Nasaret Ruswa | BELA protects learner dignity, but who protects the teacher?

In early September, a short video circulating on social media showed a schoolboy standing close to a teacher, repeatedly pointing towards his face in apparent confrontation while other learners watched and laughed (Swaziland Democratic News, 2026).

The account sharing the video described the conduct as “disrespecting” the teacher, and the clip attracted hundreds of comments. Some respondents demanded stronger consequences for learner misconduct, while others warned that a teacher who responded physically could face dismissal.

The video does not show what preceded the confrontation, and its location and circumstances have not been independently verified. It cannot tell us how the incident began or how the school responded, and one learner’s conduct cannot characterise South African learners generally.

Yet the public reaction reveals anxiety about the conditions under which teachers exercise authority. They must respond to confrontation, protect other learners and restore order while recognising that a physical, threatening or humiliating response could expose them to disciplinary or criminal consequences.

This concern extends beyond social media. South Africa’s report on the 2024 Teaching and Learning International Survey found that 31% of participating teachers reported stress arising from intimidation or verbal abuse by learners (Department of Basic Education, 2025, p. 56). This does not mean that nearly a third were physically assaulted or that all schools are unsafe. Still, it shows that concerns about teachers’ authority and psychosocial safety cannot be dismissed as reactions to isolated viral incidents.

Teacher vulnerability is also not limited to encounters with learners. Velaphi reported in News24 that an Eastern Cape teacher had been hospitalised following an alleged assault by his principal in front of colleagues. The report further stated that the principal had returned to the school while the alleged incident remained under investigation.

Although unrelated to learner discipline, the case indicates that teacher vulnerability may also arise within institutional hierarchies responsible for protecting educators.

How disciplinary authority is distributed

This is the context in which the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act 32 of 2024, commonly known as BELA, has become a focal point in public debate about teacher authority and protection. BELA did not create teacher vulnerability, but concerns about its implementation have given expression to longstanding anxieties about discipline and institutional support.

The Act defines corporal punishment broadly, encompassing physical acts such as hitting, slapping and pushing, as well as deliberate conduct that seeks to belittle, humiliate, threaten, induce fear or ridicule a learner.

A person convicted of inflicting corporal punishment may face a fine, imprisonment or both. These protections are necessary: learner dignity cannot be violated in the name of discipline, and the argument is not for the return of corporal punishment.

BELA does not abolish classroom discipline or procedures established under school codes of conduct. The difficulty lies in how disciplinary authority is distributed. Teachers may manage immediate classroom behaviour and refer misconduct through formal procedures. Still, the governing body exercises precautionary suspension, while only the provincial Head of Department may expel a learner following disciplinary proceedings.

Responsibility for classroom order can therefore exceed the authority and institutional support available to teachers. Educators may have little control over whether a disciplinary hearing occurs promptly, whether a reported threat is properly assessed, or whether appropriate support is provided before a learner returns to the same classroom.

The law states clearly what teachers must not do, while the effectiveness of lawful alternatives depends on processes over which individual teachers have limited control.

Learner protection does not matched by teacher protection

In August 2025, teacher Phumlani Majola told Wits Vuvuzela that educators perceived attempts to discourage misconduct as potentially infringing learners’ rights, while student-teacher Lwandile Ntsebesha said the situation left them feeling powerless.

These accounts cannot represent the profession as a whole, and the belief that BELA removes teachers’ disciplinary authority is legally inaccurate. Yet dismissing such concerns as ignorance misses the institutional question beneath them: has the state established clearer limits on teachers’ conduct without ensuring that lawful alternatives are equally clear, accessible and effective?

Formal rights offer limited reassurance when the structures responsible for implementing them are experienced as slow, inconsistent or themselves implicated in a complaint.

The government must close the gap between legal protection and practical protection. It should ensure that every school has, and consistently implements, clearly communicated procedures for responding to threats, violence, and serious disruption.

Teachers must know what immediate steps they may lawfully take, whom to contact and how quickly school and district officials are expected to respond. They also need accessible, independent escalation channels when allegations involve a principal or senior employee, counselling after violent incidents, and protection against retaliation.

School leaders and teachers require practical training in lawful and timely disciplinary processes, nonviolent classroom management, conflict de-escalation, and restorative practices, supported by procedures that are responsive to different school contexts.

The problem is not that BELA protects learners; it is that learner protection has not been matched by an equally visible and reliable system of teacher protection. Learners need protection from abusive discipline, while teachers need protection from violence, intimidation and institutional abandonment. Teachers should never have to frighten learners to exercise authority, but neither should they have to teach in fear.

• Dr Nasaret Ruswa is a Lecturer: Department of Curriculum Studies and Higher Education, Faculty of Education, at the University of the Free State.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter