PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE PUBLIC MONEY

The Government of Eswatini needs to take a grip on reality. Back in 2010, a piece of legislation was passed that approved free primary education. And in all, 90 per cent of the countries that have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child are providing free and compulsory primary education. But our primary education system has slipped, and largely uncontrollably, into a hybrid.

Many schools charge top-up fees in addition to what government pays them for the primary education of the recorded number of pupils in each school. That’s not free primary education and, in itself, is highly challenging for parents in a country with a high percentage living below the international poverty line. Government admits publicly that it provides an insufficient amount of funds for the primary schools. That’s certainly honesty but within the shadow of inadequacy.

Top-up

Parents, being respectful of the child’s need for an uninterrupted education, tend to pay the top-up fees promptly, despite the many challenges faced when raising the required funds. But there is a process of recorded consultation that must be followed for the demand of top-up fees from parents to be approved. And those rules are generally being ignored by primary schools. So the principals can pretty well charge what they like, with government merely confirming an inadequate oversight of compliance with mandatory procedures.

And then the recent statement by the Ministry of Education, regarding principals opening private accounts to receive school revenue, that should be entirely school-controlled, is quite shocking. How about calling it a ‘free-for-all?’ The ministry’s response included a rather mild admission of a capacity-defined, weak control over schools being exercised by government. It is understood that only a small proportion of the 900 or so schools in the country receive the full audit each year from the auditor general’s department.

This is a function of the available manpower and the demands from having to also audit the other arms of government. This includes evidentially abused areas such as the Ministry of Health. The recent submission to Parliament by the auditor general reflects vigorous audit work. The robust detection work is done, but accountability is rarely seen publicly. Pretty safe territory for a bit of misappropriation of school funds; don’t you think? Please remember that public school funds are public funds; that’s obvious, but ignored.

Suggests

Allegations of misuse of schools’ resources—mainly by some principals, in collaboration with others—have been around for years. And the reaction of the Ministry of Education suggests that financial integrity in the schools is simply unknown. So, what is to be done about it? The answer is to either increase professional staff in the auditor general’s department and, in turn, the number of full school audits each year or introduce two layers of audit.

The first option would require a very large amount of money to achieve the audit volume, making a broad impact. Choosing the second option would be a quick, low-cost and an expedient way of resolving that—a first layer in the form of a preliminary audit, followed where justified, by a full audit. The writer, appropriately qualified, makes available for this purpose a personally draughted school’s preliminary audit programme. It’s there for immediate use and entirely free of charge—for the people.

The preliminary audit

Accountants, both qualified and part-qualified, would apply to the Eswatini Institute of Accountants for an audit licence, specifically and solely, for carrying out the school’s preliminary audit. That audit is just a series of simple but revealing audit tests that determine whether the basics of internal financial control exist in the respective school. The checks will expose a lack of financial statements, improper purchasing, inadequate receipts and expenditure records/documentation, absence of reconciliation of pupil numbers with fees received, salaries and staff verification, and the acquisition and custody and use of school assets. At the end of a week’s audit work, a report is submitted to the auditor general (AG). Where there are material discrepancies, the AG instructs his team to carry out the full audit.

Where there are none, the particular school is a low priority in the planned school audits for the immediate future. The preliminary audit, being carried out by small firms, would attract much lower audit fees than those charged by the big firms. A figure of E30 000 for one week’s audit work would not be unrealistic or unreasonable. It would not be paid by government. In a school with 500 pupils it would require a fee of E60 per pupil per annum. Viewed as an ‘insurance premium,’ protecting against substantial financial waste, this would be one of the bargains of all time. No activity in the present day is without inherent risk. In this preliminary audit scenario, the biggest risk is the obvious one.

The exposed principal offers a tempting fee to the small firm auditor to hide serious discrepancies, such as one of the 100 ‘ghost teachers’ admitted by the Ministry of Education, for which payment is being made—and to someone who is no one! The auditor would be made aware of the serious professional measures applied to dishonest behaviour – licence removal and end of career in Eswatini. The accounting profession has used this approach, and it works. The main objective would be to have every school in the country receiving the preliminary audit every year. The outcome would be the establishment of a large number of small audit firms with support staff and a ramping up of financial standards in the schools, with a vast amount of top-up fees no longer inappropriately charged to parents.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: