School governing bodies are currently engaged in setting fees for the academic year and presenting financial statements to the fee-paying school community. Or, more likely, the handful of parents who show up at these meetings.
The word ‘meeting” carries the connotation of discussion, yet has become a sad misnomer for what is effectively a presentation of the fees structure pre-determined by the school governing body with little allowance for change. Tailor-made answers are worked out beforehand so that no one is caught unable to answer queries about the 12% to 15% increase.
Some schools are more enterprising, inviting ‘supporters” to these meetings who will endorse the raise in fees without complaint. These are often people who have their own interests at heart, knowing that their children are guaranteed sports or academic bursaries. They are being subsidised by the rest of the fee-paying parents.
Other schools have amassed a pool of ‘supporters”, the regulars at all functions who can be called on at any time to fill seats. They can be relied on to endorse anything that the school comes up with.
The school-fee issue has always been an emotive one. Parents believe that the government has reneged on its election promises of free education for all. School fees and their subsequent rise every year is greeted with annoyance and frustration, but this is always tempered with the need to secure the futures of the parents’ offspring.
Every parent knows that a good education is paramount to the future success of the child, provided that he or she takes advantage of this education. Most parents are not financially savvy enough to question the school on the financial statements provided and, rather than display their ignorance, remain silent in the hope that some other parent voices these misgivings.
Parents who query and express dissatisfaction with the fee structure are dismissed with nonchalant disregard as dissenters, who are ignorant of the running of the school, or who are out to derail its smooth functioning. Yet, every parent has the right to know how his or her money is being spent and how it will benefit his or her child.
Some schools tout the words ‘capital development projects” as reasons for the increase in fees. These include building after-care shelters or sports centres and school halls, none of which will be of benefit to children in their last year.
The competitive nature of schools make these additional facilities attractive to parents who enrol children based on their impression of these facilities on open days. Even these are carefully stage-managed by sprucing up facilities and showing pupils using them on the evening. School brochures and video presentations, paid for out of school fees, advertise boarding facilities as a ‘home away from home”, but are of scant use for the majority.
Capital-development projects only enhance the attraction to those parents who are easily hoodwinked into believing that the might of a school lies in its facilities. These parents fail to see that the core business of a school is to turn out well-rounded, literate and numerate youngsters.
Parents should give careful consideration to those schools that are committed to the overall development of the child and that cater for the needs of the majority rather than just the handful that are there to enhance its reputation. Schools that cater for one aspect to the detriment of the other should be challenged. If opportunities exist in abundance for the rugby player, then his school fees are being used to his benefit. Conversely, if the talented artist is ignored due to the school’s emphasis on sports, then that child is being short-changed. Pro-active parents would question the school’s commitment to using their fees wisely.
Astute parents would also insist on the budget being broken down into components so that they can see how the fees are distributed.
Schools should be accountable to shareholders and administered by financially competent individuals. To this end, parents should insist on open scrutiny of the books and comprehensive financial statements. A R10 increase in bank charges would garner an instant query from parents, yet a R1 000 increase in school fees only results in quiet acceptance. There is something wrong in that.