The Letter That Gave No Reason
Chisomo is 15 and was in Form 2 at a rural secondary school in Dedza. She gave birth in December. In January the head teacher told her mother that she cannot return 'because she is now a mother and will influence other girls', and the PTA chair supported him. Three boys at the same school who fathered children are still in class. Chisomo's uncle has arranged for her to sell tomatoes at the roadside market and says school is 'finished for her'. Her mother has kept the short letter the school wrote, which quotes no rule and gives no reason. Chisomo wants to return and sit the end-of-term examinations in March; a neighbour has offered to care for the baby during the day. The family has no money for a lawyer and does not know where to complain.
1. Identify the rights at stake and assess whether the school's decision is consistent with Malawi's education policy and the principle of non-discrimination. State what further facts you need.
Read the worked answer
Rights at stake. The right to education; the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or pregnancy; the principle that in any decision about a child the child's best interests come first; and the child's right to be heard in matters affecting her.
Assessment. Malawi's re-admission policy exists precisely so that a learner who leaves school because of pregnancy can return; a head teacher cannot invent an exclusion rule, and a PTA is advisory and cannot expel a learner. The letter quotes no rule and gives no reason, which suggests there was no lawful rule to quote. Most telling is the comparison: boys who fathered children stayed in class. That shows the objection is not to sexual behaviour but to girls who become visibly pregnant - direct discrimination.
Facts still needed. Is there a written school rule, and when was it made? Was Chisomo formally withdrawn or simply refused entry? How old was she at conception, and was the pregnancy the result of abuse or exploitation - a child-protection question? What does the district education office say? Do the March examinations have a registration deadline that is closing?
Judgement: on the facts given, the refusal is very likely unlawful and should be challenged through the proper channels rather than accepted.
2. Set out, in order, the steps Chisomo's family should take, explaining why each step matters and what evidence to keep.
Read the worked answer
(1) A written request to the head teacher, copied and dated, asking for the specific rule relied on and the reason for refusal, and stating that Chisomo wishes to be readmitted and to sit the March examinations. Why: it puts the decision on record and forces a stated reason. (2) The district education officer, if there is no reply within about a week or the refusal is repeated. Why: the district office supervises schools and the re-admission policy, and the PTA cannot overrule it. (3) A social welfare or child-protection worker if the pregnancy resulted from abuse, or if the uncle's plan amounts to child labour or neglect. (4) The Malawi Human Rights Commission or the Legal Aid Bureau for free advice and, if necessary, representation.
Evidence to keep: copies of every letter, dates and names of who said what, the original school letter, her Form 2 report and examination number, and a note of the neighbour's childcare offer.
Conduct. Stay peaceful and take a witness to meetings. Do not organise a protest at the school gate - it will be used to justify the refusal. Ask a trusted teacher to act as intermediary and to keep her books and notes safe so that returning is possible.
3. The head teacher says, 'We must protect the morals of other learners.' How would you respond, and what responsibilities would Chisomo have if she returned?
Read the worked answer
Answering the argument. Protecting morals is a legitimate aim, but it must be pursued through rules that apply to everyone and through teaching, not by excluding one learner. The claim that Chisomo will 'influence' other girls is an assumption, not evidence: no rule is quoted, no assessment of her conduct is offered, and the boys who fathered children remain in class. Excluding her also defeats the aim it claims - it removes her from supervision and from the guidance the school could give. The burden is on the school to justify exclusion, and it has not.
Her responsibilities if readmitted. Attend every day and on time; arrange reliable childcare in advance and have a plan for when the baby is ill; follow the school's rules on conduct and uniform; catch up the missed work through a written plan agreed with each subject teacher; and ask for help early rather than disappearing again. She should also be allowed to be an ordinary learner, not a permanent case study.
Rights and responsibilities are paired: hers is to use the place well. That does not make the school's original decision fair - both things can be true at once.