The use of education as an instrument to enforce state ideology during apartheid played a central role in provoking resistance to apartheid.
For that reason, a new direction was taken after the abolition of apartheid. Chapter 4 of the White Paper on Education (March 1995), states:
“Parents have an inalienable right to choose the form of education which is best for their children, particularly in the early years of schooling, whether provided by the state or not, subject to reasonable safeguards which may be required by law.”
and
“Curriculum choice, especially in the post-compulsory period, must be diversified in order to prepare increasing numbers of young people and adults with the education and skills required by the economy and for further learning and career development.”
Unfortunately, the history since 1996 has largely been one in which the inalienable rights of parents and curriculum freedom have been systematically undermined.
Which curriculum must be followed?
The National Education Policy Act gives the Minister of Education the power to prescribe curriculum frameworks. In terms of this, the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) is prescribed for schools in South Africa.
The NCS states: “The National Curriculum Statement Grades R–12 (January 2012) is a policy statement for learning and teaching in South African schools...” According to the NCS, it forms the basis “… of what should be regarded as the knowledge, skills and values worth learning. It will ensure that learners acquire and apply knowledge and skills in ways that are meaningful to their own lives.”
In practice, officials regard the NCS as the minimum standard that must be met. This implies that schools and parents may build on it, but may not depart from it by omitting parts of it.
Umalusi plays an important role in the enforcement of the NCS. Public and independent schools must be accredited by Umalusi, which monitors the quality of education in schools. This monitoring takes place in terms of the NCS. Although some schools that follow other curricula, such as Cambridge schools, can obtain accreditation from Umalusi, it is difficult, and it is uncertain how much longer this will remain possible.
In 2021, the Department of Basic Education (DBE) obtained a legal opinion from the State Law Adviser on the issue of foreign curricula. According to this legal opinion, current legislation makes no provision for curricula other than the NCS. Since BELA was enacted in 2024, no changes have been made to provide for other curricula in independent schools. It may therefore only be a matter of time before the DBE begins to act on the basis of this legal opinion.
Because Umalusi cannot be used to enforce the NCS directly on home educators, BELA added a registration requirement in terms of which “the proposed home education programme ... covers the acquisition of content and skills which are at least comparable to the relevant national curriculum determined by the Minister”. Education outside the school system, in the private space of households, must therefore also follow the NCS at least in broad outline. How this requirement will be enforced in practice is, however, is still not clear.
At present, the SACAI examination board, which is accredited by Umalusi, is responsible for administering the National Senior Certificate (NSC) offered by distance education institutions. In this way, SACAI already monitors home education in Grades 10 to 12 to some extent. At a meeting in January, SACAI stated that it had already made recommendations to the Minister to monitor home education in Grade 9 and lower grades as well. Such a mechanism would place greater pressure on home educators to follow the NCS.
The NCS was published for public comment in 2001. From within the home education community and the churches, various objections were raised against the NCS. The main objections included the following:
It purports to be based on the values of the Constitution. In reality, however, it is based on a small number of subjectively selected constitutional values used to convey a political ideology.
It prescribes the same knowledge and skills for all learners in the country. If everyone in a country is required to acquire the same knowledge, this undermines the diversity in society that is necessary for long-term survival.
It is based on an interfaith view of religion which treats all religions as necessarily equal human inventions.
The large number of objections delayed the promulgation of the NCS by approximately six months, but ultimately had no material effect on it. As a result, a curriculum was introduced which paved the way for the gradual transformation of education into an instrument of ideological indoctrination.
Resistance to the NCS
From within the school sector, the Beweging vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys (BCVO) challenged the NCS in court in 2012.
The BCVO argued that the NCS was merely a policy statement. In the court case between the Department of Education and Harris in 2001, however, the Constitutional Court held that policy is not enforceable. Only laws and regulations can be enforced. For that reason, the BCVO approached the court for a declaratory order that the NCS was not enforceable. Unfortunately, the BCVO lost the case on technical grounds, and the judge never ruled on the merits of the matter.
The consequence of this court case was that schools largely fell into line with the NCS in order to obtain accreditation from Umalusi. Some Christian schools regard the NCS as something neutral to which Christian education can simply be added. Others argue that the NCS is merely a framework that can be filled with Christian content. Home educators, by contrast, largely decided not to register with provincial departments.
In 2019, the state began introducing comprehensive sexuality education as part of the curriculum. There was considerable resistance from parents. The ACDP launched a campaign against it and also threatened to challenge the introduction of sexuality education in court.
In the Western Cape, however, there was a different development in 2020. Hafith schools are schools where learners memorise the Qur’an. Such schools do not meet the legal definition of a school, for at least two reasons. First, the Schools Act requires schools to enrol children in a grade, whereas Hafith schools do not work with grades at all. Secondly, the curriculum used in Hafith schools is not comparable to the NCS, and such schools therefore cannot be accredited by Umalusi.
To make provision for these schools, the Western Cape Education Department introduced an arrangement in terms of which learners attending these schools are exempted from compulsory school attendance on condition that they spend four hours per week on English, Mathematics and Science. This amounts to a de facto acknowledgement that the NCS is not universally enforceable. More on this can be read at https://vocfm.co.za/mjc-wced-sign-historic-agreement-for-hafith-students/
The new history learning area
In 2026, proposed amendments to the history curriculum were published for public comment. These changes shift the emphasis away from a strong reliance on fixed, verifiable written sources towards a greater emphasis on oral traditions, archaeology, “historical consciousness”, and a particular Africa-centred interpretive framework.
These changes create greater scope to present history not merely as an investigation into the past, but also as an instrument for shaping a desired political and ideological self-understanding in learners. The more the emphasis falls on selection, interpretation, memory, heritage and multiple narratives, the easier it becomes for curriculum designers to privilege certain perspectives, marginalise others, and arrange the past in such a way that it strengthens the legitimacy of the current state project rather than primarily forming learners in sober, critical, source-based historical judgement.
The task team responsible for history, however, does not merely wish to change the curriculum, but also to make the subject compulsory for all learners.
How do we move forward?
From the conduct of the DBE since 2001, it appears that the pattern has been to allow only one curriculum in South Africa and to use that curriculum to convey the state’s ideology to the next generation. This applies in public schools, in independent schools and even in the private spaces of households where home education takes place.
This objective is being realised progressively over time. At times there are strong reactions that cause certain steps to be delayed. Despite these strong reactions, state control over the content of education gradually increases over time. The enforcement of one curriculum for all children conflicts with various constitutional rights: the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to parental care, to mention only a few.
In Deuteronomy 6:6–7 it says:
“And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.”
The phrase “these words” refers to God’s words that we find in the Bible, and not to what is prescribed by a minister. The prescription of the NCS is therefore contrary to this religious command. This view is also articulated in the White Paper. With regard to the right to establish independent schools, it states: “This would also seem to be a specific extension of the general rights protecting religious belief (section 14), and language use and cultural participation (section 31).” Similar arguments can be made in respect of other constitutional rights.
Resistance to the NCS has, however, been fragmented and ineffective. Different role-players have opposed different aspects of the NCS, without presenting a united front. The most significant resistance in the field of education was Solidarity’s campaign against BELA in 2024. That campaign, however, focused on admission and language policy in public schools, and did not address the NCS directly at all.
The publication of the proposed amendments to the history syllabus has prompted reactions on various forums. Effective resistance to these changes will, however, be difficult, because what is being proposed is abstract and articulated at a high level. The real impact will probably only become visible once the first textbooks are published. But even if a campaign against the history amendments were successful, it would amount only to a temporary setback for state control over education.
The way forward should rather be based on the establishment of a broad front committed to creating a regulatory environment in which curriculum cannot be prescribed by the state at all. There are strong constitutional grounds for such an initiative, and it is possible to build on the groundwork that has already been laid by the BCVO and Hafith schools.