The majority of residents in the Greater Eden District Municipality who attended public hearings on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill rejected it, particularly clause 37, because they believe parents and not the state have the right to make decisions about their children’s education.
Parents said to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education at the Pacaltsdorp Community Hall in George that they have been entrusted by God and the Constitution to look after their children and the Bill as it stands threatens these rights.
For Ms Anneri Cronje, the Bill does not cater for the interests and needs of all learners. “Only the parent has the right to cultivate the soul of the child and impart in them their values. This Bill doesn’t cater for individually unique children. It remains the prerogative of the parent to decide what is best for the child and it’s the parents right to delegate the responsibility of decision-making on the child to the state and not for the state to regulate and enforce how education should look like. The one-size-fits-all approach will not benefit them,” Ms Cronje said.
This view was supported by Ms Tina Loxton, who is a home education parent who believed that the Bill is not in the best interest of the children. “Home education benefits are available for every family irrespective of income and the Bill will make it impossible for lower income families to access home education benefits. Children that struggle in mainstream schools will be denied the opportunity that could help them flourish,” Ms Loxton emphasised.
Ms Loxton also argued that home education should be encouraged, because it provides cost-effective solutions to children who struggle in ordinary schools. It also resolves challenges facing the Department of Basic Education, such as overcrowded schools and an inability to deal with learners with special needs. She also cautioned against regulating home education through the Schools Act because learning is not linear and the regulations will make it impossible to enforce.
Mr Nicholas Goosen rejected the Bill, primarily due to the unprecedented authority it will give to the Department of Education, which he believes represents the start of fascist tendencies within the system. “Through centralisation, the Bill dismantles the vital checks and balances that safeguard our schooling system, by stripping away the authority of school governing bodies and is relegating them to mere spectators in the decision-making process. Clause 16 of the Bill will pave the way for corruption and further diminishes the transparency that is evidently lacking in government procurement already,” Mr Goossen emphasised.
But for Mr Simphiwe Mbalo, the Bill is necessary to address the challenge of exclusion in certain schools. “It is not correct that language and admission policy is used to exclude some learners from certain schools. This Bill will facilitate access and ensure uniformity within the public schooling system; hence we support the Bill fully,” Mr Mbalo argued.
Despite varying arguments, there was consensus on rejecting clause 8 of the bill, which provides for conditions under which liquor may be possessed, consumed or sold on school premises or during school activities. Participants argued that there must be alternative ways through which schools raises funds, as the sale of alcohol will exacerbate South Africa’s substance abuse problem.
The committee will also hold public hearings in Wolseley and Gugulethu in Cape Town as part of its national public participation process.
Malatswa Molepo
29 May 2023
Arrange a tour