Slap on wrist for teachers over corporal punishment to be challenged

THE issue of corporal punishment will soon come under the spotlight in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The matter centres around two teachers who meted out corporal punishment to two primary school learners, but received only a slap on the wrists.

Section27, on behalf of the Centre for Child Law and two parents, is partially appealing a Gauteng High Court, Pretoria judgment in the Supreme Court, following the actions of the two teachers.

Despite corporal punishment being banned at schools from 1996, both teachers received lenient sanctions from the South African Council for Educators (SACE), based on its internal policy called the “mandatory sanctions policy”. The application concerns the “shockingly lenient” sanctions which SACE applied to educators found guilty of assaulting schoolchildren.

The two unrelated cases involve the assault of a 7 and a 10-year-old.

In the first case, a Gauteng boy in Grade 2 was hit on the back of his head with a PVC pipe by his teacher in 2015. He suffered head injuries which became infected and resulted in his hospitalisation.

In the second case in Limpopo in 2019, the 10-year-old girl in Grade 5 was slapped over the head and cheek by her teacher. She was left with bleeding ears and suffered ongoing complications and had to repeat the year.

Despite corporal punishment being banned, both teachers received lenient sanctions from the organisation.

The sanctions imposed included the educators’ removal from the roll of educators, but this was suspended for 10 years. They were also fined R15 000, of which R5 000 was suspended, leaving R10 000 payable over 12 months.

This means that these teachers are still teaching in the classrooms with no consideration for learners’ safety and no obligation on the teachers to correct their behaviour, Section27 said.

In its earlier high court application, it asked for an order that the council revise its mandatory sanctions policy, and include important elements in it such as rehabilitative and corrective sanctions (like anger management), to uphold the best interests of the child.

Section27 also wanted a more child-centred approach to be included, to allow learners and their parents to make representations and participate in the entity’s disciplinary hearings.

The high court was also asked to set aside the decisions against the two teachers and that the matter be referred back to the council for reconsideration. However, the high court only agreed that the council’s internal policy be changed.

Section27 is now appealing the high court’s judgment in the Supreme Court with the aim that the two educators be subjected to fresh hearings.

In its written arguments, Section27 said SACE does have a discretion to choose what sanctions it imposes on teachers.

However, the council incorrectly relies on its internal sanctioning policy as if it were law.

In doing so, Section27 said, it imposes prescribed sanctions without considering the facts of each case or the severity of the charges against a teacher.

It will argue that the organisation failed to adopt a child-centred approach in its decision-making as the children and their parents were not consulted during its disciplinary proceedings, nor were they given an opportunity to make representations or give evidence concerning appropriate sanctions at any time during the disciplinary process.

In terms of the Constitution, case law and the Children’s Act, children and their families must be given an opportunity to express their views in matters affecting a child, and the council should have treated these views as relevant to their decision-making, Section27 said.

The council is counter-appealing the high court judgment, and specifically the court’s order that it revise its mandatory sanctions policy.