Opposition to bill is questionable

THERE has been a flurry of opposition to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill and various statements about the “danger” to public education, the possible “capture” of public education, and the “threats to democracy”.

While the bill is not perfect, it is actually laughable that reasonable people would even consider these statements to be true. I would guess that less than 30% of the people who have read the article, bothered to inform themselves of the content of the bill itself or are familiar with the SA Schools Act in the first place.

Let’s start by looking at the main opponents of the bill itself. Firstly, the Federation of Governing Bodies of SA Schools (Fedsas), which is a legacy of the Broederbond – a conservative and anti-progressive body representing a specific sector of public schools. Secondly, the Governing Body Foundation (GBF), another body which represents its member schools, which predominantly come from the leafy suburbs. And thirdly, labour unions such as Solidarity, Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwys Unie (SAOU), Federation of Unions of SA (Fedusa) and others.

These are the organisations that are most opposed to the bill, not because the bill is bad, but that the bill is bad for them. For instance, many of the proposed clauses seek to provide oversight and an appeals process directly to departmental heads of departments related to admissions, language, and financial policies, which must be more inclusive.

Why would this stir the pot like it has? Our view is that school governing bodies have been acting with impunity, and exploiting the current weaknesses in the SA Schools Act to exclude pupils, to avoid the inclusion of African languages, and to use high fee structures as an obstacle to school admission, as well as to pay staff additional remuneration and benefits, without transparency or oversight, or even a plausible explanation.

The question remains why, and whose interests are being threatened with this change of legislation? If we have effective opposition and transparency in the highest levels of government, why should this not be applied to the school governing bodies? The membership of Fedsas and the GBF are paying these bodies’ vast sums of money to protect their interests, provide interpretations on regulations and give legal advice or worse, take legal action against parents who may wish to appeal the denial of admissions to schools or a lack of financial transparency.

The knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any legislation that threatens the status quo, and specifically their member schools’ status quo. While we acknowledge that the bill is not perfect, it closes many of the loopholes Fedsas and GBF member schools have been exploiting to their benefit.