Durban - It is the parents’ duty to do “whatever is necessary” to ensure their child follows advice from subject teachers, a Durban school principal said of parents of a child who failed Grade 11, who are now suing the school.
In papers before the Durban High Court on Friday, the principal said this pupil, who cannot be named as she is a minor, had been consistently performing badly in four subjects and was also absent for 55 days of the school year.
He said these teachers had informed her parents about this poor performance during the year at the various parents’ meetings.
“The school reports were blatantly obvious and glaring that (this pupil) was struggling with most of her subjects,” said the principal in his affidavit.
This was in response to the father’s recent urgent High Court application to compel the school to promote his daughter to matric. In it he accused the school of only demanding school fees, instead of informing them his daughter was in academic trouble.
The father also sought an order directing the Education Department to investigate the management of the school, situated in the Highway area, claiming his daughter was suicidal.
He said another Grade 11 pupil had committed suicide, and a Grade 10 pupil was admitted to hospital after attempting suicide because they failed their grades.
Advocate Ryan Naidu, acting for the school, its school governing body and the Department of Education, as well as advocate Ursula Lennard, acting for the father, on Friday approached the senior civil judge for an urgent date for argument to be heard. A date is expected to be set this week.
According to the father’s affidavit, the issue to be considered was whether the decision to hold back his daughter had been fairly and justly reached, taking into account the school’s policy, code of conduct and the discretionary powers allocated to the principal, the school governing body and the department.
The father said his daughter was an attentive pupil, but following the release of her results, had become depressed and did not see the point of repeating Grade 11.
He said the norm was for a pupil to repeat the year once and then automatically be promoted the following year, which the principal denied.
The parents were upset no one had informed them their child was experiencing any difficulties, and said had this been done, corrective measures could have been put in place.
The father said the problems were only brought to their attention after the decision not to promote their child.
However, the principal denied any of his teachers were negligent in their professional duties and was adamant the girl’s parents were aware of her dismal performance as four subject teachers had informed her parents accordingly.
In his 18 years at the school, he said this was the first time parents had said they were not alerted about their child’s poor academic performance.
Confirmatory affidavits of the teachers and the pupil’s reports for each school term were annexed to the court papers.
The principal, who was also the girl’s life orientation teacher, admitted he told the parents their daughter was doing “just fine”, but said he was referring to life orientation only. He was unaware of her performance in other subjects.
Referring to her school reports, he said she had consistently underperformed during Grade 11.
Maths, accounting, life science and physical science, he said were her problematic subjects, and each teacher said they had spoken to the pupil’s parents about their concern and need for further tuition in these subjects.
He also said she was absent from school for 55 days and was “bunking” her physics classes.
Her mother was also told, he said, about the pupil leaving school early on several occasions.
Daily News