Areas such as the adequate provision of learner and teacher support materials; electricity; libraries and laboratories are crucial. We are observing more poor black schools being threatened with closure as a result of the exodus to slightly better equipped schools. Equally important though is the working and service conditions and the professional development and support to teachers as well as increasing the capacity and professionalism of officials in the departments of education. Many districts have had vacant posts for long periods. Our education system is highly differentiated and is based on social class reflecting the broader inequalities in our society. The labour market in teachers - with only some school governing bodies able to afford additional teachers to thus reduce the burden on a few teachers and permit smaller class sizes - is an example of the inequalities. While there are successes around democratic school governance there are because of the inequalities, also numerous examples of frustration, demoralization and anger.

In the context of rising poverty and inequality and growing protests over service delivery, communities have grasped a fact that sometimes seems to elude bureaucrats: progress (or the lack thereof) in schools cannot be divorced from poverty and its consequences. We cannot expect children to come to school ready to learn if they are hungry; if they have been evicted from their homes or if they lack light by which to read at night. In this context extending a properly run, non-profit school feeding scheme to all grades and ensuring a public transport scheme is also critical and relates to quality education.

It is trite to ask, as one talk show did immediately following the controversy around the proposed amendment, ‘Should parents be more interested in the education of their children?’ It is extremely rare for parents and caregivers not to be concerned about the performance of their children - parents have and continue to make tremendous sacrifices. It also undermines the close to 200,000 volunteer citizens who participate in school governing bodies. Rather, in relation to the proposed amendment the question should be framed as, ‘What are the difficulties and obstacles parents face preventing their meaningful involvement in democratic school governance?’

Research, including reports commissioned by the department has pointed to many difficulties. These include the fact that in many provinces, most parents are unemployed so getting to meetings, particularly for rural parents is onerous. Other obstacles include language; insufficient capacity around key areas of school governance; the difficulties in navigating through complex laws and regulations; weak channels of communication with and support by provincial departments of education and conflicts between parents and educators around the meaning of governance and management. These problems can be addressed while ensuring meaningful partnerships and public accountability of the schools performance. The draft bill purports to do this, but in reality could widen divisions and exacerbate conflicts.

Minister Pandor and director general Hindle have stressed that the aim of the amendment is not punitive but is merely intended to benignly issue a “notice” to offending schools concerning the standard of performance of learners and other matters. This is disingenuous - the draft bill unambiguously states, “written warning notice” as well as the clause - “If the Minister approves the notice he or she must publish in the Government gazette the names of those schools identified by the Head of Department”. This is not developmental but rather an exercise in naming and shaming. Moreover, the pressure on governors to prevent the school from being ‘listed’ will result in increasing tensions with educators.

Punitive measures against learners are also a problem. This is not to deny serious problems around drug abuse and violence. Yet, the measures in the draft bill do not address root causes. Some of them might increase youth resistance and dissent. Simultaneously, the youth are increasingly being denied access to programmes including art, music, physical education, extra-mural activities, access to nurses and trained psychologists. The withdrawal of these essential programmes suggests that schools are no longer valued as sites and symbols of the public good and institutions where the youth need to be treated with much greater compassion, solidarity and trust and where their preparation for active citizenship is of primary importance. The corporate model of school governance that protects sectional and exclusive interests will be disastrous in our country. Demonising learners and teachers, privatizing public education and giving up on equity is not the way to transform our society for the public good.

Ivor Baatjes is the former head of curriculum development in the Department of Education (1996-1999) and presently the head of the Centre for Adult Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Salim Vally senior researcher at Wits EPU.