Schools Perspective of Fee Issue Should be Taken into Account
Article by nick
With reference to the article by Tania Broughton entitled "Schools can't just nail defaulters" (Mercury 9th July 2008), based on an article by Phillipa Tucker which appeared in the July 2008 De Rebus.
Phillipa Tucker is reported as stating that her article in De Rebus was written "in the hope that just one lawyer will turn around and simply say "no" when approached by a governing body to debt-collect." Well this is one attorney who will definitely say "yes" when approached by a governing body to collect school fees, because:
(a) I feel that government schools have a legal right to collect school fees in terms of the South African Schools Act ("the Schools Act") when the fees are legally due and payable in terms of the Schools Act (Section 41); and
(b) I believe without the payment of these fees education standards in these schools will drop and irreparably damage school education in this country and consequently the future of this country.
Ms Tucker in her article rightly points out that the largest portion of the South African Government's budget, R121.1 billion in 2008, is allocated to education and has been for a number of years. This has enabled the Minister of Education to increase the number of non-fee charging schools, where parents are completely exempt from paying school fees. These non-fee charging schools are determined by various measurement standards and are primarily in previously disadvantaged areas where the needs are greatest. In this regard I applaud the Minister for her efforts to bring free education to the poor.
While I do not condone any school which operates outside of the provisions of the Schools Act, and in fact I advocate and train schools in complying with the Schools Act, one needs to take a different perspective on the whole issue of the school fees, namely the schools` perspective, the effects of non-payment of school fees and the results of too many parents qualifying for exemptions in terms of the Schools Act.
I also question whether the case of Hunt Road Secondary does set a legal precedent, as it was settled by consent and the order made by Morley AJ was just giving effect to that settlement agreement.
Unfortunately, while the South African Government is providing a large chunk of its annual budget to education and the South African Bill of Rights provides for the right to education (which requires a degree of interpretation), the practicalities of providing this prove to be extremely challenging.
Firstly, the level of education provided at these non-fee charging schools is not of the same standard as the government schools which are entitled to charge fees in terms of the Schools Act (which are primarily previous model C schools). So much so that we encounter many educators (teachers) in the non-fee charging schools who elect to rather send their own children to fee charging schools because they know the difference in the education provided and they want the better education for their children.
Secondly, the current fee paying schools only receive state funding in an amount which covers, in many cases, only 50% to 60% of the teaching staff salaries and even less than the costs of their water and lights for the year - the outstanding balance is funded by school fees paid by the parents.
A common misconception with parents is that if they apply and qualify for an exemption, then the state provides the school with payment of the exempt amount. This is not true - it is the paying parents who cross-subsidise the non-paying parents. As the exemptions are calculated based on the parent's salary in relation to the school fees, what this means is that as more parents qualify for exemptions, so the school fees paid by the paying parents have to increase to compensate for this loss of income and this results in more parents qualifying for exemptions and so the result is a spiral downward for the school's funding.
I submit that the current exemption requirements are, in fact, far too lenient on the parents if measured against the very real needs of the schools. Parents in many cases are enjoying the benefits of cellular telephones, Satellite TV, expensive brand name clothes and many other consumer luxuries at the expense of a better education for their children. Yet it is the schools who are trying to make ends meet with their budgets (they are non-profit organizations), and still provide a reasonable standard of education, that are painted as the villains by Ms Tucker in her article.
Essentially, the challenge is an ideological one, where as Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Do we attempt to lift the education levels of the non-fee charging schools by trying to increase their funding without burdening their indigent parents, or do we pull down the standards of the fee charging schools by starving them of the funding they so desperately need to continue delivering a reasonable education at reasonable cost? I submit that if the current fee charging government schools are destroyed by being starved of school fees then the divide between the "haves" and the "have nots" will be even greater, with the middle income earners` children receiving poorer education and the children of the wealthy the only ones receiving a good education.
Nick Alers is the webmaster of http://www.creditcontrol.co.za
Random Post
0 comments:
Post a Comment