ECD in South Africa

School of Development Studies
University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

By Renato Palmi


Early Childhood Education Policy in South Africa

Introduction

The children of any nation are its future. A country, a movement, a people that does not value its youth and children does not deserve its future.
Oliver Tambo
Robinson and Biersteker (1997: 1)


This essay will briefly study the process and development of South Africa’s Early Childhood Education policy. This area of education is also known as Early Childhood Development (ECD) and embraces a number of disciplines such as education, health and social development. Any Early Childhood Education (ECE) policy necessitates the combination of these elements for the welfare of the child.

This analysis of South Africa’s ECE policy begins with the concept of ECE/ECD as viewed by the World Bank and other institutions. In the South African context, it is important to reflect on indicators relating to the needs of our children and the universal rights of the child. The relevant role-players, methods of implementation and the impact of HIV/AIDS on this process will be examined. State policy and critique thereof by NGOs will be discussed, as will the challenges inherent in the development of policy to address this sector of education.

For the purpose of this essay, the acronym of ECD will be used. I believe the term “Early Childhood Education” is too restrictive, as the word “development” is more pertinent to the process involved in supporting a young child to think, learn and act so as to become a productive adult who contributes positively to his or her community and society as a whole.

WHAT IS ECD?
Early Child Development is a combination of education, health and skills development, and involves laying a sound foundation from which a child can grow to become a functional human being. Seifman and Surrency of the World Bank describe ECD as: “… [including] all interventions directed at children or their caregivers, preferably integrated as a package of services that support the holistic development of the child”
(Seifman and Surrency: n.d.).

TREE (Training and Resource in Early Education) is a Durban-based NGO working in the area of ECD. Its 2002/2003 Annual Report quotes from UNICEF (2003) as follows:

Early childhood development is regarded as a major goal for child survival, development and protection in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The first years of a child’s life are a time of immense opportunity for growth and development. They are also by far the riskiest. The statistics on child survival underscore the perils of these early high-risk years, especially to children born to impoverished families.

South African children are particularly at risk. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is depriving children of their rights, not only to a secure and healthy environment but also to uninterrupted education in their formative years. The pandemic, which is governed and driven by high unemployment and resultant poverty, is also orphaning thousands of our children, depriving them of all forms of education, their basic human needs and their individual wellbeing. Guthrie (2003: 19) quotes IDASA’s 1999 October Household Survey:

Using an absolute poverty line of R400 per month, IDASA found that 75% of the children were living in poverty, approximately 14-million children under the age of 18-years, and five million under the age of seven years.

The report continues:

The data nevertheless reflects that child poverty rates have increased [since the 1995 OHS] mostly likely due to increasing unemployment and the impact of HIV/AIDS, and it can be assumed the same applies now [2004].

It is vital that children have access to some form of ECD. Children are the future of humankind and if our adult population is not enabled to care for them, who will? Children most in need of ECD, (i.e. from birth to nine years of age) may have some protection from negative social forces through legislation such as the Child Care Act, but knowledge of and means of access to its provisions are often difficult for caregivers, much less children themselves, to access. In general, most children are reliant on their immediate families for help. Robinson and Biersteker (1997: 1-2) state:

Budgetary programmes, specifically socio-economic expenditures, can affect the well-being and life opportunities of children directly. Yet, children do not form a powerful political lobby and cannot advocate for more effective delivery of socio-economic services that meet their needs.

Adults are responsible for formulating such policies. It is important that accredited NGOs act as watchdogs when policies are developed, changed or rendered inaccessible for the care of children.

The South African context
According to Biersteker and Vale (2003: 10) a critical factor in assessing the wellbeing of children in a country is to examine the mortality rate of children under five years of age. They say: “In 2001, South Africa’s overall mortality rate was 71 deaths per 1000 births – the 66th highest in the world.”

Poverty, unemployment and HIV/AIDS are all contributing factors to this high mortality rate. It is important to understand that South Africa’s post-1994 government has inherited and has been compelled to redress an unfair system of education and other legislated policies that disenfranchised the majority of South Africans. The onset of HIV/AIDS and the volatile economic climate are additional problems faced by the State.

Colletta and Reinhold (1998) say:

“… a nation does not start with a blank slate or a level playing-field in meeting the holistic needs of children. Institutional contexts and resource availability offer a variety of provision mixtures, where some supports to children’s development are adequate or even substantial, while others are virtually non-existent.

It is well documented that education for the vast majority of South African children had been severely neglected before the new dispensation in 1994. Biersteker and Vale (2003: 11) record that:

In the apartheid era, the government accepted minimal responsibility for the fate of our 0 – 6 year-old children and what responsibility that it did accept was skewed towards white families.

The current national Department of Education has reported (1996):

Previous governments have taken the view that early childhood development is the responsibility of parents and families and not that of the State. In the light of the massive need for the provision of early childhood services, the current situation is inadequate, fragmented, unco-ordinated, unequal and generally lacking in educational value. It is further characterised by a long history of discriminatory provision with regard to race, geographic location, gender, special needs and funding. Up to now, only between 9 and 11% of all South African children from birth to six years have had access to public or private ECD facilities.

The 1996 Interim Policy for Early Childhood Development (1996: 5) clarifies the inherited problem:

One in three white infants and children receive ECD services, compared with about one in eight Indian and coloured children ,and one in sixteen African children. Twice as many urban as rural infants and children receive ECD provision and only +/- 2000 infants and children with disabilities attend ECD facilities; half of these are white children.

When the new government was voted in, there existed a number of NGOs that were in a position to assist the State with policy formation. As early as 1994, a mass collaborated movement for ECD was formed by a number of NGOs. Colletta and Reinhold (1998) say that the aim of this newly formed NGO body, called ‘South African Congress for ECD’, was to:

Serve the interests of South Africa’s young children through efforts to increase and improve ECD provisions, such as establishing accreditation norms and standards.

The early 1990’s held much promise for all those involved in ECD. Governments and NGOs were talking, new policies were being formulated and the world was eager to assist the children of a newly freed South Africa. Sadly, this enthusiasm has not manifested the outcomes that the key roleplayers envisaged, largely due to a lack of follow-through on the implementation of these new policies.

South Africa’s ECD Policy
Berry and Guthrie (2003: 27) state that:

The South African system of education ensures, through the South African Schools Act (No. 48 of 1996), the right to basic education as compulsory education for all children aged 7 – 15 years (Grade 1 – 9)

In principle, ECD programmes in South Africa should be directed to children in the age group of 0 – 6, and a Reception Grade for all five-year-olds, known as Grade-R, has also been introduced as part of the ECD programme.

In 2001, the Minister of Education, Kader Asmal, stated that the primary directive for rectifying the pre-1994 educational system was as follows:

The First Period of Reform was from 1994 to 1997, and involved creating the framework for transition. It had as its central task the replacement of minority rule and its balkanised, racially resourced institutions with a democratic order marked by non-racialism and non-sexism.

Two important policy documents published by the South African government in regard to ECD focus on the target population of such policies, the difficulties identified by the State and how they plan to deal with these challenges.

1. Interim Policy for Early Childhood Development (1996)
(IPECD)

The State recognised that the implementation of a comprehensive ECD programme required: “a set of immediate measures” IPECD (1996: 2).

It was decided that a reception year was of vital importance to the development of a child, and that this reception year should be made compulsory throughout South Africa. The IPECD document acknowledged the inherited obstacles to this aim, and focused on reconstructing the Department of Education by addressing budget and human resources constraints. The policy elaborates further on the linkage “… between education, nutrition, health and welfare”.

The State’s vision was:
An adequate ECD infra-structure that can free parents, especially mothers, to take up employment and further education that will enable women in poor families to break out of the cycle of poverty, illiteracy and economic destitution.

The following principles were outlined for ECD programmes:

· Recognition of the State’s responsibility.

· Recognition that parents and families have primary responsibility for the care of the young.

· Government ECD policy and its successful execution at all levels will aim at the empowerment of parents and communities to foster care of young children.

· Children that are differently abled must be given adequate opportunities to develop to their fullest potential.

§ The effective planning and provision of ECD services require collaboration between government departments of Health, Education, Welfare and Population Development.

§ For an ECD programme to be effective, all stakeholders must be included in governance structures.

· The educational component of ECD must be planned in a continuous developmental sequence from birth to at least nine years.

As such, the policy correctly identified the importance of: “A comprehensive, national strategy linking economic and social development, which will include housing, health, education.” The importance of these factors is collaborated in TREE’s Annual Report (2002/2003: 4): “Government departments would need to provide integrated and inter-sectorial services.”

The State realised the importance of involving the NGO sector in this process and, working in partnership with these roleplayers, began to set up guidelines that would regulate and formulate educators and service providers.

Snoeks Desmond of TREE says: “This early phase led many people who wanted to become active in ECD to chase after certification, as NGOs began to offer facilities for ECD training.”

The policy document states that while public funding for ECD programmes is important, so is the contribution of employers to their employees’ child care through their social responsibility programmes.

Resulting from the 1996 Interim Policy for Early Childhood Development, the national Department of Education developed and published the Education White Paper Number 5 on Early Childhood Education in 2001 as its guiding core policy on ECD. Again, emphasis regarding funding for ECD was given with regard to collaboration between “government, the private sector, organised labour, community organisations, parents and donors.”

Viviers (UNICEF – South Africa) confirms:
Through the implementation of Education White Paper 5, the Department prioritised ECD, particularly, though not specifically, within the Educator Sector. It set clear goals for: a reception year (Grade R) prior to the start of formal schooling; accreditation of ECD Providers; inter-sectarian programmes for pre-Grade R ECD provision and recognition of the need for national, provincial and local strategies in collaboration with other core departments.

2. Education White Paper 5 on ECD (2001)

The White Paper sets out a policy target date of 2010, by which all learners entering Grade One should have participated in an accredited Reception Year programme (G-R), which would be 75% State-subsidised as opposed to the prevailing (2001) 25% subsidy. The document states that some 1 million of an estimated 6 million children in the age group of 0 – 6 years were already enrolled in some type of ECD provision. Because most ECD provision is still fee-based, this does “place a financial burden for ECD disproportionately on the poor.” The Paper confirms that at the time, 60% of ECD sites were located outside rural settings, so that policy implementation should prioritise the needs experienced in rural areas.

Of the existing ECD programmes for children in the age group of
0 – 5 years, about 82 % focus on children within the age group of 3 – 5 years. This emphasises the neglect of the younger age group, which as the White Paper states, “… is the most critical stage in terms of children’s growth and development.” The White Paper acknowledges that independently funded ECD institutions are better placed to serve these aims than those relying on State intervention. This again marginalises the poor, as they cannot afford to pay for quality ECD institutions. Independent ECD institutions raise their money through fees, fundraising, donations and bequests.

The White Paper notes the absence of minimum standards and guidelines for registration of ECD service providers, and states that there is still no effective system for evaluation of the quality of service provided.

It is of immense concern that the White Paper 5 acknowledges the lack of a national curriculum framework for children under five years of age. This lacuna might well lead an independent observer to wonder why no further action has been taken since the 1996 Interim Policy.

White Paper 5 further acknowledges that the Sate cannot place the burden of care wholly on parents due to the:

… inequality in income distribution and because ECD is a public good whose benefits spill over from individual parents to society as a whole.

The State therefore has a responsibility to ensure that it can subsidise and provide ECD for the poor and this is the motivation for legislating that all children have access to the Reception Year (Grade - R) at the age of five years. This is a commendable goal, but it is disturbing to note that the State does not set out any provision for children of a younger age, despite their needs in this regard. One can only assume that the State simply does not have the capacity or infrastructure to accommodate this age group in its legislated policy, and has prioritised the allocation of its resources towards at least one year of preparatory schooling for five-year-olds before they enter formal primary school education.

The State realised that separate community–based facilities were cheaper to maintain and subsidise than schools-based programmes. However, for communities to sustain such programmes, CBOs are reliant on funds from parents and community members: “They bear the cost of food, buildings, rent and educational material. In contrast, in the case of school-based provision, the [State] covers food through the Primary School Nutrition Programme.”

The White Paper cites the following figures:
Fees for community-based sites are R38 per month, nearly three times that of the average (R12.90 per month) paid at primary school-based Reception Sites.

The Paper goes on to say: “Parents believe that their children are more secure attending primary school, and it is more cost-effective for parents to send their children to primary schools.” The finding that parents preferred primary schools led the State to target public schools, its priority being that “ … all our public primary schools should become the sites for the provision of accredited Reception Year programmes.”

In launching the White Paper, the Minister stated that: “Our target is that eventually about 4 500 community-based ECD centres will together provide Grade R facilities.” In so saying, the State is obliged to entrench the perception that community–based ECD sites are financially viable and offer an acceptable level of service to the community at large.

It is clear that in 2001, community-based ECD sites were not favoured by community stakeholders. By 2003, the situation seemed unchanged. Biersteker and Vale (2003: 12) state:

The community-based centres are losing their children to the school-based Grade R classes as these are perceived to be ‘better’, because fees are much lower … and food is supplied.

Viviers confirms that the State is focusing on provision of ECD through the public primary school system, and adds that it has made further policy implementations since the White Paper 5:

The Department of Education is in its third year of incorporating Grade R into the formal schooling system. The admission age to Grade R has been lowered by the Ministry to children aged four turning five before 30 June of each year, which subsequently also lowered the age of entry into compulsory education at Grade 1.

In introducing the White Paper 5, the Minister of Education said:

Today we announce the first-ever comprehensive policy and programme on ECD, that encompasses a national programme of pre-school Reception Year education for 5 year-olds, and a national strategy for early childhood development from birth to four years. It is through the policies and programmes outlined in this White Paper that we must lay the early foundations of our post-apartheid, democratic, non-racial and non-sexist society.
The policies outlined in the White Paper provide a long-term plan for building an ECD system. It is now, after taking four years to recover from provincial over-expenditure, that we are better placed to lay solid foundations for a new system.

He then outlined the commitment of the State to White Paper 5 as follows:

· Reforming the incomplete and fragmented legislative and policy framework for ECD that results in unco-ordinated service delivery.

· Expanding, progressively and purposefully, access to and participation in ECD.

The Minster also highlighted the consultation and process undertaken in formulating the White Paper:

The White Paper on ECD follows the Interim Policy of ECD (1996) and the subsequent ECD National Pilot Project that was the basis for testing our interim policy. Underlying these processes were intense consultations, collaboration and co-operation within various government departments, with civil society organisations, practitioners, individual experts, Resource and Training Organisations in the ECD sector.

This assurance reinforces Vivier’s statement that the White Paper constitutes the fundamental framework of South Africa’s policy for the implementation of ECD programmes.

The Department’s aim is to have ECD programmes and especially Grade R sites in place in all primary schools by the year 2010. Biersteker and Vale (2003: 12) summarise the intended outcomes of the 2001 White Paper 5:

· The phasing in of a compulsory reception year (Grade R) for children by the year 2010.
· Targeted programmes for children birth to 4-years.
· Curriculum and practitioner development and a strategic plan for inter-sector collaboration with other role players.

Is the State allocating the requisite financial resources to meet its targets as set out in the White Paper 5? The 2003 Inter-governmental Fiscal Review (2003: 55) reflected that most provincial spending on education is directed towards public school education and not to ECD programmes. The Fiscal Review offers the following figures to support this:
ECD: 1999/2000 = R 199 million
2000/01 = R 197 million
2003/04 = R 449 million
2005/06 = R 591 million (Projected estimates)

One notes that budget allocations to ECD are the third lowest in comparison with those for other sectors of education. When a State-sponsored review allocates a single paragraph to ECD, there are grounds for concern that ECD programmes within provincial Departments are not being given serious attention. The only reference to ECD in the Review runs thus:

The Introduction of the ECD programme is an important reform initiative aimed at providing a more efficient schooling system. The National Department of Education envisages that the introduction of a reception grade will allow for a greater school preparedness of learners.

The word “envisage” is significant, particularly if one bears in mind that the Department of Education, as early as 1996, acknowledged the importance of ECD. The 1996 Interim Policy on ECD “… recognised the critical importance of ECD as a fundamental pillar of the foundation for lifelong learning.” However, seven years later, the National Treasury describes ECD as still being foreseen by the Department of Education.

The Response of NGOs to the State’s ECD Policy
NGOs recognise that the State has not neglected education as a whole. Berry and Guthrie (2003: 25) say:

Education is one of the highest priorities in national resource allocation, consuming 6% of the gross domestic product.

NGOs acknowledge that the State has done much to correct the inadequacies of the previous educational system and that developments since 1999 are, as Berry and Guthrie (2003: 28) put it, laudable; but:

… ECD programmes appear to be particularly neglected … attention to the under-5 age group seems to be lacking.

Most of the State’s focus on ECD programmes is on the Grade R programme. Biersteker and Vale (2003: 12) confirm this:

Public provision of Grade R has been given a ‘kick-start’ through a conditional grant earmarked for ECD to the provinces. The grant, which is R195 million over three years from 2001 to 2004, is poverty-targeted.

The concept was that the grant be phased out in 2003/04, but according to Biersteker and Vale, this has not transpired, as:

The Education department has, however requested a one-year extension to assist provinces that are not yet ready to take responsibility for the programme.

The extension is further evidence of the inability of provinces to follow through with the implementation of their undertakings with regard to ECD programmes. The capacity of provinces to roll out well-intended policies was of concern to Cassiem (2001: 142), who submits: “Delivery of Grade R after 2003/04 will have to come from re-prioritising and savings within education budgets in all provinces”.

A statement made by the Early Learning Resource Unit in April 2003 criticises the State for its lack of delivery by the State. The ELRU’s response to the release of the ‘State’s Review Report on Financing, Researching and Cost Education in Public Schools (2003)’ was:

We are totally astounded that the Report does not at any point make mention either of early childhood development (ECD), or Grade R. Not once in the Report are these recognised levels of education referred to. This is all the more astounding in the light of the fact that Grade R is now a recognised part of the national education system and forms the first year of the 10 years of basic education to which all children are entitled, and the fact that the Education Department released Education White Paper 5 on ECD in 2001.

The ELRU (2003) also wrote to the Department of Education setting out their concerns with respect to:

… the rollout of policies and programmes as they relate to ECD. The areas addressed in this approach are Budget Trends, spending on the Conditional Grant and Target Inter-sectoral Programming for children from birth to 4 years.

NGOs realise that ECD is not solely the responsibility of the Department of Education. Other State Departments such as Health and Welfare are also responsible for ensuring a holistic approach to ECD; yet, as Biersteker and Vale (2003: 13) point out: “… it appears that Departments are reluctant to accept primary responsibility for this age group.”

These observations confirm that NGOs commend the success made in Education generally, and they also applaud the State’s positive dispositions, but are frustrated by the perceived reluctance of Departments to enact their declared policies. Picken (2003: 3) says:

Most of these valuable documents [White Paper etc] are good intentions but remain just that. They have not translated into improved conditions for South Africa’s children, particularly the youngest.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic and its effect on ECD

Alan Whiteside. as quoted in Gow and Desmond (2002: xi) states:

By 2015 there will be almost 2 million orphans. This is clearly a catastrophe of considerable magnitude. These children, growing up without parental guidance, will for the most part be unloved, uncared for, unsocialised and uneducated.

Moreover, many of these children will not be able to access birth certificates, which in turn denies them access to State grants. HIV/AIDS and the social upheaval it wreaks on family units has resulted in children having to leave school, in many cases because they are caring for siblings and sometimes their own parents who are ill and dying of AIDS.

Households affected by HIV/AIDS bear the burden of extra expenditure on medication and other healthcare needs, thereby depleting any available funds for education. As has been clearly defined, ECD involves a combination of education, health and welfare. Gow and Desmond (2002: 61) elaborate: “Children living in HIV/AIDS infected families are exposed to opportunistic infections which impact on the child’s wellbeing.”

HIV/AIDS therefore represents a major impediment for the efficient functioning of the State. It is imperative that policies for ECD take HIV/AIDS into account, and are framed so as to deal with the pandemic as it evolves and its impact on children’s education becomes increasingly negative.

Berry (2003: 39) argues that children do not have ease of access to support structures: “Most alarming is the fact that children affected by HIV/AIDS are faced with crises on a daily basis; yet few processes exist whereby they can access assistance.”

The national budget does accommodate the establishment of these support structures, as noted by Cassiem (2001: 160), who describes the State’s response to HIV/AIDS thus:

The subsidy made available to ECD programmes [R195 million] caters for children aged 4 years from poor families, children infected with HIV/AIDS and children with special learning needs.

The decision to extend the Child Support Grant to children up to 14 years is another example of a positive move by the State in this regard. The intention of this extension is to include, as Rosa and Mpokotho (2004: 26) claim: “… more poor and vulnerable children…”

Markovitz (2004: 26) comments on the rules pertaining to grant access as follows:

Access to this grant is made even more difficult, when Regulation 9 of the Social Assistance Act, provides that in order to access social assistance for children, the caregiver must produce his/her bar-coded Identity Document and the bar-coded birth certificate of the child in his/her care.

Markovitz verifies the need for more concerted action by the State by saying:

There is clear evidence that the result of the inflexible requirement retained in regulation 9 is that a significant number of children and their caregivers are unable to obtain the grant to which they are entitled.

Can South Africa adopt foreign ECD policies?
Due to South Africa’s political past and the pressing need to correct the injustices it created, the South African government has had to formulate and implement policies that contribute favourably to the majority of South Africans who were previously ignored and deprived by the apartheid system. This process of redressing long entrenched inequalities cannot be achieved in one or two decades, and the social diversity of South Africa’s population makes our challenges even more daunting. It would, therefore, not be feasible for South Africa to apply an ECD policy originating from European countries, where there are more longstanding, cohesive social and economic populations.

Can South Africa adopt policies from other African countries?
According to some delegates at the 2002 World Congress on Early Childhood Development, as quoted by Bridgraj (2002):

“Armed conflict, inter-ethnic clashes, refugee problems, child trafficking and child labour”, are just some of the factors that deny many of Africa’s children from access to any form of stable home life and basic education, much less ECD programmes. Although this perspective does represent a broad and probably generalised sweep of an entire continent’s social issues, such commentary on the state of Africa’s children does not cast the prospects of South Africa learning from or adapting any policies from other African countries in a promising light.

Delegates at the same Congress reiterated the importance of collaboration between communities and the government as being vital in setting up ECD programmes, as has been achieved in Latin America. If any lessons can be learnt by South Africa from other societies, it is the importance of including the communities in the early stages of developing guidelines and policy for ECD programmes. ECD programmes in South Africa need to have a wholly South African identity, one that meets the urgent needs of its children who face the effects of a battery of social and economic imbalances and challenges.

Conclusion
At the World Congress on Early Childhood Development (2002), Leonard Saul, CEO of the South African Congress for ECD, as quoted by Bridgraj (2002) expressed concern at:

… the lack of political will from the government in terms of a dedicated budget for ECD. We believe that, without access to resources, children will increasingly be exposed to impoverished circumstances, which will have a resultant impact on their motor and intellectual skills.

South African academic, Jonathan Janssen stated: “Budgets and plans do not match the rhetoric of investment in young children” Bridgraj (2002).

The terms and provisions of the White Paper 5 on ECD have not placated NGOs with regard to coverage of the needs of very young children. Leonard Saul said:

There is no policy or legislation in South Africa that guides the provision of ECD from birth to five years. In contrast, in France, it is compulsory for this age group of children to be within an ECD environment.

In South Africa, children in the age group of birth to four years represent (according to 2001 census data) 9.9% of the country’s total population (Viviers). He concludes that South Africa’s ECD policy is particularly complex and fraught by a range of challenges that cut across the capacity and efforts of all the collaborative sectors involved.

The indications are that the State is not unaware nor is it wholly dismissive of the importance of ECD. However, there is now an urgent need for community ECD sites to be provided with the same resources as allocated by the State to public schools. To effect this, certain criteria would need to be formulated to ensure that the quality of education, healthcare and safety for all children equates with that found in public schools. The government should be encouraged to devise target-orientated policy regulations for educators based at these sites and fast-track skills training for them in order to upgrade standards of tuition. As Biersteker and Vale (2003: 14) remark:

There are many highly committed, knowledgeable, innovative women and men working in the ECD sector in extremely difficult circumstances – in community-based sites … there remains a lack of capacity to tackle the task before them … the children they serve, and they themselves, remain fundamentally underdeveloped.

NGOs should mobilise to shift the focus of the State so as to ensure that budget allocations and policies are geared towards meeting the needs of early learning and development programmes for children from birth to the age of five years. Society as a whole should be alerted to the crises facing these children, their teachers and their caregivers and urged to contribute to alleviating these pressures.

Ultimately, investment in the early development of the youngest of our children will bear fruit, as the cognitive foundations laid at the level of ECD will prepare these children to become physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually active citizens of South Africa.

Snoeks Desmond remarked during our interview: “This early phase is so important - I cannot understand why more is not done to give children access to ECD programmes at an early age, instead of having to spend more funding at a later stage of their lives in order to correct their behaviour and learning abilities.”

REFERENCES

Asmal, Kader. Department of Education. South Africa
Speeches: http://education.pwv.gov.za/index.asp?src=medi&xsrc=spee
Department web site: http://education.pwv.gov.za/
Downloaded: 2 June 2004

Berry, Lizette and Guthrie, Teresa. 2003. ‘The situation of Children in South Africa.’ Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town.

Biersteker, Linda and Vale, Louise. 2003 ‘Serving our most vulnerable.’ Children First: Special Edition.

Bridgraj, Ajith. 2002. Let the Children Play.
The Teacher. 12 Nov 2002 http://www.teacher.co.za/index.htm

Cassiem, Shaamela. 2001. ‘Government Obligations and the Child’s Right to Social Security’ in Streak, Judith and Cassiem, Shaamela (eds.) Budgeting for Child Socio-Economic Rights. Cape Town: IDASA. 123 - 161

Colletta, Nat and Reinhold, Amy Jo. Experiences and Lessons. World Bank Technical Paper No.367. Africa Regional Series.
World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/
Downloaded: 2 June 2004

Desmond, Snoeks. Training Resource Education. Durban.
Interview June 2004

Early Learning Resource Unit. Cape Town. www.elru.co.za/news.asp

Guthrie, Teresa. 2003. ‘Socio-Economic transformation: Are we going backwards?’ Children First: Special Edition.

Markovitz, Laura. 2004. ‘Court action launched as children die waiting.’ Children First. 8(55), 24

National Treasury. 2003. Inter-governmental Fiscal Review. Communications Directorate. http://www.treasury.gov.za/
Downloaded: 2 June 2004

Picken, Pam. TREE 2002/2003 Annual Report.
Director’s Annual Report June 2002 – May 2003


Robinson, Shirley and Biersteker, Linda. 1997. First Call, The South African Children’s Budget. Cape Town: IDASA

Rosa, Solange and Mpokotho, Connie. 2004. ‘Paper benefits don’t reduce poverty.’ Children First. 8(55), 26

Seifman, Richard and Surrency, Amber. Guidelines for supporting Early Child Development in multi-sectoral HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. World Bank: www.worldbank.org/hivaids
Downloaded: 2 June 2004

South African Department of Education: Interim Policy for Early Child Hood Development. (pdf document) http://education.pwv.gov.za/index.asp?src=docu&xsrc=poli

Viviers, Andre. United Nations Children’s Fund, South Africa. Interview June 2004
Website: http://www.unicef.org/

World Bank. 1997. Findings African Region. Number 96. www.worldbank.org/afr/findings/english/find96.html
Downloaded: 2 June 2004