[ad_1]
The South African Union of Democratic Teachers (Sadtu) accused Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga of giving in to pressure from Umalusi CEO Mafu Rakometsi in his decision to announce the national rewrite of two leaked tuition exams.
In documents filed with the Pretoria High Court, Sadtu’s Secretary General Mugwena Maluleke says that consultations with teachers’ unions and other stakeholders in the basic education sector found that the overwhelming opinion was that a rewriting.
Mugwena also says that Motshekga has not referenced any legislation to support the rewrite decision.
On Thursday, the Pretoria High Court will hear the case of Sadtu and several students, who have taken Motshekga, Umalusi, the basic education department and the general director of basic education, Mathanzima Mweli, to court to challenge the rewriting.
On Friday last week, Motshekga announced a national rewrite of essay two in math and essay two in physical science, both of which were leaked hours before they were written. The scheduled rewrite dates are December 15 for math and December 17 for physical science.
‘Motshekga in a panic’
In an affidavit, Maluleke contends that it appeared that the National Examination Irregularities Committee (NEIC), exam panelists and forensic experts were rendered obsolete by the threat posed by quality insurer Umalusi to Motshekga.
At the briefing on Friday last week, Motshekga said that Umalusi had indicated that he would not acknowledge the results of the two leaked topics.
“We cannot risk, as a sector, any situation in which Umalusi does not know the results. It’s too risky, ”Motshekga said.
Maluleke said that for the sake of objectivity, Rakometsi, who is the twelfth respondent on Sadtu’s articles, should not have participated in the discussions about the leaked articles until the results had been presented to Umalusi.
He said it now appears that Motshekga made the decision to be detained “at gunpoint” Umalusi.
Maluleke added that a “panicked” Motshekga appeared to be “extremely fearful” of Umalusi, who had “unjustifiably entered the field of leaked examination, investigation and proposed solutions.”
According to the affidavit, in a meeting held with teacher unions, other stakeholders, and the department, the overwhelming opinion was that because the evidence was inadequate to confirm a widespread leak, a rewrite would hurt the large number of candidates who they had no access. to the two question papers.
Maluleke added that Hedcom had also made a “valid point” that the department and provincial departments should continue investigations and use all other available mechanisms to identify students who had access to question papers. Departments must then follow regulated procedures to deal with those students who had access to the leaked questionnaires. Hedcom is a forum composed of the director of basic education, the deputy directors and the heads of provincial departments of education.
“The first respondent in panic [Motshekga] imposes an unjust and psychological punishment on all [cohort] Tuition students who wrote the two topics simply because of the following figures under the pretext of the credibility of the results and also as advocated by the twelfth respondent [Rakometsi]Maluleke said.
There are no reasons to rewrite
“The first respondent does not cite a single piece of legislation authorizing her to subject innocent students to rewrite what they have already written. This is not a surprise because there is no such legislative authority. Therefore, the actions of the first defendant are illegal, ”Maluleke said.
According to its affidavit, Motshekga has not “explicitly” stated the reasons why a rewrite is necessary. Maluleke says that in the absence of a “factual basis”, it can be concluded that the decision is “arbitrary and irrational in the sense that it lacked any logical justification.”
He also mentions that there have been no paper leaks in recent years, but that they did not lead to national rewrites. “We don’t have a history of national rewrites.”
Instead, the NEIC had conducted investigations that identified the culprits, who were then treated in accordance with the regulations.
“Basically, there are no valid reasons why the same legal approach cannot be explored successfully,” he said.
Sadtu wants the court to declare Motshekga’s decision illegal, unconstitutional, invalid and to have it overturned. The teachers union also wants Motshekga prohibited from proceeding with the decision to rewrite students who did not see the leaked questionnaires.
The Pretoria High Court will also hear from several students who want it to declare the national rewrite unconstitutional, overturn it and prevent Motshekga from going ahead with it.
At a press conference on Friday, Motshekga had said a preliminary investigation said it would be impossible to determine the extent of the leaks as the documents were shared on social media. However, the department has also established with certainty that the document had reached 195 students.
Students Fighting Rewriting
Monday, the Mail and tutor reported that four school enrollment students in Pretoria approached the court.
The four students were Lienke Spies and Gerhard Burger from Gereformeerde Skool Dirk Postma, Izak Jacobus Arnold from Montana High School, and Christiana Swanepoel from Afrikaans Hoër Seunskool. The Hurter Spies law firm represents the students, and AfriForum is the fifth applicant on the matter.
In an affidavit, Lienke said the students had learned of the leaks through media reports and a Motshekga press conference after they had written the two documents. Lienke said it was unfair for the department to use “collective punishment” when a large majority of the students had not seen the leaked questionnaires.
Other students who have filed documents in the superior court include Itha Wessels, Eesa Omar, Pheelo Moeketsi, Alanis Lisbel Medina Gomez, and Nomonde Radebe. Lawyer Rianie Strijdom represents these students, who cite Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi as the second respondent.
These students also want the court to force Motshekga and Umalusi to make sure their answer scripts are marked and safely stored.
PWG attorneys represent Itumeleng Samkelo Nkambule and Inam Phiwokuhle Bhembe of Ligbron Academy of Learning in Ermelo, Mpumalanga and Marne van der Merwe of Klerksdorp Hoërskool in North West. In an affidavit filed by Gerhardus Beukes Prinsloo, the students’ attorney, he argues that tuition students have already attended year-end celebrations like Rage. Others have gone on vacation to unidentified locations across the country and abroad.
“On the basis that the decision can be communicated effectively and in a timely manner to all parent companies, it will constitute a catastrophic increase in the risk of Covid-19 infections across the country,” he says.
From super spreader parties to the exam room
Prinsloo adds that Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, who is the twelfth respondent in this set of documents, has said that the events that tuition students attend are super-spreading.
Mkhize has indicated that the vacation spots enrolled in after the exams are now seen as leading to super broadcast events.
“It is obvious that the health of all nations would be at risk with the implementation of the decision. Infected arrays will return from superprocessor events. They will infect their classmates. They are all about [to spend] time with family, including parents and grandparents, during the holiday season. Will make Covid-19 spread like wildfire if [is] It is correct that 90% of the matrices that attend the superspreader events are positive, as has been reported, ”Prinsloo argued.
In a statement on Sunday, Mkhize said that several positive cases of Covid-19 were traced to the Ballito Rage and that the event was a “super spread.”
In Gauteng alone, the provincial health department has said 1,300 matriculation students attended the all-out event and that it had embarked on a mission to track them down. The department also asked that these students be quarantined for 10 days.
The spokesman for the Department of Basic Education, Elijah Mhlanga, told the M&G On Wednesday, the department had asked the court to combine the cases into a single matter for convenience, adding that it makes sense logistically because everyone was seeking a similar outcome from the court. The case will be heard in court tomorrow for arguments.
Another reason the case was postponed from its original date Wednesday was to allow the department of basic education to file affidavits in response.
[ad_2]
