2nd National Conference on Orphans and Other ... - FHI 360

COMMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL POINTS IN THE REPORT-BACK
Group 5’s task was very difficult in that we had to look at two groups in one: school-going children
in primary and secondary schools; and young OVC in kindergartens and crèches who are served
by the NECD Programme. We also looked at access to vocational training. The video on Uganda’s
experience showed how important vocational training options can be. Our strategy focuses on
schools mainly, but we have used the term “educational institutions” to make the strategy inclusive
of ECD and vocational training.
We first looked at concerns, then made suggestions for addressing them, and then drew up the
strategy and recommendations, which encompass all the concerns and suggestions.
The group agreed that we have to get away from red tape, and we could do this with a communitybased
exemption system. We could approach school boards, community leaders, NGOs etc. to
help us develop the sytem.
We looked at income-generating options for schools that lose income due to fee exemptions
and struggle to sustain themselves. Predictably we spent the most time on the School Development
Fund, starting from the premise that the current system is not working, it is stigmatising, and it needs
to be revamped completely. We discussed at length whether we should recommend an MBESC
decree that schools may not levy any fees at all in order to bypass the case-by-case approach and
facilitate truly free education, and on the other hand supplement schools’ income so they are able
to provide quality education. We could not reach consensus on abolishing all these fees from the
top as the group felt that parental involvement is needed and one way to involve parents is through
the School Development Fund. Whatever the case, an alternative approach to the current one is
needed, and first we need some kind of community agreement on whether schools should levy
funds at all, how much they should levy and what the procedures for waiving funds should be.
We had a long discussion on the Circle of Support concept, asking, for example, whether the
child or the community is really at the centre and whether all bodies interlink. We didn’t reach any
firm decisions on how the circle should look.
On the fourth recommendation, we asked why we need to empower these different groups,
and the answer is simply that the needs of each group differ, so we need different approaches and
activities for each group.
SUMMARY OF GROUP 5 DISCUSSION (verbatim reproduction of flipcharts)
Areas of concern:
Physical access for children with disabilities
Vocational training
Definition of “free” education
Unidentified OVC
Embracing all OVC at all levels of education
Case-by-case approach (leading to insurmountable
bureaucracy)
Lack of parental/communal involvement
Example of ECD (transferred from national
to communal level) demonstrates the
problems for OVC
Current school fund system is failing OVC.
OVC, their grandparents or other caregivers
will be incapable of accessing the support
mechanisms
Ministries tend to compete with rather than
complement each other
A definition of ‘orphan’ for Namibia is still
outstanding
“Education for all” and “inclusive education”
contradict the categorisation happening in
defining children as OVC
Suggestions:
Categorically eliminate all school fees, funds,
levies etc. nationally
Establish School Development Funds on
communal level
Redirect social welfare grants to benefit
education
Introduce a flat rate for all schools
Introduce a small grant scheme to complement
School Development Funds
Leave to the schools and communities the
identification of OVC and decisions re their
access to education
<strong>2nd</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> on Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children – Windhoek, Namibia, 25-27 June 2002: Full Report
73