Letters to the editors: Proposed Education Bill flawed

I refer to a comment on the proposed Education Bill being worked on by the relevant Parliament Portfolio Committee.

I had a sight of it and have concluded the Bill falls far too shy of addressing the inadequacies and inconsistencies that are manifest features of the existing Act. 

For starters, the Bill is superficially vocal on section 75 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and conveniently and loudly silent with regard to Section 27 of the same constitution which, in my singular opinion, is the fundamental tenet of the accessibility of basic education by the children of our nation particularly those in the economically straitened strata of society, more than 85 percent of the entire population: “The state must take all practical measures to promote (a) free  and compulsory basic education for children, and (b) higher and tertiary education,” states Section 27.

I am not deliberately trying to paint a picture depicting Section 75 as irrelevant, because it is relevant. Rather I’m adding flesh to it making it more comprehensive and potent.

Section 75 is poignant and comes into sharp focus at subsection (2): “Every person has the right to establish and maintain, at their own expense, independent education institutions of reasonable standards, provided they do not discriminate on any ground prohibited by this constitution.” 

Anyone who has read section (56)3 and 4 will applaud the Bill, though inspite of the reservation I have outlined above.

Here at Lupane the Seventh Day Adventists established a primary school which opened its doors for enrolment on 1 January 2013. 

There are about 15 classrooms all of them constructed using prefabricated zinc sheets supported by steel frames. 

According to the authorities the structures have a life span of only five years which has already been exceeded by two years effectively making the classrooms unsafe for use by learners. 

The parents of Mtshibini Adventist Primary School have constructed a large school hall as demanded by the parent ministry. 

The parents are being asked to pay for the construction of permanent classrooms. It is obvious that the responsible authority is not going to be able to raise enough funds to construct new classrooms.

The school is registered as non-governmental school and the responsible authority is the west Zimbabwe conference. The Education Act designated this body as the “owner” of Mtshibini Adventist Primary School (acronymed MAPS) fair and fine, one would want to believe. 

As I have stated above the parents through the development fund have built a hall costing more than $100 000 of which there is still an amount owing to the creditor bank. New and permanent classrooms must be constructed and the parents must pay. 

Therefore the big question arises: when the construction of the classrooms has been complete and from a legal perspective who will be the legal, lawful and legitimate owner of Mtshibini Adventist Primary School? May I please know? 

As it is, according to the school head and the SDC the responsible authority has not paid even a cent of the land purchased at a price of $82 000. 

Therefore in reality the responsible authority cannot legally claim ownership without title deeds and without a payment plan entered into with the land owner, the Lupane Local Board. 

There is something really funny about this issue. The government through the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education entered into an agreement with the SDA West Zimbabwe Conference for the latter to establish a learning institution using temporary building materials.

What concrete undertaking and or assurance did the responsible authority put on the table for acceptance by the Government as to who would fund the construction of new classrooms. The government has been an honest broker.

What we see now on the ground is that the ministry comes to attend SDC meetings to demand, as it did with respect to the construction of the school hall, that classrooms be constructed. 

This is wrong if not illogical. The agreement to establish Mtshibini Adventist Primary School was between the Government and the “owner”, the responsible authority and the parents were not even in the remotest party to that agreement. 

There are very serious legal implications in this issue. The certificate of registration does not mention the SDC (personifying the parents). The parents are paying for the running cost to maintain the institution and the salaries of additional teachers and other personnel. That is fair.

What is patently not fair is the discrimination and inequality in the positions of the SDC members where the positions of the chair, vice chair and secretary and treasurer are exclusively reserved for the members of the SDA. 

This is a flagrant violation of section 56 of the constitution of Zimbabwe. Even the school head is a member of the SDA church. 

The majority of parents attend other churches or simply do not worship at churches and yet at Mtshibini Adventist Primary School they are represented by only three committee members making them mere ceremonial figures in SDC. 

The Responsible Authority conducts itself as though the teachers are its employees when they are civil servants. Committee members do not make decisions or proposals unless they coincide with those of the top four senior members. 

When the SDC decides to convene a meeting the representative of the Responsible Authority must be informed first for his concurrence.

Furthermore, and this one is a shocker, fees payable at all primary and secondary schools in the country really look like a who-is-who encyclopedia. 

What is worth mentioning is that at Mtshibini Adventist Primary School parents pay for “spiritual activities,” teachers convention, 10 percent revolving fund to the responsible authority in addition to a myriad other indescribable fees such as “affiliation” fees and meetings and workshops. 

These fees are paid in one lump (aggregate) sum. Now there is a conundrum; when some parents fail to pay, as invariably is the case term, term out, defaulting parents may be taken to court by SDC for debt settlement. 

In this case a parent is lost as to which component of the debt he or she owes. Furthermore, he or she is at sixes and sevens trying to figure out who the real litigant is. For each of these ‘cannibals’ wants an ounce of the parent’s flesh. 

In their return, the courts seem to be holding the wrong end of the stick as they do not seem to know or bother to find out, who is owed? When one looks at it keenly the SDC is an agency for the other two ‘players’. This is comical if not silly.

The construction of the new classrooms is between the ministry and the Responsible Authority, the latter as the “owner” it must seek donor funding.

Martin Stobart, Lupane.

You Might Also Like

Comments