Ministry of Education - UNICEF Consultancy CC, Namibia, for the Ministry of Education. ... On 13 January 2011, some 50 women from Okahandja gathered to voice their

Ministry of Education

Government Offi ce Park, Luther Street, WindhoekPrivate Bag 13186, Windhoek, Namibia

Telephone: 061-2706309Fax: 061-253671

Email: [email protected]: http://www.moe.gov.na

A digital version (PDF) of this document is available on the Ministry’s website.

Printed by John Meinert Printing (Pty) Ltd in Windhoek.

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared by Justin Ellis, Manager and Consultant at Turning Points Consultancy CC, Namibia, for the Ministry of Education.

UNICEF Namibia provided financial support for the preparation and printing of this paper.

Contents

Summary ................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .............................................................................................. 3

Components of the Private Costs of Primary Education .......... 4

1. School Development Fund2. Stationery3. School uniform4. Sports and extramural activities5. Transport costs6. Hostel fees7. Temporary shelters and classrooms8. Opportunity costs

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Private Costs of Primary Education ................................................................................. 7

Exemption from the School Development Fund......................... 12

Compliance with the Constitution, Domestic Law and International Agreements .................................................................. 14

Findings on the Current Situation and a Way Forward ............ 17

Notes ........................................................................................................ 21

1

2 Free Primary Education in Namibia: Current Context (October 2011)

Summary

The Namibian Constitution states that primary education shall be compulsory and provided free of charge at government schools (Article 20). However, under the Education Act 2001, parents are expected to contribute to the School Development Fund (SDF) in addition to paying the other private costs of education. This paper reviews the different components of the private costs of primary education met by parents, including the SDF, and the impacts of these costs on access to education, learner retention and learning outcomes. The paper also suggests courses of action that the Ministry of Education could take to redress some of the challenges encountered in implementing the SDF.

The main private costs of education are those of stationery, school uniforms, transport, hostel fees, sports and extramural fees, and opportunity costs. In 2010, parents contributed an average of N$208 per child to the SDF, with considerable variation between rural and urban schools. In 2002, the average contribution for lower primary education in rural schools was N$27.90 compared to N$257.80 in urban schools. This variation means that rural schools are under-resourced compared to urban schools, and thus are likely to offer a lower quality of education than urban schools. In other words, the SDF is contributing to inequitable access to education and learning outcomes, with rural schools disproportionately affected.

The legality of the SDF is also being questioned by parents/guardians and other stakeholders with reference to the Namibian Constitution which obliges the State to provide primary education free of charge. It is therefore critically important that the Government reviews its rationale for the SDF and takes appropriate measures to ensure that the costs of education expected to be borne by parents/guardians do not undermine fulfillment of national commitments and obligations.

Introduction

On 13 January 2011, some 50 women from Okahandja gathered to voice their protest to the Minister of Education, according to a national daily newspaper. The spokesperson of the group, Dorka Shilongo, is quoted as saying, “The constitution says that every Namibian is entitled to free education. We therefore refuse to pay school fees for 2011 or to buy books.” Their purpose was to force the Ministry of Education to make more money available to schools so that the parents could be relieved of the responsibility of buying cleaning materials, photocopy paper and books. How, they asked, could a person earning N$500 a month afford to pay (annual) school fees of N$200? They further asked that school uniforms be standardised nationally, and complained that their children were summarily sent home if there was a problem with their clothes. Repeated attempts to make their case with the Ministry had fallen on deaf ears, they alleged. An unnamed spokesperson for the Ministry responded that the decision about charging school fees was the prerogative of the school board. Education was indeed free, but schools had to be maintained. Parents who could not afford the fees could apply for full or partial exemption.1

This incident clearly illustrates the growing controversy in the country around the obligation of the state to provide free and compulsory primary education in accordance with Article 20 of the Namibian Constitution. Government, of course, pays teachers’ salaries and schools’ utility bills (water and electricity), purchases goods and services, including some textbooks and stationery, and makes provision for the building and maintenance of school infrastructure. The national budget for Education is usually 22% of the total national budget. However, Government’s expectation of parents, caregivers and guardians to meet certain costs is giving rise to increasing tensions.

3


Components of the Private Costs of Primary Education

1. School Development Fund

In terms of section 5 of the Education Act 2001, and its Regulations, a school board may levy annual fees on learners, or rather their parents or guardians or caregivers, as a contribution to the School Development Fund (SDF). The maximum annual fee is set at N$250, unless the Minister approves a higher amount. In practice the amount charged covers a wide range. For instance, the lowest annual charge in 2010 for all schools (primary, combined and secondary) was N$2 per learner, and the highest N$3 600.2 For rural schools in 2002, the average annual charge at lower primary level was N$27.90 and at upper primary level N$34.89. In urban schools , however, the average annual charge was N$257.84 at lower primary and N$269.61 at upper primary level – between seven and ten times higher than in rural areas.3 By 2010, the average annual charge for the SDF (including both primary and secondary schools in the public sector) was N$208 – about double what it had been in 2007 when the Ministry began to collect information on school fees. In 2010, only some 8% of public schools did not have an SDF at all.4 Although data on this has not yet been collected by the Education Management Information System (EMIS), in practice schools may only collect about half of the amount that they should in terms of the fees set.

The Public Expenditure Review of the Education Sector in 2010/11 found that SDFs made up 2% of all funds available for education, and had grown in recent years, from N$67 million in 2007 to N$80 million in 2008 and N$115 million in 2009. Eighty-four percent of rural schools had an SDF compared to 90% of urban schools.5

2. Stationery

A recent practice, to obtain contributions in kind from parents and caregivers, is for schools to provide learners with a list of stationery – exercise books, note books, pens and pencils, calculators and the like, and sometimes study guides, photocopy paper and even cleaning materials and toilet paper – which they are required to purchase either from the school or from a stationer. This is in addition to the cash contribution to the SDF. The legal authority for schools to demand these contributions is not at all clear, unless it is authorised by the school board as part of the SDF. Lists and costs, of course, vary widely, but one may assume a cost in the region of N$300 per annum at primary level and double that at secondary level.6

SMS to The Namibian newspaper, 25 March 2011

I am a parent with kids at Erundu Secondary School. I want to ask the Minister of Education if it is a rule that a child cannot sit for an examination if he/she doesn’t contribute a ream of photocopy paper?

3. School uniform

All schools require the wearing of a school uniform, which will cost about N$450 per year. This figure would cover the cost of shoes but not a blazer.

4. Sports and extramural activities

Understandably, schools may make appeals for sports and extramural activities, including trips, which are not compulsory, but such requests do put pressure on parents and caregivers as the learners do not wish to be excluded from the exciting activities of their class or school. One might allow N$100 to N$200 annually for such activities. The law does provide that if an extramural activity is funded by the SDF, a learner who has not contributed to the Fund can be excluded from such activity. Participation in sports activities, which is desirable for the development of a child and the school, may attract further clothing costs of about N$500, including trainers, and a further N$200 for a track suit.

Components of the Private Costs of Primary Education 5


5. Transport costsIt is generally assumed that children walk to school, sometimes long distances, but cash transport costs are sometimes incurred in urban areas, depending on where children have found place in a school. Daily fares may be in the region of N$12-20. For boarders, there are transport costs for getting to the hostel and back home. (The 2003/04 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey found that 83.5% of urban households are within 5km of a primary school, and 72.8% of rural households. It is doubtful that transport would be available for daily hire in rural areas.)7

6. Hostel feesHostel fees vary according to the classification of the hostel. The highest charge for boarding is N$825 per year (or N$279 per trimester or N$69 monthly), and the lowest charge is N$198 per year (or N$65 per trimester or N$16 per month). There is a sliding 10% discount for additional children of the same parents.8 Hostels were only available for primary learners in eight regions in 2006.9 Hostel fees are paid to Treasury (not the SDF) which also grants exemptions and reductions on an annual basis. Some communities support community hostels (that are not financially supported by government) for their children to stay in during the week.

7. Temporary shelters and classroomsParents often contribute in kind to their school, for instance through the building of temporary shelters and classrooms when there are not enough brick classrooms.

8. Opportunity costsFinally, there are opportunity costs associated with sending children to school, since they are less available to assist with household chores and other activities that are important for the survival of households, particularly in rural areas.

Naturally, as the private costs of schooling mount, there comes a tipping point for the parent or guardian, forcing a decision that a child will not go to school.

Advantages and Disadvantages of

the Private Costs of Primary Education

Advantages

Private contributions to children’s education have some theoretical advantages. Having sacrificed scarce resources for the education of their children, parents and guardians will, it is presumed, be concerned to ensure that their children attend school regularly and are well served by their teachers.

Similarly, children, being well aware that their education is costly, will want to make a success of it.

There are further possible advantages in terms of school governance, since parents will be keeping a wary eye on the school board and the use of their contributions. However, in practice, schools struggle to gain the participation of adults in school governance, and discipline problems in schools abound, including those relating to school facilities, like vandalism and theft.

School fees also undeniably provide financial relief for the state, since items which are the responsibility of the government are actually being purchased by the SDF or parents. The already mentioned 2002 study of SDFs found that primary school boards were using their resources to buy books and stationery (27% of expenditure in rural areas and 28% in urban areas), to maintain their buildings (13% in rural areas and 27% in urban areas), to purchase equipment such as photocopiers (12% in rural areas and 13% in urban areas), to employ

7


staff, including relief teachers (9% rural and 13% urban), and for various other needs, including photocopying and transport (40% rural and 19% urban). (More recent information on the use of SDFs has not been processed yet. Although they are meant to be audited, the Ministry apparently lacks the capacity to properly monitor what actually happens to the funds, and there have been occasional cases of maladministration.)

Disadvantages The private costs of primary education make up a significant part of the

expenditure of most households, and the proportion increases for lower-income groups. For instance, in the 2003/04 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey it was found that households which were dependent on remittances and grants spent 6.2% of their resources on education, compared to the national average of 2.7% (the latter about N$1 136 per annum). There was, however, considerable variation between urban and rural areas in terms of the actual amount spent, since urban households had about twice the resources at their disposal than their rural counterparts. The average rural household spent N$611 per annum on education, and the average urban household spent N$1 881.10 One might assume that, based on the information given above, the current annual cost to a household of a primary school child’s education would be about N$2 100 in urban areas and about N$1 100 in rural areas, excluding highly variable transport and hostel costs.11 About a third of this amount is for the SDF and stationery, and the other two thirds are for uniforms, sport and extramural activities. Although the cost is annualised, it tends to be needed at the beginning of the year. A Namibian family of, say, two adults, two children under 5 years old and two children of 6-18 years old, would spend N$1 942 per month just to be on the poverty line in Namibia,12 which provides for food and some non-food items. The strain imposed by education costs (especially at the beginning of the year) is immediately evident, and increases for that quarter of Namibian households (some headed by pensioners) living below the poverty line.13

An illustration of this has recently come to light through a study of the effectiveness of child welfare grants.14 In terms of the items mentioned by grant recipients for expenditure of the grant, school-related expenses, at 43%, rated even more highly than food-related items, at 40%. It should further

be considered that the recipients of grants, mostly parents and caregivers of orphans and vulnerable children, are not necessarily the poorest group in Namibia, and adjustment of the system is currently under consideration to make it more inclusive of the poor. An ironic aspect of this situation is therefore that grants from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare are effectively going to pay for education costs not provided for by the Ministry of Education.

Declining access to primary education for the poorest. Education is such an important priority that even the poorest Namibians are willing to make considerable sacrifices to keep their children in school. Only some 2% of children of primary school age (7-13) are not enrolled in school, judging by the net enrolment ratio (NER) of over 98% for 2009.15 (It should be noted, however, that this ratio is based on a projection of the 2001 census that might not be accurate, and the NER might actually be significantly lower.) However, data from the 2003/04 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey, for the wider age group of 7-16 years, show that the poorest decile had an enrolment rate of 81%, compared to 89% for the average and 95% for the richest decile. In the poorest decile, school enrolment had dropped by 5.7%, compared to an overall decline of 1.7% since the previous survey 10 years earlier.16

There is another worrying indication of declining access to primary education by the most disadvantaged Namibians. Over the past seven years there has been a decline in the number of new Grade 1 entrants, from 57 957 in 2003 to 51 407 in 2009.17 It is possible that this 11% decline is due to a lower birth rate since 1998, but this must be considered unlikely (unless the upcoming 2011 census shows such a drastic and unexpected trend.) In 2010, new Grade 1 entrants increased slightly to 52 186.18

Continuing inequality, and poor quality education for the poor.The most harmful effect of the private cost of primary education has to do with its contribution to continuing inequality, and more generally the poor quality of education available to poor Namibians.

In the 2002 study of SDFs already mentioned, researchers found that the Ministry estimated that N$65 was needed for books per primary learner annually. The Ministry was able to allocate only about N$40 for this purpose. On average, urban schools were able to allocate from the SDF about N$27 per learner for books (effectively making up the deficit), while rural schools could

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Private Costs of Primary Education 9


find only N$8. Further, urban schools could afford to fund relief teachers, a measure clearly beyond the reach of almost all rural schools. Rural schools incur higher transport costs than their urban counterparts, for instance for trips to the Office of the Inspector of Education or to the Regional Education Office. Significantly, the 2010 Education Public Expenditure Review found that at primary school level, higher contributions to the SDF were associated with higher learner success rates.19

SMS to The Namibian newspaper, 24 February 2011

Is this what we call free education when learners have to buy exercise books? I am teaching multigrade (1 & 2) but now only three learners have bought books for writing. Should I give them work? Where are they going to write? What about those who don’t have books? How do you expect me to do my duty properly when things are in a mess? Please don’t blame teachers.

– Isaac, a teacher, Chinchimani Circuit.

Continuing wide gap in performance between rural and urban schools.Recent analysis of the results of Grade 6 learners in the sub-regional tests carried out by the Southern and Eastern African Consortium for the Measurement of Educational Quality (SACMEQ) show that there has been no progress in the past decade in narrowing the very wide gap in performance in reading between rural and urban schools in Namibia. This can be shown to correlate with the physical resources available to schools.

Source: Ninnes, P. 2011. Improving Quality and Equity in Education in Namibia: A Trend and Gap Analysis. Presentation to the Ministry of Education, Windhoek, 18 February.

Chart 1: SACMEQ Reading Scores by Location 1995-2007

Rea

ding

Sco

re

Human Poverty Index 2004

City

Small Town

Isolated/Rural

Similarly, the correlation between poverty (as measured by the Human Poverty Index for each region in Namibia) and poor performance in reading in primary schools is very high.

A further indication of the wide gap between rural and urban primary schools is provided by the Standardised Achievement Tests administered for the first time to Grade 5 learners in 2009. These show, for instance, that in Ohangwena Region, 70% of learners were graded as “below basic achievement” (meaning the learner demonstrated insufficient knowledge and skills across all themes in the syllabus) in English, compared to 21% in Khomas Region and 52% in Otjozondjupa. In Mathematics, 59% of learners in Ohangwena were rated as below basic achievement, compared to 24% in Khomas and 48% in Otjozondjupa.20

However, at secondary level, where greater equality of resource distribution has apparently been achieved, the gap in performance has been narrowed.21 The Public Expenditure Review also did not find a high correlation between SDF contributions and learner success at secondary level.22 In fact, some rural regions can now challenge their urban counterparts in Grade 10 and Grade 12 results.

In 1993, Government set out its basic goals for education as access, equity, quality and democracy.23 All, with the possible exception of the last, are apparently deteriorating as a result of the high private costs of schooling. Obviously, damage is also being done to national efforts to overcome poverty and achieve the objectives of Vision 2030.

Source: Ninnes, P. 2011. Improving Quality and Equity in Education in Namibia: A Trend and Gap Analysis. Presentation to the Ministry of Education, Windhoek, 18 February.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Private Costs of Primary Education 11

Chart 2: SACMEQ III Reading by Regional Poverty Index

Sco

re

Human Poverty Index 2004

SACMEQ III reading

Linear (SACMEQ III reading)


Exemption from the School Development Fund24

The Namibian Parliament, apparently fearing that school fees would further disadvantage poor learners, instituted through the Education Act 2001 a system for deserving learners to be exempted from the payment of contributions to the SDF, and for the school to be compensated accordingly by the Education Development Fund created for this purpose. No adequate means of compensating schools for such exemptions has been established as yet.

The Education Development Fund was established in 2006, and small grants were piloted in some regions for deserving learners, but the Fund has never had substantial funds at its disposal to compensate schools for exemptions, beyond the N$400 000 provided as a pump primer. If the Fund did have resources, it could also undertake affirmative action measures beyond mere compensation for foregone fees, which, as we have seen, are often meagre in the first place.

The granting of an exemption is a loss to the SDF, regarded by all school managers and teachers as essential for achieving a reasonable level of education when provision by government is inadequate, even in terms of the National Standards for Schools promulgated by the Ministry. Application procedures are cumbersome. No current data is available, but it is possible that less than 5% of learners are granted exemptions. Schools do not readily advertise that exemptions are possible. Some better schools, with a high demand for admission, have apparently developed subtle systems for not enrolling those who they estimate might not be able to pay their SDF contributions.

Interestingly, the Act does allow a school to take civil action to recover fees from those who have not paid, but it appears that few schools have gone to court, probably as it would not be cost-effective to do so.25 Instead, schools resort to a variety of other methods that have proved effective, including letters, visits,

public announcements of those who have not paid, sending home learners until payment has been made, and withholding year-end reports and certificates, even though some of these actions are illegal (in terms of the Education Act and its Regulations) or unethical, and further disadvantage poor learners. To make the circumstances more complicated, there is now a trend for some of those who can afford to pay refusing to pay, quoting the constitutional provision of free and compulsory primary education, and inviting the school to sue them.

SMS to The Namibian newspaper, 24 February 2011

Minister of Education talk to the teachers of Khorab Junior Secondary School in Otavi to give us our grade 12 certifi cates. They don’t want to give us our certifi cate because we didn’t pay our school fees and not all of us can pay. As far as I am concerned our certifi cates have nothing to do with school fees. Some of us want to go and register at institutions like IUM and Monotronic but without our certifi cates we can’t do it. They are making our lives a living hell. Please Mr Iyambo dome something. Time is passing.

– a concerned learner

Exemption from the School Development Fund 13


Compliance with the Constitution, Domestic Law

and International Agreements26

The right to free primary education is assured threefold: by the Namibian Constitution, domestic law and international agreements.

The Constitution

Article 20 of the Namibian Constitution guarantees the right to education and provides for compulsory education until the completion of primary education or until the child reaches age 16, whichever comes first. It also obliges the state to establish and maintain state schools “at which primary education will be provided free of charge”. This right applies to “every resident within Namibia” and means that all children in Namibia, not just Namibian citizens and not just children in low-income families, are entitled to free primary education. The provision on the right to education is part of the fundamental rights and freedoms which are enforceable by the courts.

Domestic law

The constitutional provision on compulsory education is implemented by section 53 of the Education Act, which provides that “school attendance is compulsory for every child from the beginning of the year in which the child attains the

age of seven years, until the day the child completes primary education before reaching the age of 16 years; or the last school day of the year in which the child reaches the age of 16 years”. There are provisions for making exceptions for individual learners or groups of learners on grounds of health, public interest or the best interest of the individual child in question. The parent of any child for whom school attendance is compulsory has a legal duty to “ensure that such child is registered with a school and regularly attends school”. The Minister may institute an investigation in cases where a child is not attending school, and can issue a written notice ordering a parent to comply with the duty of seeing that the child attends school. Failure to comply with such a notice, or refusal to cooperate with an investigation into a child’s failure to attend school, are criminal offences punishable by a fine of up to N$6 000 or two years’ imprisonment.

Section 38 of the Education Act gives effect to the constitutional guarantee of free primary education by stipulating that “All tuition provided for primary and special education in state schools, including all school books, educational materials and other related requisites, must be provided free of charge to learners until the seventh grade, or until the age of 16 years, whichever occurs first.”

International agreements

Namibia is party to several binding international agreements which explicitly call for free and compulsory primary education, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Namibia’s 2010 Report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child concedes that some children are being denied the right to education because of costs such as the SDF contributions, and that this is unconstitutional.27 (Such an admission at international level perhaps creates the expectation that remedial action is about to be taken.)

Since there has not yet been a court case concerning free primary education in Namibia, it is likely that, were such an action to be brought, our courts would refer to judgements in other jurisdictions. Many courts abroad have taken a firm line on the excuse of insufficient resources, and governments have not been allowed to cite insufficient funds as an excuse for avoiding legal obligations.28 Courts have

Compliance with the Constitution, Domestic Law and International Agreements 15


also pointed out that governments essentially control their own resources, and although they must maintain some discretion in the area of state expenditure, they cannot be excused from their duties simply because they might prefer to allocate resources differently.

The conclusion, therefore, seems inescapable that –

The scheme of school development fund contributions in the Education Act appears to be inconsistent with the Namibian Constitution and the applicable international law, and should be repealed in favour of genuine free primary education for all as promised by the Constitution.29

17

Findings on the Current Situation

and a Way Forward

Clearly, it is not possible (nor perhaps even desirable) for government to assume responsibility for all private costs of education. However, it is equally evident that the current arrangement does not work. It is detracting from national objectives. It is depriving schools in poor neighbourhoods of adequate supplies of books and stationery, and other materials, and funds for maintenance of school buildings, all of which are essential for learners to do well. It is demoralising the very teachers who need to be most highly motivated. In terms of the constitutional and legal requirements, government actually has an inescapable obligation to provide such facilities, books, stationery and other aids essential for learning. Moreover, it can be convincingly argued that the best way of establishing a reading culture where one does not currently exist is to flood primary schools with interesting books for the children to read. Similarly, children must have stationery to master the more demanding skill of handwriting. The matter of school maintenance also needs to be looked at in more detail. It may be reasonable to require schools to provide some contribution in kind for minor maintenance work. A line needs to be drawn, however, when it comes to more costly structural renovation. An equitable national system for the appointment of relief teachers is also urgently needed.

Possible options

Maintaining the status quo

Government may feel that no major intervention is affordable at this time to reduce the private costs of education for the following reasons: no parent or caregiver has ever taken the matter of free primary education for judicial review; things


have been as they are for a decade at least; and any intervention will apparently mean that government spending must either be re-allocated or increased at a time of economic difficulty. However, by not being proactive, government would leave itself open to unpredictable and possibly embarrassing challenges in our courts, or in parliament, or in international forums, or at the ballot box. This choice to do nothing will also mean that no impact will be made on the inequality that is patently evident in primary education, and the lack of quality in the primary education available to poor Namibians will continue to trouble the whole education system, and as a result the country’s social and economic prospects.

Changing the status quo

Assuming that government feels obliged to reduce the private costs of primary education, the following measures could be considered.

1. Abolish compulsory contributions to the SDF, in cash and in kind, for primary education. This would entail an amendment to section 25 of the Education Act 2001, and the relevant Regulations. Such relief is likely to be widely welcomed, though well-off schools may object. It will probably be accompanied by an increase in enrolments and retention in primary schools, and government will almost certainly have to provide extra teachers and physical facilities for such schools. Indeed, unless compensatory mechanisms are also provided, such as those set out below, it may lead to further decline in the quality of rural primary education, as the resources going into these schools will be reduced.

2. Compensate schools equally, on a per capita basis, for the loss of the SDF, by providing all schools with sufficient funds for books, stationery and the employment of relief teachers. It is not within the scope of this paper to calculate with any degree of accuracy what the cost to the state might be of such a measure, but it could be in the region of N$130 million per year.30 Since this is a measure that will apply to all state primary schools, it is recommended that it be implemented through normal administrative measures and funding formulas (such as a per capita grant to schools) rather than through the Education Development Fund. It could be considered as part of the public expenditure review of education finances currently under way.

However, a cautionary note should be added: materials alone may not improve primary education unless other quality-improvement and accountability measures, such as those in the Education and Training Sector Improvement Programme (ETSIP), are also implemented and monitored to ensure improved performance.

(Alternatively, government may wish to make grants only to schools with a certain proportion of orphans and vulnerable children, or schools that raise less than a certain amount for their SDF. Setting cut-off points may be complex, however, and a legal basis for such affirmative action might be difficult to establish as the law requires that government must provide adequately for the primary education of all children, without regard to their economic or social status.)

3. Provide the Education Development Fund with a substantial annual grant (say N$20 million), and a dedicated and competent secretariat, so that it can fund affirmative action projects proposed by disadvantaged schools. This will mean that schools that are not performing well, and that serve poor communities, but that have proposals for how to bring about improvements largely through their own efforts, would have a possible source of funding. However, based on past experience, grants should be made to a school for a certain need, but not to a school for certain individuals. The procedures should be simple and transparent.31 The school record of needs, currently under development, could also guide the allocation of grants. Such measures are foreseen in ETSIP but have not yet been implemented.

4. Train school boards in how to raise funds for the SDF through voluntary contributions and other fundraising activities. Of course, parents would not be prevented from making voluntary contributions to an SDF. Training in how to maximise voluntary contributions could be outsourced to a private or non-governmental organisation through a competitive tender. Part of the exercise should be to improve the governance of SDFs.

5. Reduce the cost of school uniforms as far as possible.School uniforms are not mandatory in terms of the Education Act 2001, but are decided upon by school boards. Although school uniforms inevitably cost money, they might be less expensive to parents and caregivers than a situation without uniforms, but where children informally compete to be more

Findings on the Current Situation and a Way Forward 19


fashionable than their peers. The Ministry may, however, wish to standardise school uniforms to some degree, and to consider whether shoes need to be a compulsory part of a primary school uniform, since these are the most costly part of the uniform, and many children take them off once they leave the school gates.

6. Consider costs at secondary level also.Although the constitutional requirement is for free and compulsory primary education, the private costs of secondary education are also burdensome, and may equally detract from efforts to reduce inequality and poverty in Namibia, as more poor Namibians successfully complete primary education. It may therefore be appropriate for government to have a long-term plan for reducing the private costs of secondary education as well.

Recommendation

Government should take a decision in principle on the measures suggested above, and make a senior official responsible for developing, by a set date, a coordinated and costed implementation plan.

Notes

1 Translated from the article on page 3 of Die Republikein newspaper of 14 January 2011.

2 See note 4.

3 Godana, T. and Kalili, N. 2002. Study to cost school development fund exemption for orphans and other vulnerable children. NEPRU. There is also an earlier study that made similar findings: Mendlesohn, J. 2000. Private funding of primary and secondary education in Namibia: Report of the Presidential Commission on Education, Culture and Training (Vol. 2).

4 EMIS provided raw data which has not been processed and seems to contain a small number of entry errors. Private schools are, of course, excluded from these calculations. Data on the use made of SDFs may be worth processing.

5 ECORYS. 2010. “Education Public Expenditure Review”. Slide presentation.

6 Since no proper research has been done into these costs, it has been necessary to make very rough estimates based on asking around among colleagues and acquaintances. An urban and high bias is therefore built in.

7 Central Bureau of Statistics. 2006. 2003/2004 Namibia Houshold Income and Expenditure Survey, p. 65.

8 Government Gazette, 28 October 2002, Annexure B. An increase in these fees is currently under consideration as they raise perhaps 5% of the cost of hostels. Data on boarders is no longer available from published EMIS tables.

9 List provided by the Ministry of Education for 2006. Some of the regions have since added hostels for primary learners.

10 Central Bureau of Statistics. 2006. 2003/2004 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey, p. 115.

21


11 Estimation of Private Costs of Primary Schooling in Namibia:

Urban Rural1 Sdf 440 482 Stationery 300 3003 Uniform 450 4504 Extramural 200 1005 Sports 700 2006 Transport7 Hostel

2090 1098

12 Central Bureau of Statistics. 2008. A Review of Poverty and Inequality in Namibia. Costs have been updated using CPI.

13 More detailed work to model the impact of education and other costs on households of different descriptions is currently being done by UNICEF, but has not yet been published.

14 Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare. 2010. The Effectiveness of Child Welfare Grants in Namibia: Study Findings and Technical Notes.

15 Ministry of Education. 2010. EMIS 2009, Table 28. Calculation of the NER depends on the kind of assumption made about the size of the population in the age bracket. Projections of the 2001 census are perhaps not very reliable at this stage.

16 Schmidt, M. 2009. Poverty and Inequality in Namibia: An Overview. Institute for Public Policy Research. Another NHIES was conducted in 2010, but data is not yet available.

17 Ministry of Education. 2010. EMIS 2009, Table 24.

18 Ministry of Education. 2011. EMIS 2010, Table 24.


20 Ministry of Education, Directorate of National Examinations and Assessment. 2011. Report on the National Standardised Achievement Test (NSAT), 2009.

21 Ninnes, P. 2011. “Improving Quality and Equity in Education in Namibia: A Trend and Gap Analysis”. Presentation to the Ministry of Education, 18 February.


23 Ministry of Education and Culture. 1993. Toward Education for All. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan.

24 Information in this section is derived from the following sources: Hubbard, D., The right to free and compulsory education in Namibia, Legal Assistance Centre, Windhoek, 2011; Godana, T. and Kalili, N., Study to cost school development fund exemption for orphans and other vulnerable children, NEPRU, Windhoek, 2002; and Sankwasa, S.J., Mushendami, P.L. and Adeleke, I.W., Review of the Education Development Fund, Cha-cha-cha Management Consultancy, Windhoek, 2008.

25 On 7 March 2011, an SMS appeared in The Namibian newspaper asking, “... I would like to know whether parents who cannot afford school fees can be taken to court. Namib High School in Swakopmund is taking parents to court.”

26 Information in this section is largely from Hubbard, D., The right to free and compulsory education in Namibia, Legal Assistance Centre, 2011.

27 Republic of Namibia. 2010. First, Second and Third Periodic Reports under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Two Optional Protocols, 1993-2008, Section 3.5. Report compiled by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare.

28 Hubbard, D. 2011. The right to free and compulsory education in Namibia. Legal Assistance Centre. There are reports in this document on cases concerning free primary education in Nigeria (ECOWAS Community Court), Colombia (Constitutional Court), Brazil (Minas Gerais), Czech Republic (Constitutional Court), India (Supreme Court), United Kingdom (House of Lords) and the Philippines (Supreme Court).

29 Hubbard, D. 2011. The right to free and compulsory education in Namibia. Legal Assistance Centre.

30 This figure has been estimated in three ways. Firstly, the amount for all SDFs was estimated at N$115 in 2009. This implies about N$86 million for primary schools. Allowance must be made for 15% of schools not participating. N$30 million should cover additional teachers required as currently excluded

Notes 23


learners return to school. Secondly, in 2002, school funds were estimated to bring in N$100 million, of which N$75 million was from primary schools. Applying the Cost Price Index for education-related items (163.7 on a 2001 base of 100) suggests a current amount of N$122. Thirdly, since there were 413 061 learners enrolled in primary schools in 2009, a rate of N$300 per learner suggests a total of N$124 million.

31 Sankwasa, J.S., Mushendami, P.L. and Adeleke, I.W. 2008. Review of the Education Development Fund. Windhoek: Cha-cha-cha Management Consultancy.

24 Free Primary Education in Namibia: Position Paper (September 2011)

NAMIBIAN CONSTITUTION

Article 20: Education

(1) All persons shall have the right to education.

(2) Primary education shall be compulsory and the State shall provide reasonable facilities to render effective this right for every resident within Namibia, by establishing and maintaining State schools at which primary education will be provided free of charge.

(3) Children shall not be allowed to leave school until they have completed their primary education or have attained the age of sixteen (16) years, whichever is the sooner, save in so far as this may be authorised by Act of Parliament on grounds of health or other considerations pertaining to the public interest.

(4) All persons shall have the right, at their own expense, to establish and to maintain private schools, or colleges or other institutions of tertiary education: provided that:

(a) such schools, colleges or institutions of tertiary education are registered with a Government department in accordance with any law authorising and regulating such registration;

(b) the standards maintained by such schools, colleges or institutions of tertiary education are not inferior to the standards maintained in comparable schools, colleges or institutions of tertiary education funded by the State;

(c) no restrictions of whatever nature are imposed with respect to the admission of pupils based on race, colour or creed;

(d) no restrictions of whatever nature are imposed with respect to the recruitment of staff based on race or colour.

Documents

Ministry of Education - UNICEF Consultancy CC, Namibia, for the Ministry of Education. ... On 13 January 2011, some 50 women from Okahandja gathered to voice their