Vulnerable children, communities and schools: lessons from three HIV/AIDS affected areas

Abstract

The growing number of children made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS threatens the achievement of Education for All (EFA) and Millennium Development goals. Policy recommendations assign schools key roles in meeting the needs of vulnerable children, but there is a dearth of evidence about how vulnerable children and schools interact in AIDS affected communities. Case studies of schools and vulnerable children in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe show that although schools are materially and symbolically well‐positioned to serve as the institutional base to meet the needs of vulnerable children, schools are not accountable for these children and have not reorganised or built capacity to meet their special needs. The Malawi and Zimbabwe cases show that elimination of fees, passive open door policies and exhortations are insufficient measures to bring and keep these children in school. The Kenya case study suggests that investments in long term, well‐resourced local partnerships can be effective.

Keywords:

• Case study
• HIV/AIDS
• Kenya
• Malawi
• Schooling
• Vulnerable children
• Zimbabwe

Notes

1. Unless otherwise noted, in this paper ‘vulnerable children’ refers to children made vulnerable by AIDS through the death or illness of parents or caregivers.

2. We use the UNAIDS definition of an orphan here: a child under the age of seventeen who lost mother, father or both parents to AIDS.

3. Bennell et al. (2002) provide information about schools and vulnerable children in Uganda, Malawi and Botswana. UNICEF's 2006 State of the World's Children focuses on vulnerable children and is a rich information source on some of the topics discussed in this paper.

4. The case studies are drawn from research conducted by the two authors in three different settings, at different times and in which we were playing different roles. These differences are discussed in each case study. Despite the differences in data collection methods, purposes and timing, we believe the three case studies capture varied and important similarities and differences in vulnerable children's and school's experiences in AIDS‐affected countries. While the age and thoroughness of the case studies must be evaluated, there is evidence from more recent studies of these and similar countries that indicate similar results as those reported here and few significant or positive changes in relations between vulnerable children and schools since the research was conducted.

5. Kendall worked with two research associates throughout the study, one of whom varied depending on the primary language spoken in the area. Special thanks to CT and ZK for their roles in the research. Details about the research methods and methodology may be found in Kendall (2004).

6. The authors' research was conducted in 2000 and was limited in time and scope. The case study is not meant to be generalisable or comprehensive. It does, however, highlight many themes that recur in existing research on the lives of child‐headed homes in Zimbabwe and other areas in Southern and Eastern Africa. Unfortunately, the political changes that have occurred in Zimbabwe since 2000 appear to have exacerbated the vulnerability of these homes and children, not improved their livelihoods or life chances.

7. For more information see: http://www.aed.org/Projects/speakforchild.cfm

8. In 2003, Kenya spent nearly 30% of government outlays on education (Fleshman, 2005); in Malawi, following the declaration of Free Primary Education in 1994, government spending on education increased to 29%. In contrast, health received 6% of the budget (Kendall, 2004). In Zimbabwe, in 2000 the government spent 19.6% of expenditures on education; health received 5.7% (Economic Commission for Africa, 2002).