publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

III. Obstacles to the right to education on commercial farms

The social and economic legacy of the apartheid era continues to affect the rights of those living on farms in South Africa, including the rights of children to education.  A national Department of Education report published in 2000 - Education for All: The South African Assessment Report - found that approximately 19 percent of children in rural areas, which include commercial farm areas and former homelands, were not in school, as opposed to 11 percent in urban areas.18 The physical and teaching conditions at farm schools are among the poorest in South Africa.19 Below are cases where children and educators experience difficulties in accessing the school premises and conducting educational activities without interference.  Although many farm owners cooperate with authorities over the administration of schools, some do not.  And while the provincial departments of education, and, on occasion, the police services, do intervene on behalf of teachers, learners and parents, these interventions are neither rapid, effective nor offer any long-term resolution to access interference.  The difficulties in physically accessing schools, keep children and teachers out of school.

Physical access to schools

Denial of access to farm schools

Human Rights Watch researchers came across various forms of deliberate interference by farm owners with access to education.  In some cases, the deliberate closure of the school was linked to a possible eviction of farmworkers whose children attend the farm school.  In other cases, the farm owner wanted the school shut due to the proposed sale of the farm, a change in the nature of the business operations, or as a result of a dispute with the provincial department of education arising from non-payment of rent,20or the conditions or lack of an agreement.21  In all these cases, the children pay the price when disputes between landowners and department officials lead to interference.  The Regulations under the Schools Act state unequivocally that the landowner may not limit access to the schools premises by a learner, teacher, parent or “a member of the public who has a reasonable interest in the activities of the school.”22 

The fact that some farm owners repeatedly interfered in the operation of some of the schools visited by Human Rights Watch would suggest that the intervention strategies of provincial departments of education, which have included discussions with landowners, may be inadequate to secure the long-term future of the school or ensure that the teachers and learners will no longer face harassment. 

Teaching staff at Jevington Combined School, which has 137 learners and is located in the Free State province, told Human Rights Watch researchers of one instance where the farm owner made it impossible for teachers and learners to continue with their examinations.23 On November 5, 2002, the provincial department of education was prevented from delivering a geography examination paper for grade twelve learners.  According to one teacher, the farm owner obstructed the dirt road leading to the school by parking his tractor in the middle of the road.  After appeals by the teachers on the same day, the road was cleared and the examination papers were delivered and learners were able to sit for their examinations.  While the reason for this obstructionist behavior was not clearly explained, it seems that part of it stems from an ongoing dispute between the farm owner and the occupants, who are being threatened with eviction.24 The children of the farm occupants attend the school. 

In early June 2003, the same farm owner erected a gate along the tree-lined dirt path that leads to the school.  According to the principal, the foreman, who lives on the farm with the permission of the farm owner, locks the gate after school and unlocks it each morning before school begins.25 At weekends the gate is locked.  This means that school activities such as school governing board meetings cannot take place on the school premises, which is the only appropriate place to hold such meetings.  It was through the intervention of the nearby Tweespruit police that the gate was opened on August 10, 2003 so that a school governing board meeting could take place at the school.26  The police broke the padlock, as the teachers do not have the keys.  A police officer at Tweespruit police station told Human Rights Watch that this was not the first time that the lock had to be broken, and he remarked that there was a lack of co-operation between the farm owner and the school.27 According to the principal, the farm owner has refused to give the school a set of keys to the padlock.  Furthermore, the farm occupants living on the property, who use the same and only dirt track to access their homes, are prevented from accessing the main road and leaving the farm in the case of an emergency.  The principal, who has informed the authorities of this deliberate interference, told Human Rights Watch that the school was governed by a contractual agreement with the provincial department of education and further that the right to use the land for educational purposes and the road to the school had been registered in a deed of servitude.28At the time of writing, some of the parents had voluntarily left the farm with their children.29

In the cases that follow, the farm owner, and in some cases the lessee with the acquiescence of the landowner, has kept the gates leading to the school premises locked, and thus prevented the school from operating effectively. 

At Cambridge Primary School, also in the Free State Province, the principal, who is also the only teacher at the school, informed Human Rights Watch researchers that the new owner of the property had repeatedly locked the gate to the school, and that the provincial department of education had not effectively intervened to prevent the interference with access to the school.30  In most cases, the new owner changed the locks to the school premises thereby obstructing access to the school when the principal was away attending courses or meetings arranged by the provincial department of education.  According to the principal, the new owner plainly did not want the school on the property.  The schools inspector confirmed that the new owner wanted the school shut and the children moved elsewhere.31

Following interruptions on April 7 and 14, the deliberate closure on April 22, 2003, led the former farm owner to intervene. On the teacher’s arrival in the morning the gates were yet again locked.  While waiting at the gate, the previous farm owner saw the teacher at the gate on the way to his home.32 At around 9:30 a.m. the previous farm owner returned with the current owner and the gate was unlocked and opened.  The teacher subsequently wrote a letter to the schools’ inspector reporting the matter.  The schools’ inspector visited the school the next day on receipt of the letter, and met with the previous farm owner and the present owner separately.  In the meantime, the owner placed a “no trespassing” notice at the gate to the school.  In resolving the matter, the schools’ inspector advised the principal to purchase a new lock - this is despite the principal’s assertion that she had purchased padlocks on previous occasions, which allegedly had been broken off by the new owner.  The principal remarked that money to purchase locks came from the meager school funds, further limiting educational activities for the learners.  To prevent further interference, the schools inspector told Human Rights Watch that he notified the current owner in writing in May 2003 that the provincial department of education would have to call on the assistance of the police if further deliberate obstruction of the school occurred.33  The provincial department of education plans to shut down the school and move the learners to a boarding school in Hobhouse, Free State Province, in 2004.34

Due to the inability to access Kwaluwadupe Primary School, Free State Province, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted the interview with the teachers on the side of a major national road.  The primary school is divided onto two pieces of land on either side of the major national road between Ficksburg and Clarens.  The owner of the land on which the school buildings stand leased it to two different people.  In practice, each school building is under the day-to-day control of a different lessee.  This creates a dilemma for teachers who have to negotiate with different people to ensure that the school functions.35 Gates to each of the school buildings are padlocked and the teachers do not have the keys.  According to the teachers, anyone wishing to visit the school, including representatives of the provincial department of education, has to make an appointment with the lessee at least two weeks in advance.  As there are homesteads on either side of a major national road, the learners either cross this road or use alternate routes and walk through the unfenced sections of the school premises because the main school gates are locked.  There is no free access onto the school premises to engage in various educational activities.

The actions of the farm owner at Mareletsane Primary School, Limpopo Province, resulted in legal action against him and the provincial department of education.  The matter arose after threats by the landowner to shut the school to give way for a game farm on the property and actions to frustrate access to education.  The landowner began to erect a fence in October 2002 and completed it in May 2003.  The effect of the new fence was to block the gate leading to the school and one of the short routes that learners used to reach school.  Learners now have to travel twenty kilometers instead of eight on foot, and this has exposed them to a dangerous alternate route.  A further consequence was a drop in the enrollment of the lower grades.  The head of the school governing board applied to the court on August 1, 2003 for the landowner and the provincial department of education to secure unhindered access to the school.  A settlement was reached for the farm owner to install a gate to replace the one that was blocked and to erect a fence around the school and from the gate to the school.  Furthermore, the farm owner had to make an undertaking not to harass or threaten the learners.  The provincial department of education would contribute financially to the cost of the fencing.36 

The teachers at Molisa ea Molemo Farm School, Free State Province, reported that the lessee’s37 actions had extended the distance learners traveled on foot making it difficult for some to reach the school on time.  The lessee closed off the shorter routes that the learners from the neighboring farms were accustomed to using and explained to the teacher that the learners were stealing corn in the fields. While there may be legitimate reasons for the lessee to reduce theft of crops, this example shows the tensions between farming activities and the normal functioning of schools.  Since the eviction of previous farmworkers, the lessee has threatened to shut down the school and refurbish the school buildings for his own purposes.  However at the time of the Human Rights Watch visit in May 2003, children from the neighboring farms continued to attend the school.   

Labor disputes emanating from the inception in April 2003 of the minimum wage for farmworkers have already had an impact on education.  Some 2,000 farmworkers employed by South Africa’s largest tomato producer in Limpopo Province were retrenched following a strike arising from a wage dispute.  Because of the labor dispute, the Zet Zet Two Primary School was shut without approval from the provincial department of education during the strike period.  Learners enrolled at this school were forced to drop out, unless their parents could afford to send them to another school.  A farmworker and mother who was subsequently dismissed following the strike stated that she could not afford fees and other costs such as school uniforms and transport to send her child to another school due to a lack of a steady income.38  The consequences of the labor dispute between the farm owner and farmworkers and parents resulted in children being effectively deprived of education.

Following a threat to shut down the school and dissatisfaction with the amount of rental being paid by government, Lianas Combined School, Limpopo Province, was briefly closed in 2000.  According to the teachers, the school was to be moved to a nearby location because the owner no longer wanted the school on his property.39 The farm owner closed the school; but due to a lack of publicly provided transport to neighboring schools, the owner re-opened the school two weeks later.  According to the teachers, during the two weeks when the school was shut, the department’s intervention amounted to it instructing the teachers and pupils to report to school until the situation changes i.e. that the school re-opens.  Despite the provincial department of education’s knowledge of the problems at the school, this interruption meant that children were unable to receive an education for two weeks.  The teacher informed Human Rights Watch researchers that the owner was demanding R1, 000 (U.S. $143) instead of the government’s offer of approximately R300 (U.S. $43) per annum.  The teachers at the school believed that not enough was being done to secure the tenure of the school.40   

Disruptions at Funyufunyu Farm School, Limpopo Province were directly related to the provincial department of education’s not paying rent due to the farm owner. The government was ten years in arrears in rent payments.41  The owner closed the school down from January 17 -23, May 5-19, and again from May 28 to June 4th of 2003. The provincial department of education paid the outstanding rent to the farm owner by June 9, 2003.42

Lack of Transportation

Farm schools are often distant from the homes of many of the learners.  Although some learners come from the farm where the school is located, others come from neighboring farms.  Commercial farms are large, schools on these farms are remotely located and distances are vast.  The lack of services in rural areas results in public transport not being ordinarily available for school children to use.  In the most severe cases, this involves children walking distances of up to thirty kilometers each way.  Lack of transport has an impact on truancy, non-attendance and drop-out rates.43 According to a Statistics South Africa 2002 report, rural communities either walk or take a commuter minibus to reach services and schools with 90 percent of rural learners walking to the nearest primary school.44  Most routes, excluding major and minor national roads, are dirt tracks. 

In a telling observation on the impact of transport on school attendance at farm schools, a provincial education department official admitted that, “[t]he problem with providing transport is that the moment there is a new route and a bus, new kids show up to go to school.  Some are kids who have moved to the urban areas or trust [lands]45, and then return home when the new route is opened.  Or others who now decide to go back to school.  This makes planning and budgeting problematic.”46

Teachers are also affected by the lack of transport.  Such is the case at Wolksberg Farm School, Limpopo Province where learners walk between five and seven kilometers each way from the neighboring farms.  The school is located thirty-five kilometers from the major national road.  The ascent to the school in the depths of the pine forests is a rutted dirt track.  The teaching staff stays on the farm during the school week.  At weekends they return to their homes in Polokwane.  The school is shut on Monday and Friday, in order to allow teachers to travel to and from school with the assistance of lifts, which would otherwise not be available.47 This effectively means that children do not receive an education two days out of a school week.  They rely on lifts mainly from the logging trucks to get to and from the school, which means that at times they arrive late at school.  Human Rights Watch researchers had experience of this when they offered a lift to a person who was in fact the principal of the school.  This was at 10:30 a.m. during school hours.  The principal told Human Rights Watch researchers that the lack of adequate transport affects teaching.48  Nkuzi Development Association, a land rights organization, wrote to the provincial department in September 2002 on how the lack of transport deprived children of access to education.49 At the time of writing, the nongovernmental organization had not received a response. 

Joseph, a grade-seven learner enrolled at Monate School, Limpopo Province, told Human Rights Watch researchers that he starts walking between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m. and only arrives at school around 9:30 a.m.50 He walks with fellow learners some as young as seven who cannot manage the long distance without rests along the way to school.  He feared people who kidnap children for ritual killings on the way to and from school, and pleaded for the provision of transport.  The teacher at the school told Human Rights Watch researchers that classes had to start an hour late each day to accommodate latecomers.51 The erection of a fence by the farm manager in September 2002 effectively cut off the shorter route to the farm school.  In addition to learners arriving late at school, the principal noted that a third of the learners stopped attending classes immediately after the erection of the fence.   

At Wallop Farm School, Free State Province, learners interviewed by Human Rights Watch researchers walked up to fifteen kilometers to school.52 Some children started walking each morning at 6:30 a.m. in order to be at school by 8:00 a.m.  Some worked after school to augment the household income; in some cases reaching home at 6:00 p.m.  As a consequence, according to the teacher “[t]hese children are not doing homework [as] there is not time, either working or walking long distances to and from school.”53 

Children have to travel between fifteen and twenty kilometers each way to Kwaluwadupe Primary School, which lies between Clarens and Fouriesberg in the eastern Free State Province.  Long distances of between fifteen and twenty kilometers were also traveled each way daily by learners coming from neighboring farms attending Doreen-Bridge Combined School, Limpopo Province.54  No public transport is available, leading to the same delays and missed school time. 

At Petrushoop Intermediate School, Free State Province, pupils told Human Rights Watch researchers of the long distances that have to be traveled on foot daily in order to attend school.  According to Thabo, an eighteen-year old grade nine pupil, he wakes at 5:00 a.m., leaves home at about 6:00 a.m. in order to be at school by 8:00 a.m.  Dineo, a sixteen-year old learner also in the same grade and who lives a bit further away, wakes up at 5:00 a.m., starts walking at 6:00 a.m. and only arrived at school at approximately 8:30 a.m., after the start of school.55  She arrived late at school most times.  Asked why they endured these long distances, their reply was that this was the only school that offered grade nine in the area.56  According to the teachers, more than fifteen children travel distances of fifteen kilometers or more to school each day.  Teachers have been applying for transport for their learners since 2000 and at the time of interview there had been no progress.

In Mpumalanga Province, there is some provision of transport for pupils.  Learners from Inyoni and Goodluck farms as well as Coopersdal and Winkelhaak57 who attend Inyoni Primary School, Mpumalanga Province, have access to transport in the form of commuter minibuses.  Teachers at Running Waters School have submitted applications for transport to be provided for learners who have to travel more than five kilometers to school.58 The farmers in the area volunteer to transport learners who would normally travel a distance of less than five kilometers to school.59 Although this private initiative is commendable, it only assists those children that have to travel short distances.  It remains the state’s responsibility to ensure that children can access schools, including the provision of public transport where necessary.

In the national Department of Education’s June 2003 policy document, Improving access to free and quality basic education for all, the government recognizes that “schooling [should be] easily accessible to all learners of compulsory going age.”60 Rather than committing itself to providing transport, the department is to consider various options that would make schooling physically accessible.  It should be noted that in South Africa’s 1997 initial report to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, the government recognized that it had to make learner transport widely available in order to make school accessible.61 

Some provincial governments have dedicated funds for learner transport.  In May 2000, three provinces, Eastern Cape, Gauteng and Mpumalanga had budget allocations for learner transport.  The Mpumalanga Department of Education presently makes provision for transport for children who have to walk more than five kilometers on foot to school each day.  The provincial department of education awards contracts, through a tendering process, to private entities that are paid a nominal rate of less than R1 (U.S. $.0.14) per learner, per kilometer per day.62  In May 2003, the provincial department of education was managing approximately 200 routes.63

Free State Department of Education officials told Human Rights Watch researchers that it was not affordable to provide school transport “[b]ecause the children are spread all over the place, one here, one there.”64  Yet, the officials admitted that children who have to walk to and from school are exposed to sexual assaults and car accidents.  

In those provinces where there is no budget for scholar transport, learners rely on donations.  In 2003, a private company donated 300 bicycles to learners at Naletsana Farm School, Limpopo Province.65  In January of the same year, the school, which has 460 enrolled learners, was given two buses - also from private sources.  However, despite these initiatives, there remain some learners who journey up to twenty kilometers on foot each day because they do not live along the bus route and there were not enough bicycles for everyone.

The various provincial departments have adopted their own approaches to addressing farm schools and related transport problems.  There would seem to be a general consensus that the conditions children have to endure at farm schools are not favorable.  One option being considered is the establishment of boarding schools to accommodate children from farm schools that have been shut.  One-teacher schools and those with a low-enrollment are some of the reasons for shutting down schools.  The view by some provincial officials is that in time [beyond five years] the farm school system will no longer exist.66 However, other department of education officials expressed the opposite view that farm schools would continue to exist because of the vast distances between farms and “[t]he state simply can’t provide the infrastructure.”67  Whatever the ultimate fate of the farm school system in South Africa is, in the interim, the lack of transport provided to learners in many provinces continues to affect farm school attendance and deny children their right to education.

Inadequate infrastructure and service provision

The regulations made under the Schools Act require that the agreements between farm owners and provincial departments of education must provide for, among other things, the maintenance and improvement of school buildings and the supply of basic services.  The regulations under the Schools Act relating to minimum requirements of a contractual agreement state that: “potable water and toilets must be provided and secured.  The supply of electricity to the school must comply with national safety standards.”68 Where such a contractual agreement does not exist, the lines of responsibility for the provision of these services become blurred.  This uncertainty has a negative impact on proper functioning of the school, and the provision of an adequate learning environment for learners.

Water

According to the South African Education for All Assessment published in 2000, approximately 25 percent of primary and combined schools had no access to water within walking distance.69 Access to adequate drinking water is still a problem on some farm schools, even where there is a water source on the farm.  In cases where there is a good relationship between the farm owner and the school, the provision of water does not seem to be a problem.  In general, problems were experienced at those schools where there is no contractual agreement between the farm owner and the provincial department of education.  In other cases teachers were unaware of whether such an agreement in fact existed.  In both instances, entrance onto the school for the purposes of installing water pipes required the co-operation of a farm owner, which was not always forthcoming.  In light of the clear regulatory provisions, some provincial departments of education have been forthright in their position that the department should provide water to schools as a matter of priority regardless of the existence of a contractual agreement between a landowner and the state.70 

The Free State Department of Education’s failure to respond to requests from Khotso Pula Primary School since 1989 has meant that the learners have no access to clean drinking water.71 According to the teacher, the farm owner has suggested that the government provide funds so that a pipe can be installed in order to pump clean, drinkable water to the school from a dam on the farm.  In the absence of such a pipe, the only water available is not of drinkable quality and is fetched by buckets from the dam.  An official responsible for that school told Human Rights Watch that the teacher had not raised the matter with him, but he promised to investigate it.72 The teachers and learners at Sabaan Primary School in Mpumalanga bring their own water in buckets, as water in the dam nearby is not suitable for human consumption.73 

At a primary school in the Free State Province, the teachers brought water in bottles from their homes daily.  Although there are taps at Molisa ea Molemo Farm School, there is no water.  The inspector of schools in the area was not aware of the problem.74 However, an official from the provincial department of education confirmed that provision of water at a school was a priority regardless of the existence of a contractual agreement.75  In the same province, the community at Montagu Farm School, which is bound by a contractual agreement, has access to water drawn from a nearby stream.76 An official directly responsible for the school told Human Rights Watch that a request for water had been submitted to the provincial department of education in June 2003.77

A primary level farm school in Limpopo Province has had no water since 1997.  The principal of Wolksberg Farm School told Human Rights Watch that she has repeatedly informed the provincial department of education of the lack of water.78 The Nkuzi Development Association, a land rights nongovernmental organization wrote a letter reporting the matter on behalf of the school to the provincial department of education in September 2002.  At the time of writing, there has been no response to that letter from the provincial authorities.

At Kranenburg Primary School, Limpopo Province, Human Rights Watch researchers found in a visit in April 2003 that there was no water or electricity for the 101 learners.79 Teachers brought in water from homes.  The provincial department of education apparently visited the school in 1999 and promised to provide these services. 

Human Rights Watch visited schools in Vaalwater and Marken, Limpopo Province where water was drawn from natural wells because of a broken water pump where the provincial department of education had failed to respond.  A visit to Monate School in Vaalwater in September 2003 revealed that the school had had no water since July of the same year.80  When the farm owner was approached about the water pump, he told Human Rights Watch researchers that it was the responsibility of the provincial department of education.81 Human Rights Watch raised the matter with the authorities, and was informed that the matter would be attended to. 

At Lianas Combined School and Funyufunyu Farm School, both in Limpopo Province, Human Rights Watch researchers found that farm owners withheld water by failing to fix water pipes in order to force the provincial department of education to capitulate to outstanding rent payments.  The farmers were claiming rent due under the agreements with the government that existed prior to the new Schools Act.  No new contract had been concluded.  According to teachers at Lianas Combined School, the owner of the farm refused to carry out maintenance of services for the school because rent had not been paid.82  When the school experienced a water stoppage due to a pipe rupture, it was restored through the intervention of the owner of a farm at the bottom of the hill who is dependent on the water from the same pipe.  At Funyufunyu Farm School, the principal of the school informed Human Rights Watch researchers that the owner had failed to fix the pipes thus preventing water delivery to the school.83 These examples show how the government’s failure to conclude agreements with farm owners, and to fulfill its own obligations under such agreements leads to situations where farm owners interfere with children’s right to education.

Human Rights Watch researchers did come across cases where, as a result of a cordial working relationship between the farm owner and the school principal, access to water was not interrupted.84 But we are concerned that access to water in most cases is dependent on the good will of a farm owner regardless of contractual obligations that require the maintenance of a water supply. The failure by the department of education to respond in a timely way to complaints compounded by the tampering of the water supply as an intimidation tool or a sign of frustration is of concern.  The result is that the farm school community is denied access to water.  Not only are there hygienic and health care reasons for the need for water, but also school buildings need to be kept clean to maintain an adequate learning environment.

Supply of power

Farm schools are rarely connected to a power supply, whether the national power grid, a generator or solar power.  The lack of some form of energy limits the teaching and learning that can take place in a school.  Administrative activities can also be impaired.  Learners are excluded from accessing information technology systems either donated or provided by the provincial department - as opposed to children in urban and wealthier areas who have greater access to these resources.85  Regulations under the Schools Act presuppose that electricity is provided at the school and that its provision “should comply with national safety standards.”86 Thus it can be inferred that a farm owner or the provincial department of education must ensure that electricity is provided where a contractual agreement exists.  No power affects the usage of visual teaching methods; administering school business; visibility in the classroom where a school is located in a forested area and advancing learner education such as computer training.  These problems affect the education received by children.

At Doreen-Bridge Combined School, Limpopo Province, electricity was suspended in December 2002.  According to the principal, dangerous wiring necessitated the suspension of electricity.  The farm owner promised that the re-wiring would be done during the school holidays.  From December 2002 to April 2003, the school closed on two occasions for school holidays but the repairs had not been done.  However in an interview with the farm owner in July 2003, he claimed that the electricity had been re-connected.87 

In an apparently deliberate act to harass the school in its activities, electricity at Jevington Combined School, Free State Province, has been suspended.  According to the principal, the lack of electricity means that administrative tasks cannot be carried out for lack of a fax machine and photocopier.88  The school has had no electricity since the beginning of August 2003.  In the words of the principal: “I went to the foreman [to ask why there was no electricity, [h]e told me that [the farm owner] said I must suspend it.”  The principal concluded that the electricity cut was in retaliation for complaints lodged by the school with the police service about the obstruction of access onto the school premises.  The principal attempted to resolve the matter by asking the farm owner to furnish the school with a bill in order to make payment.  With no progress on this initiative, the principal raised the matter with the provincial department of education.  The school has now placed an application with the national electricity supplier.

Sabaan Primary School, Mpumalanga Province, has had no electricity since 1996 following the theft of the power cables and a television set.89  A similar situation exists at Wolksberg Farm School, Limpopo Province.  At the school, the principal told Human Rights Watch that the matter had been reported to the Limpopo Department of Education on a number of occasions.  The principal, who appeared disillusioned with the provincial department’s inadequate response to her requests, anecdotally remarked that as things stood at the school “[c]omputers are a luxury.”90  Even though the department is aware of the lack of electricity at the school, it has failed to respond.  As the school is encircled with tall trees, the light quality in the classrooms is poor, making it difficult for learners to read.  The situation worsens during inclement weather when light quality within the classroom is severely diminished.  In addition, the use of visual media to teach, or access to photocopiers to supplement learning materials is impossible. 

Sanitation

Forty-five percent of schools in South Africa continue to have pit latrines, and a small number are still using the bucket system.91  Regulation 7 (1) under the Schools Act states that toilets must be provided.  Human Rights Watch researchers found that pit latrines were in various degrees of repair and generally unhygienic at most schools visited.  Some schools visited had unventilated pit latrines, while others had not facilities at all.  Flush toilets at some schools were not all in working order.  At Marula Primary School, in Mpumalanga Province, the farm owner reportedly cut the water supply to the flush toilets without prior warning in 2001.92 According to the principal, the farm owner diverted the water for his own personal use.  The matter was raised with the authorities.  The provincial department of health intervened by erecting pit latrines for the school.

At Kranenberg Primary School, Limpopo Province, there were no such sanitation facilities.  When the teachers were asked where children relieve themselves, we were shown the bush.93 Human Rights Watch researchers were informed that the matter had been reported in 1999to the provincial department of education, but there has been no response.  Human Rights Watch researchers saw incomplete construction of flush toilets, which was apparently the work of a neighboring farmer who had offered to assist the school at the time of the visit in April 2003.  Failure to properly service sanitation facilities not only creates an unhygienic environment for the learners and educators, it may also present certain dangers for the younger children, who may injure themselves because of insecure seats or privacy.  In addition, girls face the additional risk of sexual assault when secure facilities are not available at schools.

Poor facilities and inadequate learning materials

The national Department of Education has reported that the conditions of all school buildings throughout South Africa have notably deteriorated from 1996 to 2000.94  Twenty-six percent of school buildings were considered “weak” and 8.4 percent “very weak,” that is dilapidated and unsuitable for educational purposes.95  According to an official in one of the five education districts in the Free State province, approximately 75 percent of the schools in the one district are dilapidated.96 Most schools Human Rights Watch researchers visited comprised only classrooms and a makeshift playground.  Buildings were usually in need of repair.  At some schools windowpanes needed replacing, ceilings were collapsing, floors needed finishing and there was no heating.  At Inyoni Primary School, Mpumalanga Province, the damaged ceiling had been reported to the department of education for over a year and nothing had been done about it.97  At Wallop Farm School, Free State Province, the junior grades were housed in a four-walled collapsing structure with broken windows, no ceiling or flooring.  The principal informed Human Rights Watch researchers that he was trying to find funds to renovate the school, which for him was not conducive to learning.98 A further problem is the lack of telephones.  At Wolksberg Farm School, the nearest telephone is two kilometers away in the Haenertsberg.99 The lack of a telephone at a school or nearby hinders the ability of teachers to contact provincial authorities when repairs and services are needed or when there is an emergency at the school.

Storerooms are few and security is lacking at some schools.  At some schools, book materials are stacked in a corner of the classroom as there is no storage space.  At one school Human Rights Watch researchers were informed of the theft of learning materials during school holidays.100 Some schools lack sufficient learning materials.  At Kranenberg Primary School, the teachers told Human Rights Watch researchers that grade six learners were using grade five textbooks.101  Computers were not seen at any of the schools visited.

In the government’s 2003 Plan of Action: Improving Access to Free and Quality Basic Education for All, the government has made proposals to subsidize the poor learners and schools.  The allocation for one enrolled learner per year is calculated on the basic minimum funding required for general education and training such as textbooks, stationery, electricity and water consumption, and furniture.102  The poorest schools will receive the largest proportion of the budget allocation.  Thus as from 2004, the poorest schools will be eligible for R450 (U.S. $64) per learner per annum as opposed to the wealthier schools which will receive R75 (U.S. $10) based on the household income of the school-going child.103 If properly implemented, such a plan should directly benefit farm schools, which serve some of the poorest communities in the country.

The government is also looking into giving schools considerable autonomy in spending school funds.  At present, section 21 of the Schools Act allows for schools, which are assessed as being properly managed, to disburse the funds apportioned to them by the provincial department of education.  The new proposals will give considerable autonomy to approved schools. These schools will be able to find their own suppliers.  In the case of farm schools where there has been a management vacuum, not many are likely to acquire this status.  Even in cases where farm schools are deemed properly managed, complications arising from the lack of electricity or public telephones to facilitate communication with suppliers would make such autonomy impossible.

While the new funding system is designed to help schools to be less reliant on the collection of fees to function, the government “[d]oes not believe that a complete school fee ban in the case of poor schools with better levels of public funding is the optimum solution.”104  This is based on the assumption that the farm school communities, which include parents who are farmworkers, are more likely to participate actively in the running of the school if they pay school fees that contribute towards projects at the school.  Human Rights Watch researchers found that parent participation was rare and school governing boards were in most cases dysfunctional at farm schools.105  In part, this was because of long working hours for farmworkers during the week and a half-day on Saturdays.  The Schools Act vests the governance of a public school in the governing body, which includes parents and teachers.106  Furthermore, the limited resources available at farm schools may result in these schools not using these funds.  The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child in its concluding observations to the South African government, which is party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, recommended that primary education should be free to all.107

The South African Human Rights Commission, a statutory body, which was established in terms of section 185 of the South African constitution, recently made recommendations for the better use of funds allocated to provinces for the purposes of education, skills development and more staffing in those provinces that are under-resourced.108 



[18] Department of Education, Education for All – the South African Assessment Report, 2000 [online], http://education.pwv.gov.za/policies&20and%20Reports/2000_Reports/2000_Reports_Index.htm.  (Retrieved July 11, 2003).

[19] Adele Gordon, “Providing Quality Education in Schools on Commercial Farms,” paper presented at a conference on farm schools convened by the minister of education, May 13, 2000.

[20] See also, “Subsidy Cuts at Farm Schools,” The Citizen (South Africa), January 24, 2000.

[21] Lukas Meyer, “Court Orders a farmer to Re-open School,” Die Rapport (South Africa), January 23, 2000.  This is a translation from Afrikaans.

[22] Regulations Relating to the Minimum Requirements of an Agreement between the Member of the Executive Council and the Owner of a Private Property on which a Public School is provided, No. 18566, December, 1997, under the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, Regulation 5 (3).

[23] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher, Jevington Combined School, Tweespruit, Free State Province, May 19, 2003.

[24] Human Rights Watch interview, fieldworker, Free State Rural Development Association, May 19, 2003.  Comment supported by principal, Jevington Combined School, Tweespruit, Free State Province, in a telephone interview with Human Rights Watch on August 20, 2003.

[25] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, principal, Jevington Combined School, Tweespruit, Free State Province, August 20, 2003.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, police officer, Tweespruit South African Police Service, August 28, 2003.

[28] Human Rights Watch has in its possession a copy of the deed of servitude, which is a legal document giving an entity or person the right to use a piece of land for a designated purpose.

[29] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, fieldworker, Free State Rural Development Association, June 30, 2003.

[30] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher, Cambridge Primary School, Free State Province, May 23, 2003. 

[31] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, inspector of schools, Westminster, Free State Province, August 11, 2003.

[32] The farm owner lives on a property across the major national road a few meters from the school premises.

[33] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, inspector of schools, Westminster, Free State Province, August 11, 2003.

[34] Ibid.  Hobhouse is a town approximately seventy kilometers from Westminster where Cambridge Primary School is located.

[35] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers, Kwalawadupe Primary School, Free State Province, May 22, 2003.

[36] Human Rights Watch interview, researcher, Education Rights Project, Center for Applied Legal Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, July 14, 2003.  Also founding affidavit of Raphuti Jacob Mocheko in the case of Raphuti Jacob Mocheko v Johannes Jacobus Coetzee, the Member of the Executive Council for Education, Limpopo Province and others.  The matter came before the Pretoria High Court on August 1, 2003.  See also Vicki Robinson, “State has Failed Farm Schools,” The Mail and Guardian (South Africa), August 8-14, 2003.

[37] In some cases, a farm owner leases a portion of his/her land to a lessee for various purposes including cattle grazing.

[38] Mziwakhe Hlangani and Mujahid Safodien, “Minimum wages ruined our lives,” The Star (South Africa), August 13, 2003.

[39] Human Rights Watch interview, principal and teacher, Lianas Combined School, Magoebaskloof, Limpopo Province, June 3, 2003.

[40] It should be noted that since the interview at Lianas Combined School was conducted in June 2003, the ownership of the farm has changed. 

[41] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with farm owner, Makhado, Limpopo Province, June 6, 2003.  This rent was for maintenance and keeping the school open for educational purposes in terms of a previous contract between the farm owner and the government before the coming into effect of the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, which introduced a new system of contractual agreements between the provincial department of education and the landowner.

[42] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, official, Limpopo Department of Education, June 20, 2003.  In a follow-up telephone interview with the school principal on July 9, 2003, the school was not shut.

[43] Statistics South Africa, Measuring Rural Development – Baseline Statistics for the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy, 2002, Table 2.10.

[44] Ibid., Table 16.2.

[45] These are the former homelands, which were established away from the cities by the Apartheid government for Africans along cultural and linguistic lines.

[46] Human Right Watch interview, official, Mpumalanga Department of Education, May 15, 2003.

[47] Human Rights Watch interview, fieldworker, Nkuzi Development Association, Polokwane, Limpopo Province June 3, 2003.

[48] Human Rights Watch interview, Wolksberg Farm School, Haenertsberg, Limpopo Province, June 3, 2003.

[49] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, fieldworker, Nkuzi Development Association, Polokwane, Limpopo Province July 21, 2003.

[50] Human Rights Watch interview, Joseph, learner, Monate School, Vaalwater, Limpopo Province, September 11, 2003.

[51] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher, Monate School, Vaalwater, Limpopo Province, September 11, 2003.

[52] Human Rights Watch interview, pupils and teachers at Wallop Farm School, Clocolan , Free State Province, May 19, 2003.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers, Doreen-Bridge Combined School, Tshipise, Limpopo Province, April, 22, 2003.  The farm owner confirmed that children lived on farms twenty kilometers away from the school in a telephone interview on July 23, 2003.

[55] The real names of children interviewed are not used in this report.

[56] Human Rights Watch interview, Dineo and Thabo, learners, Petrushoop Intermediate School, Marseilles, Free State Province, May 23, 2003.

[57] These farms and areas are within a twenty-kilometer radius from Inyoni Primary School, Komatipoort, Mpumalanga Province.

[58] Human Rights Watch interview, principal, Running Water School, Hazyview, Mpumalanga Province, May 14, 2003.

[59] Human Rights Watch interview, principal, Running Water School, Hazyview, Mpumalanga Province, May 14, 2003.

[60] Department of Education, Plan of Action: Improving Access to free and basic education for all, June 14, 2003, paras 52-3.

[61] South Africa’s initial country report, to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, November 1997, paras 424-5.

[62] Human Rights Watch interview, official, Mpumalanga Department of Education, May 15, 2003.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Human Rights Watch interview, official, Free State Department of Education, May 23, 2003.

[65] Matebello Motloung, “Kids to get on their bikes,” The Sowetan (South Africa), July 25, 2003.  Human Rights Watch interview, teachers, Naletsana Farm School, Koedoeskop, Limpopo Province, September 12, 2003.

[66] Human Rights Watch interview, official, Free State Department of Education, May 23, 2003.

[67] Human Rights Watch interview, official, Mpumalanga Department of Education, May 15, 2003.

[68] Regulations relating to the Minimum requirements of an agreement between the member of the executive council (provincial minister of education) and the owner of a private property on which a public school is provided, under the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, December 19, 1997, Regulation 7 (1), (2) and (4).

[69] Department of Education, Education for All - The South African Assessment Report, 2000 [online], http://education.pwv.gov.za/policies%20and%20Reports/2000_Reports/2000_Reports_Index.htm. (retrieved July 11, 2003).

[70] Human Rights Watch interview, official, Free State Department of Education, August 5, 2003 and official, Xhariep district, Free State Department of Education, August 19, 2003.

[71] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher at Khotso Pula Primary School, Free State Province, May 19, 2003.

[72] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, official, Xhariep district, Free State Department of Education, August 19, 2003.

[73] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher, Sabaan Primary School, Mpumalanga Province, May 13, 2003.

[74] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, inspector of schools, Free State Department of Education, August 6, 2003. 

[75] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, official, Free State Department of Education, August 5, 2003.

[76] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers at Montagu Farm School, Free State Province, May 19, 2003.

[77] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, official, Xhariep district, Free State Department of Education, August 19, 2003.

[78] Human Rights Watch interview, principal at Wolksberg Farm School, Limpopo Province, June 3, 2003.

[79] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers at Kranenburg Primary School, Limpopo Province, April 24, 2003.

[80] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher, Monate School, Vaalwater, Limpopo Province, September 11, 2003.

[81] Human Rights Watch interview, farm owner, Vaalwater, Limpopo Province, September 11, 2003.

[82] Human Rights Watch interview, principal and teacher, Lianas Combined School, Magoebaskloof, Limpopo Province, June 3, 2003.

[83] Human Rights Watch interview, principal, Funyufunyu Farm School, Makhado, Limpopo Province, June 4, 2003.

[84] Some of the schools visited by Human Rights Watch researchers such as Running Water School, Hazyview; and KaMehlwane Primary School, Komatipoort, Mpumalanga Province had access to drinking water on the premises.

[85] Adele Gordon, Facilitating Education in Rural Areas of South Africa: The Role of Electricity and other sources of Energy, (Energy and Development Research Centre, University of Cape Town: Cape Town, August 1997), para 2.1.

[86] Regulations No. R 1738, December 19, 1997, under the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, section 7(2).

[87] Human Rights Watch telephonic interview, farm owner, Tshipise, Limpopo Province, July 23, 2003.  This conflicts with statements made by the principal of the school in a telephone interview on July 22, 2003 where a Human Rights Watch researcher was told that there was no electricity.

[88] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, principal, Jevington Combined School, Tweespruit, Free State Province, August 20, 2003.

[89] Human Rights Watch interview, farm owner, Sabaan Primary School, Hazyview, Mpumalanga Province, May 14, 2003.

[90] Human Rights Watch interview, principal, Wolksberg Farm School, Haenertsberg, Limpopo Province, June 3, 2003.  It should be noted that the school principal completes a survey periodically of the needs of the school.  Human Rights Watch viewed a copy of the survey forms.

[91] Department of Education, Report on the School Register of Needs 2000 Survey, 2001, table 17(c).

[92] Human Rights Watch interview, principal and teacher, Marula Primary School, Hazyview, Mpumalanga  Province, May 14, 2003.

[93] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers, Kranenburg Primary School, Musina, Limpopo Province, April 23, 2003. 

[94] Department of Education, Report on the School Register of Needs 2000 Survey, 2001,

[95] Ibid.

[96] Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Xhariep district, Free State Province, August 19, 2003.

[97] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers, Inyoni Primary School, Mpumalanga Province, May 9, 2003.

[98] Human Rights Watch interview, Wallop Farm School, Clocolan, Free State Province, May 19, 2003.

[99] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher, Wolksberg Farm School, Haenertsberg, Limpopo Province June 3, 2003.

[100] Human Rights Watch interview, teachers, Kwaluwadupe Primary School, Free State Province, May 22, 2003.

[101] Human Rights Watch interview, teacher Kranenberg Primary School, Musina, Limpopo Province, April 23, 2003.

[102] Department of Education, Plan of Action: Improving Access to Free and Quality Basic Education for All, June 14, 2003, para 34.

[103] Ibid., para 36.

[104] Ibid., para 59.

[105] Human Rights Watch interview, official, Soutpansberg, Limpopo Department of Education, June 6, 2003.

[106] South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, section 16(1).

[107] Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: South Africa, February 23, 2000, CRC/C/15/ADD.122, para 34.

[108] The report concerns the measures taken by the South African government towards the realization of economic and social rights covering the period between April 2000 and March 2002.  Monitoring the realization of social and economic rights is a constitutional mandate of the South African Human Rights Commission.  See Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No. 108 of 1996, section 184(3).  South African Human Rights Commission, 4th Economic and Social Rights Report: 2000/2002, (Johannesburg: April 2003) [online] www.sahrc.org.za.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>May 2004