Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 October 2024 | Story Dr Solomon Chibaya | Photo Supplied
Dr Solomon Chibaya
Dr Solomon Chibaya is a lecturer in the Department of Education Management, Policy, and Comparative Education at the University of the Free State (UFS).


Opinion article by Dr Solomon Chibaya, lecturer in the Department of Education Management, Policy, and Comparative Education, University of the Free State.


On Friday, 13 September 2024 President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill into law but put a pause on two clauses. The two clauses he put on ice, flanked by representatives of his ANC party, were the contentious admissions and language policies. The abject absence of the other members of the ‘coalition’ or ‘GNU’ was evident during the signing and signifies a sense of unhappiness, especially from the Democratic Alliance. Now that the BELAB has been passed into law (except for the highly contested clauses), it has replaced the South African Schools Act (1996) (SASA), which was established post-apartheid to democratise the education system.

 

What problems does it set out to solve?

The BELAB, drafted as early as 2013, sought to enhance the quality of education in South Africa and had significant implications for school governance. Part of the improvement required democratic participation and the progress of mother tongue instruction in a transformative manner. This includes how the school governing bodies (SGBs), composed of parents, educators and non-educator staff members, continue their partnership with the Department of Basic Education at provincial and national levels in school governance. The SGB represents the school and the community in the quest for quality education.

Beyond the aspirations for democratic participation in schools, the proposed Basic Education Amendment Bill made provisions for arbitration and mediation to resolve the conflict between the SGBs and the Department of Basic Education. The media and literature are awash with court cases highlighting the conflict between these two partners of a tripartite partnership due to disputes that seemed only to be resolved by litigation. The disadvantages of such litigations include large sums of money and time spent in litigation and further harm to the child whose best interest both parties vow to have. The provisions for arbitration and mediation are believed to help avert litigations as a choice for conflict resolution. They align with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.

South Africa’s quest to undo the imbalances of the past is envisioned in the new education law; during the apartheid era, the apartheid regime monopolised the governance of schools in a way that ostracised parents. What perpetuated from such a context was the disenfranchising of parents regarding school governance, and they became unenchanted with school involvement, a lethargy that is taking a long time to wear off. Though the advent of SGBs sought to increase the participation of parents through legislating their participation through roles specified in the SASA 84 (1996), echoed in the new law, the policy does not translate into practice. Some SGBs have failed to take up their critical roles in determining the school budgets, language policy, discipline and appointment of new staff, among other roles. The new law now emphasises the control of the head of the department over these issues, especially in the contested clauses.

The irony is that the power that once was given to parents to govern is now usurped. The parents in some SGBs have failed to govern, and yet others have done so successfully. The ones that have done successfully feel they are being punished for the ones that failed to do so. While the SGB’s consultation with the HOD for approval is in line with the arbitration and mediation espoused by the BELA act, a spin-off of cooperative governance related to democratic aspirations, it deviates from the autonomy of the governing body that had seemed to prevail in recent history. A challenge one can foresee in the new law is that the cooperation of parties with unequal powers and motives may throw a spanner in the works of cooperative governance.

 

Why are the two clauses so controversial?

The language policy is a contentious issue, in which most comments in different media on the BELAB seem to dwell on this issue. On one side, there are those who feel some SGBs have the power to keep some learners out of their schools using the language policy, and on another side are SGBs who feel the quality of education in their schools may be compromised by the quest for equality in language integration. The BELAB encourages the language policy to be broader and inclusive. In schools with small numbers, their SGBs seek to protect that space as it is and pride themselves on the prevalence of such conditions.

According to the BELAB, compulsory school attendance will start at Grade R. This is a welcome change in some quarters as it allows early access to education for children. However, to the SGBs, this may present many changes. In schools that are already overcrowded, under-resourced and have a shortage of teachers, this change in the admission policy would add more pressure to these schools. Even schools that are well-endowed with resources must make changes to accommodate changes to the admission policy, which comes with governing challenges such as resource management and distribution. However, according to the National Development Plan (NDP), basic education is vital in building the foundation for lifelong learning and striking a balance may be what needs to be achieved.

 

The state of basic education 30 years into democracy

The state of basic education in South Africa over the past 30 years has been marked by significant progress, challenges, and ongoing reforms. It was only natural that legislation was to be part of the ongoing reform. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the South African government has made efforts to redress the inequalities of the past and improve access to quality education. However, the education system continues to face several persistent issues.

The outcry from communities highlights the prevalence of the apartheid legacy, which is expressed through inequality. There is still a world of difference in availability of resources between schools serving black communities (despite an increase in funding) and the former Model C schools. One would have wanted to see amendments to the legislation that provide a legal framework that eases some of these issues. Of course, it is not about legislating the challenges away but about designing a legal framework that addresses the inequalities regarding resources and access to them in schools.

Another challenge in South African Basic Education is that of performance gaps. Internationally, South Africa consistently performs poorly in assessments such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). This has been an embarrassment to the nation over the past 30 years as the returns do not match the investment in education. Countries that spend less than South Africa have learners doing better in foundational literacy and numeracy skills. The matric pass rate has gradually increased over the last 30 years; however, the concern is that they pass with low marks, limiting their opportunities for higher education and employment. A possible solution through the BELAB is to catch the children early, compulsory education from Grade R. This is now law.

Social issues, especially those that creep in from the communities around schools, affect the operations of schools. The school culture is influenced by many things, including the community in which it is located. Some of the challenges that schools have faced include violence, crime, and bullying, which have become a concern in certain regions, affecting the learning environment. The definition and procedures in relation to misconduct have been reviewed, but they mainly emphasise the rights of children. Unions will most probably be up in arms to protect their members, and parents will also be suing for the protection of their children.

News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture
2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept