Die Afrikanerbond se volledige konsep kommentaar op die Konsepwetsontwerp (SIen die konsepwetsonwerp onder) 

Inleiding

Die Konsepwet B2-2022 (“Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill”) voorts “die Konsepwet”, bring belangrike wysigingsvoorstelle met verreikende gevolge vir belange soos moedertaalonderrig en die relatiewe vryheid wat beheerliggame tans geniet om te kan beskik oor toelatings- en taalbeleid. In hierdie verband stel die Langtitel dit duidelik:

[Bill]... to enhance the authority of the Head of Department in relation to the admission of a learner to a public school, after consultation with the governing body of the school. ..”

En rakende taalbeleid:

“...[T]o provide that the the governing body of the public school must submit the admission and language policies of the public school to the Head of Department for approval...”

Hierby word ook bygevoeg dat die Departementshoof (voorts “HOD”) waar redelikerwys doenlik, ‘n openbare skool kan beveel om verdere onderrigtale aan te neem en dat alle stappe geneem moet word om die skool met die nodige hulpbronne by te staan, ten einde voldoende onderrig in die verdere onderrigtaal te verskaf (sien Langtitel).

‘n Eerste opmerking te maak is dat hierdie beoogde finale uitsluitsel rondom beleidskepping en goedkeuring wat rondom taal en toelating by die HOD berus, ‘n duidelike skuif weg van gemeenskapsbestuur van openbare skole na sentrale staatsbestuur is. Die openbare skool, vir doeleindes van beskikkingsvryhede rondom taal en toelating, word nou ‘n staatskool, wat natuurlik die skolebedeling was wat tussen die middel-1970’s en die aankoms van die grondwetlik-demokratiese bedeling bestaan het. So ‘n bedeling ontneem heel waarskynlik ouers en die gemeenskappe wat as voedings- en belangebron vir skole dien, van die ongehinderde bevoegdheid om moedertaalonderrig te koester en toelatingsvereistes rondom faktore soos taal, omliggende gemeenskapsvoorkeur en akademiese prestasie in te stel.

Grondwetlike beginsels en regspraak

Die beste belange van die kind is ‘n rigtinggewende grondwetlike bepaling (Artikel 28 van die Grondwet, 1996) wat die skolastiese ervaring van kinders betref. Dit plaas ook bepaalde verantwoordelikhede op ouers en skoolgemeenskappe om kinderbelange, ook wat betref moedertaalonderrig soos vervant in Artikel 29(2) van die Grondwet.

“Beste belange” in die konteks van taal van onderrig behels lankal reeds die pedagogiese beginsel dat moedertaalonderrig die beste manier is om sukses in onderrig en leer te bewerkstellig. Benewens skolastiese sukses, bevestig die waardering van moedertaalonderrig ook die regte van taalgemeenskappe, soos vervat in Artikel 31 van die Grondwet. Artikel 31 se afwesigheid in die Konsepwet en sy voorgangers is betreurenswaardig, siende dat skole vir doeleindes van Artikel 31(1)(a) ‘n kernbeoefenaar van bepaalde tale is. Die begrip “gebruik” in A31(1)(a) behoort juis doelmatig en breedvoerig uitgelê te word, en bepaald saamgelees word met die oorweging van billikheid in Artikel 29(2)(a). Waar skole ‘n langstaande tradisie van onderrig in ‘n bepaalde taal (soos Afrikaans) koester, kan die taalgemeenskapslewe wat deur A31 beskerm word, nie geïgnoreer word nie. In Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education v Hoërskool Ermelo [KH 2010] het die Konstitusionele hof die beginsel gevestig dat die reg tot moedertaalonderrig, waar reeds bestaande, nie ontneem of verminder mag word sonder behoorlike regverdiging nie. 

Terwyl “behoorlike regverdiging” vir vermindering onder andere deur die taalkeuses van leerders en ouers bepaal kan word, behoort wetsopstellers kennis te neem van die behoeftes wat weens relatiewe magsfaktore tussen taalgroepe ontstaan: Daar kan nie veel sprake van taalkeuses wees waar die bevoordeling van Engelstaligheid deur die staat en staatsinstellings die keuse vir ‘n taal anders as Engels manipuleer nie. Die staat gee ook gevolg aan ‘n demografiese taalvoorkeur vir Engels as onderrigtaal. Die invoer van Engels as parallelmedium taal van onderrig deur die bepalings van ‘n HOD, kan dan aangevoer word ‘n trojaanse perd te wees, by wyse van spreke. Die beskikbaarheid van Engelse taalonderrig in die dubbelmedium-skoolopset, gegewe huidige en heersende Suid-Afrikaanse demografiese onderrigtaalvoorkeure, sal die behoefte vir ‘n taal soos Afrikaans noodwendig en stelselmatig onder die behoefte vir Engels verskadu. Die oorheersingseffek is dan stapsgewys as volg: 

1. ‘n (Afrikaanse) skoolgemeenskap word gebied om Engels in parallelmedium aan te bied, en word hulpbrongewys ondersteun om dit moontlik te maak. 
2. Die Afrikaanse en Engelse strome bestaan aanvanklik gebalanseerd voort, maar demografiese druk vir toegang tot skole asook strukturele faktore wat Afrikaans op die agtervoet teenoor Engels plaas wat status betref, word dan die sneller vir ‘n vergrote Engelstalige aanbod, op grond van beginsels vanuit regspraak [Hoerskool Ermelo para 52] soos toegang en beskikbaarheid, die taalkeuse van ouers en kinders, leerlinginskrywingsvlakke en die aantal sprekers van ‘n bepaalde taal in ‘n streek.
3. Hoewel hierdie faktore objektief voorkom, is dit waarskynlik regverdiger in die praktyk wanneer besluitnemers met twee of meer taalgroepe van om en by dieselfde demografiese teenwoordigheid oftewel bevolkingsdigtheid te kampe het. Dieselfde faktore sal, in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks, baie dikwels daartoe lei dat verengelsing plaasvind en vermindering van die ander taal se aanbod, bepaald Afrikaans, ‘n gegewe is.

Dit is dus nodig dat die nuwe Konsepwet groter klem plaas op die sentrale beginsel van billikheid [A29(2)(a) van die Grondwet, 1996], uitgelê saam met die A31-reg wat volhoubare taalgemeenskappe veronderstel, en die “gebruik” van taal ook in die konteks van leer en onderrig op skoolvlak begryp. Daarby staan die beste belang van die kind [Artikel 28(2) van die Grondwet, 1996] en die deurslag wat hierdie beginsel gee, sentraal. Inhoudelik tot die beste belang van die kind kan moedertaalonderrig nie uitgereken word nie. Billikheid wat A31- “gebruik” en moedertaalonderrig betref, moet sterkter figureer om die strukturele en maatskaplik-demografiese magsfaktore wat die bovermelde driestap-proses voorafgaan, uit te balanseer. Laastens hieroor behoort A28(2) en A31 van die Grondwet sterker te figureer wat betref kulturele gemeenskappe se behoefte om onderrig in ‘n kulturele konteks te laat geskied, wat ook vir die kind bekend is en integraal deel van ‘n kind se tuisopvoeding is. 

Benewens die kultuurfaktor, is daar ook die bestaande erkenning wat in die Wet op Suid-Afrikaanse Skole 84 van 1996 (“Skolewet”) vervat word en gemeenskapsbestuur moontlik maak, wat seggenskap oor toelatingsvereistes by skole aan die skolegemeenskap gee. Daar is minder regstreekse gronde vir beskerming hiervoor in die Grondwet self, maar die wetgewer behoort eerstens die Konsepwet aan te pas (in die gees van talle positiewe, bemagtigende aanpassings wat nie hierin bespreek word nie) om verdere gevolg aan A28(1)(b) te gee deur die verband tussen ouersorg en ‘n betrokke, bemagtigde skolegemeenskap te vervat. Verder behoort die “beste belang van die kind” ook in die konteks van beskermingswaarde en oorhoofse opvoedingsaandeel van ‘n gevestigde skolegemeenskap verstaan te word, wat beter toegerus en bekend met plaaslike leerlinge is as burokratiese, anonieme en gesentraliseerde staatsbestuurders.

Spesifieke probleme en kommentaar

Wysiging van Artikel 6 van die Skolewet (deur Artikel 5(a) van die Konsepwet):

“The governing body of a public school may, subject to subsection (13), determine the language policy of the school subject to the Constitution, this Act and any applicable provincial law: Provided that the language policy of a public school must be limited to one or more of the official languages of the Republic as provided in section 6(1) of the Constitution.”

Hier word die magte van die beheerliggaam ondergeskik gestel aan die magte van die HOD wat taalbeleid betref, soos vervat in die voorgestelde subartikel 13 onder A5(c) van die Konsepwet:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), the Head of Department may, where it is practicable to do so and subject to subsection (7), direct a public school to adopt more than one language of instruction.”

Dit is opvallend dat die standaard hier grondwetlik tekort skiet, omdat die Grondwet “redelikerwyse doenbaarheid” (“reasonably practicable”) as standaard vermeld. Redelikerwyse doenbaarheid is gebaseer op die bovermelde probleem wat aan taalstatus en demografiese druk gekoppel is, maar ook op alle tersaaklike faktore [ Hoërskool Ermelo para 52] . Faktore gebaseer op A31, saamgelees met die billikheidsoorweging in A29(2)(a) en die beste belang van die kind in A28(2), asook die volhoubaarheid waarsonder taalgemeenskappe betekenisloos is, is ook belangrike oorwegings wat die HOD se besluitneming vooraf sal kwalifiseer. 

Die wysiging is ongewens, omdat dit finale besluitneming oor ‘n taalbeleid buite die beleefde realiteite en wense van die skolegemeenskap plaas. Dit skep ‘n resep vir konflik, in die juridiese en maatskaplike sin, en is nie gebaseer op grondwetlike vryheidsingesteldheid nie maar op ‘n behoefte om sentraal te beskik oor hoe grondwetlike vryhede beleef moet word. 

Die aanbeveling hier is dat die HOD slegs ‘n negatiewe bevoegdheid moet kry, deur ‘n ooglopend diskriminerende en ongrondwetlike beleid – na oorweging van alle tersaaklike faktore [Hoërskool Ermelo para 52] en na oorlegpleging met die gemeenskap of na hul voorleggings – af te keur of voorstelle te maak. Ook aanbevole is die invoeging van bepalings wat deur die HOD oorweeg moet word, soos die gevolge vir die taalstatus- en volhoubaarheid van die bestaande taal relatief tot die taal wat deur die HOD aanbeveel word in die dubbel- of meermediumkonteks, met die oog op sprekersgetalle in die gebied en die impak van demografiese onderrigtaal voorkeurverskille.

Wysiging van A6 deur 5(c) van die Konsepwet

“(5) The governing body must submit the language policy of a public school and any amendment thereof to the Head of Department for approval...(6) The Head of Department may approve the language policy of a public school or any amendment thereof, or may return it to the governing body with such recommendations as may be necessary in the circumstances, together with reasons for such recommendations.”

Hier word die HOD se magte tot meer as ‘n oorsigrol uitgebrei, en kry die HOD finale beskikkingsmag oor die besonderhede van ‘n skool se taalbeleid. Hierdie mag van die HOD is addisioneel tot die bevoegdheid in subartikel 13 onder A5(c) van die Konsepwet om te kan beveel dat ‘n beleid verdere onderrigtale aanneem.

Die wysiging is ongewens omdat dit ‘n sentrale rubriek vir skooltaalbeleide veronderstel en nie die geleentheid vir skole bied om aan amptenare die uniekhede en behoeftes van die skoolgemeenskap te illustreer sodat daaraan gevolg gegee kan word nie.

Die aanbeveling is dat die HOD slegs ‘n negatiewe reg kry om die beleid slegs af te keur indien dit ongrondwetlik is in die sin daarvan dat dit tekort skiet aan die standaard van redelikerwyse doenbaarheid, wat betref die invoer van meerdere onderrigtale. Die onus om die tekort te bewys behoort op die HOD te rus, wat eerder in pas sal wees met die ongestoorde vryheid van taalgemeenskappe, tensy die vryheidsbeoefening onbestaanbaar is met die Handves van Menseregte. Indien skole deurlopend die HOD oor taalbeleid tevrede sal moet stel, word die vryheid in A31 en die reg in A29 tot ‘n voorreg verwater. 

“(7) The Head of Department, when considering the language policy of a public school or any amendment thereof for approval, must be satisfied that the policy or the amendment thereof takes into account the language needs, in general, of the broader community in the education district inwhich the public school is situated, and must take into account factors including, but not limited to—(a) the best interests of the child, with emphasis on equality as provided for in section 9 of the Constitution and equity;(b) section 6(2) of the Constitution;(c) section 29(2) of the Constitution;(d) the changing number of learners who speak the language of learning and teaching at the public school; (e) the need for effective use of classroom space and resources of the public school; and (f) the enrolment trends of the public school.

Die wysiging stel eers ‘n standaard waaraan ‘n skooltaalbeleid moet voldoen, naamlik dat die taalbehoeftes van die skole-distrik in ag geneem moet word. Hierdie is ‘n effektief allesoorheersende bepaling waaraan ‘n HOD ‘n taalbeleid sal meet. Die verdere faktore (a) tot (f) wat in die wysiging gelys word, kom addisioneel voor en blyk nie dieselfde uitgehefte gewig te dra as die eerste nie.

Hierdie wysiging is ongewens omdat dit onduidelik is wat die grondwetlike grondslag is waarop die wysiging se spesiale uitheffing van die skoledistrik-bepaling rondom meerderheidstaal berus. “Redelikerwyse praktisiteit” of “doenbaarheid” word deur die faktore in Hoërskool Ermelo belig, en behoort verder met A31 saamgelees te word sover dit taal aangaan. Onder hierdie faktore word een nie as allesoorheersend uitgehef nie, maar A28(2) lui natuurlik dat die beste belang van die kind allesoorheersend is wat aangeleenthede rakende ‘n kind betref. Hierop kan die saak vir moedertaalonderrig natuurlik baie sterk uitgehef word, asook die nie-afwatering van bestaande moedertaalonderrig. Die skoledistrik-bepaling rondom meerderheid sal in die Suid-Afrikaanse demografiese onderrigtaalvoorkeur konteks onbillik wees indien dit as vernaamste faktor uitgehef word, en strook derhalwe nie met die billikheidsbepaling in A29(2) nie, omdat dit ooglopend die Engelse of meerderheidstaalvoorkeur sal bevoordeel.

Die aanbeveling is dat die artikel nie uitheffing van die skoledistrik-bepaling rondom meerderheidstaalvoorkeur skrap, en eerder staat maak op die vermiste faktor wat deur die Hof in Hoërskool Ermelo gelys is, naamlik “beskikbaarheid en toegang tot openbare skole”. 

“(8) The governing body must review the language policy determined in terms of this section every three years or whenever the factors referred to in subsection (7) have changed, when circumstances so require, or at the request of the Head of Department.”

Hierdie wysiging is ongewens omdat die HOD hier ‘n bykans onbeperkte mag gegun word om taalbeleidsaanpassing te beveel. Verder is dit ongewens omdat dit die onus op skole geplaas word om die HOD rondom taal tevrede te stel. Die wysiging plaas ook geweldige druk op beheerliggame om ‘n ingewikkelde en duur ondersoek op gereelde basis van stapel te stuur, sonder enige steun van die HOD of die Onderwysdepartement.

Die aanbeveling is dat die wysigingsvoorstel geskrap word en die diskresie om telkens te hersien by die beheerraad berus. 

“(14) The Head of Department, in determining whether it is practicable for a public school to have more than one language of instruction, must take into account factors including, but not limited to— (a) the best interests of the child, with emphasis on equality as provided for in section 9 of the Constitution and equity; (b) the changing number of learners who speak the language of learning and teaching at the public school; (c) the need for effective use of classroom space and resources of the public school; and (d) the language needs, in general, of the broader community in the education district in which the public school is situated.”

Hierdie wysiging kom bepaald vreemd voor, omdat dit volg op die HOD se bevoegdheid in klousule 14 waar die skoledistrik-bepaling rondom meerderheidstaalvoorkeur spesiaal dog grondwetlik onbestaanbaar uitgehef is. 

Die wysiging is ongewens: In hierdie bepaling sou die HOD reeds, met in agneming van die spesiaal uitgehefde skoledistrik-bepaling rondom meerderheidstaalvoorkeur, ‘n taalbeleid oorweeg het. Wanneer die stap om te bepaal of ‘n taal van onderrig toegevoeg moet word geneem word, sal die skoledistrik-bepaling weereens na vore tree, maar nou slegs as ‘n faktor ter oorweging. Dit beteken dat die besluit ingevolge subartikel 14 effektief ‘n vooraf geneem sou word op grond van ‘n voorafbepaalde en spesiaal uitgehefde faktor, naamlik die skoledistrik-bepaling rondom meerderheidstaalvoorkeur. Subartikels (7) en (14) word dis so opgestel dat die skoledistrik-bepaling noodwendig sal bepaal hoe die HOD besluite rondom taal van onderrig en taalbeleid sal neem.

Slotopmerkings

Die bevoegdheid van die HOD neem noodsaaklike bevoegdhede om gemeenskappe se vryhede rondom taal te help verwesenlik, van skoolbeheerliggame af weg. Die breedvoerige beskikkingsmagte moet nie die HOD toekom nie, maar bestaande skolegemeenskappe, wat ten beste geposisioneer is om hierdie soort besluite te neem. Die HOD se beskikkingsregte in hierdie Konsepwet openbaar ook ernstige grondwetlike tekortkominge wat betref die gevestigde reg oor hierdie kwessie. Die wetgewer moet magte afwentel aan skoolgemeenskappe en daarop fokus om moedertaalonderrig, en die rol wat skole se taalbeleid in gemeenskappe speel, te balanseer eerder as om dit aan meerderheidstaalvoorkeure ondergeskik te maak.

____________________________________________________

Afrikanerbond - Draft comments Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (B2-2022)

Introduction

The draft Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (B2-2022), hereafter referred to as “the Draft Bill”, proposes important amendments with far-reaching consequences for, inter alia, mother tongue education and the relative freedom that school governing bodies currently enjoy when it comes to managing admissions and language policy. In this regard, the Draft Bill’s long title states:

[Bill] ... to enhance the authority of the Head of Department in relation to the admission of a learner to a public school, after consultation with the governing body of the school ... ”

And regarding language policy:

“... [T]o provide that the the governing body of the public school must submit the admission and language policies of the public school to the Head of Department for approval ...”

In addition, the Head of Department (heareafter “HOD”) may, where reasonably practicable, instruct a public school to adopt additional languages of instruction, and that all steps are to be taken to assist the school with the necessary resources, in order to adequately provide instruction in the additional language of instruction (see the Draft Bill).

As a first observation, the fact that the proposed final decision-making power on schools’ policies, particularly regarding the approval of language and admission policy, lies with the HOD, marks a clear move away from community management of public schoolsto central state governance. When it comes to decision making powers over language and admission, public schools are becoming state schools, taking us back to the dispensation that existed between the mid-1970s and the advent of the constitutional democracy. Such a dispensation is most likely to deprive parents and school communities of the unencumbered ability to nurture mothertongue education and to consider factors such as language, preference to the surrounding community and academic achievement in their admission policies.

Constitutional principles and case law

When it comes to education, the best interests of the child are a key provision of South Africa’s Constitution (section 28 of the Constitution, 1996). The Constitution also places certain responsibilities on parents and school communities with regard to children's interests, including as relates to mother tongue education (section 29 (2)).

In the context of language of instruction, “best interests” have long included the educational principle that mother tongue education is the best way to achieve success in teaching and learning. In addition to scholastic success, the appreciation of mother tongue education also affirms the rights of language communities, as enshrined in section 31 of the Constitution. The absence of section 31 in the Draft Act and its predecessors is regrettable, given that schools are, for the purposes of section 31 (1) (a), core users of certain languages. The “use” concept in s31 (1) (a) cannot but be properly interpreted in a socio-cultural context, and read in conjunction with the definition of equality in section 29 (2) (a). Where schools have a long-standing tradition of teaching in a particular language (such as Afrikaans), the language community protected by s31 cannot be ignored. In Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education v Hoërskool Ermelo [CC 2010] the Constitutional Court ruled that the right to mother tongue education, where already existant, may not be removed or reduced without proper justification. 

While “proper justification” for reduction can be determined, inter alia, by the language choices of learners and parents, drafters should take note of the needs that arise due to historically induced relative power relations between language groups: It cannot be said that a free and unencumbered community language preference, such as a swift of preference towards English, exists where the promotion of English by the state and its institutions manipulates the freedom to choose a language other than English. The result is also a demographic language preference for English as the language of instruction, meaning the power relations between English and other indigenous languages, including Afrikaans, are out of balance and the playing field is therefore unequal.. The introduction of English as a parallel medium language of instruction by an HOD can then be argued to be a Trojan horse, so to speak. Given current South African demographic preferences as to language of instruction, the availability of English language teaching in the dual-medium school setting will inevitably and systematically overshadow the need for another language, such as Afrikaans. The effect of domination plays out as follows: 

1. A (e.g an Afrikaans) school community is instructed, in terms of education laws, to present English parallel-medium instruction, and is supported with resources to make this possible. 
2. The Afrikaans and English streams are initially balanced, but demographic pressure for access to schools, as well as structural and power relations vis-à-vis English that inevitably places Afrikaans on the back foot in terms of status, then become the trigger for an increased English-language offering, based on principles from jurisprudence [Ermelo High School para 52] such as access and availability, the language choice of parents and children, pupil enrolment levels and the number of speakers of a particular language in a region.
3. Although these factors appear objective, it is probably operates fairer in practice when decision-makers are dealing with two or more language groups of approximately the same demographic presence or population density, and where language status is not emcumbered by unequal power relations between language groups. The same factors will, in the South African context, very often lead to anglicisation and the reduction of the other language's popularity, especially when it comes to Afrikaans.

It is therefore necessary for the new Draft Act to place greater emphasis on the central educational principle of fairness [s29 (2) (a) of the Constitution, 1996], interpreted together with s31, which necessarily envisages sustainable language communities, and also understands the “use” of language in the context of learning and teaching at school level. Also central to this are the best interests of the child [section 28 (2) of the Constitution, 1996] and the decisiveness of this factor. Mother tongue education’s proven pedagogic benefits cannot be ignored as to the contents of the best interests of the child principle, and cannot be underestimated either. Fairness regarding s31-“use” and mother-tongue education must feature more strongly in order to balance the structural and socio-demographic power factors that underscore the abovementioned three-step process. Finally, s28 (2) and s31 of the Constitution should feature more strongly in terms of cultural communities' need for education to take place in a cultural context that is familiar to the child and an integral part of his or her home education. 

In addition to the cultural factor, there is also the existing recognition contained in the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (“Schools Act”) that makes community management possible, by giving say about admission requirements at schools to the school community. There are some indirect grounds for protection of this in the Constitution itself, but the legislature should first amend the Draft Bill (in the spirit of several positive, empowering amendments not discussed here) to give further impetus to S28 (1) (b). ) by recognising the connection between parental care and a recognised, empowered school community. Furthermore, the “best interests of the child” should also be understood in the context of the value and overall educational benefit of an established school community, which is better equipped and much more familiar with local pupils than bureaucratic, anonymous and centralized state managers.

Specific issues and comments

Amendment of section 6 of the Schools Act (by section 5 (a) of the Draft Act):

“The governing body of a public school may, subject to subsection (13), determine the language policy of the school subject to the Constitution, this Act and any applicable provincial law: Provided that the language policy of a public school must be limited to one or more of the official languages of the Republic as provided in section 6 (1) of the Constitution.”

Here the powers of the governing body are made subject to the powers of the HOD with regard to language policy, as contained in the proposed subsection 13 of sA5 (c) of the Draft Bill:

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), the Head of Department may, where it is practicable to do so and subject to subsection (7), direct a public school to adopt more than one language of instruction.”.

The constitutional shortcoming here is clear, given that the Constitution sets reasonable practicability to be the appropriate standard, not mere practicability. Reasonable practicability is based on the abovementioned matter of language status and demographic pressure, but also on all other relevant factors [Hoërskool Ermelo para 52]. Factors referred to in s31, the equality consideration in S29 (2) (a), the best interests of the child in A28 (2), as well as the sustainability without which language communities are meaningless are also important considerations that will qualify the HOD's decision-making powers. 

The amendment is undesirable because it places final decision-making power relating to a language policy outside of the lived social realities and wishes of the school community. It creates a recipe for conflict, in the legal and social sense, and is not based on an attitude of constitutional freedom, but on a need for central control over how constitutional freedoms should be lived and experienced. 

The recommendation here is that the HOD should only have a negative, that is, a triggered or a responsive and not a default authority over policies. This means that the HOD should only have a responsive or a review-authority to reject a policy or suggest amendments regarding a blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional policy and only after considering all relevant factors [Hoërskool Ermelo para 52] and only after consultation with the community or after taking their submissions, including submissions proposing self-amendment, into account.. Also recommended is the addition of provisions to be considered by the HOD, such as the implications for the language status and sustainability of the existing language relative to the language recommended by the HOD in the dual or multimedia context, with due regard to the number of speakers of a language in the area and the impact of demographic language of instruction differences as to language preference.

Amendment of S6 by 5 (c) of the Draft Act

“(5) The governing body must submit the language policy of a public school and any amendment thereof to the Head of Department for approval ... (6) The Head of Department may approve the language policy of a public school or any amendment thereof , or may return it to the governing body with such recommendations as may be necessary in the circumstances, together with reasons for such recommendations. ”

Here the HOD's authority is extended to more than an oversight role, with final say over the details of a school's language policy. This authority of the HOD is in addition to the authority in subsection 13 of s5 (c) of the Draft Act, namely to instruct that a policy adopts further languages of instruction.

The amendment is undesirable in that it presupposes a central blueprint for school language policies and does not provide the opportunity for schools to demonstrate to officials the uniqueness and needs of the school community, so that such information can be taken into consideration.

The recommendation is that the HOD should only have the authority to reject the policy if it is unconstitutional in the sense that it falls short of the standard of reasonable practicability, with regard to the use of multiple languages of instruction. The onus of proving the shortfall should rest with the HOD as this would be in line with the undisturbed freedom of language communities, unless inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. If schools have to continuously satisfy the HOD with regard to language policy, the freedom of s31 and the rights of s29 will be diluted to a mere privilege. 

(7) The Head of Department, when considering the language policy of a public school or any amendment thereof for approval, must be satisfied that the policy or the amendment thereof takes into account the language needs, in general, of the broader community in the education district in which the public school is situated, and must take into account factors including, but not limited to— (a) the best interests of the child, with emphasis on equality as provided for in section 9 of the Constitution and equity; (b) section 6 (2) of the Constitution; (c) section 29 (2) of the Constitution; (d) the changing number of learners who speak the language of learning and teaching at the public school; (e) the need for effective use of classroom space and resources of the public school; and (f) the enrollment trends of the public school.

First and foremost, the amendment sets a standard that a school language policy must comply with, namely that the language needs of the school district must be taken into account. This is an overall provision against which an HOD will measure a language policy. The further factors (a) to (f) listed in the amendment occur additionally in the text and do not appear to carry the same weight as the first standard.

This amendment is undesirable because it is unclear what the constitutional basis is on which the notion of a “school district majority language” is based. Rather, “reasonable practicability” or “feasibility” is highlighted in the Hoërskool Ermelo case, and should be read along with s31 as far as language is concerned. Of the Hoërskool Ermelo factors, no one factor is highlighted over the others as a matter of default importance, but s28 (2) states that the best interests of the child are overriding when it comes to matters concerning a child. Naturally, the issue of mother tongue education applies very strongly in this regard as a matter of proven pedagogic best practice, as does not diluting the effectiveness of existing mother tongue education. The “school district majority language” notion is unfair in the context of the South African demographic language of instruction preference, especially if it is highlighted as the main factor of consideration, and it is not in line with the fairness provision in s29 (2), as it will obviously favour English or another majority language preference.

The recommendation is that the school district provision regarding majority language preference is deleted, and that the missing factor stated by the Court in Hoërskool Ermelo, namely “availability and access to public schools” is included instead

“(8) The governing body must review the language policy determined in terms of this section every three years or whenever the factors referred to in subsection (7) have changed, when circumstances so require, or at the request of the Head of Department. ”

This amendment is undesirable because it grants the HOD almost unlimited authority to make adjustments to language policy. It is further undesirable as it places the onus on schools to satisfy the HOD in terms of language. The amendment also puts tremendous pressure on governing bodies to undertake a complex and costly review on a regular basis, without support from the HOD or the Department of Education.

The recommendation is that the proposed amendment be deleted and that the discretion to regularly review the language policy should rest with the governing body, unless a patently discriminatory incident or policy is exposed.. 

“(14) The Head of Department, in determining whether it is practicable for a public school to have more than one language of instruction, must take into account factors including, but not limited to— (a) the best interests of the child, with emphasis on equality as provided for in section 9 of the Constitution and equity; (b) the changing number of learners who speak the language of learning and teaching at the public school; (c) the need for effective use of classroom space and resources of the public school; and (d) the language needs, in general, of the broader community in the education district in which the public school is situated.”

This amendment is particularly bizarre, in that it follows on from the HOD’s authority in clause 14, where the school district provision around majority language preference has been specifically highlighted, even if it is constitutionally inconsistent. 

The amendment is undesirable: In this case, the HOD would have already considered a language policy, taking into account the specially highlighted school district provision regarding majority language preference. When the next step to determine whether a language of instruction should be added is taken, the school district provision will come to the fore again, but now only as a factor to consider. This means that the decision in terms of subsection 14 would effectively be taken in advance, on the basis of a predetermined and specially highlighted factor, namely the school district provision around majority language preference. Subsections (7) and (14) are drafted in such a way that the school district provision will determine how the HOD will make decisions regarding language of instruction and language policy.

Closing remarks

The authority of the HOD removes the essential competency of school governing bodies to help realise communities' freedom with regard to language. Such extensive authority should not lie with the HOD, but with existing school communities that are best positioned to make these kinds of decisions. The authority afforded to the HOD by this Draft Bill also exposes serious constitutional shortcomings with regard to vested rights in this regard. The legislature must afford authority to school communities and focus on balancing mother tongue education and the role that school language policy plays in communities, rather than overriding all these considerations with majority language preferences.