The Second Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL) members consider the regime of the System Framework for Private School of Non-tertiary Education unfair to schools in regard to liability for violations, according to the chairman of the committee, Chan Chak Mo.
Yesterday, the committee made the first detailed review of the regime, with several of the AL’s legal advisers raising many questions about the bill. The committee hopes that the government can explain and clearly answer the questions.
The bill indicates that if a school’s running entity or operator violates the rules when performing its duties, the operator then must bear civil, criminal and administrative responsibilities.
According to Chan, many of the committee members expressed their disapproval toward this particular article.
Lawmakers in opposition to these clauses argue that the school operator is not aware of the situations in the school, or the violations, and they thus deem it unfair for school operators to be wholly accountable for the responsibilities. In addition, the members expressed their concerns over the requirements for a school board.
The framework proposes that the operational entity must establish a school board that will be able to appoint and dismiss the rector, approve the number of permanent school staff, make decisions regarding the school’s teaching policies and development plan, as well as supervise the school’s operation.
The school board will be composed of a minimum of seven members, consisting of the rector, teachers, and parents.
Previously, lawmaker Pereira Coutinho expressed his worries about a school board depriving schools of their autonomy.
Sulu Sou also criticized that a school board might be established for vested interests.
The regime proposes that the chairman of the board should select secretaries who are not members of the school board.
The lawmakers asked the government to clearly state the recruitment procedure for secretaries and the selection method of the members of the board.
In addition to the above controversial articles, the bill also proposed conditions under which a school could take the initiative to shut itself down or for a school to be mandatorily required to close.
In the committee members’ opinion, the law did not clearly state the solution for a closure situation, as it is unclear whether the Education and Youth Affairs Bureau (DSEJ) will first be involved in handling a closure situation as well as handling the transformation of the operators of a school.
No Comments