Sorry state: Schools in Limpopo have lost the financial support that paid for basic things such as cleaning staff and stationery.
Schools in Limpopo are battling to buy necessities such as chalk and toilet paper, and are even struggling to clean their premises, because of sizeable but still unexplained cuts to their operating funds.
"Allocations of funding for schools' operational day-to-day expenses have recently been cut by the department of basic education and the Limpopo department of education, in some cases by as much as 50%," rights organisation Section27 says in a letter it wrote to Parliament's portfolio committee on basic education this week.
Seeking an "urgent" meeting with the committee to discuss the "ongoing education crisis" in the province, the letter says: "Schools cannot afford to operate on the funding they receive. Some schools depend on contributions from parents, despite being no-fee schools. Other schools buy materials such as paper and stationery on credit, and incur enormous debts."
More than 2 800 of Limpopo's 3 900 public schools are no-fee, and about 1.1-million pupils attend them. Schools use the funds to meet basic daily needs, including chalk, reams of paper and cleaning materials, as well as to pay cleaners and other support staff.
Prince Phandavhudzi, the Vhembe district-based provincial secretary of the National Association of School Governing Bodies, said the department is creating inequalities within public education. "This is why we have dilapidated toilets in Limpopo," he said. "We can't buy material to clean them and we're told we can no longer pay cleaners from school funds."
Section27 attorney Nikki Stein said it was not clear where and when the decision to cut school budgets in Limpopo was made. But teachers and unionists in the province told the Mail & Guardian about a circular in January from the national department that ordered schools to stop paying support staff, which includes clerks, security guards and cleaners, from "norms and standards funds".
These are the funds that the Schools Act stipulates provincial education departments must distribute to public schools annually on a per-pupil basis. No-fee schools across the country currently receive R1 010 a pupil every year, but many in Limpopo are getting half that.
Whatever led to these funds being cut, the "decision was unilateral and not legally sanctioned", Stein said.
"In one no-fee school, parents have been asked to pay R300 per child per year or risk their children being excluded. Things are becoming worse in schools. Principals are forced to choose between buying chalk and fixing leaks in the roof," she said.
The portfolio committee is well aware of the province's funding problems. Following an oversight visit it made to Limpopo in January, its report noted "as a matter of concern" that the provincial department "provided schools with funding allocations per learner that were below the national minimum allocations".
Matome Raphasha, provincial secretary of the South African Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu), said it has been complaining about school funding cuts since the year started. The "inconsiderate" cuts indicate the failure of the national department to administer the provincial education department properly, Raphasha said.
The Limpopo education department has been under the administration of the national department since December 2011.
"At the beginning we welcomed [the Section 100 intervention] because we thought it would assist the system. We thought it would stabilise the flow of funds to schools. But by failing to give schools funds, the administration has made things worse," Raphasha said.
Sadtu's major gripe is that the department appears to be more concerned with polishing the balance sheet of the Limpopo education department than with anything else. The union also blames this strategy for the department's "unilateral" decision to terminate rural allowances to teachers in Limpopo.
This is one of the grievances Sadtu last week presented to the presidency to back its argument that Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga and director general Bobby Soobrayan should be axed. "These people are not implementing Section 100. They simply don't understand how to implement it," Raphasha said.
Ngoako Rapaledi, provincial president of the South African Principals' Association, said principals have been left with no choice but to ask for funds from parents.
"This has caused friction because communities believe principals are misusing school funds and then demand fees from parents. We're running schools under such difficulty," he said.
Section27 has sent a copy of its letter, which also details other unresolved matters such as textbook delivery, overcrowding in classrooms and dilapidated toilets, to the South African Human Rights Commission.
Neither the national nor the provicial departments had responded to the M&G's queries by the time of going to print.