Education MEC is to be blamed for lack of transformation at schools like RGJS

WITH reference to the letter of the Education MEC Debbie Schäfer (Cape Argus, November 15):

Readers are probably wondering why I harp on about the representation of voters in the Education Amendment Bill. This is the key to the lack of transformation at most former model C schools, like Rustenburg Girls’ Junior School (RGJS).

The MEC’s response to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill stated that parents are more competent or objective than her in school matters. Herein lies the problem.

She essentially grants former model C schools full control that is used to resist transformation.

The MEC is to be blamed for the current debacle at RGJS. I have proof of an applicant whose admission was rejected in 2015. Schäfer turned a blind eye to the appeal, stating that the school was full. How could a school be full when, firstly, the applicant was the first to apply and, secondly, the admission process resulted in more than 80% of the Grade R learners to be white? She had access to admission data and should have queried the large number of white learners accepted from the pool of applicants.

Sadly, the MEC failed to compel the school to transform.In another matter, the MEC failed to enforce compliance with the South African Schools Act when an illegal admissions fee was requested by a former model C school in Newlands. The MEC and her legal adviser again turned a blind eye to this matter for more than a year. The MEC’s inaction enabled schools to continue retaining their lily white appearance. The acceptance letter was changed for compliance only after the public protector indicated that the HoD of Education could revoke the functions of the school governing body (SGB) according to the Schools Act.

These matters prove that the MEC does not really have the interests of the learners at heart as portrayed in her recent letters.

Professor Nuraan Davids and other parents at RGJS are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think matters will change if the SGB is replaced. The problems at the school emanate from the overwhelming majority of white learners, whose parents have majority voting power. The SGB chairperson said that only 5% of the parents want the SGB to be replaced. So any matter viewed by the white majority as being damaging to their kids’ education will be opposed.Add to the above a private funder or collaborator who has an equal say in the decisions at a public school, then you will understand my concerns about the direction that Schäfer is taking public schools. ADIEL ISMAIL Mount View