South Africa has a new law governing education. The Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act changes several aspects of how schools are managed. It was introduced to address inequalities in the school system by standardising rules on admissions, language policies, discipline, and even the operation of homeschooling. But it has sparked controversy. Education professor Wayne Hugo answers questions about the act.
How does the act change the current school system?
The act shifts some control such as language policy from local school governing bodies to provincial education officials, changes rules on how schools manage student admissions and on language of instruction, and sets new guidelines on discipline and homeschooling.
It also makes certain levels of education compulsory, with the possibility of parents facing jail time if their child is found to be truant. Previously, only grades 1 to 9 were compulsory in South Africa. The act makes grade R (currently classified under early childhood development) and grades 10 to 12 compulsory. This change is aimed at improving early childhood education and ensuring learners complete their schooling.
Controversially, there’s no increased funding for the increased number of learners in schools. Public schools are expected to absorb these changes within their existing budgets.
What changes have been made to corporal punishment?
The definition has been broadened. It now includes not just physical acts like hitting or smacking but also actions that undermine a child’s dignity as well as initiation practices. This includes punishments like making students stay in uncomfortable positions or subjecting them to emotional abuse.
How is homeschooling affected?
The act introduces stricter regulations. Parents who choose to homeschool their children must register with the provincial education department and specify the curriculum they will use. The act also requires that homeschooled children undergo independent assessments to ensure they receive a quality education. Additionally, it allows the government to conduct site visits to approve homeschooling setups.
What are the most debated aspects of the act?
Clauses 4 and 5 are among the most debated and controversial parts.
Clause 4 grants provincial heads of department the final authority to approve or modify a school’s admission policy. Clause 5 allows them to change a school’s language policy.
Supporters argue that these provisions address the language needs of the broader community and promote inclusivity. However, critics contend that these changes strip control from local school governing bodies, which traditionally handled these decisions. The centralisation of power is seen as a threat to community involvement in schools.
Additionally, some critics view Clause 5 as undermining the constitutional right to mother-tongue education.
The strongest opponents are Afrikaner groups and the Democratic Alliance. They are concerned that the new powers granted to provincial education officials could be used to force single-language schools, particularly Afrikaans-medium schools, to change their language policies. They fear that schools may be pressured to adopt dual-medium education, which could dilute mother-tongue instruction and increase running costs.
There is also concern that officials might override admission policies, potentially overcrowding schools that are already operating efficiently. The largest opposition party and now also a member of the new government of national unity, the Democratic Alliance, argues that transferring decision-making authority on language and admissions from school governing bodies to provincial education departments is a power grab by the government, effectively centralising control over schools and reducing the autonomy of local communities and parents.
What is the debate between equity in education and local autonomy?
The debate centres on whether centralising control will promote fairness or undermine local decision-making. Proponents argue that government intervention is necessary to ensure equal access to education for all students, especially when some schools use language or admission policies to exclude certain learners.
Critics, however, believe that local communities should have the right to govern their schools based on their specific needs, warning that central control may lead to a one-size-fits-all approach that overlooks local diversity and unique requirements.
Was there a lot of consultation?
Yes. The government has spent over a decade consulting with stakeholders, including school governing bodies, unions, parents and community groups. These consultations aimed to gather input and address concerns about the proposed changes.
Despite this, some groups argue that their voices were not fully considered in the final version of the act, particularly regarding Clauses 4 and 5.
What do supporters of the act say?
They believe the act will make education more equitable by preventing schools from using admission and language policies to exclude certain groups of students. They argue that centralising control will help create a fairer education system and empower provincial departments to address historical inequalities.
The apartheid system was planned and executed on the basis of racial preferences – white children were given exceptionally good education while the education provided to all other children was subpar.
And the critics?
They fear that the act’s centralisation of control will lead to overcrowded classrooms and a decline in educational standards, particularly in schools that are currently performing well. They are also concerned that forcing single-language schools to adopt dual-medium instruction could dilute the quality of mother-tongue education. Some believe this could undermine local cultural and linguistic diversity.
Are changes likely?
The president has signed the BELA Act into law. However, Clauses 4 and 5 are under review to determine whether they comply with the constitution. This review will take place over a three-month period, during which further discussions and legal challenges are expected.
The review could result in Clauses 4 and 5 being upheld, changed, or even removed. The outcome will shape how the act is implemented and could set important precedents for education governance in South Africa.
Could there be negative consequences?
Yes, there could be. The South African Democratic Teachers’ Union is pushing for the full implementation of the act. This could lead to significant changes for single-language public schools. They may face pressure to shift to dual-medium instruction and take in more learners without getting additional resources.
On top of this, the substantial cost of funding grade R could stretch existing resources to their limits. As a result South Africa might see a sharp decline in the quality of education as schools struggle to do more with less.
While the aim is noble – to provide equal opportunities for every child – the unintended consequences could deepen the very educational disparities we’re trying to address.
Wayne Hugo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
