Students from the working class fall through the cracks

Calls for free education initially found space in the 1955 Freedom Charter.

Notably, the charter states: "Education shall be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children; higher education and technical training shall be opened to all by means of state allowances and scholarships awarded on the basis of merit ."

Over four decades later, these sentiments were echoed and eventually enshrined in our constitution.

As such, the right to education finds protection in section 29 of the Bill of Rights that states, "Everyone has the right: (a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and (b) to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible".

The call for free education has since gained traction, especially of late as seen through students' uprisings in institutions of higher learning dubbed "#FeesMustFall".

We can't deny that the decline of public funding for institutions of higher learning has undoubtedly exposed education to the dictates of the economy.

As a result, universities have little choice but to compensate by imposing exorbitant fee increments that make education a commodity to be accessed only by those with the financial muscle to do so.

This practice is in sharp contrast to the provisions of the constitution that guarantee education as a right for everyone and not the privilege of the few.

Against this backdrop the debate about whether or not students are justified to protest against unaffordable fee increments is misplaced. The students' gripe is legitimate.

But what does affordability mean? To whom are fees unaffordable? The debate about affordability rages on over the years precisely because affordability is relative.

We have to consider the different categories of students accommodated in these institutions.

First, there is a category of students born in affluence, whose parents care little about the cost of education given their wealth. For those who fall in this band, it would take only a conscientious student to understand the rationale behind these protests.

Second, there is a category of students born on the other end of the economic spectrum whose parents cannot fathom the possibility of ever paying a registration fee at a university, let alone other costs including accommodation and meals.

This is simply because of the dire conditions of want they live in, which has been a generational reality.

For this group of students, the problem of fee increments is temporarily alleviated by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) provided by the government.

While these students might participate in the uprisings, it mightbe out of solidarity because the impact is not immediate for them, given that the repayment of NSFAS grants is deferred until they become economically active.

The third category is the one most disadvantaged by the status quo. These are students from the working poor whose parents do not enjoy the privileges of the rich and can neither claim the benefits provided by NSFAS because, according to the means test, they earn too much to qualify for assistance.

Knowing the benefits of education, these parents sacrifice almost everything they have to send their children to universities, only to be faced with constant fee increments that go far beyond what their means can cover.

It is this band of students that faces the full brunt of fee rises as they face financial exclusion from universities where they could get the only tool that possibly could emancipate them from economic quandaries that beset their parents.

It is this group that the government needs to focus on. Given the wealth that SA has in natural resources, it is untenable that these students fall through the cracks of funding.

There is an urgent need for state intervention to make the constitutionally guaranteed right to education for all a tangible one.

lNcube is a lecturer in the department of social work at the University of Johannesburg