Exploring the School-Based Support for Youths Who Head Households in Limpopo Province,South Africa

Abstract

The article focuses on the school-based support that youths who are heading households get from public schools in South Africa. It is based on the study that was conducted focusing on the extent to which schools support youths who head households. The study adopted the qualitative research methodological approach where three methods were used to construct data. The three methods used are observation, semi structured interviews and documents. Eight children from four public schools were selected as participants in the study. Data constructed was analyzed by using the Thematic Content Analysis approach. The findings reveal that youths who head households are faced with challenges that include among others, economic constraints, lack of resources, and humiliation. Furthermore, they do not get the necessary support from schools. The article argues that lack of support by schools adds to the challenges that children are confronted with in their daily struggle for survival.

Keywords

peer support policy school-based programs rural context school dropout resiliency

Introduction and Background

Youth-headed households have become common in South African society. Actually, as Le Roux-Kemp (2013) indicates, they have become an integral part of South African society. Consequently, society should take the phenomenon seriously as indicated by Pillay (2016). In the past, the number of youth-headed households did not warrant scrutiny, because it was negligible. Furthermore, as Mturi (2012) suggests, other family members supported children in such households. However, things have changed, and young people no longer get the support that they used to get despite the fact that the phenomenon is on the rise. This also affects young people who are of school-going age (Shava et al., 2016).

The inclusion of young people who are of school-going age, highlights the fact that the concept “Youth-headed household” may mean different things to different people. The differences are due to the fact that the concept “youth” can be defined from different perspectives which include: biological perspective focusing on the phase between puberty and adolescence (Sawyer et al., 2018); cultural, social and historical perspective which focus on the roles that youths play in society (Bynner, 2001; Lesko, 2012; Woo, 2012), which include independence and autonomy (Coles, 1995); age range (Bendit, 2006) and psychological perspective which focuses on a period between childhood and adulthood (Furlong, 2008). The other concept that is understood differently, is “household.” Pillay (2016), explains as a fluid concept due to its changing membership. The Department of Social Development (2008) in South Africa, explains the concept by differentiating it from the family. It indicates that we can find a family in the household, but household members do not have to necessarily related. It is a place of dwelling where a group of people, related or not, share resources, activities, and expenditures. Consequently, the working definition of youth-headed households adopted for use in this study refers to a situation where youths between the ages of 17 and 24 who are at high school, take charge of household responsibilities in terms of providing for the needs of other members living in that household.

In South Africa, there were approximately 61,000 households headed by learners in 2013. The number had increased to 85,000 by 2015 (Meintjes et al., 2015). Three-quarters of these children live in three provinces, namely Limpopo (30%), KwaZulu-Natal (23%), and the Eastern Cape (17%) (Meintjes et al., 2015). The increase is due to a multiplicity of factors that include HIV/AIDS, divorce and unemployment in rural areas (Shava et al., 2016). We should, however, indicate that we are fully aware that some scholars question the accuracy of the statistics for the number of youth-headed households. Le Roux-Kemp (2013) asserts that the phenomenon of youth-headed households is on the rise, while Hall and Mokomane (2018) assert that the number of youth-headed households is small and is not increasing. The question of the accuracy of the statistics notwithstanding, the phenomenon of youth-headed households needs attention.

It should also be noted that the phenomenon of youth-headed households is not unique to South Africa. It is also found in other countries (Gubwe et al., 2015). Internationally, it took close to a decade before this phenomenon was recognized by societies (Gubwe et al., 2015).

The burden of responsibilities and the demands placed on a young person who is head of a household, are extremely challenging. Among other things, the challenges include social distress and psychological and emotional anguish (Kurebwa & Kurebwa, 2014). Young people who are psychologically traumatized are faced with the challenge of missing opportunities from schooling, achieving their goals, and living a decent life (Mwoma & Pillay, 2015). Furthermore, Magampa (2014) argues that such young people struggle daily, as they are confronted with an increasing number of responsibilities. Therefore, such young people should be supported in their endeavor to succeed in life.

It should also be noted that several studies have been conducted which look at the phenomenon of youth-headed households and there is a typology that emerges. The typology can be categorized into different themes such as the way in which young people make meaning of their lives (Awino, 2010), educational problems that young people are facing (Gubwe et al., 2015; Mogotlane et al., 2010; Pillay, 2016), health issues (Gumede, 2013), gender dynamics (Mkhatshwa, 2017), lived experiences of young children from youth-headed households (Masondo, 2006), coping strategies (Kurebwa & Kurebwa, 2014; Thwala, 2018)), causes resulting in the existence of youth-headed households (Foster et al., 1997; Gubwe et al., 2015), and support for children from youth-headed households (Mwoma & Pillay, 2015). The typology notwithstanding, there is little knowledge relating to the support that the youth who head households receive from South African public schools (Hall et al., 2015; Kurebwa & Kurebwa, 2014; Mwoma & Pillay, 2015; Pillay & Nesengani, 2006). It is within this context that this study was undertaken focusing on the extent to which public schools offer support to such young people.

Literature Review

Literature helped us to identify the issues that are crucial in the support that schools should give to the young people from youth-headed households. These issues are namely, school attendance; academic performance; the humiliation; stigmatization and discrimination that is consequently experienced; and available support systems. This study, focuses on the extent to which the schools actually support young people from youth-headed households in addressing the above-mentioned concerns.

School attendance

School attendance is one of the major challenges confronting youth who head households. They are unable to attend school as required, due to their various responsibilities which include taking care of their siblings and house chores. Consequently, literature highlights absenteeism as a major challenge (Gorongo & Moyo, 2013; Gubwe et al., 2015; Mwoma & Pillay, 2015; Phuthi, 2014). There is therefore a need for the schools to support them to be able to deal with absenteeism.

Academic performance

A substantial body of literature shows that there is a radical decline in the scholastic performance of young people who are heading households. They need support to succeed. Such young people, have little or no time, as they are occupied throughout and are usually humiliated by other children, and teachers (Jakachira, 2012; Nkosi, 2013; Pillay & Nesengani, 2006). Furthermore, some of them are expected to study without food to eat, and that perpetuates low scholastic accomplishment, because they cannot focus in class (Nyaradzo, 2013; Pillay & Nesengani, 2006).

The humiliation

The concept of humiliation and stigmatization may sometimes be confused to mean one and the same thing. As Rodat (2020) argues, the two concepts are not the same. Humiliation is an act that focuses more on the attributes that are ascribed to a particular group of people that lower their status of being humans as a result of being teased, ridiculed, and harassed (Torres & Bergner, 2010). Literature reveals that youth from youth-headed households, are ridiculed, teased, and harassed by teachers who by virtue of their vocation and training are expected to rather support them (Nkosi, 2013).

Stigmatization and discrimination

As Jones (2019) indicates, stigmatization focuses on people who are being labeling, and discriminating against people because of certain characteristics or conditions. Young people from youth-headed households in schools, as Jakachira (2012) indicates, are frequently exposed to indignities. Consequently, they are reluctant to socialize with their classmates and ultimately develop poor self-concept, which, in turn, negatively affects their scholastic achievement. In coping with stigmatization, discrimination, and isolation, some of them stop attending school regularly (Jakachira, 2012). Thus, stigmatization, discrimination, and isolation create a hostile attitude to the school environment, which is not conducive to effective learning, and scholastic achievement.

Economic constraints

Young people who head households are also faced with economic constraints. It is common, for them not to have school uniforms, money for educational tours, and school fees (Gubwe et al., 2015; Pillay & Nesengani, 2006). In some instances, some of them drop out of school, due to inability to pay school fees, or comply with the strict uniform requirements enforced by principals. They are usually taken out of school for not paying school fees and are not given a chance to explain their family background (Gorongo & Moyo, 2013). Due to the severity of the situation, some scholars have advised principals to identify them, and give them necessary support, instead of abusing them (Nyaradzo, 2013). Emanating from literature, schools can support them in various ways. This includes, exemption from paying school fees (Jakachira, 2012; Nkosi, 2013; Nyaradzo, 2013), empowering teachers through training to be able to care for such learners (Mohlakwana, 2013; Nkosi, 2013; Nyaradzo, 2013), assigning school-based social workers to visit them in their homes (Nyaradzo, 2013), encouraging peer group support (Nyaradzo, 2013), equipping them with life skills and soliciting the assistance of other departments which offer health and social development (Jakachira, 2012; Nkosi, 2013).

Support systems

Support systems for young people who head households can be in the form of neighbors, government grants, and social services (Nkosi, 2013). Other support systems are listed in the Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005 (Le Roux-Kemp, 2013). The Act sets out principles concerning the care, protection of children and youths, health, parental responsibilities, and the rights of children and youths as set out in the South African Constitution. The rights include: education, protection from degradation, abuse, neglect, exploitation, harm, humiliation, and stigmatization. Consequently, teachers who humiliate and stigmatize children, and youths from youth-headed households, are acting contrary to Children’s Act and the South African constitution.

Theoretical Framework

There are different theories that can be adopted for use as lenses in researching issues around the support of youth that head households (Pillay, 2016). They include Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs model, Social exchange theory (Homan, 1961) and Bronfenbrenner’s “ecological systems” theory developed by Uri Bronfenbrenner. For the purpose of this study, which was to determine the extent to which schools support youth who head families, Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems’ theory, later developed by Hayes et al. (2017), was adopted for use. It is a psychological theory that emphasizes the importance of social environments on human development and was adopted as a study lens, because it views youth development as a complex system of relations affected by multi-levels of the surrounding environment. Multi-levels include the micro-system, the meso-system, the exo-system and the macro-system. For example, the relationship between youths and parents at home is a micro-system. The meso-level involves interactions between parents and teachers. In this study, the participants had no parents. The interaction between parents and place of work, without the involvement of youths, takes place at an exo-system level. The influence of the culture or ideologies of the place where the home is located takes place at the macro-system level.

The ecological systems of a young person such as peers, family, and school help the young person to develop. The support for youth by schools will be reflected in the way in which schools and families interact and the way in which young people interact with their peers in the school settings.

South African Context on School Related Issues

The South African Education system comes from a history of a system that was based on Apartheid which lasted from 1948 to 1993. It is a system that was based on the philosophy of separate development where segregation was based on the skin color of a person. Consequently, the schooling system was divided into 10 departments catering for the different racial and ethnic groupings in South Africa. Even funding was based on the racial grouping. Schools that catered for black people were underfunded comparison to the other racial groups. That resulted in disparities amongst schools. The differences were also based on the geographic location of the schools. Schools in urban areas were better funded and better resourced than schools in rural areas. Some black learners had to attend classes under trees or and in dilapidated buildings. When the new government came to power in 1994, there was a need for transformative agenda to deal with the challenge of disparities in pursuance of redress, equity, and social justice. With regard to funding, a quintile system was introduced. It is a system where schools that are well resourced receive less money from the national government, and poorly resourced schools are allocated more money. Quintiles range from quintile 1 to quintile 5. Quintiles 1, 2, and 3 are schools which cater for learners from poor families, and these learners are not expected to pay school fees. Such schools are referred to as “No-fee schools.” Schools in quintile 4 and 5, are meant to cater for learners from well- to-do families, and learners are expected to pay for their schooling. They are known as “Fee paying schools.” The four schools selected as settings for the study, are located in rural areas that are impacted by poverty and lack of resources. They are referred to as “No-fee schools” because they cater for learners from poor families.

Research Problem

The phenomenon of youth-headed households continues to be a problem that requires serious attention in South Africa. This is because learners from such families continue to face challenges at school, because they have to strike a balance between focusing on their studies and care of their siblings. Furthermore, they also struggle to interact with their peers because they humiliate them. Schools and communities should support these particular youngsters. It was therefore important that this study focused on the extent to which schools support youth that head households, as there is little knowledge relating to the support that schools provide to such young people (Hall et al., 2015; Kurebwa & Kurebwa, 2014; Mwoma & Pillay, 2015; Pillay & Nesengani, 2006). Consequently, this study was done by responding to the research questions outlined below.

Research Questions

Main question

To what extent do public schools support youths who are heading households?

Sub-questions

In response to the main question, sub-questions were formulated as follows:

How do schools identify youths who head households?

What challenges do these households face?

What survival strategies do they use to cope with their schoolwork?

Is there any support that the schools provide for youth who head households?

Methodology

The study utilized a qualitative research approach to conduct in-depth research, which sought to explore the support that schools provide to youths who head households (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The reason for using this approach was guided by the theoretical framework, which helped us to conduct the research in a real-life situation and not to manipulate the phenomenon of interest (support of youths from youth-headed households) by using an experimental situation (Nieuwenhuis, 2016). This was done to determine how the development of youths, is affected by the multi-levels of the surrounding environment. It also enabled us to explore and understand the personal perspectives and experiences of such youths (Creswell, 2009).

Research Design

An exploratory case study design was adopted for use in the study. It allowed us to explore the support that schools provide to youths who head households (Creswell, 2014). It also helped us to interact with the participants in the study and thereby understand human behavior and the ecological systems of influential relationships in depth and in its real-world context (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014).

Sampling/Selection of Cases

The purposive sampling strategy was used to select the participants for the study (Maree & Pietersen, 2007). Eight Grade 12 youths, who headed households, were selected from four different schools to participate in the study. Their age group ranged from 17 to 19 years of age to 19 years of age, and five of them were females, and three were males. Members of their households varied. Some were staying with their younger brothers and or sisters, whereas others were staying with other extended family relatives. Their selection to participate in the study, was based on their being able to offer relevant personal experiential data, in terms of the support that schools provided for them (Maree & van der Westhuizen, 2007). The choice of Grade 12 students was guided by the fact that it is regarded as very important in the South African education system as it determines entry into the higher education layer. For such students, coming from poor families, the belief is that education is one of the springboards out of poverty.

The process of selecting them involved requesting the school principals to allow us identify such youths by talking to them. Principals had no problems in giving us access because one of the authors knew the principals very well as an inhabitant in that area. Furthermore, the principals indicated that the study would help them to identify the youths from youth-headed households attending their schools as they had no records of such individuals. Consent had to be gained from extended family members for those below 18, and from participants themselves above 18 years old. The selection criteria included, parentless Grade 12 youths who took responsibility for running the household, caring for younger siblings, and having no support from or the presence of adult relatives. As already indicated, the schools were purposively selected, where one of the authors, who is an inhabitant of the area, was acquainted with the principals. The schools were situated in rural areas where the phenomenon of youth-headed households was assumed to be rife.

It should however be noted that even though all the schools selected were in rural areas, their contexts were not the same. For example, schools A and school C were categorize as quintile 3 which means that they were better than school B and school D in terms of resources and infrastructure which were categorized as quintile 1. They also differed in terms of the total student numbers. School A had 689 students of whom 4 came from youth-headed households, school B had 239 of whom 5 were selected, school C had 1,027 of whom 5 met our criteria, and school D had 198 of whom 3 were chosen for this study. They also differed in terms of the distances between their location and their nearest towns. School A is 31 km from the nearest town, school D is 50 km whereas school C and school B are 39 km away. In terms of similarities, it should be noted that all of them did keep records such as students’ profiles, school registers, students’ reports, and class monitor sheets.

Data Collection

Data was generated through observations, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. The use of the three methods of data generation, as Patton (2015) suggests, was done in order to maximize transparency, dependability, and transferability of the study.

Observation

Observations were done inside the classroom, focusing on the selected youths’ participation in class and outside the classroom, exploring their interaction with other young people, and the kind of support that they enjoyed. In line with McMillan and Schumacher’s (2010) and Nieuwenhuis’s (2007) advice, we also observed how youths from youth-headed households perceived events and reacted verbally and non-verbally.

Interviewing

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the eight youths to explore their experiences regarding their schoolwork. The participants interviewed were willing to talk and give information about their experiences. The questions used during the interviews, as Nieuwenhuis (2007) suggests, were open-ended, so as to give the participants the opportunity to express themselves in terms of their experiences, while at the same time guiding them where we realized that their responses were not in line with the questions asked. Questions were repeated at the participants’ request, and permission was sought to use a tape recorder to capture the participants’ responses.

Document analysis

Various official documents relating to the experiences of youths who head households were consulted. The information required was retrieved with the permission of the principals of the four selected high schools. The documents were used to understand and determine the extent of the support offered by the school to individuals. The documents include class attendance registers, learners’ personal files, the School Based Assessment (SBA), school schedules, learners’ school reports, and school policies on the support of learners who head households.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues were considered for this study. An approval letter to conduct research was obtained from the Limpopo Department of Education in South Africa. Principals were approached to request approval to conduct research at their schools. The participants were informed of the purpose of the study and that they were at liberty to withdraw from the study at any time. They signed consent forms, they participated voluntarily, and they could withdraw at any stage of the study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The participants’ real names were not used in the study, in order to maintain anonymity, and confidentiality of the participants (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The schools’ names were also kept anonymous.

Results

The interviews were transcribed and compared to see if there were categories that emerged (Creswell, 2014). The data was coded and categorized into themes and sub-themes and was organized using the literature, the theoretical framework, and the research questions for the study. Official documents such as period registers were used to monitor the youths’ attendance in all their subjects. The progress of the learners was analyzed through the mark schedules and the report cards. The themes that emerged from the data analysis were identification of the youths from youth-headed households, challenges that these youths face, survival strategies, and the support that the youths are offered. Using the themes identified, it became apparent that youths from youth-headed households are not supported.

Identification of the Youths From Youth-Headed Households

All the four schools that were selected as settings for the study did not have databases of learners who head households. This was confirmed when the schools could not provide documents listing the youths who head households in Grade 12. It was only after we had requested such a list that teachers were instructed to identify such learners from the different Grade 12 classes. This theme seems to be a recurring one because in a study conducted by Marongwe et al. (2016), they found that schools did not keep records of youths from youth-headed households. This identified inadequacy was confirmed by the participants who explained during the interviews that their schools do not know about their situation at home. Furthermore, some of these learners did not want the schools to know about their situation, due to the fact that they were afraid of being ill-treated. One was emphatic and said “The teachers do not know about my situation, and I don’t want them to know” (D2). A contrary view was expressed by (C1) who succinctly said “I need a person or schools that can know more about me and support me with my work so that I can achieve my goal. If you are not known, there is no one to support, or help you, or even give you a proper support that you need in life.”

The reluctance of the youths to be identified might be due to fear of being victimized by the teachers whereas those who want to be identified might be doing it due to their need to relate to teachers who can provide support and care for them in line with Bronfenbrenner’s “ecological systems” theory. This is in line with the findings of Dlungwana (2007) and Mkhatshwa (2017), who indicate that youths who head households suffer social discrimination and physical abuse in the form of corporal punishment. Due to lack of identification of youths from youth-headed households, schools do not even know their needs.

Challenges That Youths Face

Economic constraints

One of the challenges that participants indicated was economic constraints. Six of them indicated that they do not receive social grants, as they are older than 18 years. Consequently, they are unable to buy school uniforms and they cannot buy anything to eat at break time when the other young people buy snacks. One of them explained “I wish to have things that other children have. Unfortunately I cannot get them. I didn’t buy school uniform, I don’t have money for school fees and books, I did not buy school materials. . .I don’t have money for extra classes. . .” (D2). This theme remains a perennial challenge for youngsters from youth-headed households. This finding is consistent with the findings of Nziyane and Alpaslan (2012), who claim that some of the youths do not have food at home and they cannot afford to buy school resources. They rely on their relatives for food (Nyaradzo, 2012) due to economic constraints. But it was surprising when (B1) and (C2) expressed views on their circumstances. (B1) excitedly said “To me this is a temporary, temporary setback. I am aware that this is painful, but the situation helps me to be innovative like selling sweets. It is just that sometimes I do it during lessons as the other come to me for sweets.” The other one from (C2) stoically revealed that: “. . . I do not give up, I do not lose hope because I can do things without my parents. I hope that I can achieve my goals so that I change my situation. My future plans, I want to be a psychologist.” It is good to note that amongst the participants, there are those who have hope that they can achieve good things in life.

Lack of school resources

There are schools in quintiles 1, 2, and 3, which are supposed to be no-fee-paying schools, which compel parents to pay registration fees. According to the No-Fee Schools Policy, schools in quintiles 1 to 3 are prohibited from charging fees. From a review of the literature it was found that the government, through the no-fee policy, has enabled orphans, and vulnerable youths in South Africa to access basic education (Mwoma & Pillay, 2015). The participants indicated that due to economic constraints, they lack school resources, and money for extra lessons. One participant (A1) said: “. . . I do not have resources. I do not have scientific calculators, uniforms, and other resources, such as money for extra lessons. I need somebody to help me get money to buy all books that I like . . . I need study guides for Physical science and Life sciences.”

The schools selected for participation in the study offer extra lessons to the Grade 12 learners during weekends and school holidays. These learners are expected to pay for the extra lessons. One of the participants (B1) sounded distressed saying that: “I wish the government would assist . . . money to pay for extra lesson.” But (D2) calmly stated: “Even though, I do not have money for extra lessons, I perform better than some of those who attend extra lessons.” This problem is prevalent in schools that are situated in poor areas.

Denying students extra classes, is contrary to the government regulation that learners should receive free quality education. According to section 40(1) of the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996, young people have the right to free education (South Africa, 1996). Schools that expect learners to pay for extra lessons, are in contravention of the policy, as youths who head households are unable to pay, as indicated by Jakachira (2012). As Kellock (2020) suggests, this has the potential to affect their well-being.

Discrimination and humiliation

The participants indicated during the interviews that they are victims of discrimination and humiliation from other youths and teachers. We could not understand why the participants included teachers as part of those who humiliate them, because there was no list of youths from child-headed households from the schools when we made a request thereof. Maybe the teachers knew of them without making a list of those who head households. One participant (D2) stated that: “Teachers distinguish us from other children. They must not take advantage of me; I must be treated equally as other children and not be discriminated.” Some of the youths refuse to accept the ideas of youths who head households during group discussions and to sit with them at break time. One participant reported angrily during the interviews that: “Other children take me for granted, and they do not consider my contributions if we discuss something as a group” (A2). The attitude of other youths and teachers has been found to make learners from youth-headed households distance themselves from discussions and develop a negative attitude toward schooling. This problem occurred regularly. This confirms Lehto and Eskelinen (2020)’s observation when they indicate that negative peer interaction leads out of school. Motsa and Morojele’s (2017) found that teachers who demean and humiliate vulnerable children do contribute to child drop-out rates because children feel hated and ultimately leave school.

Contrarily a few participants indicated however, that some teachers do not humiliate learners as they encourage them to rather focus on their studies. One participant (A1) excitedly said: “Some teachers encourage me to study and focus on my studies.”

Lack of focus in class

Some youth who participated in this study struggled with focus during their lessons. When questioned about their apathetic attitude in the classroom situation, the participants complained about hunger, and tiredness in having to do household chores. This happened occasionally. One participant (D2) with anguish in the voice said: “Because of hunger, I cannot concentrate in class.” This confirms Gubwe et al.’s (2015) and Jakachira’s (2012) assertions that learners cannot concentrate but sleep in class when they are hungry. Another participant (C1) complained of household responsibilities and angrily said: “I sometimes sleep in class . . .I go to bed late after cooking and cleaning and so lack focus in class. My parents are not there to help me.” This is contrary to the response by (A2) who excitedly with a squeaky voice said: “. . .Even if I go to bed late, I hardly lose focus in class. I try hard to follow what teachers are saying so that I do not forget their presentations.” The differences in these responses indicates that youths from youth-headed households are affected differently by their situations.

Inadequate time to study

It was found that having to do household chores impinges on the youths’ time to focus on their schoolwork. By the time they complete their duties at home, they are exhausted, and they go to bed without having finished their schoolwork. They reported that they cannot cope with having to do household chores. One participant emphatically stated that: “I do not cope . . . have so many house chores” (B1). We also observed them tackling their schoolwork in the morning before classes start. Another one with squeaky voice said: “My responsibility at home is to stay and take care of my young sister’s daughter. . .I do no cope well sometimes. . .” (A1). This is in line with the observation by Nxumalo (2015) that young people’s schoolwork is compromised, as they find it difficult to do both household chores and their schoolwork. Surprisingly, (D2) expressed a contrary view by excitedly saying “With me, responsibilities help me to schedule my activities accordingly. I know when to do my work, even though, I do not want to lie, it is hectic, Yes, you must know how schedule your activities.”

Survival strategies

Survival strategies are very important to enable youths to deal with adverse circumstances and the challenges that they face (Botha, 2014; Pillay & Nesengani, 2006). This is the theme that recurs persistently. The participants in this study indicated that they survive by being resilient, working hard and putting their trust in God. One participant expressed it succinctly by stating “There is nothing that I can do; I only trust in God” (C2). This is in line with the findings by Thwala (2018), who indicates that among other strategies, youths survive because of church, prayer, and support from their family unit. In contrast, (B1) excitedly claimed “I survive by being innovative. I sell sweets and other items. That helps me to make money that I use to survive.” This is in line with the observation by Kurebwa and Kurebwa (2014), who found that children survive by selling family property, getting assistance from childcare organizations, or resorting to dropping out of school. This is supported by Ntuli et al. (2020), who states that youths heading households drop out of school to ensure they take care of their siblings.

The support that youths receive

The participants in the study indicated that they do not receive support from either their home or their school. This is a perennial problem. One of the participants put it succinctly by stating that “There is no one there for you to help you or to protect you, or even to give you a proper support that you need in life” (C1). This finding is in line with the observation by Motsa and Morojele (2016) who indicate that youths who head households are devastated by the proclivity of family members to exclude them. Lack of support may contribute toward making youths feel alienated and lacking a sense of belonging, which is a basic necessity for youth development.

Discussion

This article sought to explore the support that schools provide to youths who head households. Overall, we found that youths who head households had not been officially identified in any of the schools selected, because they did not have lists, and that such youths have various challenges, such as economic constraints, which lead to a lack of school resources and food, which are basic requirements necessary for youth development. The findings are consistent with those of Jakachira (2012), Nyaradzo (2013), and Logic and Simuforosa (2017), who found that youths who head households do not have money, as they attend school in torn uniforms. They are embarrassed and develop a low self-esteem. They are also victims of a lack of understanding and compassion and consequent humiliation from teachers and other youths. This affects the youths who head households with regard to their schoolwork. Furthermore, such youths do not have adequate time to study and are not supported by other stakeholders, such as the school, the extended family, the society, and the government. They are only supported by some of the teachers out of their own volition. Schools should care enough to support them in their daily struggles for survival.

We therefore argue that lack of support for youths who head households adds to the challenges of the adverse circumstances that they are confronted with in their daily struggle for survival. It also affects their development as outlined in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, if the school does not provide a supportive environment that should nurture the development of youths.

It is however important to indicate that even though students from youth headed-households experience various challenges, they do have some assets that they use to be able to survive at school. As evinced by what they said during the study, their assets include creativity, innovation, and resilience, leadership and survival skills. They also have skills in taking care of their siblings and doing household chores which skills are important for their future survival.

Limitations and Future Research

We should, however, indicate that the study had some limitations. Firstly, all the participants were in Grade 12, and we did not interview other stakeholders, such as principals, teachers, and school governing bodies (SGBs). Consequently, we did not get the perspectives of children from other grades and the other stakeholders. Their perspectives could have helped to get more nuanced holistic picture of the phenomenon. Furthermore, their perspectives would also help in developing intervention strategies and policies informed by data constructed from the different stakeholders. Secondly, observations were done within a period of 2 months, at 3 hours a day. This does not give a comprehensive picture of the experiences of youths who head households. However, lack of perspectives from the different stakeholders did not affect the results of this study because we managed to get two students from each of the selected schools. Furthermore, as a qualitative study, we managed to get in-depth understanding of the extent of support that public schools give to youths from youth-headed households.

Future studies

Future studies should focus on the inclusion of different stakeholders on issues related to the support that schools give to youths that head households. There is also a need for studies to look at the reasons for schools’ lack of support, care and policies focusing on youth who head households from different stakeholder perspectives. There is also a need for studies that will focus on the implementation of pro-poor policies in South African public schools that are in poor rural areas.

Conclusion

As already indicated, the study sought to explore the support that schools provide to youths who head households. Despite the limitations as highlighted, the study made a significant and a unique contribution. The contribution is that schools in poor rural areas do not support students from youth-headed households, regardless of the expectation that people in rural areas live a communal life. This study reveals that the situation is not in line with the expectations. Lack of support of youth by schools is also contrary to the Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems’ theory of positive youth development. Based on the data generated from youths who head households, it is evident that they experience challenges that prevent them from achieving their goals. There is little evidence that these youths are supported by their school, their community, and the government. Such youths are heavily burdened by the responsibility of running households, caring for siblings, and completing their basic education. Although the South African government has formulated policies that promote the provision of free basic education, these youths do not enjoy free education. Therefore, the government through the Department of Education should monitor that schools develop and implement the afore-mentioned policies without delay. It also important to note that the students did make suggestions on the solutions to the challenges. Some of the suggestions include assistance from the government, the right to be treated equally, the need for support, and protection from the school. Their hope for success seem to lie in the belief that help will come from the government.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kodi Sannie Maila

Layane Thomas Mabasa

Author Biographies

Kodi Sannie Maila is a secondary school teacher at Shiluvane Circuit in the Limpopo Department of Education and a PhD student at Tshwane University of Technology in South Africa. Her research interests include child-headed households in schools and youth development and leadership.

Layane Thomas Mabasa is a Professor at the University of Limpopo in the Department of Education Studies in South Africa. His research interests include research methodology, school safety and security, school leadership, school governance, programme evaluation, youth and employment and articulation in higher education.

References

Awino

(2010). Life in a child/adolescent headed households: A qualitative study on everyday life experience of children living in child/adolescent headed households in western Kenyan region [MSo dissertation]. Umea University.

Bendit

(2006). Youth sociology and comparative analysis in the European Union member states. Papers Revista de Sociologia, 79, 49–76.

Botha

(2014). The challenges and coping resources of youth heading households in South Africa. Commonwealth Youth and Development, 12(2), 35–48.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531.

Bynner

(2001). British youth transitions in comparative perspective. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(1), 5–23.

Coles

(1995). Youth and social policy: Youth citizenship and young careers. UCL Press.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Department of Social Development. (2008). Quantitative assessment of families in South Africa. Department of Social Development.

10.

Dlungwana

N. E.

(2007). The experiences of children who are heads of households in Hammarsdale. MSocSc (SW) dissertation. University of KwaZulu.

11.

Foster

Makufa

Drew

Kralovec

(1997). Factors leading to the establishment of child-headed households: The case of Zimbabwe. Health Transition Review Supplement, 2(7), 55–168.

12.

Furlong

(2008). The Japanese hikikomori phenomenon: The acute social withdrawal among young people. Sociological Review, 56(2), 309–325.

13.

Gorongo

Moyo

(2013). The lived experiences of adolescent secondary school learners from child-headed households: A case study of Cranborne Boys high school, Harare, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 3(3), 717–726.

14.

Gubwe

Mago

(2015). Child-headed households and educational problems in urban Zimbabwe: The case of Dikwindi primary school in Masvingo Urban. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 6(2), 293–301.

15.

Gumede

E. Z.

(2013). An analysis of health behaviour of children from child headed households in a selected health district in KwaZulu-Natal: An ethnographic study [PhD Thesis]. University of KwaZulu-Natal.

16.

Hall

Meintjies

Sambu

(2015). Demography of South Africa’s children. In De Lannoy

Swartz

Lake

Smith

(Eds.), South African child gauge (pp.102–106). Children’ s Institute, University of Cape Town.

17.

Hall

Mokomane

(2018). The shape of children’s families and households:A democratic overview. In Hall

Richter

Mokomane

Lake

(Eds.), Children, families and the state: Collaboration and contestation. South African child gauge 2018 (pp. 32–45). Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town.

18.

Hayes

O’Toole

Halpenny

A. M.

(2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education. Routledge.

19.

Homan

(1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace and World.

20.

Jakachira

(2012). An exploratory study of the interface of child-headed households and academic performance: A case of primary school students in Beatrice resettlement area, Zimbabwe [Unspecified thesis]. University of Zimbabwe.

21.

Jones

A. C.

(2019). Stigma and shame: Conceptualisations and views concerning service use and health care provision: A literature review and commentary. Journal of Clinical and Medical Research, 2019(1), 1–6.

22.

Kellock

(2020). Children’s well-being in the primary school: A capability approach and community psychology perspective. Childhood, 27(2), 220–237.

23.

Kurebwa

N. Y. G.

(2014). Coping strategies of child-headed households in Bindura urban of Zimbabwe. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 3(11), 236–249.

24.

Lehto

Eskelinen

(2020). ‘Playing makes it fun’ in out-of-school activities: Children’s organised leisure. Childhood, 27(4), 545–561.

25.

Le Roux-Kemp

. (2013). Child headed households in South Africa: The legal and ethical dilemmas when children are the primary caregivers in a therapeutic relationship. In Bray

Mak

(Eds.), People being patients: International, interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1–12). Interdisciplinary Press.

26.

Lesko

(2012). Act your age! The cultural constructing of adolescence (2nd ed.). Routledge.

27.

Logic

Simuforosa

(2017). Orphaned learners and school dropout rate in primary schools: The case of Shurugwi district, Zimbabwe. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(19), 80–88.

28.

Magampa

A. R. M.

(2014). The academic performance of orphaned primary school learners aged between eight and ten years in Mankweng circuit: Limpopo province [MA dissertation]. University of Limpopo.

29.

Maree

Pietersen

(2007). Sampling. In Maree

(Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 172–181). Van Schaik.

30.

Maree

van der Westhuizen

(2007). Planning a research proposal. In Maree

(Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 23–45). Van Schaik.

31.

Marongwe

Sonn

Mashologu

M. W. N.

(2016). Dealing with children from child-headed households: How prepared are the teachers. Journal of Social Science, 48(1–2), 41–50.

32.

Maslow

(1954). Motivation and personality. Harper and Row.

33.

Masondo

(2006). The lived-experiences of orphans in child-headed households in the Bronkhorstspruit area: A psycho-educational approach [MEd Dissertation]. University of Johannesburg.

34.

McMillan

J. H.

Schumacher

(2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.

35.

Meintjes

Hall

Sambu

(2015). Demography of South Africa’s children. (pp. 102–106). Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town. Retrieved, May 5, 2020, from http://www.ci.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image.

36.

Mkhatshwa

(2017). The gendered experiences of children in child-headed households in Swaziland. African Journal of AIDS Research, 16(4), 365–372.

37.

Mogotlane

S. M.

Chauke

M. E.

van Rensburg

G. H.

Human

S. P.

Kganakga

C. M.

(2010). A situational analysis of child-headed households in South Africa. Curationis, 33(3), 24–32.

38.

Mohlakwana

M. A. U.

(2013). Care and support for vulnerable children in schools: The case of child-headed families. Journal of Social Science, 36(1), 11–18.

39.

Motsa

N. D.

Morojele

P. J.

(2016). Vulnerability and children’s real-life schooling experiences in Swaziland. Educational Research for Social Change, 5(2), 35–50.

40.

Motsa

N. D.

Morojele

P. J.

(2017). Vulnerable children speak out: Voices from one rural school in Swaziland. Gender and Behaviour, 15(1), 8085–8104.

41.

Mturi

A. J.

(2012). Child-headed households in South Africa: What we know and what we don’t. Development Southern Africa, 29(3), 506–516.

42.

Mwoma

Pillay

(2015). Psychosocial support for orphans and vulnerable children in public primary schools: Challenges and intervention strategies. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), 1–9.

43.

Nieuwenhuis

(2007). Qualitative research designs and data gathering techniques. In Maree

(Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 69–97). Van Schaik.

44.

Nieuwenhuis

(2016). Analysing qualitative data. In Maree

(Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 104–126). Van Schaik.

45.

Nkosi

S. T.

(2013). The challenges experienced by orphans and vulnerable children from child-headed households in schools located in Newcastle circuit [DEd Thesis]. Tshwane University of Technology.

46.

Ntuli

Sebola

Madiba

(2020). Responding to maternal loss: A phenomenological study of older orphans in youth-headed households in impoverished areas of South Africa. Department of Public Health, School of Health Care Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University.

47.

Nxumalo

T. A.

(2015). Exploring child-headed families: A case study on scholastic experience of learners in a secondary school [MEd dissertation]. University of KwaZulu-Natal.

48.

Nyaradzo

C. V.

(2013). The schooling experiences of secondary school learners from child-headed households in Thulamahashe circuit, Bushbuckridge district, Mpumalanga province [MEd mini-dissertation]. University of South Africa.

49.

Nziyane

L. F.

Alpaslan

A. H.

(2012). The realities of orphaned children living in child-headed households. Social Work, 48(3), 290–307.

50.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

51.

Phuthi

(2014). Investigating the psycho-social needs of orphaned adolescent learners in the context of HIV and AIDS: A case study of a high school in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [MEd dissertation]. University of South Africa.

52.

Pillay

(2016). Problematising child-headed households: The need for children’s participation in early childhood interventions. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 6(1), 8.

53.

Pillay

Nesengani

R. I.

(2006). The educational challenges facing early adolescents who head families in rural Limpopo province. Education as Change, 10(2), 131–147.

54.

Rodat

(2020). Coping with stigma and destigmatizing intervention strategies: An analytical framework. Postmodernism Problems, 10(3), 313–329.

55.

Sawyer

S. M.

Azzopardi

P. S.

Wickremarathne

Patton

G. C.

(2018). The age of adolescence. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(3), 223–228.

56.

Shava

Gunhidzirai

Shava

(2016). Exploring the experiences of young adults emerging from child-headed households in Alice, South Africa. Journal of Human Ecology, 55(12), 92–103.

57.

South Africa. (1996). South African schools act no. 84 of 1996. Government Printer.

58.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.

59.

Thwala

S. K.

(2018). Experiences and coping strategies of children from child-headed households in Swaziland. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(7), 150–158.

60.

Torres

W. J.

Bergner

R. M.

(2010). Humiliation: Its nature and consequences. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 38(2), 195–204.

61.

Woo

Y. Y.

(2012). Age. In Lesko

Talburt

(Eds.), Keywords in youth studies: Tracing affects, movements, knowledges(pp.111–115). Routledge.

62.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.