By Elock Shikalepo
THIS opinion pieces is premised on the question of heroism for free primary education.
This question is triggered by an article in a local daily, whose editorial section pronounced the late Dr Abraham Iyambo as the father of free primary education in Namibia. I will always count on, and remember with homage, the immense contribution the late Dr. Abraham Iyambo has made to education. May his legacy live in perpetuity! This opinion piece endeavours to clarify who crafted the concept of free primary education and when did free primary education come into effect. The Constituent Assembly chaired by Dr Hage Geingob (PhD), drafted the Namibian Constitution, the “Mother of all laws.” The Namibian Constitution, Article 20 (2), prescribes that “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.” Free primary education implies that the State provides the required inputs and bears the expenses. This is contained in Section 38 (1) of the Education Act (Act No. 16 of 2001) as enacted by then legislature and assented to by the executive, which states 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….”
The state provided classrooms, teachers and instructional materials at its own cost. This is what defines constitutionally free primary education in Namibia and this free primary education came into effect at the implementation of the Namibian Constitution in 1990. It has been free primary education all along. On this basis, free primary education is parented by the members of the Constituent Assembly. An understanding that primary education has not been free, is generated from a misinterpretation of the Constitutional provision on free primary education (Article 20 sub-article 2), and the parents’ Statutory contribution to the School Development Fund as contemplated in Section 25 of the Education Act (Act No. 16 of 2001). The fact that parents have been making contributions to the school development fund should not be taken out of context to imply that education was not free, and conclude parents were paying for the education of their children. Parents were undertaking their statutory obligation to school the development fund as stipulated in the Education Act, No. 16 of 2001, Section 25 (8) and (9) (a).
In terms of the Education Act, No. 16 of 2001, Section 25 (1) (a) and (b), schools should seek to improve their sport, cultural and educational facilities. This requires more requisites than the government can provide. As such, it was legitimate to establish development funds to support school development efforts.
The viability of these funds is dependent on stakeholders, including parents. Parents’ failure and inability to honour this obligation is dealt with in accordance with Section 25 (8) and (12) of the Education Act of 2001, but still it cannot impinge free primary education provisions in light of Section 53 (1) and Section 59 (1) and (2) respectively. Thus, it is legitimate for parents to make contributions to school development funds. As a passionate education management scholar, and having studied and teaching education law, the announcement of last year that education will be free is irrelevant as education has been free. Subjectively, what the late Dr. Iyambo thought of, has nothing to do with free primary education provisions as stated in Article 2 (2) of the Namibian Constitution and Section 38 (1) of the Education Act of 2001, but has to do with parents’ contributions to school development funds as contained in Section 25 (8) and (9) (a). The intention of the late Minister, I believe, was to exempt parents of primary learners from making contributions to school development funds as their statutory requirement. However, Namibia is a rule of law country (sic). The intentions of exempting parents from contributing to school development funds were supposed to be tabled and debated in parliament and then succeeded by amending Section 25 of the Education Act of 2001 to exempt parents from making contributions in respect of primary learners.
Legally, this is what is supposed to be followed, and it is on that exemption that the late Minister’s heroism should be based upon, not on free primary education as alluded to, as that has been there for eons before the late Minister took over the education ministry.
As of the current Education Act of 2001, it is still legitimate for law abiding school administrators to expect parents to make contributions to school development funds in respect of primary school learners, as there is no statutory amendment yet to Section 25 of the Act. Article 2 (2) of the Namibian Constitution, Section 38 (1) and Section 53 (1) of the Education Act of 2001, are perfectly in line with the universal free primary education objectives, business as usual, nothing new, amendment required.
Elock Shikalepo is an Education management scholar. He studied education law, management and systems. He can be reached at elockshikalepo@yahoo.com