27/10/2026 - Fedsas
1. Why an inflation-linked increase can still mean less for education
Why should school fees rise by more than inflation? It is a fair question from parents whose own budgets are under pressure. When household income fails to keep pace with the cost of living, even a small increase matters. A school must therefore be able to explain more than a percentage in a budget.
The answer begins with a simple distinction: general inflation does not necessarily reflect the cost of running a particular school. A school’s own cost increases depend on what it spends its money on and how quickly those expenses grow. If major expense line items rise faster than income, a larger budget ultimately buys less.
2. The budget as a pie
Think of the school budget as a pie. If the whole pie grows by 5%, but the largest slices expand faster, less room remains for the rest. The pressure does not disappear because the budget balances on paper. It shifts to the expenses on which the school can still save.
Suppose a school starts with R100 in income and expenditure: R65 for salaries, R10 for municipal services and R5 for other fixed operating costs. The remaining R20 is available for learning support, learning materials and maintenance. This allocation is a simplified example, not a prescribed budgeting norm.
Let total income grow by 5% a year, salaries by 7%, municipal services by 10% and other fixed costs by 5%. We keep learner numbers, staffing and the scope of the school’s offering unchanged. The model therefore tests the effect of cost pressures without any expansion.
3. When costs grow faster than income
Graph 1 shows how the different growth rates diverge over five years. Each series starts at 100 to compare the rate of growth. This does not mean that the school spends the same rand amount on each expense.
After five years, income is approximately 28% higher, salary costs 40% higher and municipal costs 61% higher. Because salaries initially account for almost two-thirds of the illustrative budget, that increase carries particular weight. Even a smaller expense such as municipal services consumes an increasing amount of the available money.
In the first year, income grows to R105. Salaries take R69.55 of that amount, municipal services R11 and other fixed costs R5.25. This leaves R19.20 for learning support, learning materials and maintenance, compared with R20 the previous year. The school has more money, but less for these needs.
These figures are assumptions used to explain the principle. Each school must use its own cost structure, contracts, tariffs and staffing obligations to calculate the actual pressure.
4. The silent erosion of the school budget
A single difficult budget year can often be managed by postponing expenditure. The school paints next year, replaces equipment later or temporarily scales back a support programme. But when the same pressure continues year after year, temporary savings become a growing backlog.
Graph 2 shows this cumulative effect. In the example, the available budget for learning support, learning materials and maintenance falls from 20% of income to approximately 11% over five years. The rand amount falls from R20 to approximately R14, while the prices of these items would probably also rise.
If their prices in this example also rise by 5% a year, then after five years the remaining money buys only about 55% of what the original R20 could buy. This is therefore more than a smaller share of the budget; it is a reduction in real purchasing power.
The consequences may eventually become visible in the school’s educational offering: less support, equipment that is not replaced or deferred maintenance that turns into more expensive repairs. Not every saving reduces quality. But persistent cuts without a plan can weaken the school’s ability to deliver quality education.
5. What a justifiable increase requires
The income side requires the same care. A 5% increase in school fees does not automatically mean that total income grows by 5%. State funding, fundraising and other income may grow faster or slower, or even decline. The amount actually collected may also differ from the budget.
These cost pressures do not, however, justify every above-inflation increase. The governing body must be able to show which costs drive the proposal, where savings have been made and why certain expenses remain necessary. Existing programmes must also earn their place in the budget. Habit alone does not justify continued expenditure.
Affordability deserves equal attention. A budget that shows sufficient income on paper, but rests on unrealistic expectations of parents’ ability to pay, is fragile. The school must know its community and budget realistically for the money that will be available.
Parents should therefore be able to see the practical choices. What does the proposed increase preserve? What would a lower increase mean? Can the school operate more efficiently, plan purchases differently or postpone a less essential project? Questions like these make the discussion concrete and help build trust.
The discussion must also address the rand amount. A percentage alone says little about the burden on a household or the value a school offers. Parents must be able to understand what they are paying for and how that money supports their children’s education.
The question therefore goes beyond: “Why is the increase above inflation?” We must also ask: “What education do we want to preserve, what does it cost and what can our community afford?”
Inflation is a useful reference point. The decision itself must be based on the school’s actual costs, its priorities and its community’s means. A lower increase does not remove the cost pressure. It determines where the school must absorb it.
21 October 2026
FEDSAS Centre for Finance and Risk Management
