Two members of the Ministerial Committee were appointed because of the importance and relevance to their constituencies of education provided on farms. They are:

In post-apartheid SA, why is the quality of education at schools on commercial farms patently inferior to other schools, and why is it so difficult to improve delivery at these schools? In the report we provide a brief historical overview of the creation of this category of schools in the fifties by the then Minister of Education, Dr Verwoerd, before presenting policy directives in order to substantiate recommendations that point to the need to end the category, ‘Public Schools On Private Land’ through closures, mergers or, in the final analysis, expropriation.

Clearly this is a radical proposal and cannot take place in the short term as it is a considerable undertaking requiring clear mandates and guidelines and to establish the management and administrative machinery required for it to succeed. In addition, the process must be supported by targeted funding to ensure that no learner is denied access to school through this process.

Even though the proportion of learners at schools in farm schools is small (approximately 3% of all learners in SA) these schools are significant for various reasons:

• For historical reasons: they represent a vestige of the worst form of apartheid education;
• For the promotion of good governance and management: there is continuing tension between farmers, their workers and neighbouring communities and provincial departments of education over access to the schools, democratic governance; school development, teacher and learner well-being;
• For ensuring the state can meet its Constitutional obligation to provide basic education to all who live and work on farms;
• To rectify the legal status of schools on farms to ensure the stability and satisfactory development of the schools: the majority of schools on farms are in a legal limbo as provinces and farmers have not concluded agreements provided for by the SASA of 1996 regarding the signing of agreements between MEC’s and property owners;

If transformed however, these schools could pave the way for creating a means of upgrading the education and training of the broader farming community, including newly-resettled farmers and their communities.

Children on farms are profoundly affected by the plight of their parents and circumstances in commercial agriculture generally. While schools remain on private land their development tends to be subordinated to the interests of the owner of the land ─ the farmers, the church, mine or hospital management. Various studies, and most recently that of the Human Rights Watch, specify how farm schools are unable to fulfil their democratic mandate.

Since the promulgation of the Bantu Education Act No. 47 of 1953, which defined the status of public schools on private land, education delivery to schools on white-owned farms has been bound in complex and often contentious ways with agricultural production. Farm schools, which were partly subsidized by government and located on commercial farms, were classified as "state-aided" schools because property owners subsidised schooling through the provision of buildings and some facilities and services although the Bantu Education Department (renamed the Department of Education and Training) was directly responsible for these schools. However, farmers controlled many aspects of school management and governance. As property owners they had the power to open and close schools, and decide which learners should be allowed to attend the school and what grade levels the school could offer. They also had the final say on the selection of educators.

By 1994 provision of education to farms was somewhat uneven with some schools having excellent facilities, provided by farmers and other property owners such as the churches and private companies, but others, and unfortunately these were in the majority, remained poorly subsidised by the state and badly serviced by property owners and the state.

State-aided schools included all public schools on private land, that is, schools on church land, on mines or in hospitals. It has become clear to the MCRE that many of these, not only those on farms, raise critical management and governance challenges and policies regulating the management and governance of all public schools on private land should be appraised at this juncture.

Sections 14 (1) - (7) of the SASA endorsed the state's responsibility for schools on private land, stating that a public school should be allowed to operate on private land only in terms of an agreement between the MEC and the property owner. This agreement should provide for the provision of education and the performance of the normal functions of a public school (with respect to governance, access, security of occupation, maintenance and capital improvements) together with the protection of the owner's rights. The Act stated further that the agreement would be enforced against successive owners if farms were sold.

Other options provided for in the SASA were:

• the closure of schools;
• the registration of educational rights on a piece of land, which could be endorsed on the title deed of the property;
• the expropriation of land or a real right in or over land for any purpose relating to school education in a province.

But the majority of schools in the country have not concluded agreements. There is some variation amongst the provinces: In the Western Cape almost all contracts have been signed (possibly because many of the farm schools in this region are on church land) and have had rental agreements in the past, whereas fewer than 10% have been signed in Limpopo.

So, where farm schools continue to exist on private land, not only does the Act fail to give learners and educators clear rights against the landowning farmers, section 14 in fact renders the operation of such schools illegal.

Despite the SASA providing for expropriation, no land on which schools are located has been expropriated. It is a difficult option particularly in view of existing tensions regarding the land resettlement and land restitution policies.

Provinces have resorted to rationalising provision by closing and merging schools but this has not been without difficulties.

There are many reasons why agreements not concluded: The committee heard farmers and members of farming organizations and provincial officials blame each other: the former claimed administrative inefficiencies and lack of government commitment to the process and the latter stated that farmers were demanding high rentals to allow schools to remain on their properties and that they wished to retain control over school development. There is also the fear farmers might close schools and waste the state’s investment in the schools.

In essence, our discussions with all parties indicated high levels of frustration at the deadlocks and delays caused by difficulties in concluding and enforcing S14 agreements.

The legitimacy of SGBs was raised in many discussions and remains an issue fraught with tensions and contradictions. Whether or not farmers are co-opted onto SGBs, their powerful role in the community means they can control school development from the inside or outside, thereby demeaning the role of elected governors.

Other management and governance problems relate to:

• Friction over school affairs between some farmers and the broader school community which has affected access and in some cases resulted in the closure of schools;
• Departmental decisions regarding school closure do not always meet the community’s vision of education on their farm; even guidelines state that communities should be part of the decision to close the school;
• Educator well being and conditions of service (see Theme 6);
• The safety of children travelling to school;
• Difficulties in learner transfers from farm schools to other schools as learners progress up the educational ladder, because of the limited availability of FET schools ─ and sometimes senior GET classes ─ in the vicinity of farms;
• Reports of child labour persist, even though child labour is outlawed in terms of the BCEA. Child labour sometimes persists with the consent of their parents.

Regarding schools on land owned by various churches it became apparent that:

Should farm schools be seen as a viable, permanent feature of the rural landscape?

In view of the high levels of frustration for all involved in providing education to learners attending these schools the following actions are recommended.

1. The continuing nature of the dire state of many schools points to the need for immediate action in selected schools. Schools that are unsafe, unhygienic, without water and too far from learners’ homes should be targeted with immediate effect.
2. It appears that this may be the time to alter the provision of schooling on commercial farms radically by implementing a carefully planned process of closing schools where no agreements have been signed, and replacing them with schools built on public land in a convenient locale.
3. Some of the provinces have already begun to adopt innovative approaches. There is, however, a need for a national legislated approach that addresses the anomalies that arise from having public schools on private land, and that ensures that all learners living on commercial farms are able to access school in ways that do not compromise either their learning potential or social development.
4. It became apparent at the provincial workshop that consideration has to be given to all PSoPL, that is, the schools situated on commercial farm land as well as on land owned by companies, hospitals and the churches. It is also advised that special consideration is given to schools on recently resettled farms.
5. What possible options are there regarding S14 agreements? Two issues have to be examined immediately. The first concerns the legal status of farm schools where agreements have not been signed and the implications of this on the operation of the school. The second is the future of S14 agreements. If S14 is revisited, can obligations on the state and farmers be tightened, perhaps with new time limits and penalty clauses, so that all parties are compelled to act within the terms of the agreement?
6. The MCRE is of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that those farmers who have refused to sign agreements in the past, or those that have signed agreements, will agree to sign an agreement that includes penalty clauses. Therefore, our recommendations cover the closure of farm schools and other public schools on private land. In essence this means that the category of schooling, PSoPL, will be phased out and various actions implemented to ensure that the state meets its constitutional obligations to learners living on commercial farms and other private land. It must be emphasised that closures can only take place if alternative schools and adequate transport is supplied to all learners and educators.

(Recommendations made in the remainder of the report hold for farm schools but these focus on the particular situation regarding PSoPL.)

Recommendation 64 : Clarify the legal status of farm schools where agreements have not been signed and on the basis of the findings, consider amendments to the terms of S14 agreements in the SASA.

Recommendation 65 : Provide guidelines on the legal procedures required to expropriate land on which public schools are located.

Recommendation 66 : Provide guidelines on the rationalisation of farm schools in a district where contracts have not been signed: options include closures, mergers and expropriation.

Recommendation 67 : Consider the implications of the phased closure of all public schools on private land and the process whereby it might take place that takes account of communities’ vision of education, access to and retention at school.

Recommendation 68 : Immediate action is needed with respect to schools having inadequate infrastructure, no sanitation and water, and where children are walking in excess of five kilometres to school.

Recommendation 69: Active recruitment of learners on farms completing the GET band to continue schooling at FET schools or at centralised schools with hostels and transport being provided.

Recommendation 70 : In cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land Affairs, consider strategies of providing learning opportunities for the community of farm workers at schools where agreements have been signed, creating public learning centres at schools servicing learners on farms.