Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Jagersfontein dam burst: Understanding the disaster-declaration process

21 September 2022 | Story Dr Olivia Kunguma. | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Dr Olivia Kunguma, Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa, University of the Free State, and Dr Mmaphaka Tau, Managing Director: Resilience 4 Development Institute (Pty) Ltd.

On 11 September 2022 a tailings dam wall collapsed at the abandoned Jagersfontein diamond mine in the Free State’s Kopanong Local Municipality, unleashing a thick grey sludge.

The mine is in the Xhariep District Municipality, which is home to about 5 800 people. Following the dam burst, more than 400 people were affected, 51 houses were destroyed, and critical infrastructure was affected.

The dam burst at the mine, which was established in the 1800s and to date has been owned by several mine moguls, led to serious devastation in the community. Within hours of the event the media had already dubbed it the “Jagersfontein disaster”.

But the media cannot loosely report it as a “disaster”. It is not the appropriate classification according to the Disaster Management Act. There is a need for governing institutions and their legislation to be respected and recognised, as this will improve on governance. South Africa has good policies, but implementation is, in certain areas, lacking. Hereunder, we note that there is inappropriate use of terminology, which depicts the inadequate understanding of the disaster risk management function.

What is a disaster?

The DMA defines a “disaster” as a progressive, sudden, widespread, natural, or man-made occurrence that causes or threatens to cause death, disease or injury, damage to the environment, and disruption of life. According to the Act, it is of a magnitude that “exceeds the ability of those affected by the disaster to cope with its effects using only their resources”. At the international level, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) developed a terminology guide that aims to promote a common understanding and usage of disaster management concepts. It assists the authorities and the public (in this case, by “public” we refer mainly to the media) in educating the populace.

For the dam burst to be termed a “disaster”, several steps must be adhered to within South African jurisprudence:

The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) must first assess the magnitude and severity of the event, and then classify it as a local, provincial, or national disaster. This assessment also considers the provisions of Section 2 (1)(b) of the DMA, stating that the Act does not apply to an occurrence that can be dealt with in terms of other legislation. The rationale of the above is that the National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 (NDMF) provides that disaster management plans must be developed by relevant organs of states and other entities, who are the custodians of certain hazards or activities to manage disaster risks in their areas of legislative responsibility. For example, mining-related activities are the responsibility of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. This department’s mission is clear: to regulate, transform and promote the mineral and energy sectors.

Since the event or incident occurred in a local sphere of government (Kopanong Local Municipality), it can then be classified as a local disaster subject to the satisfaction of the provisions of Section 2(1)(b). According to Section 23(4) of the DMA, an event can be classified as a “local disaster” if it affects a single local metropole, district, or municipality, and that entity can deal with the event effectively. The district municipality and the local municipality are responsible for the coordination and management of the local disaster.

If the event has not been declared as a local state of disaster, other existing legislation, contingency arrangements, or by-laws can guide the management of the event in line with the appropriate contingency arrangements. Other government spheres and state organs can still assist with the management of the event in line with the applicable disaster risk management plans called for under the National Disaster Management Frameworks.

Dr Mmaphaka Tau

Of critical importance and aligned to the thrust of the District Development Model is the provision of Section 54 (4) of the DMA, which asserts that “irrespective of whether a local state of disaster has been declared in terms of section 55, a national or provincial organ of state, or another municipality or municipal organs of state are not precluded from providing assistance to a municipality to deal with a local disaster and its consequences”.

In the same way, and on the strength of section 23 of the DMA, suppose the event has been classified as a local disaster: there are added benefits to dealing with the occurrence, especially in the face of a lack of robust disaster risk management plans and the dearth of disaster risk management implementation capacity both for coordination (by Disaster Management Centres) and mainstreaming (by relevant organs of state and other entities). In that case, the municipal council may declare a local state of disaster by notice in the provincial gazette (See Section 55 of the DMA).

The disaster declaration will then provide for measures such as, but not limited to:

• Available resources such as facilities, vehicles, and funding are released;

• Personnel of the organs of the state are released to render emergency services;

• Evacuation of the affected population to temporary shelters;

• The regulation of movement;

• The dissemination of information;

• The maintenance and/or installation of temporary lines of communication; and

• The suspension of or limiting of alcohol in disaster-stricken areas.

•Therefore, until all the above processes have been followed, the Jagersfontein dam burst can only be termed a “disaster” without the ability to apply the above measures.

Who is responsible, and how can we move forward?

Jagersfontein Developments (Pty) Ltd owns the mine, implying that it should be their primary responsibility, as the asset owner, to actively contribute to the management of the occurrence of an incident. Even the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe, rightfully stated that the responsibility of compensating affected individuals would be placed on the mine owners. According to the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 and its regulations, “the employer must take reasonable measures to ensure that no person is injured as a result of the failure of any dam wall”. It was reported that the company was warned of the tailings exceeding the authorised waste volumes. But the company did not attend to the warning. It is also assumed that the company is aware of the policies, legislation and standards they should adhere to, such as the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), which strives to achieve the goals of zero harm to people and the environment, mine safety, and to mitigate catastrophic failure through tailings management. Fortunately, the company has taken full responsibility and has accepted liability. They have also refrained from calling Jagersfontein a ‘mine’, opting to call it a “processing facility”. Perhaps this also has legal implications.

Nonetheless, besides the company taking full responsibility, the government must also play its part and make sure that policies, legislation, standards, etc. are implemented, and that there is full compliance.

They cannot wait for a catastrophic event to occur and then start pointing fingers. This scenario calls for an embracing of the principles and practices of risk-informed development, which calls for an understanding of development that considers multi-faceted, dynamic, interdependent, transboundary, simultaneous, and systemic risks. It thus describes a shift in mindset – across sectors and stakeholders – from managing single hazards to incorporating existing and future risks in all development processes from the outset, and therefore choosing development pathways that prevent the creation of risks. The Jagersfontein case study is a classic case of an ignored Risk Informed Development (RID) approach, which is gravely regrettable.

The limited understanding of the various stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, and the misinterpretation of important terminology, call for robust capacity development programmes driven by the National Disaster Management Centre in collaboration with Provincial and Municipal Disaster Management Centres. There is also a palpable need for a firm implementation of Priority 1 (Understanding Disaster Risk) of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR), which states that policies and practices for disaster management should be based on an understanding of risks in all dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment.

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Bullying in schools: Everyone’s problem

2005-06-03

Bullebakkery in skole: Almal se probleem
Bullying in schools: Everyone’s problem
Intreerede, 1 Junie 2005
Inaugural lecture, 1 June 2005
Corene de Wet

1. Inleiding
Leerders hoor dikwels dat hul ouers en opvoeders opmerkings soos die volgende maak:
Might is right. It is good to be able to dominate others. To be dominated by others is shameful. You should never complain about ill-treatment by others. You should learn to take it. You should never sympathise with wimps. To be gentle and compassionate is to be weak (Rigby 1996: 80).

Dié opmerkings, wat impliseer dat bullebakkery deel van die grootwordproses is, word deur volwassenes vir wie leerders lief is en respekteer, geuiter. Dit het tot gevolg dat bullebakkery as aanvaarbare gedrag voorgehou word. Bullebakkery maak egter inbreuk op die kind se reg tot menswaardigheid, privaatheid, vryheid en sekuriteit. Bullebakkery het ’n invloed op die slagoffer se fisieke, emosionele, sosiale en opvoedkundige welstand. Fisieke gevolge sluit die volgende in: hoofpyne, bednatmaak, verlies aan eetlus, swak liggaamshouding en maagprobleme. Bullebakkery kan tot die volgende emosionele probleme by slagoffers lei: depressie, selfmoordneigings en selfmoord, gespannenheid, vrees, asook gevoelens wat geassosieer word met Post Traumatiese Stres – verwardheid, angstigheid, woede en hartseer. Sosiale gevolge van bullebakkery is onder andere sosiale isolasie en eensaamheid, slagoffers het probleme om met ander kinders en volwassenes te meng, en is/word baie skaam. Opvoedkundige gevolge sluit die volgende in: slagoffers is baie afwesig, onttrek hulle van sosiale aktiwiteite by die skool, hulle is bang om vrae in die klas te vra, verlies aan konsentrasie, steek dit weg as hulle nie werk verstaan nie as gevolg van die vrees dat hulle gespot sal word en onderprestasie sodat hulle nie as té slim voorkom nie.

Bullying has various short- and long-term consequences for the bully. Although bullies are often popular in their peer group, they are seldom able to conclude real friendships. They rarely do well at school. Educators do not like them. Bullying is sometimes the first stepping stone to juvenile crime and criminal activities. The bully abuses alcohol and drugs more readily than other children. Some of them come to school armed. Bullies are often anti-social adults; some of them abuse their children, marriage or life partners. Roland (2002:62-65) found that not only victims but also bullies have suicide thoughts and symptoms of depression more regularly than learners who are not involved in bullying. Zeelie (2002:280) writes that bullying is a “loss experience”, a “loss of safety, loss of self-esteem (they bully you, then you bully yourself). Bullies experience a loss of belonging and lose control over their own life.”

The aim of this lecture is to report, against the background of a literature study on data from two studies on bullying in Free State secondary schools. In both of these, questionnaires were answered anonymously and the data treated confidentially. The first study involved an investigation into a group of Free State learners’ perceptions and experiences of bullying in their respective schools. The second study concentrated on Free State educators’ experiences, observations and perceptions with regard to bullying.

2. What is bullying?
Research on bullying in schools was conducted for the first time more than thirty years ago by Dan Olweus in Norway. From the literature review, it seems that bullying is a problem not only in Nordic countries, but also in among others the USA, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan. Although research on bullying since the 1980s has led to various international publications, little has been published on the subject in South Africa.

Olweus (1994:9), the leading figure in research on bullying, defines bullying as follows: “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative action on the part of one or more students.” Olweus (1994:9) explains the term “negative action” as follows: “a negative action is when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict injury or discomfort upon another”. A Dutch psychologist, Van der Meer (quoted by Limper 1998:1), gives the following definition: “Bullying is a systematic, psychological, physical or sexual act of violence by a pupil or a group of pupils with respect to one or more classmates, who are not (any longer) in a position to defend themselves.”

From the aforementioned definitions it is clear that bullying always includes the following three elements: the intentional use of aggression, an unbalanced relationship of power between the bully and the victim, and the causing of physical pain and/or emotional misery.

Although there are considerable similarities between bullying and other forms of aggression, bullying, according to De Haan (1997:1), has the following characteristics: the bully acts purposefully rather than accidentally. The aim of bullying is to get control over another person by means of physical or verbal aggression. Bullies attack without reason, except that they see victims as easy targets. Bullies are usually more popular among their peer group than children who are merely aggressive.

The following common examples of bullying can be identified:
• Physical bullying includes punching, poking, strangling, hair pulling, beating, biting, excessive tickling and direct vandalism.
• Verbal bullying includes such acts as hurtful name-calling, persistent teasing, gossiping and racist remarks.
• Relational bullying occurs when the victim is deliberately excluded from activities.
• Emotional bullying includes terrorising, extorting, defaming, blackmailing, rating/ranking of personal characteristics such as race, disability or ethnicity, manipulating friendships, ostracising and peer pressure.
• Sexual bullying includes many of the above as well as exhibitionism, sexual positioning, sexual harassment and abuse involving actual physical contact and sexual assault.

3. Die aard en omvang van leerderbullebakkery

Die persepsie dat bullebakkery deel van die grootwordproses is, lei daartoe dat slagoffers onwillig is om hulle ouers en opvoeders te vertel dat hulle afgeknou word. Voorts blyk dit dat slagoffers weerwraak van die bullebak of selfs klasmaats, wat die onthulling as storieaandraery sal sien, vrees. Indien die afknouery erg is of oor ’n lang tydperk plaasvind, is die slagoffers bang dat dit hulle ouers sal ontstel, veral as hulle dink dat hulle ouers nie in staat sal wees om die situasie te verander nie. Kinders is soms onwillig om te erken dat hulle duur items of geld aan bullebakke gegee het. Ouers stel nie net akademiese nie, maar ook sosiale verwagtinge aan hulle kinders, gevolglik is geviktimiseerde kinders, wat verworpe en ongewild voel, onwillig om te erken dat hulle afgeknou word. Adolessente voel dikwels, in hulle strewe na groter onafhanklikheid, dat hulle in staat behoort te wees om die probleem self te hanteer. Voorts is die kind-ouer-/ leerder-opvoederverhouding gedurende adolessensie dikwels gespanne en is kommunikasiekanale nie na wense nie. Bullebakkery is soms so subtiel dat dit moeilik is om dit te verwoord. Daar bestaan voorts die siening by leerders dat opvoeders nie betrokke wil raak by bullebakkery nie.

Voorafvermelde faktore het tot gevolg dat baie ouers en opvoeders onbewus is van die vlakke van bullebakkery waaraan hulle kinders en/of leerders blootgestel word. Die volgende navorsingsresultate toon egter aan dat bullebakkery ‘n redelik algemene verskynsel in Vrystaatse skole is.

Vrystaatse leerders word die meeste aan direkte en die tweede meeste aan indirekte verbale teistering blootgestel. Slegs 29.2% van die leerders wat aan die navorsingsprojek deelgeneem het, was nog nooit aan direkte en 32.15% aan indirekte verbale teistering blootgestel nie. Byna die helfte van die leerders het aangedui dat hulle ten minste een keer per maand die slagoffers van direkte verbale teistering was. ‘n Relatief groot persentasie van die leerders (32.45%) is al deur mede-leerders te lyf gegaan; 11.21% van hulle is ten minste een keer per week deur mede-leerders geslaan en/of geskop, gestamp en/of op ’n ander wyse fisiek seergemaak. Direkte, fisieke aggressie is dan ook die derde mees algemene vorm van bullebakery waaraan die leerders blootgestel is.

Die plek waar die Vrystaatse leerders besonder weerloos teenoor bullebakke staan, is taxi’s. Hoewel slegs 31.86% van die respondente aangetoon het dat hulle met ’n taxi skool toe en terug pendel, beleef 29.64% van hierdié leerders taxi’s as óf baie onveilig óf redelik onveilig met betrekking tot bullebakkery. Die area op die skoolterrein waar die leerders die meeste aan bullebakkery blootgestel word, is die badkamers/toilette. Die area waar die meerderheid Vrystaatse leerders geborge voel, is hulle klaskamers – slegs 0.61% het aangetoon dat hulle “baie onveilig en bang” in hulle klaskamers voel; 59.55% het aangetoon dat hulle “baie veilig” daar voel.

From the research it is apparent that learners are usually bullied by members of the same gender. However, not only boys are guilty of physical harassment: several boys indicated that one or more girls injured them physically, a number of girls were injured by members of the same gender. Some of the boys described in the open-ended question how they were kicked and beaten by other boys on a regular basis. One of them was kicked in the face regularly by his hostel roommate, he was too afraid to do something about it, because “his family was known for assaulting people”. Another boy mentions that the bullies regularly put sand in his mouth.

According to a grade 12 girl, learners are verbally bullied on a regular basis not only individually, but also as a group. She writes:

At our school there are these boys who are racists. They act mean against black people in our school. There is this particular group of boys in our Maths class. When the teacher is out they take a red pen and write on the projector and spray it with spirits. It looks like blood and they would say it is AIDS and my friends and I have it.

By contrast with the opinions of Banks (1997:1) and Olweus (1994:19, 23-25) that racial composition in schools does not influence bullying, it seems to play a role in some Free State schools, as is apparent from the above description. Besides this grade 12 girl, 25 respondents described explicitly racist incidents.

Slegs 4.91% van die opvoeder- en 16.22% van die leerderrespondente het aangetoon dat bullebakkery “glad nie” ‘n probleem by hulle onderskeie skole was nie. Dit moet gevolglik beklemtoon word dat opvoeders regsgeldig en moreel verplig is om dissipline te handhaaf en om te sien na die veiligheid van leerders wat aan hulle sorg toevertrou is. Volgens die Gedragskode van die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders (SACE s.a.:1) moet opvoeders alle redelike stappe neem om die veiligheid van leerders te verseker. Opvoeders moet ook kennis neem van Squelch (2000:53) se waarskuwing, naamlik dat skole bullebakkery nie as onbelangrik moet afmaak nie. Skoolhoofde of opvoeders kan aan nalatigheid skuldig bevind word indien bevind sou word dat hulle nie die nodige stappe geneem het om bullebakkery te voorkom en dissipline te handhaaf nie.

If victims of bullying are faced with school inaction, the criminal justice system should be considered. Police action should be seen as a last resort. It is therefore important for educators to honour their ‘in loco parentis’ obligations. It is thus encouraging to take note of the fact that 88.29% of the educator respondents indicated that they would intervene in cases of verbal bullying, while 89.71% of them would intervene if they saw learners being physically bullied. However, only 19.97% of the learners who were victims of bullying indicated that they were helped by educators or other adults from their respective schools.

Consistent with previous research, it was found in the present study that learners are reluctant to tell others, especially educators, that they are being victimised by bullies. Educators therefore need to acknowledge that they may have a credibility problem with many children when it comes to dealing satisfactorily with bully/victim problems. This can be remedied by demonstrating that educator intervention is much more likely to result in satisfactory outcomes for those learners they seek to help. It is important that educator intervention does not make matters worse. This may require some educators to change their strategies. One promising strategy is to work closely with the learners who are prepared to cooperate with educators in countering bullying, for example by working with an anti-bullying committee of learners, who give support and credibility to the efforts of educators and counsellors.

Die bevindinge van die studie, wat lig werp op die gebrek aan vertroue by leerders in hulle opvoeders se vermoëns en/of bereidwilligheid om hulle by te staan in die stryd teen bullebakkery, het belangrike implikasies vir onderwyseropleidinginstellinge. Die belangrikheid van opleiding, hetsy aanvanklike of indiensopleiding, om opvoeders te bemagtig om bullebakkery te beveg, moet beklemtoon word. Opvoeders sukkel dikwels om te besluit of kinders besig is om mekaar af te knou, en of hulle slegs besig is om te speel en/of mekaar te terg. Die onvermoë van opvoeders om binne ‘n breukdeel van ‘n sekonde ‘n oordeel te vel, is een van die belangrikste redes waarom opvoeders dikwels nie bullebaksituasies in die kiem smoor nie. Voorts is daar ‘n persepsie onder sommige leerders dat opvoederintervensie die posisie van die slagoffer sal vererger. Opleiding is dus belangrik om opvoeders te help om ingeligte besluite te neem wanneer hulle konfliksituasies waarneem. Opleidingskursusse moet voornemende opvoeders met basiese beradingsvaardighede toerus sodat hulle in staat sal wees om die praktiese en emosionele aspekte van viktimisasie te hanteer.

Attention will now be given to a topic that receives scant attention by researchers, namely, the fact that some learners bully their educators.

4. Educator-targeted bullying

According to Pervin and Turner (1998:4) it could be argued that educator-targeted bullying and disruptive learner behaviour is the same thing. Fontana (1995:354) defines disruptive behaviour as “behaviour that proves unacceptable to the teacher”. Educator-targeted bullying can include the following: }

• Persistent, intentional, vigorous abuse of the educator.
• Swearing and/or mocking the educator.
• Knowingly ignoring the educator.
• Making personal comments about the educator.
• Damaging the educator’s property.

Learners who indulge in educator-targeted bullying aim to undermine the educator’s confidence. In a study on educator-targeted bullying in Free State schools it was found that 24.85% of the respondents were physically abused by their learners, 33.44% were the victims of indirect verbal bullying, and 18.1% were at one time or another sexually harassed by their learners. These bullying actions should be seen as infringements of educators’ human rights (RSA 1996, art. 9-12), and in contravention of the Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting of a code of conduct for learners (RSA, 1998: 11, 14). The aforementioned guidelines list the bullying of learners as one of the learner offences that may lead to either suspension or expulsion. Although these guidelines do not mention educator-targeted bullying, it could be argued that the forbidding of this, could mutatis mutandis be made applicable to educator-targeted bullying.

Pervin and Turner (1998:7) have found that victims of educator-targeted bullying have lowered their expectations (in terms of behaviour, co-operation and academic output) of learners who bully them. They warn that this lowered expectation may rub off on other learners who happen to be in the same class as the bullies. As a result of lowered educator expectations, classes containing learners who carry out educator-targeted bullying are less likely to be exposed to a variety of teaching methods, thereby reducing the scope for educators to carry out interesting lessons. Educators are reluctant to tell their colleagues that they are the targets of learner bullies. Educators who suffer from educator-targeted bullying should therefore be supported with some kind of mentoring system by their colleagues and principals. There should be an awareness among all role players – educators, principals, parents, learners and the Department of Education – that educator-targeted bullying does, in fact, take place. By raising awareness, it will be possible to improve morale in schools and reduce educator-targeted bullying. In their anti-bullying policies, schools should include a section on educator-targeted bullying, which may help to solve the problem.

However, educators are not the only victims of bullying; some of them are the bullies.

5. Opvoeders wat leerders viktimiseer

Elke kind het die reg om onderwys in ‘n veilige skoolmilieu te ontvang. Hoewel dit opvoeders se verantwoordelikheid is om dié reg van leerders in stand te hou, blyk dit dat sommige opvoeders direk verantwoordelik gehou kan word vir die skending van kinderregte. Terwyl seksuele wangedrag deur diegene in gesagsposisies nog altyd ten sterkste afgekeur is, is dit nie altyd die geval met ander vorme van verbale en fisieke bullebakkery nie. Die geringskatting van dié vorm van opvoederwangedrag blyk uit die feit dat min bewyse in die literatuur gevind kon word oor navorsing wat handel oor opvoeders wat leerders treiter. Yoon (2004:38), Smith (2004:98) asook Parada, Marsh en Craven (2003:8) wys kripties daarop dat opvoeders wel hulle leerders kan afknou. Die feit dat geen verwysing na navorsing oor dié tipe bullebakkery in ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse konteks gevind kon word nie, beteken nie dat die Suid-Afrikaanse onderwysowerhede die tipe opvoederwangedrag goedkeur nie. Volgens die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders se Gedragskode (SACE s.a.:2) moet opvoeders

• Gesag met empatie uitoefen;
• Enige vorm van vernedering vermy, en hulleself van enige fisieke en psigologiese misbruike weerhou; en
• Hulle van seksuele teistering, hetsy fisiek of emosioneel, van leerders weerhou.

Indien voorafgaande met die voorbeelde van wat bullebakkery is, vergelyk word, is die ooreenkomste duidelik. Daar kan dus gekonkludeer word dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders bullebakkery deur opvoeders verbied.

Individue is dikwels die beste bron van inligting oor hulle eie gedrag, want hulle weet waarom hulle sekere dade gepleeg het. Tog blyk dit dat selfevaluering, veral met betrekking tot aggressiewe gedrag, onderworpe is aan verskeie vooroordele – soos byvoorbeeld om ‘n sosiaal aanvaarbare antwoord te gee (Pakaslahti & Kelikangas-Järvinen 2000:178). Dit is dus kommerwekkend dat 55.83% van die opvoeders wat aan die navorsingsprojek deelgeneem het, aangedui het dat hulle al leerders verbaal geviktimiseer het; 50.31% van die respondente het aangedui dat hulle al leerders te lyf gegaan het. ‘n Klein persentasie van dié opvoeders, naamlik 6.13%, het genoem dat hulle ten minste een keer per maand skuldig was aan dade van seksuele teistering.

Sommige opvoeders is nie net direk nie, maar ook indirek verantwoordelik vir die teistering van leerders. Opvoeders sien dikwels sensitiwiteit en die negatiewe houding wat sommige leerders teenoor bullebakkery toon, as negatiewe karaktereienskappe. Opvoeders wat onverdraagsaamheid teenoor leerderslagoffers van bullebakkery se onvermoë om hulle situasie self te besleg toon, is instrumenteel in die vestiging van ‘n geweldskultuur in skole. Eerder as om sensitiwiteit en die vermoë om jouself van gewelddadige teenoptrede te weerhou as positiewe karaktereienskappe te beskou, word dit as die optrede van ‘n swakkeling afgemaak. Dié houding dra eerstens daartoe by dat leerders onwillig is om opvoeders in hulle vertroue te neem as hulle slagoffers van bullebakkery is. Tweedens kan dit gesien word as ‘n bevestiging van die wanpersepsie dat bullebakkery ‘n integrale deel van die grootwordproses is.

6. Concluding remarks

From this lecture, it has become evident that while some Free State educators and learners are the witnesses of incidences of bullying, others are the victims and/or perpetrators of direct and indirect verbal, as well as emotional, physical and sexual bullying. In a twenty-first century climate of increasing concern for the rights of individuals and groups, be they due to race, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation, the right of the learner to be educated, but also the right of the educator to educate without suffering from victimisation is entrenched in the South African Bill of Rights. Every educator and learner in South Africa has the right to life, equal protection and benefit of the law, of dignity, as well as of freedom and security of the person (RSA, 1996: art. 9-12). These rights will only be realised in a bully-free school milieu.

Om bullebakkery teen te werk is ’n omvattende anti-bullebakprogram, kollektiewe verantwoordelikheid en die vestiging van ’n omgeekultuur by skole en in die gemeenskap noodsaaklik. Onderwysowerhede, wetstoepassers, onderwysersopleidingsinstellings, opvoeders, ouers en leerders – die slagoffer, die bullebak en die klas- en/of skoolmaats (stille meerderheid) – is die belangrikste rolspelers in die stryd teen bullebakkery is. Dié rolspelers moet betrek word om -

• ’n bewustheid te skep oor die aard en omvang van bullebakkery;
• portuurgroepverhoudinge te verbeter;
• tussenbeide te tree om intimidasie te voorkom;
• duidelike reëls te ontwikkel om bullebakkery te voorkom; en
• (mede-)leerders en opvoeders te ondersteun en te beskerm.

Bronnelys

Banks R 1997. What should parents and teachers know about bullying? http://www.focusas.com/Bullying.html.

DeHaan L 1997. Bullies. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/ fs570w.htm.

Fontana D 1995. Psychology for teachers. Third edition. London: MacMillan Press.

Limper R 1998. The only way to combat bullying is cooperation between all those involved in school. http://ericcass.uncg.edu/virtuallib/bullying/1013.html

Olweus D 1994. Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Pakaslahti L & Kelikangas-Järvinen L 2000. Comparing of peer, teacher and self-assessments on adolescent direct and indirect aggression. Educational Psychology, 20(2):177-190.

Parada RH, Marsh HW & Craven R 2003. The beyond bullying program: an innovative program empowering teachers to counteract bullying in schools. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand, November 2003.

Pervin K & Turner A 1998. A study of bullying of teachers by pupils in an Inner London school. Pastoral Care, December: 4-10.

Rigby K 1999. Bullying in schools and what to do about it. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.

Roland E 2002. Bulling, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research, 44(1):55-67.

Republic of South Africa (RSA) 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108 of 1996. Available url.: http://www.polity.prg.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html?rebookmark+1.

RSA (Republic of South Africa) 1998. Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting of a code of conduct for learners. Government Gazette 776, 15 May. Pretoria: Government Printer.

SACE (South African Council for Educators) s.a. Code of Conduct of the South African Council of Educators. http://www.sace.org.za/Sace/code-ethics.jsp.

Smith PK 2004. Bullying: recent developments. Child and adolescent mental health, 9(3):98-103.

Squelch JM 2000. Discipline. Pretoria: CELP.

Yoon JS 2004. Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1):37-45.

Zeelie DG 2002. Bully proofing your school – policy and programme formulation. In Gauteng Department of Education. Proceedings of the Third Educationally Speaking Conference. Warmbaths, May 2002. Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept