(Archived) BELA Bill: Government is inviting you to stand up for our children

Teachers may be sent to jail or fined if they don’t facilitate girls of 12 years of age and older for abortions behind their parents backs.

Yes, you read that right.

And, yes, we’ve heard the rhetoric… Government seems to want us to think our interpretation of this issue is just one big mistake.

However, the facts are that Clause 39 states that school learner pregnancy will be regulated. And the actual School Learner Pregnancy Policy itself requires that teachers must assist learners of 12 years and older who wish to have abortions behind their parents’ backs.

We then return to the regulations in the BELA Bill which says that teachers who do not comply with the regulations may face fines or 6 months (adjusted from 12 months) in jail!

Angie Motshekga will be in charge of your children for up to 12 hours a day with no one to stop her or tell her what to do.

This bill provides the Minister unrestricted and unregulated powers to regulate!

Sorry guys, but this situation is completely unacceptable because it’s vulnerable to abuse.

How do you feel about Angie? Do you want to give her free rein with regard to the children of SA!

Umm, are we missing something? We can’t see the ANC’s promise of equality, inclusion and diversity in this, hey?

No one, including home educators, will have any control over which curriculum is used at schools.

ALL learners, (including home educators) will be forced to comply with CAPS which includes Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) and which would be unacceptable to religious communities across SA.

So government, you promise to respect culture and diversity. We do not find this respectful. How does this align?

CSE was introduced in 2000, so is already being taught.

Government said CSE is necessary to deal with issues such as rape, teenage pregnancy and reducing the STDs.

However, since 2000, teen pregnancies have only decreased by a minimal amount which sadly appears to be offset by increased numbers of abortions. From this we can unfortunately see that CSE has had no noticeable positive effect. 

And further, between January and March of this year alone, 8 murders, 14 attempted murders and 84 rapes occurred on the premises of educational facilities (including universities and day care centres!) More than 36 teachers have been fired this year for raping, impregnating and sexually abusing learners. In the light of these horrific events, it is somewhat difficult to attribute any meaningful or significant positive effects to the teaching of CSE.

Instead, although government says CSE will help prevent sex crimes, our fear is that it may actually be contributing to this dreadful state of affairs due to the fact that it has not been properly thought through. CSE normalises certain sexual behaviour and introduces sexual information at an age when children are mentally unable to process it and therefore become inappropriately stimulated and confused.

We could go on and on about this topic, but we also want to make special mention of our special needs and neurodivergent children whose requirements have not been addressed at all in the BELA Bill. 

One line about sign language in the BELA Bill is not going to cut it, Angie.

It’s just not good enough that the BELA Bill does not cater for diverse children with different needs or who learn differently. All children have potential waiting to be unlocked. Why does this bill slam those doors shut?

All these children could fall between the cracks and be left behind.

Home Educators, who are trying to offer their children an education that suits their needs and is based on conservative values and religion, will be regulated by the government, and could be forced to teach their children subjects like Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE).

Government seems to have been trying to muddy the waters and accuse this sector of hijacking the BELA Bill.

However, legally speaking, Home Education isn’t even an “educational institution” so why is this sector being regulated via this Bill?

On top of this, although The Department of Basic Education admits they have no knowledge, nor expertise in the field of home education, they failed to consult meaningfully with any representatives from this group.

Finally, home educators are nice people. They are also efficient and mobilised which is why they have been so effective in opposing this bill. Just because their children are being educated at home does not mean they don’t care about all the children of SA.

The Head of Department for each province (not the parents, nor the school governing boards that they elected) will choose what language of instruction is used at schools.

Even though children died in Soweto in 1976 for the right to be educated in their home language, the BELA Bill states that the provincial heads of department – not the parents, nor their School Governing Boards – will be able to decide on the language of instruction used at each school.

With regard to the ANC’s stated concern for our diversity and culture — may we please ask… where is the respect?

The Minister (not the parents, nor the school governing boards that they elected) will decide on how many learners are educated at each school and thus in every class.

Public schools with less than 135 learners could be closed, meaning a child of six years old might have to travel by bus for hours on their own to get to school. Imagine this is your child. No! Kill this Bill!

Although far too many schools are overcrowded, and resources overstretched — the BELA Bill provides for closure of primary schools with less than 135 learners and secondary schools with less than 200 learners. as if this is a solution.

As if this is a solution, the government is proposing building new schools and boarding schools…

We would like to know who will pay for the construction of these schools (when they say they cannot even afford to build toilets at existing schools!) And who will cover the transport costs to get these learners to alternative facilities?

Please note this concern does not only apply to rural schools. We know of a school in a small town that has very few learners but it’s an excellent primary school, yet such a school will be deemed a “non-viable” school according to the BELA Bill.

Are you happy for your five-year old to be handed over to a state institution at such a young age and possibly exposed to sex education, sexual predation, pit latrines, unsupervised public transport and a lot of institutional rules and systems and more?

Do you realise that, according to the BELA Bill, if you don’t agree to this, then you, as a parent, could be criminalised and face a fine or a jail sentence of up to one year?

Government have marketed Grade R to communities as a very positive and desirable prospect that meets developmental goals — and is in the best interests — of their children.

Grade R is indeed a crucial developmental period.

And unfortunately, many experts believe that children are, in fact, not emotionally, nor psychologically ready nor equipped to deal with the rules and systems that go with institutional education.

Children of this age should instead be learning through play and should therefore not be forced to attend Grade R.

Grade R learners still need a lot of age-appropriate emotional support and Grade R can be overwhelming and intimidating even for the bravest Grade R.

A child of this age also needs very specific educational environments and equipment.

The Department of Basic Education’s budget is already insufficient and is used as an excuse as to why many young children are forced to use dangerous pit latrines and teachers are insufficiently trained.

So, why is government suggesting the forced attendance of grade R when they can’t afford it?

Could it be because they have been offered and promised access to international funding to encourage the implementation of the above.

Regrettably, given government’s poor record of handling public finances, we, the people are not encouraged by the above.

Grade R also requires more space than is allowed for in traditional classrooms.

Inconveniently, however, there are no guidelines, nor are details provided to guarantee basic norms and standards for these schools.

Furthermore, government’s Grade R requirement will mean removing children from functioning Early Childhood Development (ECD) facilities causing loss of employment to this sector. 

Government is using the possibility of providing improved nutrition for children at school as a justification for forcing compulsory attendance of Grade R.

However, why doesn’t government just give ECD facilities food grants and save taxpayers from additional infrastructure expense?

And finally, are you okay with children of this age being exposed to sex education?

According to the UN’s own International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education document, children between 5 and 8 should, for example, be able to define gender and biological sex and describe how they are different and must be able to identify sources of information about sex and gender.

And, according to this same document, our government has signed up to their CSE program. So, although CSE is currently only being taught from Grade 4, our government has in fact given a commitment to start teaching sex education at the age of 5, i.e. Grade R.

Please refer to Point 2 which mentions how unsafe our educational environments are – rife with sexual predation and crime.

For all children, never mind a child of 5, this is a terrible situation and of deep concern!