Parent sues Whitestone Pr School over SDC

A BULAWAYO man has approached the High Court seeking an order to compel a privately-owned school in the city, Whitestone Primary, to set up a School Development Committee in line with the country's education laws.

Mr James Condon, whose two children learn at the school, filed an urgent chamber application last week through his lawyers, Mutuso, Taruvinga and Mhiribidi Attorneys.

Whitestone School Trust and the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education Dr Lazarus Dokora are cited as respondents, among eight other respondents.

In his papers, Mr Condon wants the school to comply with Section 35 of the Education Act as read with Statutory Instrument 87 of 1992 by setting up an SDC which will help in the administration of the school.

The Education Act as read with SI87 of 1992 provides for the establishment of an SDC for non-Government schools and School Development Associations (SDA) for Government schools.

The school has a Parents' Committee whose constitution Mr Condon argues is at variance with the country's education laws and should be declared null and void.

Ironically, Mr Condon is the chairperson of the Parents Committee. In his application, Mr Condon wants the school to call for a parents' meeting to form an SDC within 14 days from date of the application. In the event that the school fails to comply, Mr Condon wants the court to order Dr Dokora to "take steps and ensure that a Parents Assembly is constituted and monitor the process of forming of an SDC."

Mr Condon argues that forming of an SDC was in the best interests of children as it would give parents a say in the running of the school. He argues that the SDC would be autonomous from the school's board of Trustees and capable of making its own decisions as opposed to the Parents Committee which did not have such capacity.

He contends that this was the case because an SDC was a creature of statute while the Parents Committee was a creature of the school from which the committee derives authority and mandate.

"It is my belief and understanding, from the advice I have received, that the SDC is a separate person, with capacity to sue and be sued, and the Parents' Committee is not. It is not in doubt that before the SI (87 OF 1992) was passed into law first respondent, like other community schools had made provisions for parents to also have a say in the governing of the school.

However, the Parents Committee did not have independent status simply because they derived their authority to so act from the school," he said.

Mr Condon further argues that by not having an SDC in place the school was breaking the law and was liable to prosecution.

He claims that the refusal by the school trust to have an SDC in place was out of fear that the parents' body would take over the administration of the financial affairs of the school.

Mr Condon further accuses the trust of attempting to dissolve the Parents Committee in an attempt to thwart moves by parents to form an SDC.

"As a result of persistence from myself and other parents to encourage the first respondent to comply with the law and allow our Parents Committee to be the SDC, the first respondent sought to dissolve the entire Parents Committee in terms of Clause 13 of the Parent Committee Constitution.

"I further believe that this was a deliberate ploy to oust the current Parents Committee which was asking too many questions in as far as the administration of the school financial affairs were concerned," he argues.

Mr Condon contends that due to the "unyielding" position taken by the school, the Parents Committee had failed to discharge its duties.