3.1 Interviews with girls
3.2 Interviews with boys
3.3 Interviews with teachers and head teachers
3.4 Interviews with parents
3.5 Interviews with government officials
These interviews, held over three rounds (Appendix 1) revealed that girls were harassed and abused by male pupils in the three co-educational schools, by teachers inside the four schools (mainly verbally in the case of School D) and by male strangers (usually 'sugar daddies') in the vicinity of the school.
With regard to boys in the co-educational schools, two types of abusive behaviour dominated.10 The first arose from the highly developed ritual of older boys from Form 4, and to a lesser extent Form 3, making sexual advances or 'proposing to' the new girls in Form 1. There was clear peer pressure on boys to obtain girlfriends and to boast about conquests among the younger girls. These proposals were made either directly, in person, or through the writing of love letters or notes, usually sent via a friend but sometimes by post. Most girls in the schools (81 percent of the Round 2 sample of 73 girls) said that they had received love letters, and a few had taken boyfriends in this way. However, most claimed to be irritated by this practice, tore the letters up and tried to ignore the boys. The older boys would also enter the Form 1 classrooms uninvited during the break times, usually in groups of three or four, with the intention of forcing the girls to talk to them and to respond to their advances. The girls clearly found this very intimidating. Boys also accosted girls on their way to and from school, in the school grounds, during sports events, and also near their homes. Sometimes, boys' advances were accompanied by small gifts of money, or a boy might buy a girl a drink or a snack during break time. Although couched in romantic language, the proposals clearly contained an implicit request for a sexual relationship. Abuse in the form of threatening or violent behaviour arose when girls turned down these proposals. They would use sexually explicit language to embarrass and humiliate the girl, threaten to beat her up after school and in some cases would strike her. A boy would be particularly abusive if a girl had accepted a gift or money.
Although not exposed to such abuse within the school, girls who attended the all-girls' school would be approached by boys from the boys' school in town or in their neighbourhood, and surprisingly there was as much activity around sending and receiving love letters for these girls as in the co-educational schools.
The second form of abusive behaviour by boys in the mixed schools occurred when clusters of boys intimidated or assaulted the girls physically or verbally without warning, as if in an affirmation of male dominance over females within or near the school grounds. They would attempt to touch girls provocatively or shout obscenities at them. 34 girls in the Round 2 sample (47 percent) reported that they had experienced unsolicited physical contact from boys in the school. Examples cited were: boys grabbing or pinching their breasts or buttocks, pulling them, twisting their arm, blocking their way, and in a few cases beating or hitting them (sometimes more than one boy at a time). In the school in the peri-urban area, girls reported that they had to run a gauntlet of boys waiting to ambush them as they left school; they would try to pinch their breasts or lock them in a physical embrace, while other boys would look on and laugh. Some reported having had textbooks or exercise books stolen by boys who entered their classroom. A number of girls also talked of boys showing condoms to girls and speaking about them provocatively, e.g. offering them as sweets. During biology lessons, boys also used sexually explicit language and drawings to embarrass girls.
Very few of the girls thought that the boys were serious when they made individual advances. Most considered them as merely competing with each other for the most girls' attention and boasting to their friends about their sexual conquests. The great majority of girls claimed to be irritated, embarrassed, confused, and in some cases frightened, by this unsolicited attention from boys. They talked of loss of concentration in class, crying after a particularly unpleasant incident and feeling anxious and bothered, especially when meeting the boy(s) who had assaulted them. Some Form 1 girls reported that they were too frightened to leave the classroom at lunch and break times. The girls developed strategies to deal with the boys' aggressive behaviour, for example always walking home with other girls, moving around the school together and avoiding passing near a crowd of boys.
At the same time, it was reported that some girls boasted about the attention they received from boys and showed off that they had money to buy snacks, sweets and drinks from the tuck shop - money given to them by boys to tempt them into a sexual relationship. We learnt that there was considerable prestige attached to having pocket money to spend during break times, and girls who had money were admired and popular. In School A most noticeably there were a number of boys who insisted that some girls would initiate contact by writing letters to boys or approaching them directly.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the school was not a conducive environment for forming mature and lasting relationships. Most girls saw boys as predatory and vengeful and very few had formed a stable relationship with a boy from the school. The high number of intimidating incidents and assaults documented suggests that boys infringe the girls' personal space with impunity. They appear to feel not just entitled to intimidate and assault them, but obliged to by peer pressure. The boys themselves see the girls as fair-game, especially as they consider them primarily interested in money.
The passive acceptance of the situation by most of the girls is indicative of their implicit recognition of the superior power and status accorded to males by society. Very few took retaliatory action; most appeared to be resigned to such incidents and made conscious attempts to avoid confrontation. They also had little faith in their teachers and thought that either they did not notice what was going on or they did not care. While the girls in the all-girls' school were protected from such behaviour on the school premises, they were still exposed to abusive behaviour by men and boys when they went into town or to their homes.
There was some evidence that the aggressive behaviour of boys puts pressure on younger girls to take a boyfriend as protector. This could have negative consequences for other girls. As one girl said, each time you do something wrong to a girl with a boyfriend in the school, older boys threaten to beat you because they claim you are harassing 'their woman' - a situation confirmed by one teacher. Girls use this protection to consolidate their position in their own class and vis-à-vis other girls.
Abuse by teachers consisted of beatings, which the girls spoke bitterly about, and sexual advances by male teachers (what they called 'proposals'). They were reluctant to talk about these for fear that what they said would be repeated to the teachers, who were suspected of passing what was told them in confidence around the staff room for the amusement of other teachers. Although only 14 girls out of 73 admitted to being propositioned by a teacher, the majority knew of other girls who had been approached, and some named girls (including some in our sample who denied it) whom they suspected of having an affair with the teacher. This suggests that the figure of those who had been approached was higher than that reported. Moreover, the interviews revealed that the teachers usually made advances to older Form 4 girls who were not included in our sample. The fact that even a few younger girls in Forms 1 and 2 had been targeted is indicative of how widespread the practice is and how teachers go about it with no fear of being reported and disciplined.
Being the target of an individual 'proposal' was in addition to male teachers taking the opportunity of daily close physical contact with the girls. For example, a teacher might put his arm round a girl in class on the pretext of reading her exercise book in class or pretend to admire a girl's T-shirt while touching her on the breasts. Some of the circumstances under which girls said they were approached are provided in Appendix 3 a. Even though not all these overtures can be considered as constituting a direct request for sex, the approach was made in such a sexually explicit way and was such a common occurrence that the teacher's intention was quite unambiguous to the girls. Teachers pursued their amorous activities mainly during sports, but were also quite open about it in the classroom so that boys and other girls would whistle or hiss if a teacher called on a particular girl known to be of interest to him to read out loud or to come to the front of the class.
The girls who had been approached said that they felt embarrassed, shy, ashamed, miserable, insulted or scared when the teacher involved taught them in class. They tried not to attract his attention. They were also worried that by refusing the teacher they would expose themselves to retaliation, such as being given low marks, being beating in class or made to do extra tasks or school work. None reported it to the school head or to the Guidance and Counselling teacher. At the same time, none admitted responding positively to these advances.
While it is difficult to separate hard facts from rumours and conjecture, there was an accumulation of evidence provided not only by girls, but also by boys and some teachers that there were teachers having affairs with girls in their schools. Examples of what girls said to support these claims are given in Appendix 3 b. Moreover, a number of girls claimed to know of girls who had been made pregnant by a teacher (and in several cases had had an abortion), or of teachers who had been found in the sex act on the school premises. One girl said her older sister had been raped by a headmaster in another school and had a young child by him. Another girl said she had learnt from her aunt that her father had been a teacher who had got her mother pregnant when she was in Form 4.
There were some girls who claimed that there were a few girls who responded positively and even boasted about the sexual advances made to them by teachers (Appendix 3 c). Some girls who had been interviewed were named by others as having responded positively. The consensus was that a girl would enter a sexual relationship with a teacher primarily for money and that teachers would tempt girls with offers of money and snacks in the same way as boys and sugar daddies did. However, there was also the suggestion that a girl might do this to be favoured, to feel important and made to feel special, or even to boast about it to other girls. Some knew of well-off girls who went out with teachers. So, poverty was not the only factor. The boys in contrast saw the girls as exclusively motivated by money. All, both boys and girls, said they disapproved strongly of such relationships, because they felt that the teacher would favour the girl in class and in exams unfairly, he might be distracted from his teaching, the girl might get pregnant, and they were setting a bad example. Only eight girls in the whole sample thought that it might be acceptable under certain circumstances, e.g. he might be genuinely in love with her and want to marry her. As suggested, however, it may be the case that not all girls were revealing their true attitudes when they spoke disapprovingly of such liaisons.
As for abuse by male adults and adolescents, an astonishing 103 out of the 112 girls (92%) said they had been propositioned by adult men. These were usually prospective 'sugar daddies' who tried to engage them in conversation, offered them lifts, money or presents, or said they wanted to marry them, with a view to tempting them into a sexual relationship. These encounters usually took place on their way to or from school, when they went shopping or to church, and near their homes, and was as common in the rural areas as in the town. In some cases, it was neighbours or relatives who approached them and pestered them, usually promising to divorce their wives and marry them. For those who walked to school along main roads, truck drivers were the main aggressors; in town it was taxi and minibus drivers, as well as drivers of private cars. In one school, where some new classrooms were being built, workmen pestered the girls (and one girl became pregnant by one of these workmen during the field work period). Girls in all the schools were harassed by unemployed youths, ex-pupils, boys from other schools, agricultural labourers and, in the case of School A, gold panners. For the few girls who worked on a family stall in the market after school, there was the risk of being harassed or assaulted by men who frequented the nearby beer halls.
In addition to being propositioned, girls were frequently assaulted by male strangers in public places for no reason apart from the fact that they were female (just as older boys assaulted them in the school). It was shocking to learn that over half the total sample in the first round of interviews of 112 girls had experienced unsolicited physical contact or assault from strange men, usually at the bus stop or while walking home. Thirteen girls said they had had their breasts grabbed or pinched and seven had been touched on the buttocks. Others had had their arms pulled or twisted, or their hand gripped. In some cases, a drunken man had tried to hug a girl, and men often squeezed up against them on public transport. Sometimes, adolescent boys accosted them in an aggressive manner; one girl had been hit by a local boy with a stick at the bus stop, another was harassed with her friends at the bus stop by a group of boys who would take their food, try to make them talk to them and throw stones at them if they did not. On the whole, the girls were more frightened of boys who accosted them outside the school than by those inside. Some were said to be drunk or high on marijuana; they were rougher, used verbal abuse more frequently and moved about in gangs. However, once in the school the girls were not necessarily protected from boys outside; cases were reported of boys driving cars right into the school grounds or walking up to a classroom to wait for a girl (in some cases to beat her). Just as the movement of pupils in and out of the school was lax, so was there no monitoring of outsiders coming into the school.
Few girls took retaliatory action when faced with threatening behaviour or assault from either boys or men. Some had shouted at the man who had assaulted them but only one tried to hit him and two to push him away. They said they were usually too scared to retaliate for fear of being subjected to further violence. Some girls cried after particularly unpleasant experiences; several spoke of feeling violated or dirty, of being treated like a prostitute.
Despite almost universal disapproval of girls who had developed sexual relationships with sugar daddies, many of those interviewed (54 girls or 74%) said they knew of girls who had sugar daddies and some claimed to know many such girls. These figures were surprisingly high in the case of the girls' school, which suggests that poverty is not the only factor in tempting girls into relationships with older men. No girl interviewed admitted to such a relationship but girls were named in some cases and precise details provided of when and where they had been seen with the man. Some girls were said to come to school with plenty of money to buy snacks; others were collected from the school gates in their cars or were seen in town with men, often in cars. However, only a few girls thought that it was acceptable if the man was unmarried. The others said the girls were ruining their lives, nobody would marry them and they may catch sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS; the men were just exploiting them and would drop them as soon as they got tired of them. They all thought the girls did this for money, but a few thought they might also do it for fun, to experiment or to show off.
It is widely acknowledged that in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the high incidence of HIV/AIDS has encouraged the practice of older men seeking out schoolgirls for sex in the expectation that they would be virgins and free of the HIV virus. Although this practice has existed for some time, it has increased dramatically, with men often waiting outside school gates to engage girls in conversation as they leave, or following them to and from school. Teachers we spoke to were of the opinion that girls entered into conversation, accepted small gifts and perhaps took rides in cars with strange men without realising that they would be forced into sex with them at a later date. This appeared to be the same approach taken by teachers. Poverty in a girl's family would encourage her to accept gifts of money from men, whether known or unknown. Given the reluctance of men to use condoms, the threat to the girl's life is real, especially as it is known that the highest rate of HIV infection in Africa is now in the 15-19 female age group).11 Indeed, it is estimated that for every boy in the same age group who is infected by the AIDS virus in Zimbabwe, there are six girls; a similar pattern is to be found across Africa (verbal communication, Director, Family AIDS Counselling Trust, 1999). The Zimbabwe government has launched vigorous public campaigns to alert the population to the AIDS pandemic and to warn girls of the dangers of having sugar daddies.
All the girls, and the boys, appeared to understand clearly the risks of HIV/AIDS infection; yet they almost all thought the girl entered into the relationship with a teacher or a sugar daddy voluntarily. However, the power relationship between the adult man, whether a teacher or a sugar daddy, and the adolescent girl, means that the girl does not enter into a relationship of equals. Social acceptance of male 'superiority', the difference in age, physical strength and economic status are all factors that constrain the girl's degree of volition. By taking advantage of her circumstances, whether in terms of poverty, age, immaturity or vulnerability due to family difficulties, the man is abusing her. If she is under the age of 16, he is also committing a criminal offence. In the case of a teacher, moreover, whatever the age of the girl, if she is his pupil he is engaging in an illegal relationship.
On the whole, the boys in the three mixed schools were even less open than the girls in admitting their own involvement in sexual activities in the school, especially in harassing or abusive behaviour towards girls. Although they acknowledged that girls can present a problem to boys, they saw girls as being more affected by issues of boyfriends (being too interested in boys, being proposed to or harassed by boys) than boys were by girls. At least for the benefit of the researchers, they formulated their-own problems in terms of absent teachers, shortage of textbooks, learning difficulties and poor concentration in class rather than in terms of girls. Only eight boys, all of them in School A, admitted to having a girlfriend, despite the fact that some boys interviewed were named by other boys (and sometimes girls) as having girlfriends. And only 18 boys (most in School A again) admitted that they had written love notes to girls. Both these figures are at odds with the much higher numbers of girls who claimed to have received such notes.
At the same time, the interviews revealed how important making proposals to girls was to the boys and the status they attached to having a girlfriend. The boys were very ready to talk about how boys in general would approach girls (Appendix 3 d) and the majority of boys confirmed the girls' picture of boys competing among themselves. It seemed that the more confident boys approached a girl directly, the less confident would write a letter but then 'some girls will think you are shy and stupid'. Sometimes they would send a friend 'to test the waters'. Proposing to a girl appeared to be a necessary adolescent ritual, and for some, once having got a girlfriend, he would not want to lose her because, as one boy said, 'proposing is so laborious'. For others it was a game to see how many girls they could conquer.
Regardless of their attitude towards this ritual, the boys' uniform contempt for the girls was clear. They all thought they were interested in men only for money, and hence preferred older men to boys. One boy summed up the male perception of the relationship well by saying 'Boys want sex, girls want money'. One boy admitted that he was keeping a record of how much he had given a girl (20 Z$ to date, approximately 30 pence) so that if she ditched him he would demand his money back! Nevertheless, many boys apparently spent all their pocket money on girls, took odd jobs at weekends to earn money for girls, and in some cases were reported to steal from parents and relatives. Because of this, some were of the opinion that boys made considerable sacrifices to obtain girlfriends, even though most of them thought girls were the more serious about such relationships.
However, most of the boys denied, or sought to downplay, the girls' claims that they used threatening behaviour and language towards them. Only 19 boys (32 percent) of those interviewed admitted that (other) boys sometimes use threatening behaviour towards girls. Interestingly, most of those who were ready to talk about this were Form 1 boys, who were less likely to be engaged in such behaviour, and who were themselves often subjected to bullying by older boys. Some confirmed the girls' account of older boys entering the classroom during break times, pestering girls and threatening a girl if she rejected him. This was particularly the case if he had given her money, as she would be seen as 'trying to make a fool of him'. Examples of such behaviour were: boys threatening to beat a girl on the way home, using older brothers to threaten a girl into submission, snatching her bag, jostling her, bringing objects like rubber snakes into class to frighten her, calling her names like 'prostitute' and 'dog'. Two boys cited incidents of boys beating girls after being turned down. One boy said some boys smoked dagga (marijuana) before approaching girls.
At the same time as largely denying the use of threatening behaviour, a very small number of boys (six in all, four of them from School A) insisted that sometimes it was girls who initiated a sexual advance both towards boys and teachers (Appendix 3 e). A boy in School B said he had received a letter from a girl; he had replied stating he was not in love with her and placed the letter in her exercise book. A small number of girls in the Round 3 interviews also seemed to suggest that girls might initiate the advance.
As for teachers having affairs with schoolgirls, nearly half the sample said they knew of teachers in the school doing this and 21 named one or more particular teachers. In one school, one teacher was named seven times, in another six times. Two boys claimed to have found a certain teacher having sex with a Form 4 girl in his office after school had finished for the day. Those teachers named by boys were the same as those named most frequently by the girls. When talking about this, the boys showed even more contempt for the teachers than for the girls. However, their condemnation arose more from a sense that the teachers were competitors with an unfair advantage in the procurement of girls than from a sense of moral outrage.
23 teachers were interviewed, of whom 12 were female and 11 male. They included three teachers responsible for Guidance and Counselling (of whom one was male). The head teachers of three of the four schools, and the deputy head of one (in the absence of the head on leave) were also interviewed.
The teachers largely confirmed the picture presented by the girls and the boys, even suggesting that both groups had understated their involvement in sexual activities. The majority thought that preoccupations with boys distracted girls from their studies, more so than boys' preoccupation with girls. This was mainly because they thought girls were more vulnerable emotionally and their performance declined easily when they became involved with boys. As one teacher from the all-girls' school said 'They drown in love affairs'. They also agreed that girls were more likely to be exposed to abusive behaviour than boys, with particular risks of sexual assault from lorry drivers, taxi drivers and male strangers for girls who have to wait at bus stops, pass near beer halls or walk long distances along lonely paths.
As for aggressive behaviour by boys in the school towards girls, the teachers in the mixed schools appeared, contrary to what the girls had said, to know very well what was going on, and probably knew more than their head teachers. They all acknowledged that boys threatened and sometimes pushed and beat girls, especially older boys younger girls if the latter refused their proposals. They also confirmed that girls were too frightened to report older boys. They knew that boys wrote letters to girls, showed them condoms and attempted to 'fondle' their breasts. At times girls were bullied and beaten by other girls who were protective of their boyfriends.
The teachers also acknowledged that the way in which girls had been socialised to be obedient and passive made them less able to retaliate and therefore easy targets of male aggression. Family and societal structures favour boys, so girls tend to get blamed and punished more often for their shortcomings, especially by fathers. In addition, most teachers thought girls were on the whole more affected by the break up of the family, emotional neglect and poverty (boys can more easily find casual paid work). While they all thought that girls were as intelligent as boys, most thought girls did not always possess the necessary attitude or effort to excel, and lacked confidence in their own potential.
In the mixed schools, the teachers also thought that the experience of being an orphan, staying with relatives, lack of family support, living a long way from the school and excessive time spent on domestic chores, were additional factors which affected their studies. In the all-girls' school, where the majority of girls came from middle-class backgrounds, the early pre-occupation with boys (in some cases starting at primary school), peer pressure to have a boyfriend and an excessive interest in and competitiveness over material possessions e.g. having new clothes, smart hairstyles, make up, polished nails etc. were seen as particularly disruptive influences - although lack of parental support was also an important factor. Girls were known to fight over boys. One teacher said that men considered it prestigious to be attached to girls from the school and some of the older girls were known to frequent the town's main hotel -one had been expelled recently for going out with a married local businessman.
Most of the teachers (13 out of 17) defended the use of corporal punishment as the only way of ensuring discipline and did not see it as physical abuse. In the three mixed schools, they recognised that almost all teachers, both female and male, used it regularly, as did parents at home. Some saw it as essential in circumstances where male pupils were known to threaten teachers (in School C in particular where the local peri-urban community was characterised as violent). In the all-girls' school, where the ban was strictly enforced, teachers compensated by using verbal abuse. Two of the four teachers (two female, two male) who said they disapproved of corporal punishment were from the all-girls' school and they disapproved not so much for moral or ethical reasons but because they knew it was banned. Most also acknowledged that teachers used abusive language towards pupils, although there was some suggestion that female teachers used it more than male teachers because they were afraid to beat male pupils. Some said male teachers used suggestive language, or sometimes insulting or 'foul' language, to attract girls. In one school a female teacher was accused of using racist language towards pupils.
They were, however, much less forthcoming when it came to the incidence of (physical) sexual abuse in their schools. While some were ready to accept that male pupils might behave in an abusive manner towards girls, only four teachers (three male teachers and one female student teacher) acknowledged openly that teachers sexually abused girls. Interestingly, one of these male teachers was a teacher who was himself frequently named as making sexual advances to girls. He talked of male teachers being motivated by 'pure lust and abuse' and confirmed that their sexual approaches mostly took place during sports activities. He referred disapprovingly to two teachers (both of whom he named) whom he had overheard commenting to some Form 1 girls who had changed into their sports kits along the lines of 'You look very attractive. I wish you could stay in those tights all the time'. He also mentioned a third teacher who 'has the habit of patting girls' bums during sports'. The other teachers said that perpetrators were mostly student teachers or young teachers. Female teachers were noticeable for their reluctance to recognise that such abuse took place, although it must have been difficult for them not to notice it.12 The three head teachers admitted there had been cases of teachers having sexual relationships with girls (and in one case this had got into the regional press), and the heads of Schools A and B knew of girls who had become pregnant by teachers, but these cases had been in the past.
Very few of the teachers said they knew of cases where a teacher had made a schoolgirl pregnant, and these were usually in other schools.13 In School B a girl had recently entered Form 4 having transferred from another school where she had been made pregnant by a teacher.14 The Guidance and Counselling teacher in the same school had found out recently that a student teacher was having an affair with a Form 2 girl and feared that she was pregnant. One teacher referred to a head master in her previous school who had got a girl pregnant and been dismissed, another to a teacher who had made three girls pregnant at the same time and was dismissed.
In all four schools, a few teachers were ready to admit that there were cases of teachers propositioning girls in their school, rumoured or known. In one case, the head knew that a teacher had been propositioning girls but said that no girl had wanted to make an official complaint. The teacher was later transferred but not dismissed from teaching. Even in the single-sex school, there were rumours about two teachers being too intimate with pupils.
When asked about school policies, most agreed with the policy of dismissing a teacher or expelling a male pupil who gets a girl pregnant, but acknowledged that it is not always enforced because of lack of evidence. One teacher said the girl's parents sometimes ask the head teacher not to report the case because they are negotiating for the boy or the teacher to marry the girl. It appeared that teachers often trick the parents into believing that they will marry her but then secretly arrange a transfer. At the same time, however, most teachers did not see that there was a problem of inadequate enforcement of the policy in their school. In the light of the evidence produced by this study and the acknowledgement from the regional Ministry of the weaknesses in enforcement (see 3.5 below), this reveals a high level of complacency among teachers.
Likewise, they all thought that the curriculum adequately addressed the question of abuse through the Guidance and Counselling lessons and the Education for Living programme (which head teachers were supposed to teach in assemblies and staff development sessions), although they acknowledged that Guidance and Counselling was not taken very seriously because it was not an examinable subject. Most said they taught lessons on the dangers of sugar daddies, sexual and physical abuse, sexual health etc. either during Guidance and Counselling or normal lessons.
The complacency of the system as a whole (or the teachers' reluctance to admit the problem to the researcher) was reinforced by the limited evidence given by teachers of official complaints being made against a teacher or pupil for abuse or harassment. Very few teachers knew of any cases apart from those involving excessive beating by teachers and harassment by boys. Only four teachers mentioned specific complaints having been made, e.g. one of a teacher 'fondling' a girl's breasts, another two cases of teachers harassing a girl and a teacher accused of using offensive language in class, but nothing more. And no disciplinary action seemed to have been taken.
Despite being reluctant to admit that sexual abuse by teachers went on, a small majority acknowledged that certain aspects of the school organisation encouraged abusive behaviour. Those aspects cited included: the excessive use of manual labour and detention and, in the co-educational schools, excessive corporal punishment; the unchecked harassment of girls by boys; the lack of enforcement of rules and lax monitoring of pupils; teachers' derogatory attitudes towards girls, not listening to their problems, humiliating them with jokes of a sexual nature and using verbal abuse. Two female teachers thought male teachers belittled girls through their inappropriate behaviour and language; however, the research revealed that female teachers had equally negative attitudes towards girls.
37 parents and guardians of girls in the three mixed schools were interviewed. One mother interviewed from each school talked of an older daughter who had become pregnant while at school and dropped out.
The parents and guardians, like the teachers, thought that on the whole girls had more problems to contend with at school than boys, in particular the risk of pregnancy. Girls had to bear the consequences of this while boys escaped from their responsibility. Only six parents thought that boys had an equal share of problems (drinking, drugs, high unemployment, thieving, peer pressure to become 'wild'). Most parents also thought that girls were more affected by family circumstances: parents squabbling and using bad language to each other; loose morals among parents, with mothers perhaps bringing boyfriends home or fathers girlfriends; break up of the family; lack of parental control; harsher treatment of girls than boys, especially from fathers, and being shouted at more. Parents' higher expectations of girls' behaviour meant that they got punished more when they failed to live up to these and fathers' preference for boys' education also demoralised girls. Excessive domestic work for girls prevented them from concentrating on their studies, while boys got off lightly.
At the same time as sympathising with girls, however, the majority of parents/guardians portrayed girls as weak in character, unable to resist temptations and excessively influenced by their peers and what they saw on TV and in films. They did not pay attention to their parents or respect them sufficiently. In particular, they expressed concern about the materialistic culture which surrounds young people; girls' desire for money and luxury items combined with poverty drives them into sexual relationships. Peer pressure encourages them to have affairs so as to impress others; they think they are adults. Girls were also considered deceitful because they may pretend to their parents that they are going to school but in reality they are going elsewhere to meet a boy.
Not surprisingly, given this perception of girls as weak and confused, many parents/guardians, like the teachers, the boys and the girls themselves, saw girls as largely to blame for their own problems. A third of the sample thought the girl should solely be to blame if she got pregnant, and some also thought she should be severely punished. They were surprisingly harsh in their views on this. Suggested punishments included: being 'made to suffer', beaten, sent to the man's home, sent to stay with relatives in the rural areas, or even sent to jail. One said 'she should be beaten but not killed'. One of the women who had had a pregnant daughter said she had chased her daughter from the home when she had discovered she was pregnant but fortunately the man had married her. Many did however think that the girl should be allowed to return to school after the baby was born, although some said that most fathers would refuse to allow this and others that she would be a bad influence on the other girls. One mother said she would not pay her daughter's fees in such circumstances.
In light of their harsh views, it is perhaps not surprising that parents/guardians admitted that girls did not talk openly to them about their problems or about incidents with men or boys. Less than a third said that the girl had spoken to them about a problem of harassment or bullying. Many wished the girls would confide in them but acknowledged that they feared being reprimanded. Incidents that they were told about included: two girls being beaten by boys because they had turned down a boy's proposal (in one case the aunt went to the police and the boy was fined 200 Z$ - £4), girls being harassed or threatened by boys or men on their way to and from school, a girl claiming that another girl had stolen her book (the parents decided not to pursue it for fear of the accused girl bullying their daughter). Several parents said that they saw their daughters being followed and whistled at by boys, which worried them. In one case the mother said her daughter had received two letters from married men who attended their local church; one letter contained a 50 Z$ note. She told her daughter to return the letter and the money to the man.
At the same time, parents or guardians made little attempt to talk to the girls about their problems or about sexual matters, in part they said for fear of encouraging them. Some thought the high incidence of teenage pregnancy was the result of too much discussion about sex (at school and in the media) and the free availability of condoms. They disapproved of the teaching of health education at school because it included sex education. This is a particularly unfortunate attitude given the high prevalence of HIV infection among adolescent girls.
There was also little acknowledgement of their own parental responsibility (and their failure) in addressing girls' problems. Instead, they expected the school to do this, to teach pupils about morality and to enforce moral behaviour. Most thought that it was failing in this; only School B received some praise. Some parents had no idea what the school might be doing, others thought that teachers saw what was happening every day but did nothing. Clearly they had a poor opinion of teachers: some thought they were the main problem: many were drunk or divorced, too many were very young, and female teachers, who should be talking more to girls, were too busy fighting over boyfriends themselves! In some cases they may be jealous of the girls. Some female teachers may themselves have experienced early pregnancy and therefore have nothing exemplary to teach the girls.
Very few parents/guardians knew of specific cases of teachers having affairs with schoolgirls. They themselves did not address the subject, as we were convinced their girls did not engage in such behaviour. Several said girls chose to hide this information from parents either to protect each other or for fear of being reprimanded. However, a few said they had heard rumours of both single and married teachers having affairs with schoolgirls, either in the girl's school or elsewhere, and of teachers threatening girls if they did not have sex with them. They confirmed what some teachers had said, that parents may not wish to report the case because if the teacher is dismissed he will not be able to support the girl; they therefore prefer to make a family settlement.
The majority thought schools did not do enough to protect girls and suggested improvements. Some thought girls should not be allowed out of the school yard and the register should be taken several times a day. The school should be stricter with both teachers and pupils, and there should be better communication between parents and teachers. Older women in the community should be invited to talk to girls. Several parents would like girls to be taught only by female teachers or in single sex schools or boarding schools. One mother pointed out that three girls had already dropped out of her daughter's form this year as a result of pregnancy. Many blamed the Ministry for transferring teachers to locations where they could not take their families, which encourages them to form sexual liaisons with girls. Two (one an uncle) thought girls should be checked regularly in the clinic to see 'that they are not sexually active', i.e. that they are still virgins. The uncle suggested that if found to be pregnant, a girl should be shamed in front of the whole school. Two parents would like pupils to be beaten more.
The parents themselves were reluctant to complain (only 11 had done so at some time on matters such as a child being excessively beaten by a teacher). They thought the school did not care and nothing would be done. They also did not want the child to be victimised. Many said they would like to complain about a wide range of issues such as teacher absenteeism and laziness, e.g. teaching lessons of only 10 minutes or so, lack of teachers in some subjects, lack of discipline and pupils coming home late. They would also like to be invited to the school and to be more involved in the education of their children. It is interesting to note in this respect that the heads complained that very few parents attend meetings when they are held. However, many parents were keen to be interviewed by the researcher; the impression gained was that parents are talked at by heads in meetings and reprimanded not consulted. If asked to genuinely participate, they might be more willing.
Four officials from the regional office of the Ministry of Education were interviewed: the regional director, the deputy regional director and two education officers, one being the administrative officer and the other a gender officer involved in a Sida supported gender programme aimed at training education officers and school heads in gender awareness. Despite repeated attempts by the principal researcher, the education officer responsible for Guidance and Counselling could not be interviewed. In addition, the Director of the regional office of the Ministry of Social Welfare and the police officer responsible for the Victim Friendly Court system in the region were interviewed.
The education officers confirmed the high incidence of what is referred to as 'improper association' by male teachers in schools in the region. One officer defined this as referring to sexual relationships between a teacher and a pupil and including fondling of the girl's body, the use of insulting language, asking a pupil to cook, fetch water, clean the teacher's house or do errands not associated with meaningful learning. They also confirmed that such incidents of improper association were on the increase. In the previous two months 11 cases had been reported, one involving a 13 year old and another a 10 year old girl. However, they were dealt with very slowly and in the region there was a backlog of five years in investigating and dealing with such cases. There were for 1999 already 15 recommended cases for dismissal, which were currently awaiting the approval of the central Ministry.
The administrative officer referred to several recent cases, one of a schoolgirl made pregnant by a teacher, another of a teacher caught in the sex act with a schoolgirl by other pupils who reported it to the head teacher; the teacher tried to negotiate with the parents to marry the girl but they had already filed their complaint. He confirmed that teachers often try to negotiate to marry the girl while secretly arranging a transfer to another school. It is after the teacher has left that parents come to the regional office to complain. The office usually traces the teacher and charges him if appropriate. He also referred to a recent case of a teacher who had transferred from another region where he had had an affair with a girl; within a term, he was accused of the same offence in his new school. Parents are now becoming wise to the teachers' attempts to evade them and are coming forward more frequently to make an official complaint.
The deputy regional director, interviewed towards the end of the field work period, said that there had been two dismissals the previous month (October) and, although far short of what was required, it was a step in the right direction. It gave a strong warning to those who engage in such malpractice. He acknowledged that there were also groups (NGOs, women's groups) who were now lobbying for stiffer sentences and the Ministry could now no longer ignore complaints when they were received, from whatever source; all were investigated.
Cases are reported to the regional office of the Ministry either through the head teacher or through anonymous letters from teachers, pupils or parents. In some cases, the headmaster is the guilty party and so teachers and pupils report it directly to the Ministry (and some of the most high profile cases to reach the media are those involving head teachers). Circulars are sent to all secondary schools about improper association and the consequences at the start of each school year but heads often do not discuss the matter with their staff. The issue is also addressed during meetings of heads at the regional and national level and the Ministry also liaises with the training colleges on this.
Those interviewed laid the blame very much on the teachers and heads: many go into teaching as a last resort because of high unemployment and not because they are committed to the profession. School heads are lax, some do not know their schools well and sometimes do not even know the names of all their teachers. Heads are supposed to counsel and guide teachers, especially the young and those with personal problems, but this does not happen. Some heads themselves are most noticeable for inappropriate behaviour and this makes it extremely difficult to stamp out sexual relations between teachers and pupils. Teachers are often drunk. As the director said, there is 'much decay in the moral fabric of the school' and improper behaviour goes unchecked.
The officer responsible for the Victim Friendly Court initiative in the region15, which facilitates the prosecution of rapists of children under 12 years of age and provides support and counselling to the victims, said that he was currently engaged in a series of visits to all primary schools in the area to talk to pupils and parents about child abuse and the counselling facilities available. He gave them information as to what to do in the case of suspected rape, regardless of who the perpetrator might be. Suggestion boxes were also placed at the police station, so that people could report suspected rape cases anonymously. He was strongly in favour of teachers tackling the issue openly within the school and for counselling to be included in teacher training so that teachers could help child victims in their schools.
The director of the regional Ministry of Social Welfare confirmed that head teachers and teachers are reluctant to report cases of sexual abuse in their schools but since the establishment of the Child Welfare Forum parents raise the issue at village committee meetings. What was being revealed about abuse of children in rural areas was only 'the tip of the iceberg'. She argued for better co-ordination between the bodies involved with children: schools, police, ministries, health services, for parents to talk more to their children and for teachers to be more accessible.
FOOTNOTES
10 Many of these findings echo those uncovered during a three-day workshop in 1997 with adolescents attending a secondary school in Mashonaland East which explored adolescent boys' and girls' views of their own sexual and reproductive health (Kaim et al 1997).11 Latest statistics from WHO/UNAIDS indicate that in the countries of Southern Africa (including Zimbabwe) between a quarter and one-fifth of the sexually active population (15-49 years) are infected with the HIV virus (SafAIDS 1999).
12 Three female teachers from one school later admitted at the teachers' workshop in January that some girls had approached them complaining about teachers propositioning them.
13 Information from the regional Ministry however confirms that there are many cases (see 3.5. below).
14 The government policy is for girls to be allowed to enter another school after having given birth. There is little evidence however of this happening on a regular basis. Either schools are reluctant to take teenage mothers for fear of them being a bad influence on other girls, or parents do not wish to invest further in the education of a daughter who has a child.
15 In 1997, when the initiative had started with DANIDA support, 20-25 cases had been reported to the regional office and in 1998 there had been 48, 22 of which had resulted in convictions over the nine month period.
