ERIC EJ1016289: Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African Schools: Lessons from the Field

2013·0.51 MB·English

by  ERIC

International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, July 19. Volume 8, Number 5. 1
MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF A NO-FEE
SCHOOLS POLICY IN RURAL SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS: LESSONS FROM THE
FIELD
RAMODIKOE NYLON MARISHANE
University of Venda (South Africa)
This study examines the management of school infrastructure in the context of the “no-fee schools” policy introduced in the South African
education delivery system. Focusing on four rural schools, the study applied a qualitative method, which involved observation of infra-
structure conditions prevailing at four selected schools and in-depth interviews held with their principals. The study has found that though
the no-fee policy has come to relieve poor parents of the burden of paying school fees, it does not help schools in addressing their infra-
structural challenges.
Keywords: no-fee school policy, school infrastructure, school funding, school management
Marishane, Ramodikoe N. (2013). Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African
Schools: Lessons from the Fields. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership 8(5). Retrieved from www.ijepl.org .
Introduction more funding than their rich counterparts. To
ensure that children from poor parent com-
The provision of school funding in South Af-
munities have the right to education as guar-
rica is a shared responsibility between the na-
anteed by the South African Constitution (Act.
tional government’s Department of Education
No. 108, 1996), the national DoE has intro-
(DoE)—now called the Department of Basic
duced a “no-fee schools” policy (South African
Education (DBE)—and the provincial educa-
Schools Act of 1996, 2006). The policy in-
tion departments (PEDs), of which there are
volves the exemption of poor parents from
nine in the country. While each PED is enti-
payment of mandatory school fees levied in
tled to an equitable share of the national
schools in South Africa.
budget, a portion of which is used for making
The no-fee policy is based on the amended
budget allocations for each school in a prov-
National Norms and Standards for School
ince, the DBE is responsible for setting norms
Funding (NNSSF) (South African Schools Act
and standards guiding such allocations. The
of 1996, 2006). Section 35 of the amended
norms and standards are intended to redress
NNSSF sets criteria for a fair and equitable dis-
past apartheid injustices and iniquities in
tribution of state-allocated funding to public
school funding between the rich and the poor
schools and provides for a system that places
school communities and are amended from
public school learners into national quintiles
time to time to sustain the process of closing
based on financial means of their parents.
the existing inequality gap. This is done by
targeting schools in poor communities for
Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African Schools: Lessons from the Field 2
To ensure that state funding is allocated in for the PEDs to direct 60 percent of their non-
a fair and equitable manner, a National Table personnel and noncapital resources towards
of Targets (NTT) (South African Schools Act the poorest percentage of the schools in a
of 1996, 2009) has been developed to assist in province. This has led to a situation in which
this regard. Figure 1 shows an NTT for school over 40 percent of schools have become no-fee
funding allocations developed by the DoE and schools (Republic of South Africa Department
applied throughout the country to guide prov- of Basic Education, 2010). It follows, there-
inces in their allocation of funding to schools. fore, that the no-fee schools policy aims at en-
The table shows the allocation per learner per suring that all children, regardless of their so-
quintile level occupied by a school. While col- cioeconomic background, enjoy free access to
umn A in the table shows the different quintile quality education in their communities (Giese,
levels occupied by schools in terms of their Zide, Koch, & Hall, 2009). In this manner, it
poverty, columns B and C show allocation per is lauded as being responsive to the constitu-
learner and percentage of exemption from tional imperative of the right to basic educa-
payment of school fees, respectively. Schools tion (Republic of South Africa Department of
Figure 1
2010 2011 2012
A B C B C B C
NQ1 30.1 R855 100% R901 100% R943 100%
NQ 2 27.5 R784 100% R826 100% R865 100%
NQ 3 22.5 R641 100% R675 100% R707 100%
NQ 4 15.0 R428 67% R451 67% R472 67%
NQ 5 5.0 R147 22% R155 22% R162 22%
Overall 100.00 R571 89% R602 89% R630 89%
No fee threshold R784 R826 R865
Small schools: R21 000 R22 113 R23 152
National fixed amount
National Table of Targets for School Allocation (2010-2012)
Source: Department of Education, 03 December 2009 (South Africa, 2009a)
at the top of the table—namely, those in quin- Basic Education, 2010).
tiles 1 to 3—are declared by the Minister of The allocation of funding to schools in
Education as “no-fee schools,” and parents of South Africa is in line with decentralization
the learners attending these schools are ex- policies applied in many parts of the world
empted from payment of school fees (Bentley, (Fullan & Watson, 1999; Caldwell, 2005; The
2006) because of their poor socioeconomic World Bank, 2007); that is, to improve
background. In other words, school funding is schools, decision-making authority and the
skewed in favor of poor school communities. necessary financial resources are handled at
The state pays 100% of fees allocated per the school level. This includes the creation of
learner in these schools. a situation where school-level actors, such as
Guided by the NNSSF, each PED allocates school governing bodies, parents and princi-
funding to its schools in the province. This pals, have discretion to use their allocated
NNSSF-based allocation has made it possible funds to improve school infrastructure. The
Ramodikoe Nylon Marishane 3
closer proximity of these actors to their ies, equipment, running water, electricity, and
schools would hopefully enable them to have a playgrounds, among others. Third, in a study
clear picture of the state of the schools’ physi- focusing on the effects of school infrastructure
cal facilities and take appropriate remedial ac- on learner attendance and dropout rates,
tions when the need arises. What this implies Branham (2004) found that learners are less
in the no-fee schooling context is that, though likely to attend schools in need of structural
poor parents are relieved from paying school repair, schools that use temporary structures,
fees, they still enjoy the freedom to channel and schools that have understaffed janitorial
the state funding into improving their schools services. Last, while good school infrastructure
and catch up with the previously advantaged enhances access to education, poorly main-
schools. The current situation in the no-fee tained infrastructure excludes learners (Coun-
schools is not like that, however, as this study cil for Scientific and Industrial Research,
will show. A study recently commissioned by 2011). It follows from these studies that
the state shows that despite the state’s efforts school infrastructure plays an important role
in bringing about equity in education spend- in education delivery. What this suggests is
ing per learner, “the quality of physical assets that, when schools are funded, consideration
and infrastructure at school level remains has to be given to the maintenance aspect of
highly unequal. There are still many schools the infrastructure and adjust funding alloca-
without toilets, electricity, desks, and chalk- tions accordingly.
boards” (Republic of South Africa National
Planning Commission, 2010, p. 14). How Money Enters a No-Fee School
In the case of no-fee schools, money that
Educational Value of School Infra-
schools receive comes mainly from state allo-
structure and Its Relation to School
cations (South African Schools Act of 1996,
Funding
2010). This money enters the school in two
ways—namely, direct allocation and indirect
School infrastructure refers to the physical
allocation. Direct allocation refers to money
teaching and learning environment. In the
deposited into the school’s bank account to
South African context, it includes the provi-
cover the school’s operational costs. Indirect
sion of “water, sanitation, suitable classrooms,
allocation refers to the money allocated to the
and essential specialist rooms, such as libraries
school but held in trust by the Department
and laboratories” (Republic of South Africa
(DBE) for the purchase of textbooks and other
Department of Education, 2007). This envi-
learning and teaching support materials
ronment adds value to educational achieve-
(LTSM) on behalf of the schools. Schools are
ment as the following examples indicate. First,
informed in advance of their total allocations
school infrastructure is one of the five dimen-
for a school financial year and are strictly re-
sions contributing to quality education (UNI-
minded about conditions attached to the use
CEF 2002, 2005). Second, research-based evi-
of the allocated money and to stick to the
dence shows a positive link between learning
conditions (South African Schools Act of
outcomes (output) and the physical environ-
1996, 2009). These conditions are outlined in
ment (input) in which teaching and learning
Figure 2 and in section 4. The table lists the
(input) take place (Bullock, 2007; Higgins,
categories of items for which a school must
Hall, Wall, Woolner, & McCaughey, 2005;
spend the state-allocated funding. Any devia-
Earthman, 2004). Specifically, studies based
tion from the list without prior special ap-
on data collected from 14 sub-Saharan African
proval of a provincial head of education de-
countries (Lee, Zuze, & Ross, 2007) show that
partment is not allowed. As it can be noted
high learner achievement occurs where
from the table, the allocation excludes money
schools have access to such facilities as librar-
for major infrastructural projects, such as
Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African Schools: Lessons from the Field 4
erection of school buildings. The implication once such funding is released to the school.
of this exclusion is that the DoE regards the These conditions appear in the form of pre-
provision of infrastructure as its main respon- scripts stipulating specific purposes for which
sibility. money should be exclusively used (Limpopo
Provincial Government Department of Educa-
Conditions Attached to Funding Al- tion, 2009). Such purposes include the follow-
ing, as prescribed by paragraph 114 and 115 of
located to No-Fee Schools
the South African Schools Act of 1996 (1996):
There are two sets of conditions attached to • Payment for improvements and repairs on
the state funding allocated to no-fee schools. immovable capital.
The first set of conditions relates to the actual • Payment of services.
release of the state-allocated funding and in- • Purchases of educational materials and
volves the requirement for a school to submit equipment for the school, excluding those
to the PED its annual budget for nonpersonnel that are provided by the Department
recurrent expenditures and an audited annual (DBE).
financial statement (Thwala, 2010) as a pre-
condition for the release of funding. In addi- Strict conditions are imposed on the use of
tion, schools are expected to keep records of funds allocated by the state to the schools. For
all funds they received and spent. This in- this reason, PEDs have promulgated regula-
cludes records of financial transactions schools tions (Gauteng Provincial Government De-
made, their assets and liabilities, and how ma- partment of Education, 2010) guiding schools
terials and services were used for inspection on the use of the funds in line with the provi-
by the head of department in the PED. The sions of the no-fee schools policy to ensure
second set of conditions relate to the actual that funds transferred to schools are used effi-
expenditure of the state-allocated funding ciently and only for the purpose for which
Figure 2
Guidelines and Prescripts for the Use of Direct and Indirect School Allocations
1. LTSM (Learning and Teaching Support Materials) 2. Services/Repairs/Maintenance
Textbooks Security
School stationery Pest control and sanitation
Office stationery Traveling (Government rates apply)
Library resources Electricity/telephone/water
Library stationery Fencing
Laboratory equipment and specialized rooms Sports
Sources: Limpopo Provincial Government, Department of Education (South Africa, 2009b) and Gauteng Pro-
vincial Government, Department of Education (South Africa, 2010d)
Ramodikoe Nylon Marishane 5
they are intended. In terms of the policy, for cess and use them. This suggests a need for
instance, schools are not allowed to use their effective infrastructure management in
allocations for capital projects, such as the schools.
construction of building structures or major
renovations. This responsibility is reserved for No-Fee Policy Implications for Schools
the Department of Education (DoE). However,
At the school level, the practical implications
given the prevailing infrastructure backlogs in
of the provisions of the no-fee policy include
the country (Motala & Sayed, 2009) the DoE
the following:
faces major challenges in the provision of
• Schools are exempted from levying school
school buildings and other basic services. It
fees (directly or indirectly) because they
can, therefore, not meet its constitutional ob-
serve poor school communities.
ligations.
• Schools are allocated more funding than
before the introduction of the policy in or-
Balancing the Need, Provision, and
der to meet most of their basic needs.
Sustainability of School Infrastructure
• The school funding allocation is guided by
in a No-Fee School Through Effective
the NNSSF to ensure equitable funding
Management distribution among schools.
• Schools are given powers to manage their
In a situation where a no-fee school cannot
allocated funding in accordance with legal
have access to any additional funding apart
prescripts provided by provincial educa-
from funding provided under the NNSSF,
tion departments (PEDs) to safeguard
more pressure is put on school managers to
funds against mismanagement.
manage infrastructure effectively. Effective in-
• Financial management powers given to
frastructure management in schools may be
schools are balanced against the PED’s
understood as the management of the provi-
demand for accountability for the expendi-
sion, use, maintenance, and disposal of a
ture of the funds allocated to a school.
school’s physical resources (equipment, build-
ings, and grounds), with due consideration
Aim of the Research
given to their educational value and value for
money principles of economy, efficiency, and In terms of the law (South African Schools Act
effectiveness. In this regard, effective infra- of 1996, 2009), no-fee schools are not permit-
structure management practically involves the ted to levy school fees. In addition, no public
creation of structures, policies, systems, and school is allowed to use state allocations to
plans for effective infrastructure management. fund capital projects. Despite this, school
The no-fee school situation puts pressure managers and governing bodies are required to
on school managers to clearly identify pressing administer and control school property, build-
school infrastructural needs and be creative in ings, and grounds. Against this background,
generating financial strategies to satisfy them. this research sought to examine how school
In addition, the situation also demands that principals managed school infrastructure in
both the desired and the existing infrastruc- the context of the no-fee schools policy.
ture be well maintained to sustain its educa-
tional value. A recent study conducted in Methodology
South Africa (The Mvula Trust, 2010) has
found that, while some schools showed lack of The study followed a qualitative approach,
knowledge of how to take care of their sani- which involved data collection through obser-
tary facilities, others had their sanitary facili- vations of physical facilities and in-depth in-
ties vandalized, left dirty, blocked, or even terviews held with school principals of four
locked, making it difficult for learners to ac- purposively selected schools in one circuit in
Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African Schools: Lessons from the Field 6
Limpopo Province, South Africa. The sample kept. There is no sports field where learners
consisted of two primary schools and two sec- can participate in extramural activities.
ondary schools. The schools were selected on School C is one of oldest primary schools
the basis of the appearance of their physical in the area and has an enrollment of over 500
facilities (buildings, grounds, sanitation, and learners. The school has a shortage of class-
water provision) and the fact that they were all rooms and an immense overcrowding prob-
declared no-fee schools and were located in lem. The school has enough toilets for both
four rural villages. I was granted permission to learners and teachers. It has an office and a
interview the principals of the four schools staffroom. Water has been connected to the
after the purpose of the study was stated and school from the main community line. The
confidentiality of the interviews was assured. I grounds are clean. The school shares its sports
visited the schools and worked out their pro- facilities with the community.
files based on personal observations that I School D is a secondary school which ap-
noted. pears to be a victim of continued vandalism.
The school has two blocks of classrooms. One
School Profiles block of six classrooms was vacated after a
storm damaged the roof and furniture; a new
School A is an old secondary school that block was then built for the school by the
was renovated a few years ago by a private PED. Enrollment has dropped dramatically in
company. It had a sufficient number of class- this school from over 220 students to 178.
rooms to accommodate over 900 students un-
til a year ago when one block of classrooms Procedure for Data Collection and
had its roof blown away by a severe storm.
Analysis
Two additional classrooms were also severely
damaged. The school has a well-resourced sci-
Data Collection
ence and biology laboratory, a computer cen-
ter, an administration office, a staff room, two
A semi-structured interview schedule with
hostels for male and female learners, and pit
questions focusing on school infrastructure
toilets that have just been renovated. The
management was prepared to serve as a data-
school is well fenced-off and the grounds are
gathering tool for this study. This was fol-
kept clean by a school caretaker who is paid
lowed by four one-hour interviews which were
by the school governing body (SGB) for serv-
recorded for subsequent data transcription.
ices rendered. The hostel buildings look old
and appear to be in need of renovation and
Data analysis
repair. The school has enough running water
to be shared with the hostel community. The
A thematic analysis was selected on the basis
school has an open sports field that is shared
of its flexibility as a suitable qualitative ana-
with the community.
lytic method for this study. I followed a step-
School B is a primary school with an en-
by-step approach to thematic analysis of my
rollment of 89 learners. It is well fenced-off
data as advocated by Braun and Clarke (2006).
and has two blocks of classrooms. Two class-
This approach assisted me in identifying, ana-
rooms had their roofs damaged by a storm a
lyzing, and reporting on patterns (themes) af-
year ago. The SGB reported the matter to the
ter reading the transcripts from the recorded
PED, which provided the school with one mo-
data. Considering the view that “not all
bile classroom. Apart from the classrooms,
themes are equally important” (Ryan & Ber-
there are no other buildings. One of the re-
nard, 2003, p. 103), I marked and sorted
maining classrooms is used as both an office
commonly applied expressions and repetitions
and a staffroom. The grounds are not well
emerging from the themes and subthemes, ap-
Ramodikoe Nylon Marishane 7
plying a cutting-and-pasting coding technique The four themes presented resulted from
to process the transcribed text. The technique several revisions of the transcribed expressions
involves identifying expressions that appear to that constituted them. This was intended to
be important and then arranging them in cate- ensure coherence and internal consistency of
gories (Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007). the themes, which enabled me to generate a
In applying the technique, I developed a table report on the results.
with four key words derived from my research
questions as reflected in my interview sched- Results
ule: impact, response, capacity, and support. I
The results of the study are presented accord-
used these key words to develop categories for
ing to the four identified themes.
organization of transcribed expressions. Tran-
scribed expressions were first color-coded and
Impact of School Infrastructural Problems on
then cut, pasted, and sorted according to the
Teaching and Learning
key words (categories). In this manner, I
could identify the following four themes:
All the schools covered in this study experi-
enced infrastructure problems, which varied
1. Impact of school infrastructural problems
from school to school. Problems which were
on teaching and learning. The theme con-
identified include overcrowding, neglect, lack
sisted of two subthemes: infrastructure-
of running water, sanitation, lack of security,
related problems and teaching and learn-
vandalism, and poorly maintained school
ing, and contained expressions such as
grounds, equipment and buildings. With the
“overcrowding made group work difficult,”
exception of School D, all the schools experi-
“lack of concentration in mobile class-
enced overcrowding, which affected effective
rooms with no air conditioners,” “learners
teaching and learning. At School B, for exam-
throwing things out of broken windows
ple, learners from two different grades were
during lessons,” “theft of teaching and
cramped in one mobile classroom with no air-
learning support materials,” and “learners
conditioning. The school principal voiced his
running into the village for drinking water
frustration in this way: “The mobile class-
during teaching and learning periods.”
rooms are not comfortable. They are very hot
2. Schools’ response to infrastructural prob-
in summer and very cold in winter. You can-
lems. This theme was constituted by
not install air conditioners because these fa-
statements such as “We improvise where
cilities do not belong to the school. The De-
possible,” “We try to fundraise,” and
partment (PED) has hired them from service
“Learners are moved to the lab during ex-
providers.”
ams.”
In addition to this, lack of security was a
3. Capacity for management of school infra-
common problem among the four schools. At
structure. The theme consisted of partici-
School A, the main problems were overcrowd-
pants’ expressions on such management
ing and lack of security. Over 30 computers
issues as training, policymaking, planning,
were stolen from the school a few weeks after
and maintenance.
they were delivered. At School B, introductory
4. PED support for schools experiencing in-
technology lessons that had just started had to
frastructural problems. The theme
be abandoned. Though the school has a well-
emerged from the participants’ expression
equipped computer laboratory, computers
of support from the district and was repre-
were stolen owing to lack of strong security,
sented by such phrases as limited or no
depriving learners of important learning re-
school visits, poor provisions of mobile
sources.
classrooms, and delays in responding to
At School C, one of the treasured buildings
emergencies.
consisting of five classrooms had its roof
Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African Schools: Lessons from the Field 8
blown away by a storm. This gave rise to a came a major barrier, as the principal ex-
challenge of overcrowding in classrooms. The plained: “You see, we tried our best here. We
principal of the school explained: “Because we wrote letters to various organizations request-
are not allowed to use the Norms and Stan- ing assistance, hoping that we would get
dards funds for major renovations, parents money for the roof, but all the replies were
agreed with the governing body at a meeting ‘regrets.’”
to contribute money towards renovation of the School B is the poorest of these schools.
roof. We collected the money and notified the The school does not have security, running
district office. The district office said, ‘Refund water, sports facilities, an administration
the parents! You are a no-fee school and have building, or vital resources, such as photo-
no right to levy funds from poor parents.’ The copiers. During the interviews, the principals
project stopped and we are now waiting for of both School B and School D gave the im-
the unknown.” pression that the whole situation was beyond
At School D, one block of classrooms was their control. They were to wait for the PED to
vacated after the roof was damaged by a storm; do everything for them. For example, no at-
learners were then accommodated in the new tempts were made to repair the damaged
block that houses the principal’s office. Most block, repaint the walls, or replace broken
of the classrooms, including those in a new windows at School D. The infrastructure there
block that was erected four years ago, have appeared to be in a state of neglect. The school
broken windows. The fence is broken and the has an expensive photocopying machine, but
holes in it enable goats to roam the school because of poor maintenance, the machine is
grounds. The pit toilets are old and not not in a working condition and the school has
healthy to use. The state of the sports fields is to rely on the neighboring primary school for
so bad that learners do not use them at all. photocopying services during the examina-
The school grounds are unclean and littered tions.
with paper and other refuse. The school has The SGB at School C reported the damage
no security. caused to their school building to the PED
through the local circuit office. After waiting
Schools’ Response to Infrastructural Problems for three months with no response, the school
decided to take action. The principal said: “We
Apart from reporting some of their problems had enough money from the Norms and Stan-
to the PED, the schools in the study re- dards, but as you know, we are not allowed to
sponded to their specific infrastructural prob- use the money for buildings. We are disem-
lems in different ways. Since five classrooms powered. The SGB and parents agreed to con-
were damaged by a storm at School A, furni- tribute R50 per learner towards renovation of
ture was moved to the school’s dining hall, the old building. Many parents had already
hostel, and other classrooms. While some contributed when we informed the Depart-
learners were relocated to the school dining ment (PED) about the project. The circuit
hall, learners in the natural science classes manager said, ‘No! You are a no-fee school.
were accommodated in the school’s technol- You are not allowed to raise money from the
ogy and science laboratories. This led to over- poor parents. You must refund them.’ We did,
crowding in the science laboratory, making it and the project stopped.”
difficult for other learners to use the facility.
During examinations, the local church was Capacity for Management of School Infrastruc-
used as a temporary examination facility to ture
accommodate the large number of learners.
Requests for financial donations from the pri- During the interview with the four school
vate sector were attempted but were not suc- principals, it emerged that schools lacked the
cessful. Lack of knowledge of fund-raising be-
Ramodikoe Nylon Marishane 9
necessary infrastructure-management capacity, and in summer they are extremely hot. You
as reflected by the following aspects: cannot install any electrical equipment like
heaters or air conditioners in these classrooms
1. Structures for managing infrastructure. because they are temporarily hired structures
The schools did not have committees for that do not belong to the school. Besides, they
managing the school’s physical facilities are smaller than the normal classrooms and
(buildings, grounds, and equipment). makes movement very difficult when teaching
2. Policies on school infrastructure man- learners.”
agement. The four schools did not have
policies for acquisition, use, and mainte- Discussion: What Lessons can School
nance of infrastructure.
Leaders Draw From Infrastructure
3. Plans for infrastructure development.
Management in No-Fee Schools?
Though principals had problems with their
schools’ state of infrastructure, they appear
to have no plans of dealing with the prob- There are several lessons drawn from this
lems, apart from reporting problems to the study. These lessons revolve around leader-
PED. ship in the area of school infrastructure man-
4. Capacity to Deal with Infrastructure re- agement in a no-fee school setting and can be
lated problems. The school principals in presented in the following ways.
this study had not received any training in
areas such as asset management, risk man- Effective School Infrastructure Management
agement, and fund-raising to enable them Requires Effective School Leadership.
to deal with infrastructure-related prob-
lems. Effective infrastructure management (devel-
opment of school-based infrastructure man-
PED Support for Schools Experiencing Infra- agement structures, policies, and plans for
structural Problems maintenance and renovations of the school’s
physical facilities) is important for school im-
In the four schools studied, the support given provement. This requires effective school
by the PED to the affected schools appeared to leadership. Studies show that school leader-
follow the same pattern. The school principals ship is pivotal in determining the success of
would report their needs for infrastructure, school improvement (Leithwood, 2002). Prin-
and then wait awhile for the PED officers to cipals of the no-fee schools studied in this re-
visit the school to assess the need for a new search appeared to be helpless and heavily re-
infrastructure or renovations before real assis- liant on the PED for the management of infra-
tance arrived. As the principal of School C structure. This stands in stark contrast to the
stated: “Usually it takes numerous follow-up purpose of school-based management—em-
visits to the circuit office to elicit a response. powerment of the local school community.
You are told that you are not the only one on While it is acknowledged that the SGB is re-
the list. Then there is a story or two about De- sponsible for the school’s finances and assets
partment of Public Works and mobile toilets.” as expressed by Section 36 of the South Afri-
In the case of emergency situations arising can Schools Act of 1996 (1996), the leadership
from natural disasters affecting school build- of the school principal is critical for the func-
ings, assistance comes in the form of mobile tionality of the SGB in this regard. To ensure
classrooms. Though these temporary struc- that the decisions taken on infrastructure im-
tures offer a certain measure of relief, they provement align with the school’s vision, the
have their own problems, as one of the princi- SGB looks to the principal for professional
pals indicated: “The problem with mobile guidance and direction. This is because focus-
classrooms is that in winter they are very cold ing on infrastructure management as well as
Management of School Infrastructure in the Context of a No-Fee Schools Policy in Rural South African Schools: Lessons from the Field 10
management of other educational resources School Infrastructural Needs Should be In-
needed for effective functioning of the school cluded in School Strategic Plans.
is a key technical dimension of school leader-
ship (Marishane, 2011). What this suggests is The infrastructural needs of schools should be
the need for the PED to invest in training included in the schools’ strategic development
school principals and SGBs of no-fee schools plans aimed at improving their conditions, so
in effective school infrastructural manage- that school budgeting can be informed by such
ment. plans. These plans should be shared with the
PED and form one of the criteria for state allo-
Sustainable Funding for School Infrastructure cations to schools (Marishane & Botha, 2004).
Requires a State-School Partnership. The inability of school principals in this study
to deal with natural infrastructure manage-
Reliance on state-allocated funding for infra- ment in the event of natural disasters shows
structure provisioning in no-fee schools with- their need not only for training in disaster
out additional funding from other sources management, but also for having plans in
cannot be sustained in the long run. No-fee place for dealing with challenges resulting
school funding is an interim measure to re- from such situations. Research shows that
dress inequalities and existing backlogs. Stud- “planning is vital for making education re-
ies show us that just as the state cannot con- sponsive to dynamic local and global condi-
trol schools alone (Marishane, 1999), it can- tions” (Asian Development Bank, 2010, p. 7).
not shoulder the responsibility of funding In addition to this, no-fee school principals
education on its own (Nakpodia, 2011). In and their SGBs should be empowered to use
other words, while the state has a constitu- their budgets based on the strategic plans to
tional obligation to fund education and pro- meet their pressing infrastructural priorities
vide the necessary resources to the school and satisfy their school needs in this regard,
(South African Schools Act of 1996, 1996) the particularly in the event of emergencies. For
school community should support the state in this, the PED should focus on school-based
this regard. It is for this reason that Section 36 strategic development planning for SGBs to
of the South African Schools Act of 1996 enhance their leadership capacity for school
(1996) demands SGBs to seek ways of sup- improvement in line with the provisions of
plementing the resources supplied by the state Section 19 of the South African Schools Act of
in order to improve the quality of education 1996 (1996).
provided by the school to all its learners. This
suggests that no-fee schools should embark on Conclusion
a fundraising drive and, to strengthen partner-
There are serious challenges in the manage-
ships between the state and the no-fee schools,
ment of school infrastructure in rural areas
the PED should invest in building and devel-
because of four major barriers emerging from
oping the capacity of SGBs and principals in
this study. The first barrier relates to the fact
the area of fund-raising.
that schools declared no-fee schools are not
While one might acknowledge increased
allowed to levy school funds. Even where par-
funding for poor schools is an incentive for
ents are prepared to support their schools fi-
their improvement, research shows that finan-
nancially, they are not permitted to do so. The
cial incentives are less easy to sustain than
second barrier relates to the restrictions im-
nonfinancial incentives (Hite & De Grauwe,
posed on the funding allocated to the schools
2008). This builds a strong case for leadership
through NNSSF. This implies that even
capacity building to accompany state funding
though the school may have enough money to
allocations to no-fee schools. Money alone will
cover building costs in the case of emergen-
not improve no-fee schools.
cies, such money cannot be used to address