No Fee Schools

"The introduction of "no fee" schools has become a reality this year. The poorest of the poor schools have been earmarked as schools in which parents do not have to pay school fees. The details of these were highlighted by the KwaZulu–Natal Education MEC Ina Cronjé in a press speech on the 23rd February 2006.

An extract from the speech dealing with "no fee" schools follows:

"The introduction of “No Fee” schools will make education more accessible than before to the poorest of the poor by exempting entire parent communities of 20% of KwaZulu-Natal schools from paying school fees.

No child at any of these 1341 schools will have to pay school fees. The schools fall in the quintile one category of the poverty index of the province. The criteria used to determine a school’s poverty rankings are the current ones that will be revised during the course of this year in order to take the poverty index of the parents of children attending the school into account.

Research has found that only between 20% and 30% of parents at these schools can afford to pay school fees, varying from R100, R120 and R150 per child. The majority of the “No Fee” schools are in the Zululand region (50%), followed by the Ukhahlamba region (21%), the Pietermaritzburg region (17%) and Ethekwini (12%).

To enable the schools to operate without an income from school fees the Department of Education will replace the schools fees at these schools by increasing the allocation per learner at all quintile one schools to R569. The new allocation is R42 higher than the benchmark, set by the national Ministry of Education.

To illustrate how the schools will benefit, I will use one example. Embukisweni LP received an amount of R176 750 for learner basic education and learner teacher support material in 2005. In the “No Fee” dispensation they will receive R197 637, more than R12 000 more. "

New Contributor to blog: Debtitsure

Debit Orders as a Tool in School Fee Collections

Below is an article prepared for us by Debbie Jones of Three Peaks Management (Pty) Ltd / Debitsure.

Cash flow is, has been …… and always will be KING!

The essence of business is the exchange of money for the product or service we are selling and yet it is the process of getting payment, which seems to cause the most anguish.

Did you know what could be loosely termed as “cash flow problems” are responsible for the vast majority of small to medium business failures, and a school is no exception.

By initiating upfront with parents, the priority of cost effective and efficient collection solutions, bad debt is minimised, thus reducing the eventual risk of “handing over”.

By creating the school as a priority payment, parents are requested to sign a debit order authority allowing payments to be collected monthly, by term or annually, whichever is suitable. The authority gives optional dates to be debited, ensuring salary payment dates coincide, with the amount and bank details to be debited. The cost of a debit order costs the same as if a cheque had been written, no extra to the parent.

The benefit to the school is that they only supply the relevant information necessary to collect electronically and control the relationship with the parent.

A few examples of priority payments are e.g.: insurance, medical, vehicle finance, bond, cell phone companies etc. All business wish to control when payment is received, ensuring cash-flow is enhanced and future success.

Why not allow a school the same privilege!

Bad payers or defaulters on debit order create a bad history with a bank, which is difficult and costly to rectify. Quick notification of debit order defaulters are identified to allow the rectifying of the problem, or the early warning signal.

The control and cash-flow advantages to the school enable the school to practice better money management and focus on core activities.

Change the way you collect!!

By taking back control of your cash-flow with a seamless electronic debit order processing system, which will manage the collection cost effectively, reducing workload on staff, reducing time spent on bank statements and client reconciliations, ensuring control.

Written by Debbie Jones of Three Peaks Management (Pty) Ltd

The Plight of Public Schools

It would appear that the press are targeting public school at the moment. An article entitled "School seizes family's possessions" appeared in this morning's Mercury by a reporter Carvin Goldstone. Unfortunately the article was not in the free-to-view of The Mercury's website so I can't refer you to it online.

Saves to say it was a very emotive article setting out how a mother of 5 who had her property attached and removed in terms of a warrant of execution arising from a judgment debt of R 10 000.00 for outstanding school fees. The article also quoted the school's attorney on the legality of the process he had followed and a Department of Education spokesman Mandla Msibi who said that:

"parents who were not in a position to pay must make application to the schools and the department to get partial exemption.

It is critical that parents make arrangements with the principals of the school....schools also need to educate parents and inform them what alternatives existed if they could not pay the school fees."

A number of school I do work for felt the article perpetuate the growing negative setiment towards the payment of public school fees. I then wrote the following letter to the Editor of The Mercury:

"I, as an attorney and owner of a debt collection firm acting for a number of schools throughout South Africa, would like to respond to your article by Carvin Goldstone, published in “The Mercury” on the 14th April 2005 entitled “School seizes family’s possessions”.

Firstly, the legal procedure followed in the article is legally allowed in terms of the Schools Act No.84 of 1996 and the Magistrates’ Court Act No. 32 of 1944. It is a procedure used every day by big businesses, including Independent Newspapers, and other judgment creditors who operate for profit, against debtors with far less means than the debtor referred to in your article. Yet I cannot remember reading any articles entitled: “Capitalist seizes family’s possessions”. But public schools that operate as non-profit organisations are the target of your article?

People should understand the financing of schools in this country. Already education gets the largest slice of the South African national budget at 18%. But still there are insufficient funds to finance schools to deliver education at the current levels. Public schools receive a fixed budget from the Department of Education each year, and of the schools I do collections for, in none does this state subsidy exceed 3.2% of their school budget (excluding payment of teacher salaries by the Department of Education) or 57% (including payment of teacher salaries by the Department). Some of the schools have indicated that the direct payment received from the Department of Education barely covers the payment of their water and lights.

The rest of the school funds have to be raised as provided in Section 39 of the Schools Act by means of schools fees.

As Mr Msibi of the Department of Education points out in your article, there are provisions in the Schools Act to allow needy parents to apply and qualify for exemptions and subsidies. But even then it must be noted that in the event of a parent qualifying for an exemption or subsidy, that the school does not qualify for further funding from the state to compensate for such parents. The reality is that the other paying parents are cross subsidising these parents.

Last year the situation was so bad in one public school in the Durban area that the school had to request the paying parents to make part payment of their 2005 fees so that the school could make payment of teachers’ salaries at year end.

The Department of Education has stated that in the future certain schools in low-income areas will be declared “no fees” schools and this is to be welcomed. But for the rest, until our economy can afford free education we must accept that payment of school fees is a necessary expense, unless we want the standard of education of our children to slide and pull our country down with it. As Barbara Jordan, the educator and first black woman in the US Congress said, “Education remains the key to both economic and political empowerment.”

I await an article from your Mr Goldstone detailing how public schools can balance their finances without collecting fees from parents, but until then I implore every parent with a child at a public school to pay their school fees to ensure that their children get a good education and that our country’s bright future is secured."

Non-custodian Parent liability saga continues

I figured out yesterday why the judgment in the Besstuursliggaam van Gene Louw Laerskool vs Roodtman case referred to my previous post all of suddenly become the flavour of the month with friend and foe referring me to it. An Article originally in Beeld was republished in English on News24.com.

Unfortunately the article on News24.com gave 2 incorrect impressions:

1. That the Gene Louw case was a recent case; and

2. That the court decision was in terms of the Schools Act.

I sent an email to Phillip de Bruin the author of the article pointing out these facts to which he replied:


"Thank you for your information.

The report does not suggest that the judgment is recent. In fact, the report clearly states the comment of Prof. Visser in a legal journal, which is a clear indication that the judgment can not be recent.

The judgment was indeed not in terms of the Schools Act, and in that sense the report might be confusing. In view of this Beeld will publishing a flow-up article either Thursday or Friday to set the facts straight."

I thanked him for his prompt response and sent him a copy of the unreported Westville Boys High case so we can hopefully have a more balanced report on this issue which removes the confussion created by the original report.

There is no reference to Prof. Visser's article in the News24 report and perhaps the editing had caused the ambiguity in the report.

I have already received angry responses from some of non-custodian school debtors who read the News24 article and perhaps the only way this issue will be conclusively decided is to take one of the matters to trial and appeal if necessary to get a court decision in terms of the Schools Act which I believe will be that the non-custodian parent is jointly and severally liable for the school fees of their children .

Liability Of Non-Custodian Parent For Public School Fees

The question of whether a non-custodian parent is liable for school fees at a public school is an emotional as well as controversial question.

My opinion has been that, in terms of the Schools Act No.84 of 1998, and supported by the unreported Natal Provisional Division decision of The Governing Body of Westville Boy’s High vs M.Arveda Case No. 5773/1996, a non-custodian parent is liable for the school fees in a public school.

However I was recently pointed to the Cape High Court decision of Bestuursliggaam van Gene Louw Laerskool vs Roodtman [2003] 2 All SA 87(C). In this case the court held that a non-custodian parent is not liable for school fees unless they have contracted with the school to pay such school fees.

So where does that leave the question of non-custodian parent liability?

Unfortunately we can not directly compare the reasoning of the two opposing court decisions as in the Westville Boy’s High case the court did not give reasons for its decision in favour of the school, although we can assume that they accepted the school’s counsel’s argument and copies of the Heads of Argument are available.

In assessing the correct legal position we firstly have to take cognisance of the fact that both the cases decided above were decided in terms of one of the predecessors to the Schools Act No.84 of 1998, namely the Education Affairs Act (House of Assembly) No. 70 of 1988.

Secondly we have to take cognisance of the fact that we are looking not at contractual liability but legislative liability. So in cases where a non-custodian parent enters into an agreement with the school such a parent would be contractually liable to the school. But we are looking specifically at cases where no such contractual duty is in place.

The liability of parents in terms of the Education Affairs Act was set out in Section 102A(1), which read as follows:

“The parent of a pupil admitted to a state-aided school shall pay school fees as the governing body of that school may levy.”

Section 1 of the aforementioned Act defined parent as:

“ the parent of such child or the person in whose custody the child has been lawfully placed.”

A lot of the argument in both the relevant cases revolved around the definition of parent. I am not going to burden the lay reader with a mass of legal reasoning presented by both sides, save to say that there appears to be good arguments on both sides of the fence.

Having said that we must bear in mind that the current liability of parents in public schools for fees is in terms of the Schools Act and that this Act has a much wider definition of parent then the Education Affairs Act.

Section 40 provides for parent liability for the school fees:

“1) A parent is liable to pay the school fees determined in terms of section 39 unless or to the extent that he or she has been exempted from payment in terms of this Act; “

Section 1 defines parent as:

“a) the parent or guardian of a learner;

b) the person legally entitled to custody of a learner; or

c) the person who undertakes to fulfill the obligations of a person referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) towards the learner's education school. “

This is quite clearly a much wider definition and if this matter were to be argued in court now it is submitted that the court should be swayed in favour of The Governing Body of Westville Boy’s High vs M.Arveda reasoning coupled with new Act.

Therefore I am still of the opinion that the non-custodian parent is also liable for the school fees in public schools.

Dispute on teacher salary progression resolved

The report as it appeared on the Government information website:

"The parties to the ELRC, namely the Department of Education and teacher unions SADTU, NAPTOSA, SAOU and NATU, today reached a settlement agreement on the outstanding matter of salary progression for teachers, for the period 1996 to 2002.

The agreement provides for notch increases of up to 3% for teachers who were in service during the period 1996 to 2002, and who did not see any improvement in their salaries during that time, and similar cash bonuses for those who were promoted during the same period. The agreement notes that additional funds have been made available to pay the cash bonuses; over and above the R500 million originally budgeted for the notch increases. An all-party task team has been established to monitor the implementation of this agreement to ensure that teachers receive their money as soon as possible.

In signing this agreement parties have committed themselves to developing a comprehensive proposal on the utilisation of additional funds over the next three years to improve productivity and performance within the education sector and to enhance the morale of teachers. This includes addressing concerns around scarce skills, and the need to recruit and retain educators with such skills, to develop and implement the agreed upon new career-pathing system for teachers, removing any anomalies which exist in this regard, and to develop a model for the provision of human resource support to educators. It was agreed that a comprehensive proposal in this regard will be tabled by 30th July this year, so that implementation can commence in this financial year..

The Department of Education and the leadership of the teacher unions expressed appreciation that this matter has been resolved, and pledged to focus on the need for a comprehensive package of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of public education."

Bentley Credit Control

Registration and Admin Fees in Public Schools

To those you that attended the Bentley Credit Control School Fee Collection Workshop on Friday the 4th March 2005, thank you very much for your participation.

One of the questions raised was whether a public school was entitled to charge an administration and/or registration fee. My initial reaction was that I had read somewhere that they were not entitled to.

I have now done a bit of research and it appears that my initial reaction came from the EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL, 2004 which is only in its draft version awaiting comment from various interested parties. The relevent proposed amendment would be an additional subsection of Section 39 of the Schools Act reading as follows:

“(5) No school may levy any registration, administration or any other compulsory fee , except compulsory school fees.”.

So while this practice has found disfavour with the Department of Education it would appear that as it stands now a public school is entitled to levy a registration and/or administration fee, until the School Act has been amended.

There are a couple of other issues the draft bill raises that I will look at in due course.

Generally Poor Public Perception of Schools

Biz-community.com reports on a survey by Research Surveys, in conjunction with e-tv, conducted amongst South Africans in metropolitan areas probing their attitudes and perceptions about the state of education in South Africa.

Some of the preceptions found were:

"Education in South Africa is in a crisis"

Agree - 62%
Disagree - 33%
Don't know - 4%

"The standard of education is falling in South Africa"

Agree - 61%
Disagree - 34%
Don't know - 5%


"The government has changed its education policy too often in the last ten years"

Agree - 76%
Disagree - 14%
Don't know - 9%


"Schools today are better than they were ten years ago"

Agree - 48%
Disagree - 46%
Don't know - 6%

(The positive response largely supported by the black community)


"If you could, you would rather send your child to a private school than to a government school"

Agree - 64%
Disagree - 32%
Don't know - 4%


"A matric certificate doesn't help you get a job"

Agree - 76%
Disagree - 20%
Don't know - 3%

These results show a very concerning negative perception of the state of education in this country.