| |
| Wimsa
Report on Activities 2002/03 |
WIMSA
Regional San Education
Programme
WIMSA’s
new Regional Education Advisor, Yvonne Pickering, joined the team
two months before the organisation’s contract with former
Education and Culture Co-ordinator Willemien le Roux expired in
December 2002. In January 2003 Willemien joined Letloa, the support
organisation for San CBOs and NGOs in Botswana, as its Culture and
Education Advisor. In November 2002, shortly after Yvonne’s
arrival in Namibia, several meetings were held to acquaint her with
WIMSA’s activities and particularly its Regional San Education
Programme, and to discuss her terms of reference. The meetings were
attended by Yvonne, Willemien, then Education Liaison Officer for
Botswana Leslie Botsie, University of Botswana (UB) Education Outreach
Officer Masego Nkelekang, UB and University of Tromsø Collaborative
Programme representative Sidsel Saugestad, and WIMSA Co-ordinator
Axel Thoma. Yvonne was informed about the different roles of the
teams involved in San education in Botswana represented by Masego,
Leslie and Willemien, and the participants were informed about Yvonne’s
responsibilities. Her terms of reference make clear that her position
is two-pronged: she will play a supportive role in the various education
programmes in Namibia and a networking role among the role-players
in San education across the region (including Angola, Botswana,
South Africa and Namibia), with a special focus on the Southern
African San Education Forum (SASEF).
Southern
African San Education Forum (SASEF)
In
a meeting in Kimberley, Northern Cape, South Africa, on 19-20 March
2002, convened to follow up on the First Regional San Education
Conference held in Namibia in May 2001, it was decided that the
body elected at the conference to oversee San education across the
region should be called the Southern African San Education Forum
(SASEF). The Chairperson of Namibia’s Intersectoral Task Force
on Educationally Marginalised Children (ITFEMC), Theo Kamupingene,
accepted his nomination in this preparatory meeting to serve as
SASEF Chairperson for the first two years. Later on, WIMSA Regional
Education Advisor Yvonne Pickering was appointed to serve concurrently
as SASEF Co-ordinator.
In her capacity as SASEF Co-ordinator Yvonne organised the first
official meeting of the body, held in Windhoek on 5-6 March 2003
– for logistical reasons it could not be held in Botswana
as intended. A total of 12 representatives of government education
departments, San NGOs and CBOs and San communities in Botswana,
South Africa and Namibia attended.
|
 |
The
SASEF members at the forum’s first official meeting, in Windhoek
in March 2003.
Standing, from left: Mathambo Ngakaeaja, Joseph Nangolo, Jomo Jonkers,
Eric Martin, Yvonne Pickering, Sonner Geria, Philip Damens
Sitting,
from left: Tomsen Nore, Pat Siyoko, Theo Kamupingene, Nxisae Nxao,
Joram |Useb |
Table
2: Current SASEF Members

|
The
proposals from the Kimberley meeting were reviewed. It was agreed
that for the time being the SASEF membership should consist of 3-4
representatives per country, and that membership should be limited
to South Africa, Botswana and Namibia until the body is established
enough to expand to the other countries with San populations, i.e.
Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Also it was agreed that continuity
in SASEF representation is very important. The duties of the Chairperson
and Co-ordinator were expanded beyond those proposed in Kimberley.
Among numerous other decisions, the members decided to commission
the design of a SASEF logo to provide the body with its own identity,
and to issue a newsletter to keep stakeholders informed of developments
in San education in the region. The Co-ordinator was requested to
make contact with Ms Mudzi, the Education Co-ordinator of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) in Botswana, where SADC is
based, to inform her about SASEF and invite her to attend the body’s
next meeting.
A hopefully temporary difficulty for SASEF has been “the Botswana
government’s reluctance to get involved” in the body.
The following extract from the minutes conveys the meeting’s
decisions on the matter:
“It was agreed that the Botswana
government’s reluctance to get involved in SASEF should not
hold the forum back as the other two governments [Namibian and South
African] are already playing an active role in it. In time the Botswana
government will hopefully become a partner too. SASEF should determine
a strategy for drawing the Botswana government in and convincing
it to implement a policy on mother-tongue education as the other
countries have done. It was noted that SASEF does not have a mandate
to approach the Botswana government directly and will have to do
so through Namibian and South African government officials with
the necessary status. SASEF will have to consider possible strategies
to ensure Botswana government representation at the next meeting.”1
The country delegations each presented
an overview of general developments in San education and specifically
language development in their respective countries since the Kimberley
meeting. According to the minutes:
“The participants expressed
frustration that so little had happened since Penduka,2 and all
agreed that the lack of orthographies needed to develop materials
is the delaying factor. They wished to get to the point of knowing
that all orthographies are being developed with all [San language
committees, San organisations, academic linguists and government
officials] knowing exactly who is moving in what direction.”3
It
was agreed that a SASEF representative should attend a Penduka follow-up
meeting in 2003 should one be convened.
The
development of San languages for use in school and the development
of educational materials were issues discussed at length. It was
revealed that in Namibia there is a curriculum committee –
such committees resort under the National Institute for Educational
Development (NIED) – only for Ju|’hoansi because to
date this is the only San language in Namibia to have an officially
recognised orthography. The manager of the !Xun and Khwe Communal
Property Association and Chairperson of the Regional Khwedam Language
Committee was asked to find out if the !Xun and Khwe communities
in Schmidtsdrift, Northern Cape, South Africa, will accept the Ju|’hoan
orthography for their own educational materials. The !Kung in Tsumkwe
West should likewise be consulted on this question.
Another point of discussion was that the lack of San pre-school
teachers proficient in their mother tongue is a definite stumbling
block for San pre-school programmes. It was suggested that a survey
is needed in Namibia to gauge the number of San children now attending
school as the last such survey was conducted seven years ago and
a lot has been done for San education since then. The discussion
of the presentation on developments in Botswana focused on the fact
that the Government of Botswana had signed the UN convention on
mother-tongue education, and on the question of employment opportunities
for San who speak only their mother tongue.
The Co-ordinator’s handout on initial ideas for educational
resources was also discussed. Yvonne explained that “dual-language
readers would be used as part of the literacy curriculum but could
extend out to other curricula and all readers will be checked to
ensure that they fit with the curricula“.4 Further, “It
was pointed out that adult literacy is very important for reinforcing
children’s literacy, and parents and artistic adult community
members should be drawn into this effort.”5 Philip Damens
of NIED stressed that WIMSA, SASEF and NIED should share their ideas
and co-ordinate their efforts in the development of educational
materials to avoid duplicating work.
The situation regarding further study opportunities and employment
for San youth, and initiatives to deal with San school dropout in
each country, were other issues discussed at some length. The members
concurred with the Chairperson’s view that SASEF should address
the problem that San are not visible in most job sectors by determining
ways to help and encourage San to find work. The understanding that
there is a close relationship between employment and education was
at the core of this discussion, during which the following points,
among others, were emphasised:
-
Some San leave their home environment to seek work, often far
away from their community.
-
Many young San men have entered the military.
-
Employers claim that school subjects are still not helpful for
employment.
-
A great many San drop out of school due to lack of funds rather
than of academic ability.
-
San lack general knowledge and worldly experience due to their
isolation.
These
were some recommendations of the meeting:
-
Authorities should take into account historical factors and help
San to secure employment in the public sector.
-
Tertiary education and training institutions should be asked to
provide substantial support to San students.
- “San
communities must also play an active, supportive and motivational
role”6 in the education of San children.
The
participants shared ideas and experiences in discussing how community
resource centres or, as they are known in Namibia, Teacher Resource
Centres (TRCs), could serve San communities.
Regarding the envisaged SASEF newsletter, the members approved the
Co-ordinator’s draft mission statement to appear in the masthead,
i.e. “Governments and San NGOs working in partnership to create
a more equitable future for San Education”, and put forward
ideas for the content. They also identified the taget audience,
and agreed that Yvonne as Co-ordinator should compile the newsletter
annually or biannually if possible.
The members decided to hold the next meeting in Botswana in March
2004, and agreed to forward to the Co-ordinator suggestions on themes
and the meeting format within three months.
|
FOOTNOTES:
1 “Minutes of the SASEF Meeting in Windhoek on 5-6 March 2003”,
p. 2.
2 They were referring to the workshop on San language orthographies
held at Penduka, Windhoek, on 20-22 April 2001, which adopted “The
Penduka Declaration on the Standardisation of Ju and Khoe Languages”.
3 Minutes of the meeting, op. cit. p. 5.
4 Ibid., p. 9.
5 Ibid..
6 Ibid., p. 10.
|
| |
|
|