В Гаутенге потратили 1,45 млрд рандов на 3136 мобильных классов вместо строительства постоянных школ

Story audio is generated using AI The Gauteng department of education has spent R1.45bn on more than 3,000 mobile classrooms and ablution facilities in the past five years, and contends it is cheaper to provide temporary structures than to build brick-and-mortar ones. The money used on the facilities could have built about 400 classrooms. This was revealed by Gauteng education MEC Lebogang Maile in response to the DA in the legislature. “This [the R1.45bn spent] could be compared to building eight to 10 schools with cumulatively under 400 classrooms at an average cost of R175m per school,” said Maile. He confirmed 3,136 mobile classrooms were in use across the province’s districts. Tshwane South had the most, with 313 mobile classrooms and ablution facilities, while the fewest were recorded in Johannesburg West, with 61. Maile said 38 unique service providers were used. Thobilem Building Construction was the most-used contractor, which cost the department R227.2m, followed by Singo Investment Holdings, which was paid R103.5m, and Afri-Cabin Building Systems, which was paid R97.5m. This [the R1.45bn spent] could be compared to building eight to 10 schools with cumulatively under 400 classrooms at an average cost of R175m per school. — Gauteng education MEC Lebogang Maile During a media briefing in April, Maile said the provision of temporary mobile classrooms and ablutions was aimed at dealing with overcrowding in public schools within the province, where pupil numbers have doubled since 1994. “In 1995, the province had 1.4-million pupils in its schools, a number that has increased to 2.8-million as of 2026,” he said. Maile said the province was short of 200 schools which would cost R35bn. “Our budget currently is R70bn, and R52bn of that money goes to salaries of teachers and R8bn to schools directly. That’s one of the things that causes problems in schools,” he said. The DA has raised concerns about the “overreliance” on temporary infrastructure. “It raises serious questions about why the department would invest such a staggering sum of money in temporary infrastructure that has consistently failed to offer a safe, dignified and conducive learning environment that permanent schools provide,” said Sergio Isa Dos Santos, DA MPL and spokesperson on education in Gauteng. Dos Santos said the scale of mobile classroom allocations to individual schools is particularly concerning. “Tshepong Secondary School received 45 mobile classrooms. Obed Nkosi Secondary School received 42 and Kutmela Molefe Satellite School received 31. “When a school requires 30-45 mobile classrooms, temporary infrastructure is no longer temporary. It becomes a permanent substitute for proper long-term infrastructure planning.” According to Dos Santos, the spending demands scrutiny. “While the department disclosed service providers and payments, it has not disclosed the cost per classroom or separated classroom and ablution expenditure, making it difficult to assess value for money.” Sowetan