I don’t normally write on what’s trending, but my interest was sparked by the debate on the ‘hair’ issue, particularly the question of the right to self-expression. The case in question relates to a child whose mother was told in 2018 that she must undo the locks or cut her daughter's hair or she would not be allowed to return to Kensington Primary School in September. The parents took the matter to court on the grounds that the school had breached the child’s constitutional rights. An injunction was taken out preventing the school from barring the child. She has in fact been attending the school since September 2018. However, on Friday, July 31, 2020 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the school. This led to widespread condemnation of the court and a vigorous discussion about the ruling and about hair. I listened to some of this on RJR's Beyond the Headlines hosted by Dionne Jackson Miller. Much of it was in legal language which left me confused.
I don’t have a problem with how children wear their
hair, provided that it is kept clean. In relation to self expression, I’m not
sure that in the case of children it is theirs or that of their parents. I know
of girls who have wanted to cut their hair, but have been prevented from doing
so by their fathers. It would be hard to gauge the effect of being told to
change their hairstyle would have on their self-esteem.
How do children express themselves apart from hairstyle and dress? In many ways including art, music, movement, speech and writing. The right to self-expression seems to me to be breached far more in every school in relation to written language. Children are taught that their mother tongue, Jamaican Creole or ‘patwa’ is their home language which they speak among friends and family, but they are not taught to read it or write it. They are allowed to play roles, sing and express themselves orally in patwa, while at the same time being encouraged to speak Standard Jamaican English. This is the language they are taught to read and write. In order to read and write in patwa, a child must first learn to read and write in the English Language. The injustice meted out by this system is not so much that it’s harder to learn in a language that is not of your thoughts, but the implication that this language is superior to yours and by extension, those who have command of this language are superior to you. This surely must affect your self-esteem.
The ineffectiveness of this system is shown, not by the large numbers of Jamaicans whose command of the English Language both orally and in writing is better than that of many native speakers of this language, but by the large numbers of children who don’t learn to read, and those who have difficulty expressing themselves in their own words both orally and in writing. They can learn swathes of text by rote, but struggle to write a description, explain a process or recount an event.
Another way in which schools damage children’s
self-esteem is by the system of assessment – testing and grading and failing
children. It’s not entirely the school’s intention – parents and the whole
society are programmed to judge children’s performance in relation to one
another. But that is a topic for a future blog post.
1 comment:
Your comments suggest you’ve not read the judgement, which is a pity, but taken the views of others. The court never address the core matter of hair and hygiene, including whether its contention that the styles prohibited actually constituted the cause of health and hygiene concerns it said it had. The court took, without any factual backing, the school’s contentions that locks were subject to ‘junjo’ and lice infestation, The school’s lawyer stated (para 60): ‘The rule was not arbitrary and targeted hairstyles that are known to be sources of bad hygiene and disorder in classes which, reduced the effectiveness of the teaching and learning experience of the students.’ But there was no factual basis to this. For the parents to bring a counter argument would have meant what? They could attest, too, and they intimated, that their hair care and general hygiene practices were not good, perhaps supported by a diary of what those were. Extreme, maybe. But, the court should have had the school defend its initial premises. The court discussed a lot about how hair is worn and whether prohibitions on that infringed rights, but never addressed the matter of hair and hygiene. The nearest it came was in its analysis in para 151: ‘Theevidenceinthisregard,onbehalfofthefirstdefendant,isthattheprohibition for students exists with the objective of maintaining, what they regard as an acceptable level of hygiene at the school among its students, so as to enhance the effectiveness of the teaching and learning experience and is sufficient to ground the limitation on the 2nd Claimant’s rights. The 2nd Defendant has clearly stated that they have no such rule in force in the schools in Jamaica and in fact, I have already discussed that the school rule here does not rise to the status of a law and the school is not allowed to make rules or institute policy which derogates from the constitutional rights of any student.’ So, despite what Mr. Barnett may argue, the court’s consideration was deficient in terms of one of the root (no pun) issues at stake.
Post a Comment