Access to education in rural areas has further been limited by the polit- ical instability that the country has experienced most notably since 2008.
The political violence and other related activities which usually occur during election time affects school attendance and in some rural prov- inces teachers have often been targets of political attacks and intimida- tion. In 2009 for instance, the effects of political violence included some teachers being forced to relocate, failure by some schools to attract quali- fied teachers, and the closure of schools in the affected areas (Ndlovu 2013; UNICEF 2018). In a nutshell, the overall impact of political vio- lence has been the weakening of provision (implying marginalisation), loss of learning opportunities and a decline in quality of education in these areas.
Generally, access to education in rural Zimbabwe is limited as educa- tion is poorly delivered and unfairly distributed. Poverty seems to be at the centre of the different forms of exclusions that characterise rural education.
salaries and 7% to operation costs). The education system (i.e. the provi- sion of education and development of rural schools) is now dependent on parental and community support, with parents and guardians contribut- ing 96% of the non-salary costs of education (Global Partnership for Education 2018). The dependency of the school system on availability of local resources for funding is not ideal for two reasons. Malhoit (2005, p. 7) points out that wealth disparities among communities imply gen- eration of varying amounts of funding which results in some students losing out and receiving fewer opportunities and resources. Again, such dependency results in underfunding of rural education since most local communities lack the capacity to generate the requisite financial resources.
This becomes apparent with the shortages of learning materials and phys- ical and human resources that characterise rural schools. For instance, the shortages of basic teaching and learning resources such textbooks, exer- cise books and pens mean that some children are excluded from partici- pation in learning though they attend school as they might go for whole month without doing any written work (Kurebwa and Mabhanda 2015).
The underfunding of rural education is further evidenced by lack of basic infrastructure and facilities such as classroom space and laborato- ries, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools, sporting facilities and accommodation for teachers. The infrastructure is particu- larly poor in resettlement schools, where unsafe makeshift pole and dagga structures are used as classrooms and there is no basic furniture for learn- ers. These conditions are not conducive to learning and put rural learners at a disadvantage. While both rural and urban secondary schools are sup- posedly pursuing a similar academic curriculum, the demands of the cur- riculum do not correspond with the provision of resources in the former.
Most rural schools are poorly equipped and not in a position to offer Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and practi- cal subjects that require specific facilities such as laboratories, equipment and electricity. Consequently, most of these schools are unable to offer all subjects on the school curriculum. The range of subjects that can be stud- ied in rural schools is restricted to such subjects as History and English, and rural children have limited access to high status subjects such as Science and Mathematics that facilitate participation in society (Thrupp and Tomlinson 2005). STEM subjects tend to be the preserve of better
resourced urban schools which can offer science subjects like Biology, Chemistry and Physics separately while rural schools have offered alter- natives to pure sciences. Such alternatives include the ‘ZimScience’ cur- riculum in the 1980s where science kits were provided to rural schools without laboratories and electricity; at another stage, Integrated Science;
and currently, Combined Science with UNICEF are providing science kits again. Atweh (2007, p. 13) observes that “where students from poor or marginalised communities are exposed to less rigorous content or a less engaging pedagogical method, the risk of inequality in the opportunity to learn is high”. The question then is whether the alternative science cur- ricula that have been experimented with really level the playing field for the rural children to ensure adequate teaching and learning of the science.
Furthermore, there have been some debates about the new curriculum which was introduced in 2015 and its feasibility in rural schools. An emerging consensus is that the new curriculum marginalises rural chil- dren as it requires extensive use of ICT in the classroom and sporting facilities, yet few rural schools have basic infrastructure and resources, as well as textbooks relevant to the new curriculum. On the whole, the limi- tations alluded to above demonstrate the role that the curriculum can play in producing rural disadvantage and that equal provision and com- mon schooling which Kabeer (2000) views as indicators of equality of opportunity, are not provided for in rural education.
A perennial difficulty for rural schools has been that of staffing. Due to their location and lack of amenities, rural schools experience problems of attracting and retaining qualified and experienced staff and there is a high staff turnover as qualified teachers mostly prefer urban schools to rural schools. The issue of a rural allowance to attract teachers to rural schools has to date not been addressed meaningfully as the allowance has always been a pittance and does not compensate for the economic and social opportunities that teachers posted in rural areas have to forego.
Furthermore, there is a general shortage of qualified teachers for such subjects as Mathematics and Science and usually high teacher pupil ratio in science classes. Rural teachers, unlike their urban counterparts, are at times required to teach multiple subjects at secondary school and this implies that many of them often teach subjects they are not qualified to teach. The prevalence of the problem of out-of-field teaching was recently
acknowledged by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Primary and Secondary:
Government is working hard to … realign misplaced teachers so that no trained teacher should be found teaching any other subject not trained for.
In some schools you find teachers teaching up to Advanced Level but not properly qualified to do so. (The Sunday Mail, 8 September 2019)
The problems of staffing and resource constraints in rural schools have resulted in students having access to inferior schools or ineffective schools where little is learned (Lewin 2009) and consequently to poor quality of education. While access to education has generally improved, issues of quality in rural education have not received adequate attention. Yet according to Lupton (2005, p. 581), a concern with social justice for the disadvantaged implies that they should have the same quality of educa- tion as their peers. The disparities in the quality of education between rural schools and their urban counterparts are underlined by the gap in achievement in public examinations. Over the years, an emerging pattern has been that of a significant number of rural schools recording zero pass rates in Grade 7 and ‘O’ level examinations. For instance, in 2017, 29 schools out of 590 schools in Matebeleland North, a largely rural prov- ince, recorded zero pass rates and only a quarter of students from that region passed Grade 7 examinations (Global Press Journal 2018). In 2018, 68 primary schools and 194 secondary schools across the country recorded zero pass rates in Grade 7 and ‘O’ examinations respectively and the lowest rates were registered in satellite schools, where poor infrastruc- ture and teaching and learning were cited as the causes of the poor per- formance (The Chronicle, 1 April 2019). Furthermore, high numbers of rural students do not attain the five Ordinary level passes that are a pre- requisite for obtaining an Ordinary level certificate and proceeding to further training and higher education. Failures are registered particularly in core subjects such as Mathematics, English Language and Science which are prerequisites not just for further training but even for employ- ment in what could be considered to be a basic job; for example an adver- tisement for a Class 4 driver requiring applicants to be holders of five ‘O’
levels including English and Mathematics.
The quality of education received in rural schools, therefore, does not allow children to compete with their urban counterparts or provide opportunities to realise their full potential. While urban families might be in a position to enhance their children’s educational experiences, for example through paying for private extra lessons which is now a common feature of education in urban areas, most rural parents, due to poverty and other factors, might not be able to do so and can hardly complement the efforts of schools to afford equality of opportunity. Failure to attain the required ‘O’ level passes represents a dead end and most rural chil- dren then are resigned to peasant farming and the treadmill of poverty, just like their parents. Female children who do not enter into early mar- riages may move into towns to provide cheap labour as housemaids.
Rural education in this respect tends to reinforce existing social inequali- ties and monopolies of social status (Spiel et al. 2008, p. 51) and dimin- ishes the social mobility function of education.
The combination of factors discussed in the above paragraphs suggest further regression into colonial practices of bottlenecks and the stratifica- tion of public schools, though this time not along racial lines. The latter has put paid to the idea of a single system of education in the country and for rural students there seems to be a separate school system and access to disadvantaged schools, thus together with other factors, raising concerns about equity in the country’s education system.