Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill: public hearings

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Committee Members and all presenters to the meeting.

There would be eight presentations delivered from AfriForum, the Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (ISASA), the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysers Unie (SAOU), Concerned Young People of South Africa (CYPSA), the Western Cape Forum for Intellectual Disability (WCFID), the Federation of Associations of Governing Bodies of South Africa (FEDSAS), the South African Education Development Trust (SAAOT), and ActionSA.

The Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill [B2B-2022] was introduced to the Committee on 8 November 2023. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) took the Committee through the proposed amendments clause-by-clause and the clauses that had been amended after the National Assembly (NA) public participation process. The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) decided to conduct its own public participation to get input from all stakeholders on the amended version of the BELA Bill. With the Bill being a Section 76 Bill, it was referred to the provincial legislatures to embark on public participation processes in the provinces. Members would then return with negotiating mandates from their respective provinces. Due to the high public interest in the Bill, the Committee called for written submissions from the public to provide its input on the Bill. Once written submissions were received, the Committee felt it was important to invite stakeholders who had requested oral submissions to listen to their concerns and have a robust discussion on the Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the various organisations for availing themselves to contribute to shaping the future of South Africa’s basic education and was hopeful that the oral public hearings would be fruitful and provide meaningful engagement.

The Chairperson indicated that Committee Members should not engage with the presentations, as there would be another time for further engagement, however Members would be allowed to ask any clarity-seeking questions they had.

AfriForum BELA Bill Submission

Ms Alana Bailey, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Afriforum, presented AfriForum’s submission on the BELA Bill and confirmed that Afriforum had submitted a written submission to the Committee.

AfriForum was concerned about the impact the BELA Bill would have on School Governing Bodies (SGBs). The transfer of admissions policies from SGBs to provincial heads of education, highlighted in Clause Four, would not alleviate overcrowding in classrooms and may result in cramming unplaced applicants into schools.

Ms Bailey highlighted the transferral of rights to decide on the language policies of schools to provincial heads. There was concern that provincial heads would be unaware of the needs of particular communities. She also raised the strict measures the BELA Bill provides for home-schooling and the entity felt that the BELA Bill would discourage parents from choosing home-schooling.

She indicated that after the COVID-19 pandemic, the world of education changed dramatically with the hybrid schooling model gaining popularity. When the BELA Bill was drafted in 2017, it did not address this changing educational environment. The BELA Bill contradicted the objectives of the South African Schools Act (SASA) and Afriforum felt that the Bill would erode the powers of the SGB model and breakdown the partnership between parents, staff, learners, Provincial Departments and the DBE. Additionally, the Bill would subvert core elements of the democratic principles of school governance of a democratically elected SGB.

Ms Bailey appealed to the Committee, on Afriforum’s behalf, to reject the BELA Bill.

See attached for full submission

Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (ISASA) Bela Bill Submission

Mr Lebogang Montjane, Executive Director, SASA, and Mr Tshepo Motsepe, Director: Policy & Government Relations, ISASA, presented ISASA’s Bela Bill submission.

ISASA proposed amendments to the definition of “corporal punishment.”

Regarding Section Three: Compulsory Attendance, it was indicated the provisions differed from the admission ages of learners at independent schools. ISASA requested that the amendment should indicate that Section 3(1) was only applicable to public schools to avoid any confusion or undue penalties.

Regarding Section 36: Leases, ISASA was hopeful that Section 36(2) did not constrain low-fee independent schools or Early Childhood Education centres from renting premises from local public schools for school activities or events. ISASA recommended that where the request to lease the property of a public school was not denied after a certain period, then a Member of the Executive Council should be allowed to grant approval.

Regarding Section 46: Registration of Independent Schools, Section 46(2) ISASA was concerned about the harsher sentencing for non-registration of independent schools. ISASA recommended including a procedural process or opportunity to make submissions and representations on the process in obtaining final registration prior to finding a conviction of guilt.

Regarding Section 48: Granting of subsidies to Independent Schools, Section 48(2), Mr Montjnae told the Committee that ISASA felt that the proposed amendment undermined the spirit of uniformity in the application of the National Norms and Standards for School Funding (NNSSF) across Provincial Education Departments. ISASA recommended the exclusion of “subject to conditions determined by the Member of the Executive Council” in Section 48(2). Further, ISASA recommended having a subsidised independent schools report once a year and to be linked to the submission of the audited or examined annual financial statements. This would create a platform to ensure that the accounting practices ease the administration burden in accordance with the NNSSF.

ISASA was encouraged by the rationale and spirit of the amendments to education laws but was concerned regarding the added layers of regulation to the independent schooling sector which may infringe on the rights of learners to quality basic education.

See attached for full submission

SAOU BELA Bill Submission

Mr Chris Klopper, Chief Executive Officer, SAOU, presented SAOU’s submission on the BELA Bill.

He told the Committee that SAOU was in support of the BELA Bill, excluding the amendments to Section Five (Admission Policy), Section Six (Language Policy) and Section 21 (Centralised Procurement)

Regarding Section 5(5), SAOU did not support the provision that the Head of Department (HOD) has “final” authority. The envisaged veto of power provided to the HOD opened the door for formal constitutional contestation.

SAOU did not support the proposed amendments to Section Six, particularly Section 6(5), 6(6), and 6(13). The provision that the SGB determines the language policy of the school was made irrelevant by the provisions in sub-sections (5), (6), and (13). SAOU proposed retaining the existing Section Six regarding language policy in public schools.

Regarding Section 21: Centralised Procurement, SAOU felt that it would open the door for ‘tenderpreneurs.’

Mr Klopper said that SAOU has proposed a new governance model as the current governance model has been in place for 26 years and should be refined to grant greater autonomy to well-functioning schools. SAOU highlighted criteria for consideration including a clean audit for the preceding five years, compliance with the minimum criteria regarding academic performance and the maintenance of the minimum requirement regarding academic performance for a number of years.

See attached for full submission

CYPSA BELA Bill Submission

Mr Adam Mickleburgh and Ms Jenny Christmas presented CYPSA’s submission on the BELA Bill.

Regarding mandatory Grade R, the CYPSA indicated that implementing this provision would cost an estimated R12 Billion. There was concern that the already struggling education system, where there was a lack of basic provisions, would be unable to source the funding necessary for such an initiative. CYPSA felt that the existing challenges to the right to quality basic education should be addressed prior to the implementation of mandatory Grade R.

Regarding the 12-month prison sentence for non-attendance, the CYPSA recommended that a clause be inserted to make provision for exemption from criminal sanctions for learner non-attendance based on religious and moral beliefs. Additionally, CYPSA, suggested that the addition of non-biological parents be included, such as grandparents, relatives, guardians and caregivers.

In terms of the removal of learners by parents from sexually explicit classes, CYPSA felt that there was no room for parents to object to the attendance of their children from classes which contained sexual content or content which violated religious beliefs and moral values. CYPSA recommended that a clause be inserted to make explicit provision for an exemption from criminal sanctions for learner non-attendance under these circumstances.

In terms of the centralised admissions policy, CYPSA was of the view that such a centralisation of power could in practice bypass the system of checks and balances on government power. CYPSA was concerned that the administrative burden on the HOD to approve every admissions policy in the province would be impractical and could result in an abuse of power.

Regarding a centralised code of conduct, CYPSA felt that this eroded the possibility for religious schools to adopt its own code of conduct based on religious values.

Regarding the limitations of SGB powers, CYPSA felt that SGBs, made up of parents, leaders, staff and community members were best equipped to make decisions on the running of schools.

In terms of home education, CYPSA felt that it was the parent’s decision to decide the best form of education for their child. The Department could not determine whether home-schooling suited the needs of the child. CYPSA was of the view that the BELA Bill sought to undermine parental authority.

Regarding the closure and merging of small schools, CYPSA was concerned that this would increase the distance learners had to travel to reach school and potentially result in leaders not attending school at all. CYPSA emphasised that smaller schools are often better run and produce better results.

Regarding the centralised procurement of study materials, CYPSA was of the view that SGBs and parents should identify suitable teaching materials.

In terms of the language policy, CYPSA was concerned that disempowering SGBs from determining a school’s language policy could be exploited to target a single language and mother tongue education schools. This provision could potentially be a violation of the rights of individuals to use a language and participate in the cultural life of their choice.

See attached for full submission

WCFID BELA Bill Submission

Ms Vanessa Japhta, Advocacy Manager, WCFID, presented WCFID’s BELA Bill submission and emphasised the systemic exclusion of learners with disabilities from public schools. The BELA Bill perpetuates and entrenches the practice of progressive access to basic education for children with disabilities. WCFID was of the view that sections of the Bill concealed the systemic, policy and legal gaps and practices of refusing children with disabilities admission at public school. The Bill undermined the rights of learners with disabilities to care, protection, dignity, equality, non-discrimination and education.

WCFID recommended that the BELA Bill include amendments that explicitly prohibit the exclusion of children from schools based on disability and incorporate enabling legislation that promotes and supports funding and resourcing of equitable inclusive quality education.

See attached for full submission

FEDSAS BELA Bill Submission

Dr Jaco Deacon, Chief Executive Officer, FEDSAS, and Ms Juane van der Merwe, Deputy CEO & Head of Legal, FEDSAS, presented FEDSAS’ submission on the BELA Bill.

FEDSAS supported the proposed amendments to improve education and the administration of education, including the definition of a “loan” and “corporal punishment,” uniform and national measures for the election of governing bodies, supplying false information to schools becoming a criminal offence, and the regulation of undocumented learners.

FEDSAS did not support the HOD's powers concerning the admission policy, the HOD's powers concerning the language policy, central procurement, the submission of quarterly reports on all income and expenditure, and provincial capacity. FEDSAS provided further details and proposals on the amendments in its written submission.

See attached for full submission

SAOOT BELA Bill Presentation

Ms Suzaan Mellet, Research and Policy Officer, SAOOT, presented SAOOT’s submission on the BELA Bill.

SAOOT was concerned about the capacity to implement the proposed amendments. It was important to assess the economic feasibility of the proposed amendments to ensure that the amendments are realistic and implementable.

SAOOT supported making Grade R compulsory but was concerned about the implementation of this provision, such as the additional teachers and classrooms under an already constrained budget.

SAOOT felt that the BELA Bill was eroding the role of SGBs and parents.

Regarding the admission and language policies, SAOOT felt that the proposed amendments were redundant and not in line with the spirit of cooperative governance between schools and provincial departments. SAOOT recommended the removal of the proposed amendments to Section 5(5) and relevant sections of Section 6.

SAOOT stated that there were public schools that did not have access to basic facilities or enough adequately trained educators and staff members. Resources that would be channelled to implement certain proposed amendments could rather be spent elsewhere to serve the best interests of the learners. Money should be spent to ensure that the basic rights of learners are being upheld, rather than diminishing the rights of parents by taking away the legitimate rights of governing bodies.

See attached for full submission

ActionSA BELA Bill Submission

Ms Angela Sobey presented ActionSA’s submission on the BELA Bill.

ActionSA was of the view that the changes proposed by the BELA Bill are not what is required to improve the performance of the education system. Rather than deal with the root causes of poor performance, the Bill recommends interventions that would actively cause damage to the functioning of the education system.

ActionSA emphasised that while access to education had improved, access to quality basic education remained challenging.

ActionSA’s major objections to the BELA Bill relate to the inappropriate power and authority given to the DBE. ActionSA recommended that the state’s role be limited and not expanded. The state’s role should be focused on the provision of infrastructure, ensuring compliance with minimum standards, training and empowering educators and providing resources to public schools. The Minister of Education and the state should not have the authority to interfere with the day-to-day management of schools. ActionSA opposed the provisions that gave the Minister authority to interfere in appointing SGBs, to make decisions impacting school districts and to appoint persons to advise on the curriculum without transparency. Decisions about the school system should not be made in secret; rather experts should be allowed to make informed recommendations on the curriculum.

ActionSA stated that the socioeconomic impact statement accompanying the Bill was deeply flawed and had been conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. The socioeconomic impact statement did not adequately capture the DBE’s performance. The Bill’s recommendations were based on flawed reasoning without a realistic analysis.

ActionSA welcomed the introduction of compulsory Grade R. However, making Grade R attendance compulsory should be accompanied by interventions that expand access to education. The BELA Bill was unclear on the alignment of the Grade R curriculum with the rest of the curriculum, and the age of entering Grade R. Establishing the true costs of implementing compulsory Grade R was necessary before adopting the Bill.

Regarding criminal sanctions, ActionSA was of the view that this would disproportionately affect poor families facing socioeconomic barriers in ensuring attendance. Rather than increase criminal sanctions, the improvement of existing sanctions was necessary.

In terms of the language policy, ActionSA opposed the transfer of authority to set a school’s language policy to the DBE. This was political overreach. There should be oversight mechanisms to ensure that SGBs adhere to minimum standards and are held accountable.

ActionSA welcomed the penalties imposed on those who deliberately and maliciously disrupt schooling. ActionSA would support the expansion of criminal charges against those who maliciously cause harm to school infrastructure. However, the current wording of the Bill did not protect the right to peaceful protest.

Regarding home-schooling, ActionSA opposed the limitations on parents’ ability to decide whether to home-school or not. ActionSA did not oppose the requirement that home-schooled children should be registered with the DBE. In the case of home-schooling, appropriate but non-intrusive oversight should be in place. ActionSA was opposed to giving the Minister broad powers to determine regulations about the administration of home-schooling.

ActionSA made the following recommendations: 1) any changes to the education system should ensure that the Grade R curriculum was age appropriate and creates the foundation for further skills development and educational attainment, 2) the definition of “corporal punishment” should be aligned with the definition developed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and should be expanded to include threats of physical or corporal punishment; 3) the definition of “prohibited punishment” should be expanded to include a prohibition of emotional and psychological abuse ; 4) in terms of the language policy, the DBE should adopt clear and appropriate mechanism to determine the fairness of a school’s language policy – language policies should be determined by data, including catchment area, statistics, and the availability of resources to other languages; and 5) regarding school management, the Bill should ensure that SGBs, educators, parents and communities have a greater ability to contribute to the wellbeing of schools and learners.

ActionSA made the following recommendations to fix the schooling system: 1) depoliticise the education system by removing undue political influence and ensure educational decisions are made by education experts; 2) create a single DBE by merging the current DBE and Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET); 3) to improve teacher training and support; 4) to provide better oversight over teacher training; 5) expand support for Early Childhood Development (ECD) by investing in ECD centres and providing additional training; 6) to focus on reading and numeracy; 7) schools must assist in raising patriotic South Africans with a strong ethical and moral code – the curriculum must include civic education; 8) the reintroduction of school inspectors to ensure that all schools have quality teaching and empower principals to have more control over performance; 9) reintroduce reforms to ensure that young people’s studies provide them with the skills to study further or find jobs; 10) expand the budget for water, sanitation and broadband connectivity; and 11) allocate more money for education institutions by establishing more universities, technical colleges, and teaching, nursing, agricultural and policing colleges.

See attached for full submission

Closing Remarks

Ms D Christians (DA, Northern Cape) thanked all stakeholders for sharing their concerns. She noted that there had been several common concerns that deserved the Committee’s careful consideration. The issues raised were a testament to the diverse perspectives that shape the education system. As the Committee moved forward, it was important to engage, with due diligence, on all the inputs shared in the meeting and conduct a thorough examination of all the concerns raised. There had to be a commitment by the Committee to ensure that the Bill was refined to the best interest of all constituents. The Committee had to ensure that the voices of those who rely on the Committee’s decision were heard and that the Committee took them into account.

The Chairperson thanked all presenters for their submissions. All of the constructive feedback was important as it highlighted the voices of ordinary South Africans in law-making. The input shared has been captured in detail and would be deliberated on by the Committee and NCOP. The Committee would keep all stakeholders up to date on any developments.

The meeting was adjourned.