The Herald
Editorial
6 May 2010
Harare — Zimbabwe’s  State schools cannot cope without fees and levies; parents need to realise that there is no “free education” and the better the school the more it is going to need in the way of parents’ money and support to maintain and raise standards.
The urban-rural divide is still sufficiently serious that whatever little can be spared from the education budget, and whatever well-wishers are able to donate, tends to go to rural schools.
Urban parents, all in the cash economy, are expected to pay fees and levies.
However, by law, no school in either the state or private sector can set new fees and levies without the agreement of a majority of the parents attending a meeting called for that purpose.
This means that different levies are charged depending on where a school is, and depending on the keenness of parents.
Where a set of schools have interlocking zones there is a tendency for the keenest parents, and the ones prepared to make the biggest sacrifices, to concentrate on one of the schools and this one then draws ahead of the rest in the area, albeit charging more to achieve its higher standards.
It does not matter if this pricier school is one of three in a high density suburb or if it is well positioned in the low density suburbs.
The fact remains that more money is spent on that school and most of the problems afflicting State education in Zimbabwe at the moment are soluble by spending more money.
Unfortunately other parents, liking the higher standards but not liking the fees get their children into those schools and then try and ride on the sweat of others by not paying the laid-down and agreed levies.
The parents who make the sacrifices and support the school object and are now, through their School Development Associations, trying to bar the children of those who will not pay what has been agreed at parents’ meetings.
One special case is the three schools that are the direct descendants of the city’s first Government school, opened in 1898, well over a century ago. Prince Edward Boys High, Girls High and Selbourne-Routledge Primary are not the cheapest Government schools, but Prince Edward is acknowledged as the flagship State school and the other two are pressing hard to reach the same standards with a great deal of success.
We believe that they must be allowed to show just how good a State school can be at what is, in all reasonableness, a fairly modest fee.
The three schools charge in combined fees and levies little more than 10 percent of what a Trust school will charge.
When he took over the educational hot seat as the Minister last year, Senator David Coltart made one interesting observation: he wanted to see as a long-term goal the State schools rising to the level of private schools.
This is a commendable goal and to achieve it he needs flagship schools, centres of excellence, and to carry the parents with him.
The three central Harare schools are an excellent place to start.
All three have lost much of their old residential zones as the commercial area of the city laps round their walls.
So most pupils have to come from further afield.
The two high schools share a zone, or can easily share a zone, with a neighbouring school. And by neighbouring we mean that the other school is across a wall or across the road.
Selbourne-Routledge was moved to eastern Belvedere when Routledge, the former primary school at Prince Edward, and Selbourne, the former primary school at Girls High, were combined.
But even that school is surrounded by three other State primary schools that can share its zone.
So the minority of parents who do not wish to pay the levies agreed by the majority at these schools have alternatives and have the right for their children to be admitted to other schools should they so wish.
Of course, many parents will say that they want the better facilities at the more expensive schools.
But then they must recognise that the facilities are better as the schools have more money, and they have more money because they charge higher levies.
We think that the three schools were quite correct in refusing admission to the children of parents who will not pay what the majority agreed.
The only concession we would suggest is that if a parent makes a substantial payment towards arrears and then agrees to monthly payments to catch up then some leeway can be granted.
But we note that some, who have not paid anything for five terms, have already been granted a lot of time.
We hope Minister Coltart will allow the three schools to develop and grow as flagship schools for his State system.
The peculiar geographical position of the three allows this without anyone suffering.
At the same time we hope that he will allow other selected schools, generally those that do or can share a zone with a group of other schools, to also forge ahead as centres of excellence.
In time more and more schools will want to join this club of high standards, the club is not exclusive and to join a school simply needs a majority of parents prepared to back their children’s education.
This will eventually allow the Minister to concentrate more of his meagre resources on schools in areas where it is clear that parents have very little indeed, so that their children can at least have an adequate education.
What the Minister must not do is allow a minority of parents at schools trying to raise standards to derail the praiseworthy efforts of the majority prepared to make the sacrifices to ensure the best possible schooling for their children.