In his article entitled ”How far have we come?”, Professor Jonathan Jansen raises the point that the first decade of democracy was successful in ”opening the doors of learning and culture, but is unable to really influence what is going on behind the doors”.
I agree wholeheartedly with this point, in view of my personal experience as a parent whose children attend a public Section 21 (formerly Model C) school. Jansen states that ”changing the institutional culture of schools is extremely difficult”. This, in my experience, is the understatement of the decade.
As a parent, I have concertedly been involved in my children’s school. Initially I thought it would be relatively easy to bring about change because we have legislation and policy on the side of transformation — but how naive can a person be? I soon realised that it takes much more than hard work to make any significant change.
It has been a tough battle to get on to the school governing body (SGB). While the school has a 58% majority black learner community, the governing body is 77% white. The SGB was elected, after two unsuccessful meetings to get a quorum, with the help of ”proxy votes”. The white members of the SGB sit on the most powerful committees — namely legal, finance and appointments — while the only two black parents on the body are part of the parent liaison committee. Although the legislation allows for co-option to get more black parents involved on the SGB, this measure was used to co-opt a white woman to take the minutes.
The SGB functions in a completely non-transparent manner. Important policy decisions — including religious practice and developing a mission statement — are decided by the SGB without consulting the broader parent community. Although the chairperson during his election speech promised to get more parents involved in the school, very little has been done except for the parent liaison committee inviting parents to be part of a play.
The government, through the provincial department of education, monitors the implementation of legislation and policy via district offices. The principal told us explicitly that the district office is very happy with the performance of the school. The school, in our view, is in breach of a number of Department of Education policies:
Schools are supposed to make available to parents the policy on the exemption of school fees — both partial and full. In our case this exemption is not made available to parents. It is not mentioned in the application forms and it is not accessible — it only kicks in after parents are unable to pay their fees and then it is written off as debt.
Schools are not allowed to charge for admission of new or existing learners. However, the school charges registration fees under the guise of paying upfront to secure a place for both. If a new child is accepted, this constitutes the first payment of the new school year.
The mission statement of the school is explicit: it states that it is a Christian school and only Christian prayers are practised at all the formal school events. Apart from the fact that there has been no engagement with parents about the policy — and although some parents raised this issue at the annual general meeting — the school persists with its policy and practice. When the student representative council (SRC) went on a training camp, a form was sent to parents stating that if a learner needed a special diet (halaal, for example), the parent needed to pay extra. This practice is clearly discriminatory.
Although the Department of Education has outlawed initiation, it persists at the school under the guise of orientation. New grade eights are forced to carry big name-boards and plastic bottles around with them during the first week of school. The prefects have carte blanche in initiating the grade eights, including forcing them to do various physical exercises. Although this matter has been brought to the attention of the school authorities, there has been no communication as to whether and how this practice will be stopped.
The Schools Act makes provision for the learners to be represented through a representative council of learners (RCL). In Gauteng the prefect system has been outlawed. However, the school is still running a prefect system and an SRC.
According to the principal, the district office gave the school permission to run these dual systems because lots of money was spent on prefect badges. Presently the school is contemplating changing the name of the SRC to the RCL, and prefects will be called ”disciplinary leaders”. However, the election of a RCL will be done in the same way as that of the SRC.
It is too early to make a judgement, but the training for the SRC was through a ”veld school” experience where the leaders went through a ”Kamp Staaldraad” kind of training camp.
Grade nine learners are subjected to the Department of Education’s assessment system, but the school requires learners to write an additional examination. The principal informed us that the district office supports this practice and that the school is a leader in outcomes-based education.
Although a majority of the learners are black, more than 90% of the teachers are white. The majority of ground staff is black and the administration staff is white. There is no policy or plan in place to deal with the issue of diversity and to change the composition of the staff. There are regular incidents of racial prejudice among learners and teachers but this issue has not been systematically addressed.
Section 21 schools are generally found in areas that are in opposition to the ruling party. Schools are often seen as areas of struggle.
For example, in a by-election in our area for the local government seat during 2003, 14 political parties contested one seat, with the Democratic Alliance winning the election with 60% of the vote. In the recent national election of 2004, the DA was again the majority party.
When a new school policy on religion was discussed, the African Christian Democratic Party mobilised parents to vote for people on the SGBs that would ensure the schools in our area keep their Christian character and ethos.
At our school the SRC and prefects (with support from the SGB members, the principal and some teachers) mobilised learners to sign a petition asking the minister of education to allow them to continue with Christian prayers.
It is clear that parents who really want to see institutional change need to take an active part in the transformation of the culture at their schools.
It is imperative that they mobilise to become a pressure group for change. Sometimes parents feel that if they rock the boat too much, their children will be victimised by the school.
This is always a difficult choice, particularly with children in high school. However, a parents’ movement to ensure that institutional change happens at Section 21 schools is urgently needed.
Learners and teachers who strive for a non-racial, non-sexist curriculum and real social integration have the opportunity to ensure that legislation, policies and practices are implemented in their school, and should form alliances with parents who have similar ideals.
The provincial department of education should take its monitoring role far more seriously and, in particular, focus on areas where there are cosy relationships between district officials and Section 21 schools.
Provincial departments should themselves supervise elections of SGBs, particularly where there has been a history of lack of transformation, and should continue to monitor those who are co-opted and why — as well as make sure the processes have been open and transparent.
The department should also find ways of communicating with parents in the wider community other than by way of circulars, the SGBs and the school — especially because, in some cases, the information doesn’t seem to reach the majority of parents.
Joe Samuels is Director of Standards Setting and Development at the South African Qualifications Authority