Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa, Maverick Citizen

The danger of implicit school policy gender rules and the threat to genuine transformation

The danger of implicit school policy gender rules and the threat to genuine transformation
Ruth Simbao
By Ruth Simbao
7 Feb 2023
Facebook
0
Implied school policies and unwritten school rules counter any move towards transformation. Using an implicit rule to, for example, prevent boys from wearing earrings when girls are allowed to do so is discrimination, and perpetuates outdated, binary notions of gender.

A young child, who identifies as male, asked if he could get his ears pierced and wear earrings. I was not aware of any boys who wear earrings at his school, so my first step was to look through the school’s official uniform guide. There was no information about earrings for either girls or boys.

When this learner went to school with one small stud in the lobe of each ear, the teachers said nothing. A couple of learners said negative things, but the majority of learners were either positive or indifferent, and they went on with their school day.

I was later told by the school that this pupil had to take his earrings out. I questioned this decision, explaining that I found nothing in the uniform rules about earrings, and my search on the school’s website for relevant policies resulted in nothing as well.

The school then added that even though the policy is not explicitly stated in the rule book, it is implied and has been implemented at the school for many years.

An implied policy?

Further, I was informed that, if the implied policy was difficult to understand, the school would make it explicit.

Gatekeeping hidden rules


I am in education myself, and I know that implicit or assumed rules are extremely dangerous, especially in a South African context where we are trying to embrace, with dignity, multiple perspectives and worldviews.

How can leaders assume that certain unstated “norms” would or should be “understood” and agreed upon by the whole community? What other policies are implicit? What other invisible rules will be retrospectively pulled out of the hat by management?

Not only is this lack of transparency dangerous, but it is also unprocedural.

The school was upset that I had not gone through the “correct channels” by asking permission first. I was told that for the “rule” to change, it had to go through the relevant committee and be ratified by the Council. What are the correct channels for an invisible rule? Why is Council allowed to gatekeep hidden rules that parents are not privy to? What kind of top-down guessing game is this?

Implicit rules are usually a form of behaviour that is accepted and agreed upon across a culture or community. In other words, these “rules” are unofficial and mutually agreed upon.  A number of other schools in our small town do allow boys to wear earrings, so the suggestion that it’s wrong for boys to wear earrings can hardly be viewed as something that is agreed upon in our community.

Further, the South African Schools Act states the following about a school’s Code of Conduct: 1) It must be subject to the Constitution; 2) it must be a consensus document that involves the input of parents, learners and educators at the school; 3) each stakeholder must receive a copy of the document; 4) the document must be displayed at the school; 5) the document must outline, in positive terms, what happens when a rule is breached; 6) communication channels about grievance procedures must be explicit; and 7) all stakeholders must be consulted when amendments are made.

When Westerford High School in Cape Town decided that all learners (regardless of how they self-identify in terms of gender) are allowed to wear earrings and have long hair, parents and pupils were consulted in the process. During my six-year association with this learner’s school, I have never been asked for input on policies, rules or a code of conduct.



Visit Daily Maverick's home page for more news, analysis and investigations



Outmoded gender practices


Implied policies and unwritten rules counter any move towards transformation. Using an implicit rule to prevent boys from wearing earrings when girls are allowed to wear earrings is discrimination, and it perpetuates outdated, binary notions of gender.

South Africa has far to go to undo outmoded gender practices at schools. The Foundation for Education and Social Justice Africa recently called on government “to build an inclusive education system that will protect the rights of all learners, including those identifying with the LGBTQIA+ community”.

The foundation asserts that the labels, “Head Girl” and “Head Boy,” perpetuate the idea that “leadership roles can only be occupied by people who conform to traditional gender roles”.

School management in South Africa remains predominantly male, and a number of male principals still refer to themselves as “headmaster.” As Professor Nuraan Davids points out, “women are under-represented in school leadership positions,” and while about 68% of teachers in South Africa identify as female, only 36% of principals are women.

At the particular school in question, it is important to add that the vast majority of teachers are white.

In 2019, the US Merriam-Webster dictionary added the word “they” as a singular pronoun for non-binary people. Other dictionaries have made this change too.

On a basic level, this impacts how we teach learners about grammar. On a more complex level, this provides us with the opportunity to teach learners that everyone has the human right to self-identify and not have labels imposed on them from the outside.

Dictionaries respond to changes in society, not the other way around. Schools need to keep up with these transformations that are already well underway.

A lack of transparency is anti-transformational


I have also searched for this school’s hair policy and a policy about chapel attendance. Neither were posted online, and when I phoned the school I was told that the policies were unavailable.

Because this institution is an independent school, I went to the Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (Isasa) website to view its policies.

Under the sub-heading, “Transformation and Diversity”, the only accessible document is the “Anti-Racism Statement”. Two other documents, “Diversity in the Workplace” and the “Equality Policy Template”, can only be accessed with a password. The “Guide for Transformation” has to be bought for R295, plus a fee of R45 for postage.

Even the Isasa Policy FAQ document – which apparently discusses the parent contract – is inaccessible without a password. While the school in question argued that I agreed to obey the rules when I signed an entry contract, I certainly didn’t agree to invisible rules or unprocedural codes.

Neither the school nor the Isasa website could sufficiently inform me about issues of gender and other forms of transformation.

Transformation in schools is impossible without transparency.

Hidden and unwritten rules are unprocedural.

Threatening to make an invisible rule explicit in direct response to someone “disobeying” an unwritten rule, is not only unprocedural; it is also punitive, discriminatory and anti-transformational. DM

Ruth Simbao is a professor in the Fine Arts Department at Rhodes University, an author and a concerned parent.

Categories:

Tags: