EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT: ON INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RACIAL SEGREGATION AT CURRO FOUNDATION SCHOOL, ROODEPLAAT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT:

12 MARCH 2015

1 INTRODUCTION

On the 30^th of January 2015, the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) instructed Harris Nupen Molebatsi Attorneys (“HNM”) to conduct an investigation into allegations of racial segregation at the Curro Foundation School, Roodeplaat (“the School”). Specifically, it was alleged that “... certain classes at Curro Foundation School, Roodeplaat (“the School”) were made up of only black learners and that white learners are grouped together separately”.

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The specific terms of reference are as follows:

“The Department received a complaint through the media with regard to allegations of racial segregation at the above school. It is alleged that some classes are made up of only black learners and white learners are grouped together separately.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To conduct an investigation into the aforementioned allegations with the District Director, Circuit Manager, Cluster Leader, the Principal and educators of the School, the SGB members, the SMT, District officials, learners at the school and other relevant witnesses.

The investigation must contain clear findings which will complement specific recommendations to the matters relating to Education Laws, SASA, EE Act and other relevant laws. Recommendations must include legislation contravened, charges that must be laid and what the Department must do.

The scope of the investigations will involve: whether there are merits to the allegations; the circumstances around the allegations; the conduct of the principal in handling the matter; whether this matter was reported to the district/department and whether any action was taken by the Department or not, are there are any disciplinary steps which need to be taken by the Department; the conduct of the School Management Team; whether there is a general problem of this nature at the school; the role, if any, of the School Governing Body;

3 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

The conduct displayed by the Curro Roodeplaat Private School has several legal implications which may result in the violation of a number of legislative provisions. The relevant provisions are identified below:

3.1 The Constitution

Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution), states that:

“(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

 (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth.

(4)No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in sub section (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.”

The Constitution also contains a provision that deals specifically with private schooling. Section 29 (3) (a) states that:

“Everyone has the right to establish and maintain, at their own expense, independent educational institutions that do not discriminate on the basis of race.”

3.2 The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination, Act 4 of 2001

Section 7 (c) of The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination, Act 4 of 2001 (the Equality Act), states that:

“Subject to section 6, no person may unfairly discriminate against any person on the ground of race, including the exclusion of persons of a particular race group under any rule or practice that appears to be legitimate, but which is actually aimed at maintaining exclusive control by a particular race group.”

Section 6 states that:

“Neither the state nor any person may unfairly discriminate against any person”

3.3 The South African Council for Educators (SACE) Act, 31 of 2000

Section 3 (c) of the South African Council for Educators (SACE) Act, 31 of 2000, states that:

“This Act applies to all educators appointed at an independent school.”

Therefore the SACE Act applies to all Curro schools, including the Curro Roodeplaat School.

Section 23 (c) of the SACE Act states that:

“The Council may direct the chief executive officer to remove the name of an educator from the register if the educator was found guilty of a breach of the Code of Professional Ethics.”

4 THE INVESTIGATION

The issues that arose at the School in relation to allegations of the racial segregation of classes arise from a petition (“the Petition”) that was signed by certain parents of learners in grade R at the School. The above Petition was signed by thirty two parents and was despatched to the Principal of the School on the 23^rd of January 2015. The Petition set out the concerns of parents in grade R regarding the allocation of pupils to the grade R classes along what appeared to be racial lines.

Thereafter, there appears to have been much media interest in the allegations and the School. This investigation was subsequently commenced on the instruction of the Gauteng Department of Education.

Interviews were conducted with a number of the parents who were signatories to the Petition as well as with the Principal of Curro Foundation School, Roodeplaat and the Curro Schools Management Team.

5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is found that the segregation of the learners in the grade R classes at the School was undertaken according to race. It was confirmed by Curro Management at the first interview with the HNM investigation team that took place at the School on the 3^rd of February 2015 (“the First Interview”) that the segregation took place as a result of pressure from certain white parents. The segregation of learners by the School in the grade R classes amounts to unfair discrimination on the basis of race in contravention of section 9 of the Constitution. 

It should be noted that section 29(3)(a) of the Constitution states:

“Everyone has the right to establish and maintain, at their own expense, independent educational institutions that do not discriminate on the basis of race”.

The segregation of learners by the School in grade R classes does amount to discrimination on the basis of race and, accordingly, is in contravention of section 29(3)(a) of the Constitution. It is also confirmed that irrespective of the fact that Curro Schools are independent, the Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in such schools.

By segregating the learners based on their race, the school acted in a manner that was discriminatory and in contravention of Section 6 of the Equality Act “Neither the state nor any person may unfairly discriminate against any other person”.

Further, section 7(c) of the same Act provides that “Subject to section 6, no person may unfairly discriminate against any person on the grounds of race, including the exclusion of persons of a particular race group under any rule or practice that appears to be legitimate, but which is actually aimed at maintaining exclusive control by a particular race group”.

It is found that by segregating the learners based on their race, the School discriminated against them and as a result violated section 7(c) of the Equality Act.

In terms of the SACE Act, it is found that no evidence was produced to show that any of the educators at the School contravened the SACE Act, as well as the SACE Code of Professional Ethics.

In terms of recommendations, it is clear that the School acted swiftly in addressing the issue of the segregation of the English classes in grade R following the submission of the Petition and the reporting of the discriminatory practices in the media. Within a short period of time the classes were reshuffled in a manner which was appropriate in order to ensure that the classes reflected the racial demographics of the country, which reshuffling was also the subject of approval by the parents of the learners in the English grade R classes. It should however be noted that in arriving at the outcome referred to above, concerns were raised by parents in relation to the manner at which it was arrived at. 

In relation to the allegation that “certain classes at Curro Foundation School, Roodeplaat (the School) were made up of only black learners and that white learners were grouped together separately” it is found that this allegation is incorrect in that while white learners were grouped with Indian and Coloured learners in the same class, there were also six black learners in that English class as well. While the allegation that the white children were in a class purely by themselves is incorrect, it is correct that white, Indian and Coloured learners were clustered in one class, while the two remaining English classes were completely black (African) in their composition.

It is found that the statement by Curro Management that what is really at issue is a split between Afrikaans and English learners at the School and that this was not clearly understood by certain of the grade R black parents is incorrect as the black parents interviewed stated that they clearly understood the language policy of the School and that learners were entitled to be educated in a language of their choice. Accordingly, it is found that the statement by Curro Management that this was about the split between Afrikaans and English is incorrect and, in fact, misleading.

5.1 The Meeting at the School with Certain Parents on Tuesday the 27^th of January 2015

It was stated by certain of the parents interviewed that there was a meeting on Tuesday the 27^th of January 2015 (“the Tuesday Meeting”), which meeting was only for white parents. It was stated that the black parents were not told of the Tuesday Meeting and that there were about fifty white parents at the meeting. It was stated that one black parent, namely Deborah Setsiba (“Ms Setsiba”) attended the Tuesday Meeting by mistake as she had been at another meeting at the high school. 

It was further stated that at the Tuesday Meeting, after a while, the non-grade R parents were asked to leave. This duly took place which left behind the white, Indian and Coloured parents as well as Ms Setsiba. The parents were then asked if they minded if their child was placed in a class with black learners. It was stated that the white, Indian and Coloured learners were then allocated throughout the 3 English classes.

It is clear that grade R black parents were not invited to the Tuesday Meeting and that while at least one may have attended, (with a maximum of two grade R parents, on the version of Curro Management), the meeting was essentially a meeting of white, Coloured and Indian parents. The reason given by Curro Management was that the meeting was really called to deal with those parents whose children “… would most likely be impact by the reallocation of learners to the respective classes”.

It is also clear that the motivation for the calling of a meeting of white, Indian and Coloured parents and not extending the invitation to black parents, was to first address the re-allocation of white, Indian and Coloured learners into the English grade R classes.

In essence, the white, Indian and Coloured parents made decisions in relation to the reallocation of learners in the English Grade R classes, which decisions were then communicated to all parents on the 29^th of January 2015. In so doing, the presentation of the reallocation at the Thursday meeting on the 29^th of January 2015 was a presentation of a decision already taken, which decision the black parents in the affected classes in grade R played no role in.

It is recommended that in the future, when meetings take place that affect learners and in which the input and direction of parents is sought, that such meetings not be segregated, either in the manner of their calling, or in their content and the effects thereof. This would send a message of inclusivity and consultation to all parties, whether they be directly or indirectly affected.

5.2 The Meeting at the School with Parents on Thursday the 29^th of January 2015

The meeting at the school on Thursday the 29^th of January 2015 (“the Thursday Meeting”) was a meeting at which all parents, from grade R to grade 2, were called and it included both black and white parents. The Thursday Meeting was also attended by members of Curro Management. It was stated that the meeting commenced with the Principal apologising, however it was stated by certain of the parents who were interviewed by the HNM investigation team that the apology was along the lines of him saying “I am sorry that you saw the cultural profiling as racist.” The parents that were interviewed stated that as a result of the form of the apology and the way it was presented, they did not regard it as either a sincere or appropriate apology. 

The parents interviewed stated that they had suggested at the Thursday Meeting that an independent body should be appointed to investigate and propose a way forward in relation to transformation at the School.

It was then stated that Mr Andre Pollard, the Regional Director of Curro Schools to whom the Principal reports, suggested that “management” would prepare a plan to be presented to the parents within 7 days. The request was made by certain of the black parents that a team should be put together to oversee the implementation of the above plan and it was then proposed by the School that there should be one parent per grade to be a part of the implementation team.

The parents stated that to date they had not yet received any plan from management and that they were also disappointed as they had asked in their petition for a written response to be given in seven days. 

It is found that the purpose of the Thursday Meeting was to address the issues detailed in the petition delivered to the School on the 23^rd of January 2015 and, in so doing, to present the reallocation of English Indian and Coloured learners throughout the three English classes in Grade R. There is no doubt that the presentation of the above re-allocation took place. 

It is also correct, as contended by Curro Management, that it was agreed that a sub-committee would be formed and that elections for that sub-committee would take place on Thursday the 3^rd of February 2015. It should also be noted that in relation to grades 1 and 2, the learners in those grades were reshuffled and it is apparent that the reshuffling took place in the presence of the District Director and Circuit Manager of the GDE who observed the process and raised no objection. 

It is found that the allocation of learners in the grade 1 classes prior to the reallocation on the 3^rd of February 2015 reflects an uneven demographic spread across the classes. This appears to be an attempt to keep the white, or minority racial group learners clustered together in two classes, leaving one entire class of 25 as African. It is found that this allocation appears to have been based solely on race and amounts to racial clustering and was discriminatory.

It is also found that the plan that was promised to be presented to parents within 7 days by Mr Andre Pollard was not presented, although the team to oversee the presentation of the plan to address the re-division of classes was elected on the 3^rd of February and learners in grade 1 and 2 were subsequently reallocated. It is found that this was in breach of the undertaking given by Curro Management to parents at the Thursday Meeting.

While the primary purpose of the meeting of the 29^th of January 2015 was to address the Petition and the allegations of segregation of classes in grade R, it is also clear that there were broader issues that needed to be addressed, which issues would have been part of the plan referred to above. At the same time, the primary purpose of the Thursday Meeting was to address the re-division of classes and that in fact did take place at the 3^rd of February meeting and subsequently.

5.3 General statements and allegations made by the parents interviewed

It was stated by the parents interviewed that while the issue of the segregation of the grade R classes was a problem, there were other issues which they viewed as being discriminatory at the School. In this respect, the following statements and allegations were made:

5.3.1 Language, Staff Experience, Staff Diversity and Class Allocation

According to the parents, the teachers at the School, with the exception of one teacher, are white, this does not reflect the diversity of the country and this issue had been raised with the Principal going back to 2012. It was alleged that the teachers are very young and white and that they are not necessarily equipped to deal with a multi-cultural environment. It was stated by certain parents that they were not sure as to whether the teachers had any experience or training in dealing with a multi-cultural environment. It was stated by one parent that, in her view, when these teachers started teaching black children in their classes, it was probably their first experience of a multi-cultural environment.

It is found that the allegations that the educators at the School do not reflect the diversity of the country is correct. It is clear that with the exception of one educator, all of the educators in the school are white.

The issue of teacher diversity was acknowledged to be a problem by the Curro Management who stated that they were taking steps to address this, particularly in the form of their own academy. It is recommended that Curro Management give this issue focussed attention in order to ensure a more diverse mix of educators within the School.

In relation to the issue of diversity and diversity training, the response of Curro Management was that all of the staff (educators and admin staff) attended a diversity training course in October 2014. In this respect, the programme that was presented to them is the same programme that is presented to the Advanced Project Management Course (APM) at the University of Pretoria. 

Foundation Phase

Allegation (1): The most experienced educators teach in the Afrikaans stream.

In the Primary School Foundation Phase, which constitutes educators who teach grade R to grade 3, the average years of experience of English educators is 11 (eleven) years and the average years of experience of Afrikaans educators is 13 (thirteen) years.

Therefore on average, the Afrikaans educators are more experienced, however the difference between the experienced Afrikaans and English educators is insubstantial.

This allegation is therefore found to be unsubstantiated.

Allegation (2): The teachers are young and they have very little experience in a multi-cultural school.

On average, the educators have 9 (nine) years’ experience in a multi-cultural school. The educators also have an average of 13 (thirteen) years’ experience in a non-multi-cultural school. Therefore the educators have substantially more experience in a non-multi-cultural, as opposed to a multi-cultural, school. However these findings must be put into context – only four of the nineteen educators have experience in a non-multi-cultural school and there is a total of 46 years of experience between just two of the educators, and this number increases the overall number of the educators’ years of experience in a non-multi-cultural school.

Furthermore, two of the educators have 23 years of experience in a non-multi-cultural school, therefore the allegation that educators lack experience in a multi-cultural school because of their youth is not correct in light of the facts. This allegation is therefore found to be unsubstantiated.

Intersen Phase

Allegation (1): The most experienced educators teach in the Afrikaans stream.

In the Intersen Phase of the Primary School, which constitutes educators who teach grades 4 to 7, the average years of experience of English educators is 19 (nineteen) years and the average number of years of experience of Afrikaans educators is 13 (thirteen) years.

Therefore, on average, there are more experienced English educators teaching English than there are Afrikaans educators teaching Afrikaans at the school. This allegation is therefore found to be unsubstantiated.

Allegation (2): The educators are young and they have very little experience in a multi-cultural school.

On average, the educators have 12 (twelve) years of experience in a multi-cultural school. The educators also have an average of 5 (five) years of experience in a non-multi-cultural school.

Therefore the teachers have substantially more experience in a multi-cultural, as opposed to a non-multi-cultural school. This allegation is therefore found to be unsubstantiated.

5.3.2 Sports

The parents stated that they had been requesting for some time that the School teach and play soccer as many of the learners in the School are black. Findings and recommendations in regard to sports at the School

It is clear from the evidence presented by Curro Management that there is in fact soccer played at the School which was introduced in 2014. 

The allegation therefore that there is no soccer at the School is therefore incorrect and unfounded.

It is however clear that there is no soccer in grade R to grade 7 and this may be where the complaint of the parents interviewed lies. In this respect, the School has given an assurance that they will ascertain the interest of parents in the lower grades and in the event that there is such interest would be happy to phase in soccer in the lower grades.

5.3.3 Conduct of Meetings

In relation to the conduct of parent meetings with the school management, the allegation was made that apart from saying “hello” in English, the meetings were then conducted in Afrikaans. The parents stated that they had raised this on a number of occasions but had received no satisfaction.

It was also stated that assemblies at the School are held in Afrikaans. 

No evidence has been supplied to corroborate this allegation. In this regard, it should be noted that certain of the parents interviewed stated that there was a recording of the parents meeting, however the recording has not been supplied to the HNM investigation team.

The response of Curro Management to this allegation when put to them does however appear somewhat contradictory in that they stated “... in the event that a parent indicated that they did not understand something said in Afrikaans they are always addressed in English. Such request had never been ignored or refused.” It seems odd that if meetings are dual medium in both Afrikaans and English, then why would it be necessary for the request for translation from Afrikaans to English to be made by a parent?

Notwithstanding the above, it appears that there are conflicting versions in relation to this allegation and due to the lack of corroboration concerning this issue with reference to the conduct of parents meetings and assemblies, there is insufficient evidence to come to a finding.

5.3.4 School concerts

It was stated by certain parents that the 2014 School grade concert appears to have been segregated in that white children were paired with white children in terms of particular acts or dances and black children with black children.

The HNM investigation team viewed the DVD of the 2014 School concert called “’n Boer Soek ‘n Vrou”. Bearing in mind that it was alleged by the parents interviewed that in the School play the black children dance with the black children and the white children dance with the white children,

It is apparent from the analysis of the DVD of the School play that there are a number of scenes in which there is no racial segregation or division of the children. At the same time, it also appears that there are a number of scenes in which there appears to be racial pairing.

We are not in a position to say that the School play was clearly cast in a manner which was discriminatory or racially based, although there clearly seems to be sufficient substance in most of the pairings of boys and girls to give rise to the perception that black children were largely, or in the significant majority of cases, paired with black children and white with white children. This allegation is therefore found to be partly substantiated. The fact that this allegation is even partly substantiated is cause for concern. The question has to be asked as to whether this was a voluntary pairing between the children in terms of whom they chose to dance with, or whether this was an imposed pairing by the person or persons responsible for the casting and conduct of the concert.

5.3.5 Dramatic Arts Teaching

It was stated that drama, which is an extra-curricular activity, is taught in Afrikaans. It was stated that the service provider has stated that she would only be able to teach in Afrikaans. This means that the drama facility is not available to an English speaking learner. 

It is found that the allegation that drama is only taught in Afrikaans is incorrect as it is clear that there is a drama facility available to both English and Afrikaans speakers, which facility is offered to English and Afrikaans learners at no extra fee. This allegation is therefore unfounded.

5.3.6 The Voortrekkers

It was stated that the “Voortrekkers” had been invited to the school assemblies and while there, they had raised the old voortrekker flag. This took place in 2014.

The perception of the parents interviewed that the presence of the Voortrekkers at the School assembly on the occasion that it took place in 2014, was symbolic of some form of apartheid symbolism or imagery, is not correct. The Voortrekkers are an Afrikaans cultural organisation that has as one of their objectives the promotion of “the condition of being an Afrikaner, citizenship and christianship”. As such, it would appear that they are not dissimilar to the “Boy Scouts” or “Brownies”. It is clear that their presence at the School should not necessarily be construed as “political”.

In view of the above it is found that the School Management did not behave incorrectly in allowing the Voortrekker organisation to be present at a School assembly on a cultural basis.

6 Conclusion

It has been admitted by Curro Management that in relation to the segregation of classes, they succumbed to pressure from certain white parents. This is unacceptable and is discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of section 9 of the Constitution. It is also in contravention of section 6 of the Equality Act. By segregating the learners based on their race, the School acted in a manner that was discriminatory and as a result violated section 7(c) of the Equality Act.

In terms of the SACE Act, it is found that no evidence was produced to show that any of the educators at the School contravened the SACE Act, as well as the SACE Code of Professional Ethics.

It has been admitted by Curro Management that its practice of segregation was wrong and they have acted quickly to reallocate learners of minority racial groups throughout the three English classes in grade R after the submission of the Petition. In so doing, they have acted swiftly and they have also taken the step of apologising, both to parents and publicly in the media. 

It should also be noted that the grade 1 and 2 English classes were also reshuffled to ensure an appropriate demographic allocation of learners to each of the three English classes. While the re-allocation is correct, it should be noted that the allocation of learners in the grade 1 classes prior to the re-allocation on the 3^rd of February 2015 reflects an uneven demographic spread across the classes. The above demographic spread as at the 28^th of January 2015 appears to have been an attempt to keep the white, or minority racial group learners clustered together in two classes, leaving one entire class of 25 learners as African. It is found that this allocation appears to have been based solely on race and amounts to racial clustering and was discriminatory.

It is also unfortunate that the issue of the discriminatory segregation of classes in grade R at the school was addressed in a manner which was itself discriminatory and that only the white, Indian and Coloured parents were called to the Tuesday Meeting. In so doing, the School Management behaved in a manner which was discriminatory, patronising and insulting to black parents of the learners in the English speaking classes in grade R. It is critical for the School to take note that they have an obligation to all parents and to all learners regardless of race, language or religion.

The fact that Curro Management has apologised for what took place at the School and corrected the problem appears to be an acceptance that what took place was discriminatory and problematic. It is acknowledged that diversity training has taken place at the School, however, it is recommended that this training be conducted on an annual basis for all School Management and educators at the School.

_________________

HNM Attorneys

12 March 2015

Issued by Gauteng Department of Education, May 14 2015