the policy was in fact an attempt to
decentralise and privatise education (Ahmed et al. 2007; Ahmed and Sayed 2009).
The primary criticism is that autonomy and democratisation are restricted largely
to school administrative functioning. SGB functioning largely focuses on the
management of schools in areas determined by the state. executive decision-making
is retained by the education ministry, and the state progressively absolves itself of
the management functions of the school. This policy is quite consistent with what
has been termed the ‘privatisation of South African schooling’, which is more fully

26
discussed under ‘School resourcing’ (below). Second, policy did not adequately
address educational inequalities. The biggest concern was that the composition
of SGBs in well-resourced schools (mostly ‘white’ and middle class) determined
important aspects of schooling that excluded the marginalised. policy activity to
ensure representivity was not approved by parliament and scholars point to how SGB
processes continue to exclude the marginalised (Ahmed et al. 2007). Conversely,
there was a concern that SGBs functioned very poorly in under-resourced schools
and were hardly exemplars of the policy discourse of democratisation.
School resourcing
The central challenge in school resourcing was to equalise the enormous disparities
in per capita expenditure per learner in the post-apartheid era. More importantly,
this was to be achieved within the parameters of the Constitution, which enshrined
free basic education as a human right. The policy path chosen allowed schools to
supplement state funds through the collection of school fees, while it stipulated that
learners could not be excluded because of their inability to pay school fees. in 2006,
there was a significant departure from this policy. State subsidy to poorer schools
was increased and these schools were made exempt from charging school fees and
were termed ‘no-fees’ schools.
The ministerial mandate to determine norms and funding for public schools
was a significant aspect of legislation and immediately equalised state per capita
expenditure per learner. it also reduced intra-provincial disparities in state spending,
with the poorer schools receiving more support. The policy of redistributing available
financial resources through the equitable Shares Formula also ensured that inter-
provincial disparities were addressed, with the poorer provinces receiving relatively
more support. Given the enormous disparities in state per capita expenditure in the
apartheid period, these are significant achievements.
The verdict on the success of this policy, though, is mixed (Gustafsson and patel
2006; Motala 2006, 2009). The major concerns are well documented and relate
to the so-called fees policy. Motala’s work (2006, 2009), drawing on empirical
data, convincingly demonstrates that when fees are added to the state per capita
expenditure per learner, enormous disparities along ‘race’ and ‘class’ lines remain.
Motala provides evidence that illustrates huge disparities in per capita learner
expenditure that are masked by only relying on state per capita expenditure data.
As in the apartheid era, ‘rich, white’ learners still receive the highest per capita
expenditure when fees are added. Wilson (2004) argues that the fees policy and its
current revision fall short of ‘education as a right’ enshrined in the Constitution.
He argues that education policy has been largely determined by macroeconomic
policies that limit greater investment in education. These critics argue that ‘no
fees’ does not amount to free schooling, and that schooling remains a significant
proportion of the cost of household expenditure in low-income households. Finally,
scholars like Ahmed and Sayed (2009) and Motala (2006, 2009) argue that the fees

27
policy amounts to a privatisation of public education, rather than the stated policy
discourse of a pro-poor policy. These scholars argue that, along with the other
critiques, the pragmatic policy path is a far cry from the pro-poor symbolism that
exists in policy documents.
Teaching and learning
Transforming teaching and learning was a massive undertaking and state policy
activity reflected the magnitude of this challenge. For the descriptive policy analysis
provided earlier in this chapter, each of the three interrelated areas – curriculum,
assessment, and teachers and teaching – was kept separate. Given the relationship
among these areas, though, it will be helpful at this point to discuss them together.
C2005, the new curriculum that was the primary focus of policy activity, was a
significant achievement. it replaced an outdated, discriminatory curriculum with
a national curriculum more relevant for a transforming, multicultural society. The
main feature of C2005 is that it includes a specification of the knowledge and skills
required for each grade and learning area, a re-conceptualisation of the traditional
subjects or knowledge areas, and a focus on clearly specified outcomes. Crucially,
as well, schooling was more integrated into education and training at all levels. A
national curriculum, the centralisation of qualification and curriculum planning,
and attempts at quality assurance were significant achievements.
There were also two significant achievements in the area of assessment: a revised
assessment policy, and the development of structures for developing, reviewing and
monitoring assessment practices. The major change in assessment ties in with the
revised oBe curriculum. Traditional assessment practices such as tests and exams
were reconceptualised as a process of CASS. Assessments were now directly tied
to learning areas and specified competences. instead of success being measured by
single assessment points, loaded heavily in favour of tests and exams, assessment
now took on a more dynamic, holistic form. There was also significant policy activity
aimed at centralising assessment and developing the appropriate structures for
overseeing assessment practices. issues like quality assurance, certification and exit
points, and the control over norms and standards for the curriculum and assessment,
were significant measures that complemented the curriculum changes.
Teachers and teaching formed a significant aspect of policy activity in the post-
apartheid period. The large focus of policy activity was overhauling the apartheid
system, and legislation succeeded in creating new and improved conditions for
teachers. legislation heralding a uniform system for the employment conditions
and the management of teachers is a significant achievement. Another area of
policy intervention was the promotion of the professional development of teachers.
However, in spite of the volume of policy on teachers and teaching, the issue of
teacher professional development received comparatively little attention, and this is
quite telling.

28
There is considerable debate about whether policy in relation to teaching and learning
has been successful. Concerns about the new curriculum have largely centred on
two major issues. First, scholars have raised concern about the conceptualisation of
teaching and learning in the new curriculum. one of the major criticisms levelled
at C2005 is the ‘technicist’ approach to education. not only is teaching and learning
defined narrowly in terms of competences, but the ‘education for transformation’
agenda, central to the education struggles of the apartheid era, does not feature in
this curriculum-restructuring exercise.
The second major concern relates to whether the policy adequately addresses the
realities of education in South Africa. one of the major challenges was adequately
to conceptualise teaching in the curriculum-restructuring exercise, and to equip
teachers to implemente the new curriculum. Developing equity and standardisation
in working conditions for teachers and developing a new teacher professional
identity seem to be the main areas tackled by policy. improving professional
competence, assessing readiness and ability to implement a new curriculum, and
eliminating the legacy of racially divided professional training routes for teachers
remain significant challenges, which are not adequately addressed by current policy.
The concerns about the failure of C2005 are not only about the conceptualisation of
the new curriculum; they also focus on the inability to achieve the required degree
of transformation with regard to teachers and teaching. The failure to address South
African educational realities has been well documented. policy activity itself reveals
concerns about the success of the exercise. one of the biggest policy concerns has
been the extent to which education outcomes are being met. The Foundation for
learning Campaign best encapsulates this concern and is a tacit acknowledgement
that education outcomes are not being met.
Conclusion
The policy-mapping exercise undertaken in this chapter reveals the scope and depth
of post-apartheid education transformation in the period 1994–2007. The successive
dismantling of previous apartheid infrastructure was certainly the biggest success.
However, in terms of the areas we have reviewed, further gains were less even and
a persistent difficulty was the extent to which apartheid inequalities continued in
the post-apartheid period. one of the biggest failures, then, was the extent to which
policy addressed these inequalities. While the recent review of and changes to
policy such as the no-fees schools policy are promising, the policy–implementation
disjuncture remains. What is needed is more substantive engagement to make
greater inroads into current education inequalities.

29
Note
1 See http://www.education.gov.za/Documentslibrary/tabid/68/Default.aspx
References
Ahmed r, Sayed Y and Soudien C (2007) Creating a rainbow nation? Citizenship and education
in South Africa. in K roth & nC Burbules (eds) Changing notions of citizenship education in
contemporary nation-states. rotterdam: Sense publishers
Ahmed r and Sayed Y (2009) promoting access and enhancing education opportunities? The
case of no-fees schools in South Africa. Compare 39(2): 203–218
Barnes T (2006) nation-building without mortar? public participation in higher education
policy-making in South Africa. Perspectives in Education 24(1): 1–13
Brinkerhoff DW and Crosby Bl (2002) Managing policy reform: Concepts and tools for decision
makers in developing and transitioning countries. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian press
Class Act (2007) IQMS implementation review, a NDoE commissioned report. Johannesburg: Class
Act
De Clercq F (1997) effective policies and the reform process: An evaluation of South Africa’s new
development and education macro policies. in p Kallaway, G Kruss, G Donn & A Fataar
(eds) Education after apartheid: South Africa in transition. Cape Town: uCT press
elrC (education labour relations Council) (1998) Collective agreement 4 of 1998. Centurion:
elrC
elrC (2002) Collective agreement 3 of 2002, performance management and development scheme
for office based educators. Centurion: elrC
elrC (2003) Collective agreement 8 of 2003, integrated quality management systems. Centurion:
elrC
Gustafsson M and patel F (2006) undoing the apartheid legacy: pro-poor spending shifts in the
South African public school system. Perspectives in Education 24(2): 65–77
Haddad WD and Demsky T (1995) Education policy-planning process: An applied framework.
Fundamentals of educational planning, uneSCo: international institute for educational
planning. Accessed october 2012, http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/11_200.pdf
Jansen JD (1998) Curriculum reform in South Africa: A critical analysis of outcomes-based
education. Cambridge Journal of Education 28(3): 321–331
Motala S (2005) Finance equity in the South African schooling system. in S Motala & J pampallis
(eds) Governance and finance in the South African schooling system: The first decade of
democracy. Braamfontein: Centre for education policy Development and Wits education
policy unit
Motala S (2006) education resourcing in post-apartheid South Africa: The impact of finance
equity reforms in public schooling. Perspectives in Education 24(2): 79–93
Motala S (2009) privatising public schooling in post-apartheid South Africa – equity
considerations. Compare 39: 185–202
nDoe (national Department of education) (1995) White paper on education and Training.
notice 196, 15 March. WpJ/1995. pretoria: nDoe

30
nDoe (1996) education White paper 2: The organisation, Governance and Funding of Schools.
notice 130, 14 February. Government Gazette no. 16987. pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (1997) education White paper 3: A programme for the Transformation of Higher
education, Government Gazette no. 18207. pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (1998a) education White paper 4: programme for the Transformation of Further
education and Training. notice 2188, 25 September. Government Gazette no. 19281.
pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (1998b) South African Schools Act and National Education Policy Act: National Norms and
Standards for School Funding. Government Gazette no. 19347, notice 2362, 12 october.
pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (2001a) education White paper 5 on early Childhood education: Meeting the challenge
of early childhood development in South Africa. Government Gazette vol. 436, no. 22756,
17 october 2001. pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (2001b) education White paper 6: Special needs education: Building an inclusive
education and training system. pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (2004) education White paper 7 on e-education: Transforming learning and Teaching
through information and Communication Technologies (iCTs). notice 1869, 26 August.
Government Gazette no. 26734. pretoria: nDoe
nDoe (2006) National Education Policy Act: National policy framework for teacher education
and development in South Africa: Draft – Comments by 10 November 2006. Government
Gazette no. 29317, notice 1491, 23 october. pretoria: nDoe (2009) Annual report 2008/09.
Accessed December 2009, http://www.education.gov.za/linkClick.aspx?fileticket=vZhK1TD
gpac%3D&tabid=452&mid=1034
oeCD (organisation for economic Co-operation and Development) (2008) Reviews of
national policies for education: South Africa. Accessed october 2012, http://www.oecd.org/
southafrica/reviewsofnationalpoliciesforeducation-southafrica.htm
parker B (2002) roles and responsibilities, institutional landscape and curriculum mindscapes:
A partial view of teacher education in South Africa: 1990 to 2000. in K lewin, M Samuel
& Y Sayed (eds) Changing patterns of teacher education in South Africa: Policy, practice and
prospects. Sandown: Heinemann
Sayed Y (1997) The concept of quality in education: A view from South Africa. in K Watson,
S Modgil & C Modgil (eds) Education dilemmas: Debates and diversity (vol. 4). london:
Cassell
Sayed Y (2003) educational inclusion and exclusion: Key issues and debates. Perspectives in
Education 2: 1–12
Soudien C (2004) Constituting the class: An analysis of the process of integration in South
African schools. in l Chisholm (ed.) Changing class: Educational and social change in post-
apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: HSrC press
Wilson S (2004) Taming the constitution: rights and reform in the South African education
system. South African Journal on Human Rights 20(3): 418–447

31
List of policy documents
White papers
nDoe (national Department of education) (1995) White paper on education and Training.
notice 196, 15 March. WpJ/1995.
nDoe (1996) education White paper 2: The organisation, governance and funding of schools.
notice 130, 14 February. Government Gazette no. 16987.
nDoe (1997) education White paper 3: A programme for higher education transformation.
Government Gazette no. 18207.
nDoe (1998) education White paper 4: programme for the transformation of further education
and training. notice 2188, 25 September. Government Gazette no. 19281.
nDoe (2001) education White paper 5 on early Childhood education: Meeting the challenge of
early childhood development in South Africa. Government Gazette vol. 436, no. 22756, 17
october 2001.
nDoe (2001) education White paper 6: Special needs education: Building an inclusive education
and training system.
nDoe (2004) education White paper 7 on e-education: Transforming learning and teaching
through information and communication technologies (iCTs). notice 1869, 26 August.
Government Gazette, 26734.
Green papers
nDoe (1996) Green paper on Higher education Transformation, December.
nDoe (1998) Green paper on Further education and Training: preparing for the twenty-first
century through education, training and work, 15 April.
nDoe (1999) Consultative paper no. 1 on Special education: Building an inclusive education
and training system, first steps. August 30.
Bills
nDoe (1999) Higher education Amendment Bill (B45-99) 8 September.
nDoe (1999) education laws Amendment Bill (B44-99) 8 September.
nDoe (1999) education laws Amendment Bill (B44-99) 23 november.
nDoe (1999) education laws Amendment Bill (B44B-99) 29 november.
nDoe (1999) Higher education Amendment Bill (B45A-99) 21 December.
nDoe (1999) Higher education Amendment Bill (B45B-99) 21 December.
nDoe (2000) South African Council for educators Bill (B26-2000) 3 March.
nDoe (2000) South African Council for educators Bill (B26B-2000) 23 June.
nDoe (2000) South African Council for educators Bill (B26D-2000) 23 June.
nDoe (2000) Higher education Amendment Bill (B55-2000) 7 August.
nDoe (2000) education laws Amendment Bill (B48-2000) 7 August.

32
nDoe (2000) Adult Basic education and Training Bill (B42-2000) 7 August.
nDoe (2000) Adult Basic education and Training Bill (B42-2000) 1 September.
nDoe (2000) Adult Basic education and Training Bill (B42B-2000) 1 September.
nDoe (2000) Adult Basic education and Training Bill (B42D-2000) 1 September.
nDoe (2000) education laws Amendment Bill (B48-2000) 21 September.
nDoe (2000) education laws Amendment Bill (B48B-2000) 21 September.
nDoe (2000) Higher education Amendment Bill (B55B-2000) 12 october.
nDoe (2000) Higher education Amendment Bill (B55-2000) 16 october.
nDoe (2001) Higher education Amendment Bill (B61-2001) 2 July.
nDoe (2001) education laws Amendment Bill (B55-2001) Government Gazette no. 22440 of 2
July 2001.
nDoe (2001) General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Bill (B57-2001) 2 July.
nDoe (2001) General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Bill (B57-2001) 31
August.
nDoe (2001, General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Bill (B57B-2001) 3
october.
nDoe (2001) Select Committee Amendments to education laws Amendment Bill (B55-2001) 22
october.
nDoe (2001) education laws Amendment Bill (B55B-2001) 22 october.
nDoe (2005) education laws Amendment Bill (B23-2005) 27 May.
nDoe (2006) Further education and Training Colleges Bill (B23-2006) 4 September.
Acts
nDoe (1995) South African qualifications Authority Act, no. 58 of 1995, 4 october.
nDoe (1996) national education policy Act, no. 27 of 1996, 24 April.
nDoe (1996) South African Schools Act, no. 84 of 1996, 15 november.
nDoe (1997) Basic Conditions of employment Act, no. 75 of 1997, popular summary, 30 April.
nDoe (1997) Abolition of Corporal punishment Act, no. 33 of 1997, 5 September.
nDoe (1997) university of Durban-Westville (private) Amendment Act, no. 32 of 1997, 5
november.
nDoe (1997) education laws Amendment Act, no. 100 of 1997, 28 november.
nDoe (1997) Higher education Act, no. 101 of 1997, 19 December.
nDoe (1998) employment of educators Act, no. 76 of 1998, 29 September.
nDoe (1998) employment equity Act, no. 55 of 1998, 29 September.
nDoe (1998) Skills Development Act, no. 97 of 1998, 20 october.
nDoe (1998) The South African library for the Blind Act, no. 91 of 1998, 2 november.
nDoe (1998) Further education and Training Act, no. 98 of 1998, 2 november.
nDoe (1998) The national library of South Africa Act, no. 92 of 1998, 2 november.

33
nDoe (1999) Skills Development levies Act, no. 9 of 1999.
nDoe (1999) university of Cape Town (private) Act, no. 8 of 1999, 21 April.
nDoe (1999) public Finance Management Act, no. 1 of 1999, 19 november.
nDoe (1999) national Student Financial Aid Scheme Act, no. 56 of 1999, 18 november.
nDoe (1999) Higher education Amendment Act, no. 55 of 1999, 19 november.
nDoe (2000) promotion of Access to information Act, no. 2 of 2000, 3 February.
nDoe (2000) South African Council for educators Act, no. 31 of 2000, 2 August.
nDoe (2000) Higher education Amendment Act, no. 54 of 2000, 22 november.
nDoe (2000) Adult Basic education and Training Act, no. 52 of 2000, 13 December.
nDoe (2001) national Council for library and information Services Act, no. 6 of 2001.
nDoe (2001) General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Act, no. 58 of 2001.
nDoe (2001) education laws Amendment Act, no. 57 of 2001, 5 December.
nDoe (2002) Higher education Amendment Act, no. 63 of 2002, 19 December.
nDoe (2003) Higher education Amendment Act, no. 38 of 2003, 15 December.
nDoe (2004) education laws Amendment Act, no. 1 of 2004, 26 April.
nDoe (2005) education laws Amendment Act, no. 24 of 2005, 26 January 2006.
nDoe (2006) Further education and Training Colleges Act, no. 16 of 2006.
nDoe (2007) education laws Amendment Act, no. 31 of 2007, 31 December.
nDoe (2009) Higher education Amendment Act, no. 39 of 2008, 4 February.
Government notices
nDoe (1997) Higher education Act: Termination of provisioning of higher education by non-
registered private higher education institutions, notice 1356, 19 December.
nDoe (1998) South African Schools Act: Adopting a code of conduct for learners. Government
Gazette no. 18900, notice 776, 15 May.
nDoe (1998) South African Schools Act: Age requirements for admission to an ordinary public
school, 30 June.
nDoe (1998) national education policy Act: regulations to provide for the establishment,
composition and functioning of national Board for Further education and Training.
Government Gazette no. 19157/1, notice 043, 14 August.
nDoe (1998) South African Schools Act and national education policy Act: national norms and
standards for school funding. Government Gazette no. 19347, notice 2362, 12 october.
nDoe (1998) South African Schools Act: exemption of parents from the payment of school fees
regulations. Government Gazette no. 19347, notice 1293, 12 october.
nDoe (1998) South African Schools Act: School fees at public schools – exemption of parents from
payment of school fees regulations. Government Gazette no. 19347, notice 1293, 12 october.

34
nDoe (1998) South African Schools Act: norms and standards for funding of public schools,
Government Gazette no. 19347, notice 2362, 12 october.
school. notice 2433, 19 october.
nDoe (1998) national education policy Act: Admission policy for ordinary public schools.
nDoe (1999) national education policy Act: publication of the report of the ministerial
committee on the investigation into Senior Certificate examination for public information –
part 1. Government Gazette no. 200056, notice 595, 7 May.
nDoe (1999) report by Acting Judge eberhard Bertelsmann regarding the investigations into
certain irregularities which allegedly occurred during the Senior Certificate examinations of
1998 in Mpumalanga. Government Gazette no. 20085, notice 937, 14 May.
nDoe (1999) national education policy Act: national policy on Hiv/AiDS for learners and
educators in public schools, and students and educators in further education and training
institutions, 10 August.
nDoe (1999) national education policy Act: national policy on Hiv/AiDS for public schools.
Government Gazette no. 20372, notice 1926, 10 August.
nDoe (1999) national education policy Act: policy for the registration of learners for home
education. Government Gazette no. 20659, notice 1411, 25 november.
nDoe (1999) South African Schools Act: Transfer of funds and other moveable [sic] assets of
state to public schools. Government Gazette no. 20669, notice 1423, 26 november.
nDoe (2000, Higher education Act: Statute of the Medical university of Southern Africa.
Government Gazette no. 21753, notice 1153, 16 november.
nDoe (2000) Higher education Act: Committee of principals – requirements and conditions for
Matriculation endorsement and issuing of Certificates of exemption. Government Gazette
no. 1805, notice 1226, 1 December.
nDoe (2000) Announcement of intention to accredit the Council on Higher education as an
education and training quality assurance body. Government Gazette no. 21888, notice 4656,
14 December.
nDoe (2000) Higher education Act: Declaration of colleges of education as subdivisions of
universities and technikons. Government Gazette no. 21913, notice 1383, 15 December.
nDoe (2001) Higher education Act: Change of name of the university of the orange Free State
to university of the Free State. Government Gazette no. 22081, notice 160, 19 February.
nDoe (2001) implementation of the national plan for Higher education. Government Gazette
no. 22329, notice 466, 25 May.
nDoe (2001) South African qualifications Authority: Focused study of the development of the
national qualifications Framework (nqF) with the aim of streamlining its implementation.
Government Gazette no. 22471, notice 650, 12 July.
nDoe (2001) national education policy Act: policy on whole school evaluation, 26 July.
nDoe (2001) employment of educators: Terms and conditions of employment of educators.

35
nDoe (2001) national education policy Act: national policy regarding further education and
training programmes: Approval of the language standardisation document as national
policy. Government Gazette no. 22615, notice 800, 27 August.
nDoe (2001) General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Act: regulations
for the issuing of certificates by General and Further education and Training quality
Assurance Council: Amendment. Government Gazette no. 27249, notice 158, 5 December.
nDoe (2001) General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Act: regulations
for issuing of certificates by General and Further education and Training quality Assurance
Council. Government Gazette no. 25794, notice 1754, 5 December.
school. Government Gazette no. 2298, notice 1356, 11 December.
nDoe (2003) South African Schools Act: national norms and standards for school funding –
revision. Government Gazette no. 24245, notice 0020, 10 January.
nDoe (2003) regulations for the registration of private further education and training
institutions. Government Gazette no. 25642, notice 1602, 31 october.
nDoe (2003) Higher education Act: Funding of public higher education. 3 november.
nDoe (2004) national education information policy. Government Gazette no. 26766, notice
1950, 27 September.
nDoe (2004) education laws Amendment Bill 18 october 2004. Government Gazette no.
26911, notice 472, 18 october.
nDoe (2004) national norms and standards for school funding. Government Gazette no. 27014,
notice 1357, 19 november.
nDoe (2006) Higher education Act: Statute: university of South Africa. Government Gazette
no. 28464, notice 108, 3 February.
nDoe (2006) Higher education Act: Durban institute of Technology: Change of name to
Durban university of Technology. Government Gazette no. 28626, notice 241, 15 March.
nDoe (2006) national education policy Act and South African Schools Act: Addendum
to policy document: national Senior Certificate: qualification at level 4 on national
qualifications Framework: learners with special needs: Draft. Government Gazette no.
28719, notice 540, 10 April.
nDoe (2006) national education policy Act and South African Schools Act: Approval of
modern Greek as additional subject to be listed in national Curriculum Statement Grades
10–12. Government Gazette no. 28790, notice 593, 3 May.
nDoe (2006) Further education and Training Act: registration of private further education
and training institutions: end of transitional arrangement period. Government Gazette no.
28911, notice 725, 1 June.
nDoe (2006) employment of educators Act: improvement in conditions of service: Annual cost-
of-living adjustment for educators on salary levels 3 to 12. Government Gazette no. 29012,
notice 670.
nDoe (2006) employment of educators Act: introduction of employee-initiated severance
package. Government Gazette no. 29056, notice 714, 21 July.

36
nDoe (2006) South African Schools Act: national norms and standards for school funding.
nDoe (2006) South African Schools Act: Amended national norms and standards for school
funding. Government Gazette no. 27919, notice 869, 31 August.
nDoe (2006) General and Further education and Training quality Assurance Act: Second
umalusi Council for General and Further education and Training quality Assurance:
Appointments. Government Gazette no. 29236, notice 946, 20 September.
nDoe (2006) employment of educators Act: implementation of policy and procedure on
incapacity leave and ill-health retirement. Government Gazette no. 29248, notice 950, 22
September.
nDoe (2006) national education policy Act and South African Schools Act: Approval of
Maritime economics and nautical Science as additional subject to be listed in national
Curriculum Statement Grades 10–12. Government Gazette no. 29283, notice 1005, 10
october.
nDoe (2006) Higher education Act: investigation into Durban university of Technology.
nDoe (2006) Addendum to the FeT policy document, nCS on the national framework
regarding national protocol for assessment – Grades r–12. Government Gazette no. 29467,
notice 1267, 11 December.
nDoe (2006) Addendum to FeT policy document, nCS on the national framework regarding
learners with special needs. Government Gazette no. 29466, notice 1266, 11 December.
nDoe (2007) national education policy Act: requirements for administration of surveys.
Government Gazette no. 29757, notice 388, 2 April.
nDoe (2007) national policy framework for teacher education and development in South Africa.
Government Gazette no. 29832, 26 April.
nDoe (2007) The Higher education qualifications Framework, Higher education Act 1997 (Act
no. 101 of 1997).
nDoe (2007) national norms and standards for funding adult learning centres (nSF AlC).
Government Gazette no. 30576, 14 December.
Regulations
nDoe (1997) South African Schools Act: public school on private property – Minimum
requirements of agreement between member of executive council and owner of private
property. Government Gazette no. 18566, notice r1738.
nDoe (1997) post distribution model for the allocation of educator posts to schools. regulation
1451 of 2002.
nDoe (1998) national education policy Act: regulations to provide for establishment,
composition and functioning of national Board for FeT. Government Gazette no. 19157/1,
notice 1043, 14 August.
nDoe (1998) employment of educators Act: Creation of educator posts in provincial
Department of education and distribution of such posts to educational institutions. notice
r1676, 2 october.

An Overview Of Education Policy Change In Post Apartheid South Africa

An Overview Of Education Policy Change In Post Apartheid South Africa

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Overview Of Education Policy Change In Post Apartheid South Africa

Similar to An Overview Of Education Policy Change In Post Apartheid South Africa (20)

More from Darian Pruitt

More from Darian Pruitt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Overview Of Education Policy Change In Post Apartheid South Africa