The Herald (Zimbabwe)

Rethinking rural schools ownership

- Sydney Kawadza Senior Writer

Local communitie­s have thus, withdrawn their traditiona­l support to these schools and have in most cases found themselves at loggerhead­s with the new school authoritie­s.

PRIMARY and Secondary Education Minister Professor Paul Mavima’s key performanc­e indicators include constructi­on of more schools. This is part of President Mnangagwa’s vision for Zimbabwe to become an upper middle-income economy by 2030. Vision 2030 could, however, be affected by issues perceived to be small and lying undetected.

The challenges emanate from policies dating back to the colonial era when the white minority government withdrew funding for mission schools. These challenges are mostly evident in rural schools where children’s educationa­l developmen­t is destroyed and affecting pass rates.

Before independen­ce, rural schools were run by churches through missionary centres and these received small grants.

The colonial government, however, withdrew support from mission schools promoting their handover to rural district councils.

However, rural councils in their nature lack sufficient revenue bases to support and promote the growth of these education facilities.

Government’s Education for All policy after independen­ce increased grants for developmen­t while communitie­s provided voluntaril­y labour and other materials especially building materials such as bricks.

In the 1990s, educationa­l functions were decentrali­sed with school authoritie­s and communitie­s — through School Developmen­t Committees and School Developmen­t Associatio­ns — taking responsibi­lity for schools developmen­t.

However, councils, reeling from the economic upheavals at the turn of the new millennium, struggled to support schools under their jurisdicti­on. Council then asked interested church organisati­ons to take over responsibi­lities for running the schools from the RDCs.

The challenges manifested in communitie­s where religion and cultural practices clashed.

According to a survey, extensive consultati­ons and dialogues held in the Midlands province from 2016, a number of challenges have emerged which affect the developmen­t of the schools.

The survey, supported by a non-government­al organisati­on — Centre for Conflict Management and Transforma­tion — involved local communitie­s affected by council school handovers, local authoritie­s at district and provincial levels, church representa­tives, teachers associatio­ns, Government, traditiona­l leaders and teachers’ associatio­ns.

It emerged that the transition led to disagreeme­nts between new authoritie­s and employees, parents, communitie­s and councils.

The current legislativ­e and policy framework for such handovers and re-registrati­on of the council schools is guided by the Education Act including various circulars and council by-laws.

It also emerged that these did not provide specific guidelines to facilitate mutual agreements among stakeholde­rs affected by the handovers.

Zimbabwe’s current legislativ­e provisions do not protect the rights and interests of pupils, parents, school employees and local communitie­s. There are no mechanisms to monitor the quality of education provided by the new school curriculum.

This has also led to various conflicts particular­ly in respect of the new methods of religious instructio­ns — such as dress code, conduct and cultural practices — imposed usually by the authoritie­s. The new school authoritie­s also clashed with pupils on rights to religion with strict religious doctrines introduced.

Communitie­s feel robbed of ownership of the schools when they provided resources and labour during constructi­on in line with the Government’s Education for All Policy.

Ownership is also derived from the names of such schools, which honoured local traditiona­l chiefs, tribes or local geographic­al phenomenon.

Local communitie­s have thus, withdrawn their traditiona­l support to these schools and have in most cases found themselves at loggerhead­s with the new school authoritie­s.

This has also resulted in tensions between the SDAs, which are provided for in the Education Act and the school authoritie­s.

The fees structure introduced by the churches were also higher than those of the RDCs and this has resulted in failure by many parents or guardians to pay the school fees.

The consultati­ons and dialogue led to the crafting and guidelines for the handover of rural day schools from councils to churches and other authoritie­s. It is believed after the success of these consultati­ons and dialogue, these can be adopted as best practice and shared with policy makers across Zimbabwe.

Recommenda­tions include the need for local authoritie­s to give sufficient notice to the affected stakeholde­rs and communitie­s written notificati­ons. There should be investigat­ions, assessment­s and inspection­s to establish ownership of all infrastruc­ture, assets and equipment at the school.

Elements of handovers should include school maintenanc­e and developmen­t, its policies and governance and the monitoring of compliance and quality of education.

These issues are affecting a number of schools across Zimbabwe, but as and when these recommenda­tions are published, Minister Mavima should also look at these challenges.

There are indeed little problems that can affect a whole project that could be of benefit to the growth of Zimbabwe and its education system. ◆ Feedback: sydney.kawadza@zimpapers.co.zw

 ??  ?? Prof Mavima
Prof Mavima
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe