Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill: public hearings

Meeting report

The Committee considered and adopted the agenda for the meeting.

The Chairperson said that this meeting was a continuation of the organisations and stakeholders that requested to submit input to the Committee on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill [B2B-2022] (BELA Bill). He introduced the organisations, stakeholders, and private individual, which included the Cape Home Educators, Selborne Primary School (school governing body (SGB)), Laërskool Laeveld (SGB), Northcliff High School (SGB), Independent Micro Schools/Education First Research Group, SECTION27, Learning Kat Remedial Teaching, LearnFree, Homeschool Association South Africa, Let’s do it 2gether 4 EDUCATION and Ms Tanya Furniss. All presenters had 30 minutes to make their presentations. Members would be allowed to ask for points of clarity.

He stated that the BELA Bill had been introduced to the Committee on 08 November 2023. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) had taken the Committee through the clause-by-clause amendments, including the amendments by the National Assembly (NA). With this background, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) decided to conduct its own public participation process to get input from all stakeholders on the amendments to the BELA Bill.

This was a section 76 bill referred to the provincial legislatures to embark on a public participation process in the provinces. This was what Members had to embark on in their respective provinces. However, due to the demand and high participation rate, the Committee had requested written submissions from the public. Upon receiving the written submissions, it was important to allow the stakeholders who requested oral submissions to provide those oral submissions to listen to their inputs and concerns.

He thanked all the organisations for availing themselves of the future of basic education in South Africa. The Committee hoped the oral hearing would be fruitful and provide meaningful engagement for all participants.

Cape Home Educators' submission

Ms Marietjie Ueckermann, Chairperson, Cape Home Educators, took the Committee through the presentation.

She stated that the Cape Home Educators rejected the BELA Bill, which was rejected based on inadequate consultation. There had been a few meetings between the DBE and home educators. Some of these meetings had been experienced in a positive light. However, the agendas of these meetings had never been about the BELA Bill. During none of these meetings was a copy of the BELA Bill distributed, nor were inputs requested on the BELA Bill. These meetings could therefore not be viewed as consultations on the BELA Bill.

There had been a single engagement with one organisation, and this could not be viewed as wide consultation with the entire sector. The Cape Home Educators rejected the BELA Bill because it would entrench a failing education system, it was unconstitutional, and it had unfair restrictions on home education. The BELA Bill imposed an inappropriately severe penalty clause and exposed home educators to double jeopardy.

The Cape Home Educators hoped that the Committee would consider legislation that would make education compulsory, not schooling.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Selborne Primary School, School Governing Body submission

Mr Riaan Bisschoff, Headmaster: Senior Management, Selborne Primary School, made the presentation to the Committee.

He stated that it was time to amend the South Africa Schools Act (SASA) 84 of 1996, and that this was long overdue. There were many parts of the amendments that were favourable.

There was support for clause 2, amending section 3 of the SASA, concerning making grade R compulsory. However, there was a concern for funding. If grade R was to be made compulsory and the DBE was unable to provide facilities and teachers for many schools in the country, then parents would be guilty of breaking section 3 of the SASA, which criminalised non-attendance at school. Clause 22, amending section 28, which dealt with uniform and national measures regarding the election of members of the governing body, was supported. Clause 36, amending section 59 of the SASA, concerning providing false information, was supported because it would greatly assist schools when parents provided false information regarding admissions.

The Selborn Primary School SGB was not comfortable with the following clauses:

• clause 4, regarding the amendment of section 5 concerning the admissions policy;
• clause 5, regarding the amendment of section 6 concerning the language policy of a school;
• clause 14, regarding the amendment of section 21 concerning the centralisation of procurement; and
• clause 32 and 34, regarding the amendment of sections 43 and 48 concerning the submission of quarterly financial reports to the DBE.

The objections to these clauses were based on democracy and capacity.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Laërskool Laeveld, School Governing Body submission

Mr Jozua Scheepers, Chairperson: SGB, Laërskool Laeveld, took the Committee through the presentation.

He stated that in the educational landscape, the concerns raised in clause 4 of the BELA Bill directly impacted all 3 775 public schools within the province of Mpumalanga, including those in the Mbombela circuit. These schools operated within a collaborative framework facilitated by circuit admissions committees to ensure fair placement of learners. The proposed amendments of clause 4 posed a significant threat to this collaborative approach by granting the provincial head of department final authority over admissions. This centralised decision-making process undermined the effectiveness of circuit admissions committees, which had been instrumental in ensuring equitable access to education for all learners within the community. Clause 4 also failed to address the fundamental challenges faced at the grassroots level of the educational system. The clause should be completely removed.

Clause 5 of the BELA Bill introduced significant concerns regarding language policies at Laërskool Laeveld and other schools in Mpumalanga. Laërskool Laeveld, as a parallel medium school offering teaching in both Afrikaans and English, faced unique challenges in maintaining its language policy under the proposed amendments. The potential requirement for the provincial head of department’s approval of language policies threatened to disrupt the carefully crafted language instruction framework established by the SGB. This interference could compromise the school's ability to provide quality education tailored to the linguistic needs of its diverse learner body. Additionally, the proposed centralisation of language policy decisions undermined the autonomy of individual schools and neglected the linguistic and cultural diversity that characterised the educational landscape of Mpumalanga.

Clause 16 of the BELA Bill raised significant concerns regarding the autonomy of governing bodies, such as Laërskool Laeveld. Under this clause, there was a potential loss of authority for SGBs in procurement decisions, particularly concerning the acquisition of learning and teaching support materials. Laërskool Laeveld contended that the potential risks and challenges associated with clause 16 necessitated a revaluation of its provisions.

Laërskool Laeveld expressed strong reservations regarding clause 34 of the BELA Bill, which proposed amendments to section 43 of the SASA, mandating governing bodies to submit detailed quarterly reports on income and expenses within a tight timeframe, adding to the administrative burden already borne by schools. While its aim may have been to enhance financial transparency, the practical implications of this clause could severely strain the financial and administrative capacity of schools.

There was support for clause 2(a), 19, and 38 of the BELA Bill.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Northcliff High School, School Governing Body submission

Mr Bradley Lee, Chairperson: SGB, Northcliff High School, read through his written submission on the BELA Bill.

There was support for compulsory grade R, but concerns were raised about funding. The Bill supported criminalising the act of providing false information. This would lift a huge burden on schools to ascertain what was fraudulent. These provisions would help alleviate the effect of schools having to independently investigate and corroborate information that was being received. Several recommendations were made.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Independent Micro Schools/Education First Research Group submission

Ms Jordan Willett, Representative, Education First Research Group, took the Committee through the presentation.

The Education First Research Group argued that there was a lack of engagement and research. Clause 33 proposed increasing the penalty for establishing and operating an unregistered independent school from three to 12 months. There had been a lack of engagement with independent micro-schools and the DBE had not undertaken any research into micro-schools. The lack of research meant that the socio-economic impact assessment was inadequate.

It was proposed that specific provisions for the registration of independent micro-schools be added to the BELA Bill. The right to use alternative curricula, educational approaches, and assessment processes and procedures should be protected. The increase in the penalty to 12 months had to be removed. Unregistered independent institutions should be included in dispute resolution processes.

Due to time constraints, Ms Willett informed the Committee that all other input for clause-by-clause amendments could be found in the written submission.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

SECTION27 submission

Ms Demichelle Petherbridge, Senior Attorney, SECTION27, made the presentation to the Committee.

SECTION27 welcomed the introduction of compulsory grade R, and was of the view that compulsory grade R had to be accompanied by a measurable improvement in quality education. This required appropriate and equitable resourcing, learning support, and qualified teachers who could implement play-based learning programmes. It was recommended that a section be inserted into the BELA Bill that would amend section 5A(2)(c) of the SASA, which concerned the publishing of norms and standards on learning and teaching support material so that it also included reference to the availability of age-appropriate play material and equipment. SECTION27 also welcomed the DBE’s recognition that basic education extended to grade 12.

SECTION27 welcomed the inclusion of a definition of corporal punishment and the confirmation that it was abolished in schools. However, the abolishment of corporal punishment should be extended to include any punishment that was cruel or degrading, including verbal and emotional abuse (non-physical forms of punishment).

SECTION27 believed it was ineffective to make individual schools (and their principals, educators and SGBs) solely responsible for tracking learners and providing further interventions for them. Rather, a collective effort between all stakeholders was required. It was therefore recommended that clause 3 of the BELA Bill be revised to include a provision obliging the government to form intergovernmental committees on both provincial and national levels to address the issue.

Most of the documentation that parents were required to provide in terms of clause 1 of the BELA Bill when admitting their child into school was not in line with recent case law. Clause 4(b) of the BELA Bill stated that, even without such documentation, the learner shall still be allowed to attend school. However, the Bill still placed an obligation on the principal to advise parents or guardians to obtain this documentation. There should be other alternative forms of identification, such as an affidavit.

As SGB policies had the potential to exclude learners and perpetuate historical discrimination, SECTION27 believed that school policies should be reviewed by the head of department, and it welcomed the possibility of this for SGB admissions and language policies in terms of clause 4 and clause 5 of the BELA Bill. However, SECTION27 was concerned with the deletion of the obligation of the head of the department to provide written reasons for its decision, which was present in the previous BELA Bill.

SECTION27 believed that the criminalisation of parents who failed to cause their children to attend school was ineffective, against the best interests of children, and had the potential to prejudice mothers disproportionately. It was recommended that the proposed criminal penalties that may be imposed on parents must be removed entirely. However, if the criminal sanctions on parents were to be kept, these had to be made subject to certain considerations to protect the best interests of the child.

SECTION27 recognised the need to prevent protest action that disrupted school activities and jeopardised the right to basic education, and that participation in such protests should be penalised. However, the creation of a new penalty for this in clause 2 of the BELA Bill was too broad and may negatively affect a range of constitutional rights. The existing criminal law provisions penalising persons participating in protests that led to violence or the destruction of property need to be better enforced to deter participation in such protests in the future. SECTION27 therefore recommended that this amendment be removed entirely.

The most effective way to protect children from being exposed to, or consuming, alcohol at school was to have a blanket ban on the presence of alcohol on school grounds or during school activities, except for educational purposes. SECTION27 therefore recommended that clause 8 of the BELA Bill be revised to insert alcohol into the list of banned substances prohibited on school premises (except for educational use).

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Learning Kat Remedial Teaching submission

Ms Kathryn Kenyon, Principal, Learning Kat Remedial Teaching, took the Committee through the presentation.

Ms Kenyon stated that clause 33 of the BELA Bill made her school illegal because the Constitution and national law stipulated that the independent micro-school had to be registered and if not registered, it could amount to one year of imprisonment according to clause 33. She said that her independent micro-school could not be registered in the Western Cape because special needs schools under ten could not register. There was no confirmation if this also applied to students over 15, online students, remote learning students, and part-time students.

The BELA Bill did not include independent micro-schools, online schools, hybrid schools, tutor centres and learning co-operatives. As a result, independent micro-schools were excluded from funding applications; there was a fear of being shut down; there was no, or an exclusion of, protection with suitable legislation; and independent micro-schools were not able to register with the DBE due to inflexible criteria.

Learning Kat Remedial Teaching supported the proposals of the Education First Research Group.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

LearnFree submission

Mr Christopher Cordeiro, Founder, LearnFree, made the presentation to the Committee. 

He stated that LearnFree was of the view that the BELA Bill did not include early childhood education, learners with disabilities, independent micro-schools, online and hybrid education, procedural rights, and law reform. The key problem areas in the BELA Bill were lowering the compulsory education age, SGB powers, penalties for non-school attendance, closure of micro-schools and the impact on independent education such as the penalties for unregistered schools and homeschooling.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Homeschool Association South Africa submission

Ms Rebekka Liebenberg, Head, Homeschool Association, took the Committee through the presentation.

Ms Liebenberg commented that clauses 2, 10, 33, 36 and 39 of the BELA Bill were punitive and disconnected from reality in that they applied draconian-style criminalisation of actions that bore no resemblance to wrongdoing and provided for possibly dangerous interventions to be enforced with no liability accepted by the state.

Clause 6 was of particular concern as it could and probably would be used to override local and district authority via “outside agencies”. This conflict of interest allowed for further privatisation of unelected regulatory bodies in the education sphere.

Clause 35 was a copy and paste of the policy and showed that no effort was made to apply understanding to the sector. This “homeschooling clause” should not be part of these amendments.

Clause 38 was a general absolution of liability for the DBE and possibly the government in general. The injustice of enforcement without fair recourse was inconceivable in a democratic society.

Clause 39 had become a bone of contention, and it was recognised that the DBE had no intention to clear the way for unsupervised (without parental involvement) medical interventions, however, the stark reality was that this clause facilitated an “arm’s length” loophole for such instances.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Let’s do it 2gether 4 EDUCATION submission

Mr Neeresh Badal, Founding Member, Let’s do it 2gether 4 EDUCATION, made the presentation to the Committee.

The presentation focused on micro cottage centres and independent alternative education centres. It was proposed that the BELA Bill should make provision for such centres to be recognised.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Ms Tanya Furniss’ submission

Ms Tanya Furniss asked if there was a quorum before she began.

The Chairperson confirmed that there was a quorum.

Ms Furniss took the Committee through her written submission.

She rejected the clauses of home education and several other clauses of the BELA Bill that were unconstitutional. She commented that the DBE should have conducted meaningful research. It was clear that the home education sector did not support the BELA Bill. It was recommended that home education should get the same status as independent schools.

(Please see submission attached for further information)

Closing remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson noted that there were no clarity-seeking questions from the Members. She thanked the organisations and the private individual for their submissions, and stated that the Committee would make its own determinations which would be available in the public domain. The public would then be able to follow the deliberations.

He assured Ms Furniss that the Committee ensured that there was a quorum before every meeting commenced. It had been put on record that the representative from Laërskool Generaal Alberts Primary was not present and that the Committee had been unable to reach the presenter.

The Committee appreciated the efforts of the presenters to assist with looking deeper into the basic education in the country.

The meeting was adjourned.