Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube said the agreement validated her long-held view that dialogue was the best remedy for conflict resolution.
A thinly veiled attempt to preserve culture at the expense of transformation.
That is how Gauteng Education MEC Matome Chiloane described the “settlement” by the Solidarity Movement and Basic Education Department over the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Act clauses with the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).
The Solidarity Movement, which includes Solidarity and AfriForum, initiated a dispute through Nedlac to seek authorisation to undertake a protected protest to express opposition to clauses 4 and 5 of the act.
President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Bela Act into law in September but delayed implementing the disputed sections that deal with language and admission policies at public schools.
Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube and the Presidency were cited as respondents.
According to the Solidarity Movement, in terms of the settlement, the two sections will no longer be implemented on December 13.
“Although the settlement is a major breakthrough, further hard work still lies ahead. We now again have time on our side where Afrikaans schools that are full to capacity will not receive instructions about language and admission. During this period there will be tough talk about norms and standards, and Solidarity will also propose possible legislative amendments. Schools do not have to let themselves be bullied by officials,” said Solidarity’s chief executive, Dirk Hermann.
AfriForum’s chief executive, Kallie Kriel, said the Bela Act’s provisions on the language policy of schools, if implemented, posed a serious threat to the survival of Afrikaans cultural communities.
Gwarube said the agreement validated her long-held view that dialogue was the best remedy for conflict resolution.
However, South African Democratic Teachers Union (Sadtu) general secretary Mugwena Maluleke said they will not allow “racist organisations to insult our liberation struggles”.
“History is repeating itself as the beneficiaries of colonial apartheid are again using language and education to discriminate against the black majority by blocking the Bela Act. This so-called bilateral agreement wants to entrench the ‘separate but equal’ apartheid policy where schools must be exclusively for Afrikaans despite the changing demographics and the non-racial principles of the South African Constitution.
The minister has once again proven herself to be a useful tool for anti-transformation and a suitcase carrier of the racists in this country.
“She has never consulted the biggest union in education ever since her appointment, but preferred to sign with a non-representative group of white unions to reverse transformation. She has declared war on Sadtu and the African majority whose children are being discriminated by racist school governing bodies. Sadtu is preparing to challenge this right-wing agenda at all platforms whenever racism rears its ugly head,” said Maluleke.
Chiloane criticised the agreement, saying it represented the interests of only one sector of society, describing it as a thinly veiled attempt to preserve culture at the expense of transformation.
“This bilateral agreement, entered into by the minister, Nedlac and Solidarity, represents the minority and as such undermines what was intended by the President. This agreement effectively ‘ring-fences’ certain public schools for the exclusive use of specific societal groups. The agreement also suggests that heads of departments must seek permission from, or consult, school governing bodies (SGBs) to change a school’s language policy or to administer learner admissions.
“This approach will enable SGBs to block transformation efforts. It might also allow some single-medium schools to resist introducing additional languages, even when local demographics dictates inclusivity to accommodate learners residing in the same area,” said Chiloane.
The GOOD Party also lambasted the so-called agreement, saying: “The key clause in Gwarube’s ‘breakthrough’ announcement is that the interests of the community in the immediate vicinity of the public school must be taken into account. While, on the face of it,that might appear reasonable, in fact, it is a mechanism to use the spatial injustice of the old Group Areas Act to continue to separate South Africans.”
Cape Times