<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all">
<h1>Op-Ed: Overvaal dispute – only our children lose</h1>
<div class="gmail-actionbar">
<ul class="gmail-long gmail-no-ant">
<li class="gmail-dateline">01 Feb 2018 12:11 (South Africa)</li><div class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-summary-widget gmail-no-ant gmail-antenna-reset"> <div class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-summary-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-summary-title gmail-antenna-reset"> <br></span></div></div>
</ul>
</div> <div class="gmail-photo"><a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-02-01-op-ed-overvaal-dispute-only-our-children-lose/"><div class="gmail-data-image-label-hover"><img class="gmail-img-responsive" src="https://images.dailymaverick.co.za/images/resized_images/849x493q70thabang-overvaal.jpg" alt="File Photo: Protesters blocked a main road leading up to Overvaal school with debris and burning tyres. Photo: GroundUp"> </div></a></div>
<div class="gmail-column1">
<div class="gmail-blurb"><p>The Overvaal case places the power struggles
between provincial departments of education and school governing bodies
once again in the public domain. This case also brings in our collective
duty to ensure a transformed society. By THABANG POOE.<span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p></div>
<div class="gmail-clearfix"></div>
<div class="gmail-clearfix"></div>
<div class="gmail-body"><p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">In
the week of 15 January 2017, we saw parents, political parties and
interested groups protest outside the gates of Hoerskool Overvaal in
Vereeneging. At various points, the protest turned violent, with some
being injured and others arrested. At the centre of the dispute was an
instruction from the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) to Hoerskool
Overvaal, an Afrikaans medium school, to admit 55 learners, who would
require tuition in English, to the school. The school in turn petitioned
the North Gauteng High Court on an urgent basis seeking to have the
instruction set aside on the grounds that the GDE’s instruction was
procedurally flawed and unlawful. The school added that the instruction
was contrary to both the school’s language and admission policies.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The
department in turn argued that the school did in fact have capacity and
it had a duty to place learners who had not yet been placed in schools.
The department also cited the need to transform the school by asking
the school to adopt a dual-medium language policy in response to broader
community interests. The department claimed that the effect of the
current language policy was to exclude black learners from the school.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">In
the papers it is noted that two of the neighbouring schools filed
affidavits included in the applicant’s papers, noting that they had
space to admit the 55 learners and that they were already operating as
English/dual-medium schools. Later, the judge noted that due to pressure
from the department, including threats of dismissal, these schools
reversed their claims and stated in a later affidavit that they were
full to capacity.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">On
15 January 2018, Judge Prinsloo issued a judgment finding in favour of
the school. In his judgment, Prinsloo found that the instruction issued
by the GDE offends the principle of legality. The judge found that both
the school’s language and admission policies were submitted and known by
the GDE – and no objection was raised against them, nor have they been
found by the department to be non-compliant with any laws in any way.
Thus, the department had no authority to override the school’s policies.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">On
the department’s conduct, the court concluded that the conduct amounted
to an attempt to defeat the ends of justice and as such their conduct
ought to be investigated by senior officials in the department.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">It
is not the first time that we, as a society, have had to grapple with
the difficulties around dealing with injustices that exist as a result
of our past. The education system continues to bear the biggest brunt.
In Ermelo, a case regarding whether or not a Head of Department of a
provincial department of education had the power to override the School
Governing Body’s power to determine the language policy of its school,
the Constitutional court noted that:</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">“<span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">Apartheid
has left us with many scars. The worst of these must be the vast
discrepancy in access to public and private resources. … Unequal access
to opportunity prevailed in every domain. Access to private or public
education was no exception. While much remedial work has been done since
the advent of constitutional democracy, sadly, deep social disparities
and resultant social inequity are still with us.”</span></span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(48,44,44)"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">So,
while section 29 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to a
basic education, this promise is still to be realised. The reality is
that schools are plagued with radically unequal distribution of
resources, related to a history of systematic discrimination. This makes
access to a quality education, as guaranteed by the Constitution,
inaccessible for large numbers of South Africans.</span></span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(48,44,44)"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The
question we need to deal with in cases like this is not whether, but
how, to address this problem of uneven access to education, particularly
because there are various stakeholders, a diversity of interests and
competing visions. Inevitably, there will be tension, but in finding
solutions it is important for us to ensure that the best interests of
our children are paramount. It seems that in this case everyone forgot
this vital reference point – people were more concerned with power and
having a final say than fostering partnerships to meet the educational
needs of children.</span></span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Times,serif"><span style="font-size:small"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">While
we agree with the judgment, we find that the judge did not go as far as
is necessary, particularly as has been done by the Constitutional Court
in similar cases. We have a long list of cases that have dealt with
disputes between schools/SGBs and Departments of Education. In the
Ermelo case, the court held that an HOD could only do this on
“reasonable grounds and in order to pursue a legitimate purpose”, and in
accordance with specified due process provisions, which were not
followed in this instance. Despite this finding, the court nevertheless
directed the school to review its language policy to accommodate
English-speaking learners that could not be accommodated elsewhere
because other schools in the area were already full.</span></span></span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">Another
example is the Welkom judgment, where the Constitutional Court
addressed the legality of an instruction from the HOD of the Department
of Education in the Free State to two school principals to ignore the
pregnancy policies developed by their respective SGBs. The principals at
both schools had in terms of their SGB policies prohibited two learners
from returning to school in the year they had given birth.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Times,serif"><span style="font-size:small"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The HOD in both cases instructed the principals to readmit the learners immediately.</span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The
court held that SGBs have the power to develop the pregnancy policies
at their schools, even though the policies in these instances undermined
the rights of pregnant learners.</span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The HOD therefore couldn’t just override these policies but had to follow the processes set out in the SA Schools Act.</span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The court nevertheless ordered the two schools implicated to review their respective pregnancy policies.</span></span></span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The
Constitutional Court in both cases invalidated the conduct of the
provincial departments of education concerned but went further to
address the transformative aspect in each of the school. In both
instances, the court adopted a pragmatic approach. An approach that
ought to have been adopted in this case particularly because of the
interests at play. Instead the High Court in this instance selectively
applied existing jurisprudence by setting aside the unlawful conduct of
the department but not following through with a remedy that requires the
school to examine its policies.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">Schools
such as Overvaal, which have traditionally catered for mainly white and
comparatively privileged learners, need to ensure that their policies
not only speak to their current student population, but also to the
interests of the broader community.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">These
cases must serve as a lesson to all stakeholders. They address key
issues, and if they had been applied in this dispute may not have
resulted in the events of last week. </span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The first is the need to recognise our historical context and the corresponding duty to reform and redress past injustices. </span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The
second is the need for the state to take into account the nature of the
right at play, including the need to ensure that the interests of
children are paramount – thus safeguarding that the nature of the
obligations imposed on role-players is well understood. Third is a
healthy respect and acknowledgment of the important role that SGBs play
in schooling and the need for that role to be promoted and protected.
And where this is contested, it must be challenged in a constitutionally
compliant manner. </span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Times,serif"><span style="font-size:small"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">Last,
stakeholders must engage each other in a meaningful way – this is not
only for Overvaal and district officials, this also applies to the other
schools in the district. The Rivonia judgment, a case involving a
dispute between Rivonia Primary, a former model C school, and the
department, when a learner was refused a place in Grade 1, imported the
doctrine of “meaningful engagement” from the constitutional court’s
housing evictions jurisprudence into its school governance
jurisprudence.</span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">The
court emphasised that in terms of the “partnership model”, provincial
education departments and SGBs are legally obliged to negotiate with
each other in good faith and in the “best interests of the learners”
before resorting to litigation. Had this kind of engagement happened, we
would not be in this position.</span></span></span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-hasreactions gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span><span class="gmail-antenna-reaction-total gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">We
would be remiss if we did not stress the importance of the Basic
Education Laws Amendment Bill (BELA) as it seeks, in part, to resolve
this tension.</span></span><span class="gmail-antenna gmail-antenna-text-indicator-widget gmail-antenna-reset gmail-antenna-suppress gmail-antenna-nohint"> <span class="gmail-antenna-text-indicator-inner gmail-antenna-reset"><span class="gmail-antenna-logo gmail-antenna-reset"></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(48,44,44)"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:Times,serif"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">Like many disputes of this nature, we are </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-size:large">required
to strike an appropriate balance between the powers and duties of
provincial education departments and school governing bodies. Connected
to this are the interests of parents in the quality of their children’s
education, and the state’s obligation to ensure that all learners have
access to basic schooling. We will continue to fail our children if we
constantly fail to adhere to carefully crafted principles set out in our
jurisprudence. In cases like this, only our children lose</span></span></span></span></span></p></div></div>
<br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+<br><br> Harold F. Schiffman<br><br>Professor Emeritus of <br> Dravidian Linguistics and Culture <br>Dept. of South Asia Studies <br>University of Pennsylvania<br>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305<br><br>Phone: (215) 898-7475<br>Fax: (215) 573-2138 <br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:haroldfs@gmail.com" target="_blank">haroldfs@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/</a> <br><br>-------------------------------------------------</div>
</div>