Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable - Unicef

Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable children in SA
The only source of funds for many schools, especially those with a significant number of
poor learners, is the school fee revenue, which leaves them little option but to pursue this
revenue aggressively (Giese, Hombakazi et al. 2009).
The DoE has recognised this problem and identified the development of appropriate
policies and plans to address funding of the school fee exemption in its 2009–2013
Strategic Plan.
The most vulnerable children whom the current school fee exemption policy seeks to
protect are not spared the impact of the policy failings. Despite the fact that the law
expressly provides for an automatic exemption from paying school fees for the caregivers
of children receiving the CSG and the FCG, this is not happening in practice. Schools are
charging these parents school fees and not advising them of their rights in this regard.
The majority of children receiving the CSG are not getting an automatic full school fee
exemption. Instead, they are paying their school fees with their CSG income, resulting in
one department cross-subsidising another department’s legal obligations, at the expense of
the children requiring support (CASE 2008). 86
The extent of the government’s funding per learner at fee-paying schools is less than the
‘adequacy’ benchmark for providing a quality education. In the context of operating in
poor communities, many of these schools are unable to make up the difference through
fundraising or fees (most notably the poorer schools). As such, the ability of these schools
to deliver a quality education and provide an environment conducive to learning is
compromised (Hall & Giese 2009).
School uniform assistance policy
The assistance provided at a policy level to poor learners to make uniforms more
affordable does not provide material relief. There is no obligation in terms of the current
guidelines to actually provide uniforms for free or to subsidise the cost of uniforms for
poor learners. The guidelines go no further than obliging the school governing body
to take measures, within its available resources, to make uniforms more affordable.
Schools with significant numbers of poor learners will in all likelihood not have access to
resources to make uniforms more affordable, other than perhaps establishing a secondhand
school uniform shop (Roussel 2007).
The burden of implementation of the guidelines rests with the school governing bodies.
The guidelines have little or no legal force and therefore it is not possible to compel
action by these bodies, which means that the implementation of the guidelines depends
on their voluntary compliance. Evidence in the report by Roussel (2007) shows a tendency
by school governing bodies not to act proactively in the implementation of the guidelines.
The guidelines are at times contradictory. For example, in an effort to prevent the lack
of a school uniform becoming a barrier and excluding learners, the guidelines prohibit
the exclusion of a learner from school on the basis that they do not have a uniform. At
the same time, the guidelines allow not wearing the appropriate uniform to constitute a
disciplinary offence.
86 In a study of 2 700 primary caregivers of children aged 0–13 in low-income areas in the CASE study, it was found
that two-thirds of the CSG recipients were paying school fees. This was confirmed in a study conducted by
Giese, Hombakazi et al. (2009).
174