/ 25 May 2007

No-fee schools still charge fees

A number of Gauteng schools are breaking the law by continuing to charge fees, despite legislation declaring them ‘no-fee” institutions. And the province’s education department has admitted it has no monitoring mechanisms to ensure schools apply the law.

The alarm was raised by the Learner Representative Forum (LRF) of the Vaal Triangle, formed in 2003 and affiliated to the education committee of the Anti-Privatisation Forum.

The LRF last week approached the Education Rights Project (ERP), based at Wits University, saying that in meetings held over a month with Vaal Triangle community members about service delivery problems, parents and pupils had named 44 schools which were flouting the law by charging fees.

This week, the Mail & Guardian met LRF members Sthembiso Nhlapo and Joseph Moletsane, who said they had visited 16 of the 44 schools and could verify that fees were being charged there.

This week, the M&G contacted principals of seven of the 16 schools named by Nhlapo and Moletsane. Of the seven, six confirmed they were charging fees, while one denied it.

Justifications given by the principals raise questions about how effectively the Gauteng education department is communicating policies and regulations determined at national level.

James Bodiba, principal of Tokelo Secondary claimed that the ‘No-fee Act hasn’t been passed; I heard the minister is still trying to get it passed”. The Act was passed last year and the names of schools declared no-fee schools were gazetted shortly afterwards.

Lorna Morgan, principal of Jordan Secondary, claimed that her school was only due to become a no-fee school next year, and that this year, only pilot schools were affected. There was no pilot project.

And the principal of Bulamadiboho Primary, Bertha Letlhoo, said: ‘We’ve not been informed we’re a no-fee school.”

Late information from the department was cited by two other principals. Nkokkoto Motaung of Poelano Secondary said he was told only this week that his school should not charge fees. As a result, the school collected fees in January and would now hold a meeting with parents to decide on refunding their payments.

But refunds are not an option at Tandukwazi Secondary, which heard last month of its no-fee status. Principal Bull Mafujane said it was impossible to return the money the school collected in January, ‘because we’ve already spent it”.

And Thabo Mofokeng, principal of Zonkizizwe Primary in Orange Farm, said despite hearing in December that his school would be no-fee, fees were collected this year because the state allocation had not arrived. ‘What else can we do?” he asked.

Five other principals also said they had not received their allocations from the province. The M&G reported a month ago that countrywide delays in provinces transferring allocations to schools had landed them in severe straits.

Nhlapo and Moletsane told the M&G information they had received from Vaal Triangle community members was that schools were illegally withholding stationery and report cards from pupils who had not paid fees. However, all seven principals the M&G spoke with denied taking punitive action.

‘We are more and more seeing that this policy needs vigilance,” said Salim Vally, ERP founder member and senior researcher in Wits’s education policy unit. He noted that it was young people in working-class communities who first blew the whistle several years ago on abuses of school fees policies. This eventually led to the national education department’s review of schooling costs in 2003, and the current no-fee policy, which is supposed to include South Africa’s poorest 40% of schools.

‘The latest revelations confirm that young people understand the importance of access to education. The ERP will now assist the LRF in investigating further violations and campaigning to inform communities of their rights,” Vally said.

Gauteng education department spokesperson Kate Bapela said the department was not aware of any no-fee schools which were charging fees. She added that the department had no measures in place to monitor schools’ implementation of the policy. It relied on reports such as the information contained in the questions the M&G sent the department, which included the names of the 44 schools the LRF had identified.

‘These allegations must be investigated,” she said. If they were true, the department ‘will take the necessary steps to rectify the situation”.

She maintained the department has ‘an effective communications system that ensures that all stakeholders are informed about educational policies and regulations”.