A Gauteng Education Department decision to allow a 16-year-old Pretoria Boys High School learner—accused of making threats about a possible school shooting and naming a specific teacher as a target—to return to class has ignited a broader debate about school safety, disciplinary authority, and systemic support for educators.
The minor, who cannot be legally identified, allegedly issued threatening statements via WhatsApp voice notes and appeared in online videos showing firearms and drug use. The school’s governing body, after conducting its internal disciplinary process, unanimously recommended expulsion, citing serious misconduct and legitimate safety concerns for staff and students. The learner’s family has contested aspects of the allegations, including whether a firearm depicted in one of the videos was an actual weapon.
Jaco Deacon, Chief Executive Officer of the Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools (FEDSAS), said the department’s reversal of the expulsion recommendation undermines schools’ efforts to maintain safe learning environments.
“Before a governing body can recommend expulsion, they go through a very thorough process on school level to really assist, guide, and help that family and that learner to comply with all the rules and regulations,” Deacon explained. “When they reach the head of department with an application, it means they’ve exhausted every available option.”
Under South Africa’s Schools Act, school governing bodies lack the authority to expel learners directly; they must submit an application to the provincial head of education. In this case, the department declined the application and instead imposed a 12-month suspended sanction coupled with mandatory intervention programs.
Deacon questioned whether such measures adequately address threats of this magnitude. “When a school asks for expulsion, it’s a plea for assistance,” he said. “The file submitted to the HOD will document every intervention already attempted—counseling, family engagement, behavioral strategies. To propose those same measures now suggests a misunderstanding of the process schools have already completed.”
He pointed to the George Randall Primary School ruling in the Eastern Cape, which affirmed that a learner’s constitutional right to education may be limited in cases of serious misconduct. “That legal precedent exists,” Deacon noted. “Its apparent disregard in this instance raises serious questions about consistency and prioritization.”
Deacon also highlighted a structural challenge: the closure of specialized residential schools—historically known as boys’ towns and girls’ towns—that once provided structured environments for learners struggling with behavioral or legal challenges. With those facilities no longer operational, the department faces limited options for placing expelled learners, creating reluctance to approve expulsions even in high-risk cases.
Practically, the school faces immediate logistical hurdles. With examinations approaching, Deacon suggested the learner could write in isolation as a temporary measure. However, he stressed that sustaining education under such conditions beyond the exam period is not viable without departmental support. “Distance learning or home-based tasks are short-term fixes,” he said. “They are not sustainable educational solutions.”
Should engagement with the department stall, the governing body may pursue a judicial review of the decision. Deacon outlined the legal pathway: challenging the administrative decision on grounds of procedural unfairness, unreasonableness, or illegality. However, he acknowledged that litigation is costly and time-intensive, placing it beyond the reach of many school communities.
The case unfolds against a backdrop of heightened concern about school-based violence. Two learners died in separate stabbing incidents during the same period, and the disciplinary committee in this matter explicitly noted that violent incidents are “almost always preceded by ignored warning signs.”
“The department has publicly committed to protecting learners, schools, and teachers,” Deacon said. “This case is an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment. Choosing not to act decisively sends a message that schools are alone when confronting serious threats.”
Deacon emphasized that learner discipline and school safety cannot be addressed by schools in isolation. “Education is a societal matter. It takes a village to raise a child,” he said. “When the rights of 30 or 40 other learners to a safe education are compromised by one individual’s behavior, the focus must shift to what is best for the whole school community.”
He called for the integration of social workers into every school to facilitate collaboration among educators, families, and community services. “We need structured support to address the root causes of behavior, not just reactive measures after a crisis,” Deacon added.
While FEDSAS has indicated willingness to support potential legal action, Deacon expressed hope that ongoing consultations between the school governing body and the department will yield a resolution that prioritizes safety without compromising the learner’s long-term development.
“Our children are in these schools,” he said. “Lip service is not enough. When warning signs are clear, the response must be proportionate, timely, and grounded in partnership.”