The education community has been divided into two camps following Education Minister Naledi Pandor’s announcements on school-based violence.
The one camp stopped short of describing Pandor’s proposals as a knee-jerk response that would not yield any tangible and lasting outcomes.
But the other side believes the proposals have the potential to deal with the current scourge of violence.
At the centre of the minister’s proposals is the amendment of legislation where learners considered troublesome will be be sent into the care of their parents or guardians.
This would also empower teachers and police to conduct random drug testing and searches without a warrant. Furthermore, the department has budgeted R45-million to enable schools to put safety measures in place. About R5-million would be made readily available to nine schools – one in each province – that are located in the most violent areas.
Education ministry spokesperson Lunga Ngqengelele said this initial amount would be used on a pilot basis, adding that schools could access the remainder of the money after submitting clear safety plans.
He said the pilot project has no time limit and that the amount of money to be allocated would depend on what security features schools would like to introduce. These could range from payment of security personnel to metal detectors, erecting high-mast lights and installing CCTV cameras and remote-controlled gates.
These developments followed the killing of a Forest High School learner, Nkosana Mbele (19), who was stabbed by a 14-year-old fellow learner.
One of the people who was doubtful about whether the minister’s proposals would offer a lasting solution to the violence at schools is Judith Cohen.
Cohen, South African Human Rights Commission’s deputy director: parliamentary liaison, said the minister’s proposals were very broad and can only be responded to in a broad sense. She said, if anything, the proposals raise more questions than answers.
Said Cohen: ”How would you define that category of a child who is considered unruly? For how long would such a child be removed from a school and would the child be offered counselling and psychological support while at home?
”And, more importantly, how does one reconcile this with the state’s obligation, as stipulated in the South African Schools Act, to provide free basic education to all children?”
Cohen said the proposals seem to be aimed at appeasing the public outcry over violence at schools. She said that while the minister should be seen to be doing something about the situation, this should be looked at within an appropriate (legal) framework.
Professor Jace Pillay, head of the department of educational psychology at the University of Johannesburg, said the minister’s proposals should be seen as short-term measures meant to address the seriousness of the situation.
But to deal with the problem much more effectively, Pillay called for a comprehensive and a whole-school approach that would promote a culture of human rights, dignity, respect and tolerance of other races.
He said the idea is to instil these values in learners from primary to high-school level so that children can embrace them early as they grow up, said Pillay. He said the problem of school violence should not be seen in isolation but must be seen as a spill-over from the broader community.
Although, South African Principals’ Association (Sapa) is yet to meet to consider the minister’s proposals formally, initial interactions suggest that the majority supports the minister.
Sapa’s president, Eddie Jacobs, said members embrace the minister’s view of surrendering a ”problem child” into the care of his or her parents. She said it believes discipline should start at home. And sending a child back home would force parents to be accountable and also play a part in disciplining their children.
But she said it does not think teachers should be burdened with the task of performing random searches, adding that this should be left to police while teachers carry on with their teaching responsibilities.
The National Professional Teachers’ Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa) also registered its support for the minister’s package. ”Naptosa pledges its support to any initiative by the department of education designed to address violence in schools,” said Dave Balt, the president of the organisation.
Balt said principals, staff and pupils must act swiftly and decisively when criminal acts of abuse or violence threatened the safety of both learners and teachers. He said that the rights of a disruptive learner should not override those of the rest of the class.
In its statement on the issue, South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) emphasised the need for urgent action to address the problem. It said the envisaged action should be carefully considered but that this should be part of a sustainable strategy not only to address the symptoms, but also to tackle the underlying causes of the violence.
Sadtu also called for a stakeholders’ summit where role-players would share perspectives and collectively agree on the appropriate solution to the issue. But the union does not support the idea of sending disruptive learners into the care of their parents.
Doing so, Sadtu said, would amount to throwing the poor child on the street as in some cases, parents are part of the problem and this could have dire social consequences.
Ngqengelele said nothing is cast in stone and the education authorities are open to suggestions and comments.
Making schools safer
Education Minister Naledi Pandor outlined her department’s school safety plan that would ”deny violence a permanent place in education”. A central feature of the plan would be a strong collaboration between parents, educators, learners, security personnel, the South African Police Service and the community.
Some features of the safety plan include:
Invoking school safety regulations passed in 2001, which empower and allow teachers and principals to conduct random searches on pupils for weapons. School principals are also permitted to enlist the help of police to carry out such searches.
The regulations also prohibit the presence of dangerous objects and illegal drugs on public school premises and if principals or learners see such weapons, they are obliged to report this to police.
The department would issue guidelines to [problematic] schools to assist them in formulating an updated code of conduct.
Departmental officials would visit schools that continue to experience difficulties to ensure there is discipline and safety.
Amending schools legislation to surrender severely disruptive learners into the care of their parents or guardians for a short period. Schools would be obliged to ensure the learners are provided with learning materials.
Related to the above, consideration would be given to the establishment of support centres for problematic learners. These would be located at districts that experience particular problems of discipline.
Acceleration of the establishment of a framework for random drug testing, as well as requesting schools to inform the national department about whether or not provinces act on existing legislation as provided in the South African Schools Act.
There would be closer working relations with school governing bodies to support them in setting up programmes, with the help of trained counsellors, to provide support to educators and parents.
Establish new schools safety measures modelled on the Western Cape’s successful safe-schools programme launched in 1997 to deal particularly with gang-related violence at schools. The department has already piloted and implemented its own model in the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and the Western Cape.