Settlement of the Bela Act dispute has shifted to adults’ concerns, sidelining those of children

Every child in South Africa should have equitable access to quality education, regardless of language, location or socioeconomic background. The recent talk of a settlement involving the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Act is both a concern and has implications for children across the country.

The decision not to implement clauses 4 and 5 sparked significant debate. These clauses aimed to address the critical issues of language and  policies in public schools — two areas that directly influence access to education for children, particularly those from underprivileged communities. Although the agreement may be seen as a victory by certain parties, it jeopardises the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable children in our education system.

Clause 4 sought to give the head of the provincial department of education the authority to oversee and, where necessary, amend a public school’s language policy. The intention is to ensure that language policies do not create barriers to entry or exclude children based on their linguistic background.

This clause is a vital step toward fostering inclusivity. Restrictive language policies disproportionately affect children from rural and township areas. These policies often alienate children who are not proficient in the dominant language of instruction, impeding their ability to learn, develop and thrive.

Early childhood education is particularly affected, because language plays a crucial role in developing cognitive, social and emotional skills. We have seen how inclusive language policies — where children are taught in their home language while gradually transitioning to a second language — build confidence and set children up for success.

By rejecting clause 4, the opportunity to address these issues and ensure equitable access to education for all children, regardless of their linguistic background, has been missed.

Clause 5 is aimed to give the provincial head of department final authority over public schools’ admission policies, ensuring they are fair, non-discriminatory and reflective of the constitutional right to education. This clause is aimed to prevent schools from using restrictive admission policies to exclude children based on socioeconomic, geographical or linguistic factors.

Many children in underprivileged communities are denied access to quality education because of admission policies that fail to consider their unique circumstances. In many cases, such policies reinforce inequality by favouring learners from affluent backgrounds or specific language groups, leaving others behind.

While some stakeholders view clause 5 as infringing on the autonomy of school governing bodies, it was designed to protect children’s rights and ensure  equity  in school admissions. By choosing not to implement this clause, we risk perpetuating cycles of exclusion and inequality, particularly in schools where resources and opportunities are limited.

The focus should always be on the child and their right to quality education. But this settlement has shifted the focus to adult-centred concerns, leaving the children on the sidelines. 

Teachers are already overburdened, and centralising admission policies could add layers of administrative strain. This approach risks overlooking the specific needs of communities and the best interests of the children.

Clauses 4 and 5 represent pathways to creating a more inclusive and equitable education system in South Africa. By ensuring fair language and admission policies, these clauses aim to address the barriers that prevent underprivileged children from receiving quality education.

The decision to abandon these clauses may leave many children, particularly those in rural and township schools, vulnerable to exclusion. Language barriers and restrictive admissions will continue to hinder children’s ability to learn and thrive, exacerbating existing inequalities in our education system.

Education policies should prioritise the best interests of children. The current possible settlement may address the concerns of unions and other stakeholders, but it fails to centre the conversation on the children who are most affected. Quality education is a constitutional right for every child, and any decisions that affect access to this right must place children’s needs above all else.

The government, unions and civil society must re-examine how we can collectively address the problems posed by language and admission policies. The Bela Act, with its inclusive intentions, presented a pathway to bridging divides and creating equitable opportunities for children across South Africa.

Although this possible settlement may conclude the current debate, the work is far from over. We must find new ways to ensure that every child — regardless of their language or background — has access to the quality education they deserve.

Barriers must be broken down to build a future where education is a right, not a privilege. 

Theresa Michael is the chief executive of Afrika Tikkun Bambanani.