Herding our country back to dark days of oppression
Why did non-profit organisation and private individuals have to use their own resources so that a handful of children could rush out comments? What’s more “educational” than real civic participation?
Why was comment on Bela not the main activity in government classrooms last week?
Because neither Bela nor the Education Department is particularly concerned about education. The concern is with state convenience and control. which is rife. Instead of constructive measures to reduce school stress and provide learners with effective channels for conflict resolution, Bela’s only remedy is to invade learner privacy – search them.
3: Far too many teachers illegally use corporal punishment. We even have cases that result in death. Yet this was not considered important enough for Bela to tackle. At all.
Thinking back to examples 1 and 2, let’s consider that a learner out of school with parental permission or being searched for prohibited substances might be terrified of being beaten to death in class. Or raped. Or being pressured to have sex with teachers “for marks”. Does punishing them or their families make any sense?
In addition, Bela also seeks to centralise control of school boards and home education, ignoring international research showing how children’s educational best interest is served by de-centralised control allowing for personalised learning.
Does Bela progressively fulfil human rights, social justice, democracy and quality of life for all citizens, including children? Or is it herding us back to the dark ages of oppression? tion. The parents and the government have the obligation to support the child in fulfilling their right to education.
Current law and Bela embody the unfounded idea that the government has the right to control education, even if this undermines and sabotages the child’s right to education.
The government has neither an automatic nor exclusive right to educate the child. State obligation to provide basic education resources to all children does not equal an obligation for families to use government services.
Our government behaves as if education is its right, not the child’s. This habit is a leftover of colonialism and apartheid, which both used schooling for cultural destruction and brainwashing.
This was easy to get away with when only schools owned books. Now there are countless ways for children to meet their individualised educational needs.
“Education” and “school” are no longer synonymous (if they ever were). Forcing compliance through punishment is a shameful legacy, not a proud innovation. We must change laws that government historically used to leverage education as a tool of oppression.
Amendments to the laws on education must clarify that children have the right to educational sup- port from the government, but no obligation to use the support if their educational needs are sufficiently met without it.
Bela does the opposite.
“A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” (South African Constitution 28.2) If compliance with government education services is not in the child’s best interest, the family has the constitutional obligation not to comply.
A growing number of South Africans judge that gover nment schooling and/or compliance with the national curriculum and assessment processes is not in their child’s best interests.
There might even be constitutional grounds for prosecuting officials when families are pressured or forced into compliance against the child’s best interest.
Basic Education Law amendments must clarify that it’s a crime to prevent or interfere with a child fulfilling their right to education according to individual best interests. Bela does the opposite, entrenching state convenience at the child’s expense.
Basic Education is officially part of the South African Social Services cluster.
The constitution makes clear that children’s social services needs are automatically met through the family. Where families fail, the state provides support. Only where neglect or abuse is proved, does the state take over.
We do not ask for “permission” or “register” for children to sleep at home instead of an orphanage, or stay home with flu instead of have government care.
Just like housing and health care, families have the constitutional right to choose educational services. Only where significant abuse or neglect is proved in court, can the constitution support that the child be ordered into any kind of government supervision or care.
Our current law, common practice and Bela are unconstitutional. Governance is a matter for best practice, not habit or convenience.
Our constitution was bought with the blood of our heroes and the tears of our people – it must not be contemptuously ignored.
Education services in South Africa must start serving – instead of dishing out.
The government must use the best of everything to develop effective education services, instead of shooting at the holes that are sinking the ship.
Alternative education is on the rise worldwide because it’s working. The future we face demands a new approach.
Instead of treating alter native education as a plague to control,
Clearly, public comment was limited deliberately It’s not about education; it’s about control, convenience
the government should draw on this resource for input and advice – it’s very hard to provide a first-language lear ning for all in conventional schools, but relatively easy with alternative education.
There’s one glimmer of hope in Bela. It provides for education ministers to “obtain inputs from a broader spectrum of people.”
We’re here. We’re willing. Free our potential and we will free yours.
Knock on our doors to include (instead of “regulate”) us. We’ll be home!