In a darkly poetic if unintentional move, President Cyril Ramaphosa has chosen Literacy Month to sign in the controversial Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill. His move is even more significant considering the 82% of South African pupils who cannot read for meaning (in any language) by the time they reach Grade Four.
For proponents of the Bill, it is precisely this 82% who will benefit from the stroke of Ramaphosa’s pen. Research shows that mother tongue education is optimal in the foundational stages of schooling. Around 80% of South African children, however, receive schooling in a language other than their mother tongue. BELA would subject the language policies of schools to the approval of provincial Heads of Department. Language policies would hence no longer rest on the whims of school governing bodies (SGBs). In enabling this oversight of policy, would BELA not enable more children to receive mother tongue education?
Proponents of this view frame critics of the Bill as defenders of “apartheid design” (to quote the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union [SADTU]). Such critics, the Bill’s proponents argue, seek to empower SGBs to exclude pupils based on language, sustaining a linguistic hierarchy (with language often serving as a proxy for race).
Discrimination
Deputy Secretary of an NGO, Equal Education, Itumeleng Mothlabane, sums up this argument thusly, “…[W]e’ve had many cases where learners have been discriminated [against] because of who sits on those SGBs, and we know that in quintile 5 schools, it’s only a small chunk of black parents from working classes that are able to access power in those SGBs, and so you are likely to have indigenous languages put out. And so that’s why you need someone that’s in the department, who has the moral duty of making sure that there’s equality in this country, to be able to have the final say, so that the biasedness [sic] of the SGBs can be ruled out.”
Of course, the diminution of SGBs’ authority is only one of several reasons why BELA is contentious. However, the argument supporting this facet of BELA is arguably emblematic of a broader trend. This argument holds that certain factions of society are hoarding access, opportunities, and resources – in the case of BELA, quintile 5 schools (schools serving the least poor students) and their SGBs. This is relevant because it is arguably the same argument trotted out for the NHI.
Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi earlier tried to frame critics of NHI as believing “that the elevation of others is automatically a downfall of fortunes for those who have already arrived – those who are clear beneficiaries of the present, grossly unequal system.” Motsoaledi and his proponents – just like SADTU and theirs – wheeled out the good ol’ Appeal to Apartheid Nostalgia as their critics’ underlying objection. Just as with the NHI, criticism of the BELA Bill is being framed as a defence of privilege. This framing needs to be identified and called out.
Retain current powers
Certainly, I’ve no doubt that SGBs desire to retain their current powers. However, that SGBs maintain the disenfranchisement of indigenous language speakers is untrue. The development of indigenous language education has not been hindered by privileged SGB members. It has been hindered by a lack of will within the relevant Departments, and by the loss of resources to corruption and incompetence.
Unless the problem is identified at its source, it cannot be adequately addressed. The usurpation of SGBs’ powers is a mere distraction from the real source of poor educational outcomes.
Again, the parallels with the NHI are striking. The government, having failed to produce a functional public healthcare system, seeks to usurp the resources and choices privately available to citizens. Instead of addressing its failings, government reviles those who circumnavigate these failings by using private healthcare.
Responsibility
Similarly, government fails to assume responsibility for the lack of indigenous language options in the education sector. Once again, the finger is pointed at “the privileged.” Through usurping the resources of “the privileged” – and limiting their educational choices – government claims it can empower the underprivileged. Never mind that the changes implemented by BELA would vastly increase the bureaucratic burden on government, complicating the reform of education. No. It is as simple as seizing authority over the educational choices available to South African parents. So the argument goes.
The reality is that the BELA Bill – like the NHI – is not a matter of protecting the have-nots from exclusion by the haves. It is, rather, a matter of protecting government from any scrutiny of their failures. Nor will it address the actual issues our education system faces.
Will BELA enhance the availability of quality education in indigenous languages, merely by seizing control of language policies? No.
Will it end the travesty of unsafe pit toilets by making them “genderless”? No.
Will it expand the educational options for children with special needs by penalising homeschoolers? No.
Will it improve educational outcomes for children by making Grade R compulsory – despite evidence that many children (and boys in particular) are not school-ready before age six? No.
BELA will not adequately address any of these issues, because BELA confuses control with reform. No amount of control over parents’ and SGB’s choices will make up for the flaws in our ailing education system. Those flaws can only be addressed through targeted programmes which put resources towards research and development. Those flaws can only be addressed through expanding educational choices – not limiting them.
Our current government is pushing policies that heavily emphasize control and centralisation – and this is a trend we need to watch very, very carefully. President Ramaphosa, when you reached for that pen to sign BELA, were you making an educated call?
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend