Red-tape ‘threat to low-fee independent schools’

SA SHOULD rethink its restrictive regulatory environment for low-fee independent schools, in order to cut red tape and create competitive pressure on the public system, the Centre for Development and Enterprise says.

The centre released a report yesterday warning that an “expanding web” of legislation was threatening the survival of private schools, at a time when low-fee independent schools were being established faster than government schools, and often achieving better results with fewer resources.

The report comes after a meeting with global experts on private schooling. It argues that many private schools have more quality checks than public schools, including detailed annual reporting and adherence to a management check-list.

Schools receiving state subsidies — and registered as nonprofit organisations — were also required to submit audited financial statements and achieve specified pupil results.

However, low-fee independent schools often found it difficult to comply with all these regulations, the report said.

Executive director Ann Bernstein said yesterday that increased funding and a less restrictive environment could enable low-fee private schools to serve even poorer communities sustainably.

The issues of district oversight, regulation and subsidy have been in the spotlight in Gauteng recently, with the release of an audit of the 205 independent schools in the province receiving state subsidies last month.

The audits followed allegations of subsidy abuse by two schools, in Ramaphosa and Denver, as questions were raised over the potential risk of similar mismanagement in a sector set to receive R462,5m in subsidies this year.

Gauteng education MEC Barbara Creecy said at the time that responsibility for inspecting independent schools — previously carried out at district level — would be centralised in order to ensure regular and standardised inspections.

Yesterday, Ms Creecy said monitoring of independent schools was best conducted from “head office”, allowing each district to focus on its public schools.

The primary concern of the department remained to ensure the health and welfare of pupils, as well as a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that state subsidies resulted in quality education.

This required regulation, she said.