From school violence to court

As the nightmare of school violence disturbs the public once again, I heard a promise to take the Education Minister and Attorney General to court for not providing the stipulated conditions required for student safety. And the initial courtroom tools to be used are the Education Act (1 of 1966, as amended), a common-law premise, several instances of student violence and the numerous neglected research reports advocating prevention and remedial solutions.

Two things here: (1) Given this 40-year-old problem of school violence, especially in our secondary schools, it now seems that ad-hoc measures and committees calling for “quick solutions” did not and do not work. It is the deja-vu phenomenon embellished by fresh headlines on a stale subject.

(2) Given the intense politicisation and partisanship which curtail long-term and sustainable solutions, maybe a dispassionate, logically-driven treatment in court may help push the required reforms ahead.

The courts are now notably a civil-society saviour, given the administrative blunders, unfairness, discrimination and inefficiency of public bodies – from state companies to regional corporations. In particular, the court may now do what has long been required with the education system.

I therefore delved into the Education Act. Note, a crisis in education is a crisis of our youth, a crisis of the future.

I will start with the Education Ministry’s early pledge: “To produce citizens who are intellectually, morally and emotionally fitted to respond adequately and productively to the varied challenges of life in a multi-racial developing country.” (Education Plan 1968-83.)

How far have the ministry and government fulfilled this pledge and why not?

Now, the education system is an open system, meaning it takes in all that is good and bad and sends out all that it creates, good and bad. The ministry should tell the public in truth what are the administrative, operational and legislative challenges it faces and how it really intends to deal with them in sustainable manner. Playing Wonder Woman for overnight solutions will not work, just a playing Superman did not work. The problem takes time, patience and hard work.

The minister already has a lot of powers to help manage and oversee the system (eg Sections 3-10). The minister shall ensure “the promotion of education …and the establishment of institutions by means of which he shall contribute towards the development of the human resources, physical, mental, moral and spiritual of the community.” The act further says: “Principals shall be responsible for the day-to-day management of their school including the supervision of the physical safety of pupils.” (Section 27)

Now, apart from taking the ministry to court, last Monday a 15-year-old girl in school uniform slashed the face, chest and hand of another uniformed 15-year-old with a knife outside the school. She is now in police custody.

The ministry, obviously concerned, said students who commit serious offences “while in uniform, whether on or off the school compound face the maximum penalty of expulsion.”

By last Wednesday, the offender had been expelled.

As the police moved to press charges, this school violence will reach the courts and the judge would have an opportunity to visit the Education Act primarily, suggest amendments and determine the balance of responsibilities.

What is a bit bothering is that around last October, this column described the large extent of disorder, delinquency, absenteeism and parental non-co-operation at this same Williamsville Secondary School, bringing great stress upon teachers and hoping some conscientious supervisor would make appropriate inquiries to prevent further calamity.

To what extent is a principal legally responsible for violence by students inside or outside his or her school?

To what extent are parents accountable for violence or delinquency by their children? The act requires parents to ensure that their children are properly at school. (Section 77) In the present circumstances, however, the act needs to be amended to require further responsibility of parents over their children’s persistent indiscipline. TUTTA’s vice president Marlon Seales is right to call upon parents to “take charge of their children” and not leave an undue burden upon teachers.

What about the government school boards and school attendance officers who should exert some oversight not only over student attendance at school (Section 80-81) but also over school discipline?

Where does the principal’s responsibility end and that of the police and courts begin?