DBE’s New BELA Rules Threaten Real Learning

The Advantages of Asynchronous Learning

Asynchronous learning, where students are not required to engage with material at the same time as their peers, is particularly advantageous in the home education context. For children with learning difficulties or special educational needs, this model allows for greater flexibility and the opportunity to learn at their own pace¹. Asynchronous learning environments foster a self-directed learning process that caters to the unique needs of each child. For instance, students with dyslexia or attention-deficit disorders (ADD or ADHD) can take the time they need to process information without the pressure to conform to a fixed schedule. This pressure is often a source of stress in traditional classroom settings.

1. Individualised Learning

The primary advantage of asynchronous learning is its inherent flexibility, which offers an individualised approach to education, which is beneficial for all children. Children with special educational needs, such as autism spectrum disorder or specific learning disabilities, benefit especially from this personalised learning experience because it allows for tailored lesson plans and the ability to move through content at their own rate² Home education provides a personalised education that can adapt to each student’s needs, enabling them to focus on areas where they struggle and to advance in areas where they excel.

For home-educating families, this means that a child who is gifted in one area but struggles in another can receive the appropriate support without the limitations of a classroom environment. This model is particularly effective for children who need additional time to process concepts or require frequent breaks to remain focused. This reduces the likelihood of burnout or frustration.

2. Developmental Readiness

Another important benefit of asynchronous learning in the home education context is that it enables parents to respond to the developmental readiness of their children. Many parents observe that although their children may be of statutory school-going age, they are not yet emotionally or cognitively prepared to begin formal instruction in reading, writing or mathematics. Home education affords families the flexibility to delay the introduction of these subjects until the child demonstrates greater maturity and readiness, thereby avoiding unnecessary frustration or negative associations with learning. While this often results in an asynchronous pattern of progress across different subject areas, such an approach is well supported in developmental psychology. However, this natural variation in learning trajectories is not effectively accommodated within the conventional schooling system, nor is it compatible with the proposed end-of-phase testing requirements, which assume uniformity of progress across all learners.

3. Accommodations for Special Needs Learners

Asynchronous learning also presents significant advantages for learners with special needs. It allows parents and educators to integrate accommodations such as extra time, modified materials or alternative assessment methods without the constraints typically found in a traditional school environment. Learning environments which allow for flexibility and adjustments in pacing are particularly beneficial for students who have disabilities, as they give these learners the time and space to master content in a way that is most effective for them.

This flexibility also extends to the assessment process. Instead of relying solely on high-stakes tests, which may not accurately reflect the capabilities of students with learning challenges, asynchronous learning allows for a more holistic approach to evaluation. This might include ongoing, formative assessments such as projects, observations or oral presentations. These provide a better indication of the learner’s understanding and progress.

4. Reduced Stress and Anxiety

For children who struggle to keep up with the pace of a traditional classroom, asynchronous learning provides a more relaxed and self-paced environment. In a conventional school setting, the constant pressure to meet deadlines and perform in comparison to peers can lead to anxiety. This can be particularly debilitating for children with learning disabilities. By removing the need to perform under strict deadlines or live class participation, asynchronous environments help reduce anxiety and cognitive load, especially for learners with attention or processing differences.³

In the context of home education, this individualised approach also alleviates the societal pressure associated with standardised testing and grading. Families choose home education because it allows them to break free from the rigidity and one-size-fits-all approach of the traditional school system. Asynchronous learning supports diverse learners and life circumstances—from those with health challenges, neurodiversity, family obligation or varying energy and concentration patterns.⁴ Asynchronous learning, therefore, offers a valuable opportunity to prioritise the child’s emotional and cognitive development. It fosters a love of learning and intellectual curiosity without the constraints of conventional grading.

The Risks of Mandating End-of-Phase Testing for Home Educators

The recent announcement by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) that home educators must comply with end-of-phase testing is concerning for several reasons. One of the most significant issues is that standardised tests, especially those designed for traditional school settings, do not align with the principles of individualised and asynchronous learning. The impact of such tests on learners who thrive in a personalised learning environment is detrimental. It risks forcefully imposing a testing culture that contradicts the very essence of home education.

1. The Harm of Teaching to the Test

Mandating standardised testing for home educators would likely shift the focus of education towards “teaching to the test” and sabotage the individualised learning experience. In such an environment, educators are compelled to focus primarily on test preparation rather than fostering critical thinking, creativity or deeper learning. This is a detrimental shift. It negates the value of self-directed, experiential learning, which is at the heart of home education. Research has shown that high-stakes testing undermines intrinsic motivation and encourages rote memorisation at the expense of meaningful learning. “Standardized exam results are more likely to go hand-in-hand with a shallow approach to learning than with deep understanding,” writes Alfie Kohn, author of The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. He warns that standardised testing squeezes the intellectual life out of schools as “they are transformed into what are essentially giant test-prep centers.”⁵ Research in South African confirms that “teachers set aside the larger aspects of the curriculum to focus on narrower aspects that appear consistently in formal assessments such as examinations, with the goal of maximising learner performance.”⁶ The same is likely to happen in home education if parents feel compelled to teach to the test!

For children with learning challenges, the imposition of standardised tests exacerbates the very difficulties that home education seeks to alleviate. Students who require more time or specific interventions are unlikely to perform well under the pressure of rigid assessment formats. Standardised testing often fails to accommodate the unique needs of students with disabilities, creating a false representation of their abilities and progress.

Asynchronous Learning Leads to Varied Progress across Subjects

One of the natural outcomes of asynchronous, individualised learning is that children are not expected to advance uniformly across all subjects. Unlike in traditional classrooms, where all students are generally expected to learn the same content in the same way on the same schedule and to remain within a fixed grade level, home-educated learners are free to move ahead in subjects they excel at while taking extra time in areas where they need more support. As a result, a home-educated child might be working at what would be considered Grade 6 level in mathematics, but at Grade 4 level in language or reading comprehension.

This flexibility is one of the great strengths of home education. It allows learners to build mastery at their own pace. However, it presents a challenge to rigid systems that rely on fixed grade-level assessments. If a child progresses unevenly across subjects, as is common and healthy in asynchronous learning, determining when they have reached the end of a phase becomes arbitrary. A standardised assessment administered at the end of a phase might not accurately represent the child’s learning journey or capabilities. Worse still, it might force parents to push a child through content her or she is not developmentally ready for in one subject or hold the individual back in another where they could otherwise thrive. This makes the decision of when a “competent assessor” should assess the child’s learning, a problematic one. It risks distorting the flexible, learner-centred approach upon which home education is built.

2. The CEMIS Record-Keeping System and the Role of the Competent Assessor

In the context of home education in South Africa, the new requirement for assessment submission through the Department’s CEMIS (Central Education Management Information System) is another point of concern. According to the BELA Act and the CAPS (Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement) documents, home educators are expected to provide both formal and informal assessments. However, the CEMIS platform seems to be geared primarily towards capturing standardised data such as test scores. This may not reflect the true nature of a student’s learning journey.

The act of having a “competent assessor” who has potentially had no prior contact with the learner, perform short-term assessments, usually in the form of standardised tests, introduces a significant disconnect between the student’s ongoing educational experience and the final assessment. This is particularly damaging for learners with special needs. They may require continuous, personalised observation and assessment to truly understand their progress.

Assessments for special needs learners must be tailored to their individual learning profiles and not based solely on rigid, one-size-fits-all tests. The imposition of a one-off formal test by an assessor who is unfamiliar with the child’s learning context is counterproductive. It fails to account for the nuanced, ongoing support that these learners often require.

Real Learning vs. Real Risk

Mandating end-of-phase testing and aligning home education with rigid tools like CEMIS and external “competent assessors” threatens to impose a one-size-fits-all structure onto a system that is deliberately diverse, flexible and responsive to the individual child. This shift risks harming learners with special educational needs, undermining parental authority and eroding the very freedoms that make home education effective.

Asynchronous learning offers clear benefits such as greater accessibility, lower stress, deeper understanding and the ability to tailor learning to the child’s maturity, pace and needs. These advantages cannot and should not be forced into the mould of standardised assessments designed for mass schooling.

Home educators strongly believe that in order to address these issues responsibly, comprehensive research is needed—research that examines home education in South Africa, the value of asynchronous learning in this context and how best to assess learning in ways that are fair, appropriate and meaningful. Only then can a policy be devised that is suitable for the home education environment, along with a fit-for-purpose assessment model that genuinely reflects a learner’s growth over time.

Crucially, such policy development must be done in consultation with home-educating families, educational professionals and civil society organisations, using transparent, democratic public participation processes as guaranteed by the Constitution. Anything less risks not only educational harm, but also a violation of families’ right to choose the educational path that best supports their child’s needs. The South African Constitution, states in Section 28(2), “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child“ and this includes educational assessment.