Fish Hoek High ‘diversity session’ highlights the crucial role of school governing bodies

The recent “diversity session” held by the Western Cape Education Department (WCED), which reportedly left some children at Fish Hoek High School “traumatised”, re-emphasises the need for solid partnerships between the department, school governing bodies (SGBs), teachers and parents, to avoid a repeat.

While the details of the session content still remain unclear, it is alleged that the session was premised on the deeply disturbing assertion that “only white people can be racist”. About 800 pupils were reportedly forced to attend the session while staff were banned from joining – even when a pupil, who managed to leave the session, called a teacher due to the nature of the content.

Section 28 of the Constitution states that children have the right to “parental care, or to appropriate alternative care when removed from the family environment”. In a school setting, teachers bear the duty to protect the interests of their pupils and ensure they are not intentionally exposed to harmful material, with the principal having oversight to make certain of this.

The recent events at Fish Hoek High School raise the question: if these two “gatekeepers” between the department and pupils had been involved in the session, could the events that transpired have been avoided?

The interaction between the SGB consisting of parents and guardians, the school and the department is a form of ground-level democracy that should be strenuously defended. The preamble of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 states its intention to “uphold the rights of all learners, parents and educators, and promote their acceptance of responsibility for the organisation, governance and funding of schools in partnership with the State”. This partnership model ensures that parents or guardians are consulted on the form of education received by pupils and that they have a body – the SGB – to channel disputes and engage on administrative or governance issues. 

Both domestic law and court rulings hold that SGBs are best positioned as parents or guardians of pupils and members of their local community to ensure “democratic school governance”. The White Paper on Education and Training in a Democratic South Africa, 1995 states: “Parents or guardians have the primary responsibility for the education of their children, and have the right to be consulted by the state authorities with respect to the form that education should take and to take part in its governance.”

The White Paper on the Organisation, Governance and Funding of Schools, 1996 goes further to state that public school governance “is part of the country’s new structure of democratic governance” and that the SGB will have “substantial decision-making powers”.

The white papers are important founding documents that set out the state’s position with regard to education and are meant to set a benchmark for all other legislation to follow.

Read in Daily Maverick: “Diversity intervention suspended at Fish Hoek High after parents complain about traumatised learners”

Yet, the department seeks to usurp further power from the SGB through the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill, 2022 (Bela Bill), which would empower the provincial education department heads to overrule SGBs on administrative and governance issues. The department, rather than the SGB with the school principal, would be the central decision-making power on matters such as language policies, admission, staff appointments and the leasing of facilities.

What should have been done