IN A recent interview with this newspaper's estimable Chris Barron, Gauteng's member of the executive council for education, Barbara Creecy, attempted to justify the state's aim to cripple the governing bodies of former Model C schools.

The initial intention of the Schools Act was to enable parents and government to enter into equal partnerships in the administration of these schools. Parents would contribute fees, time and effort. Last year parents provided almost R10.5-billion in fees at 3200 former Model C schools.

Teachers and principals are in some cases provided with incentives, supplied by parents, above their salaries, to which Creecy objects and which were rendered illegal in a government notice issued last month.

Barron put it to her that as parents "make a financial sacrifice" they should surely be entitled to involvement in school administration, including staff incentives. Creecy responded: "These are not quasi-private schools where parents can make any determination."

Then came a most revealing exchange. Barron asked Creecy: "Even if it's their money?"

Creecy answered: "Well, half of it is our money."

Really, madam? Where do you think that what you call "our money" comes from? It comes from the taxpayers, including those same parents who pay such taxes in addition to the R10.5-billion they shelled out last year in fees.

Creecy's attitude is most instructive with regard to the approach of our ruling political elite and civil servants to the nature of the money which flows into the state's coffers from the private sector.

Does she not understand that government creates no wealth whatsoever? Every penny that government has is extorted from taxpayers. It is not what you call "our" money. It is money which belongs to the people who pay it over to you to employ in their interests.

That large dollops of our hard-earned money are blown away on luxury vehicles, fancy hotels, chartered jets, obscenely grand houses and other excesses together with costly gross incompetence and endemic corruption is one thing.

But it is another entirely when an ANC grandee such as Creecy advises parents that they may not have a say in the affairs of their kids' schools because "our" money is employed to finance them.

Apparently it is not only the remuneration of staff that the state wishes to control. It also wants to remove parental influence in the choice of principals. It is reasonable to assume that committed and interested parents are probably better judges of teaching talent than are those serving in a government which saw fit to do away with teacher training colleges and blessed our children with that disastrous system known as outcomes-based education.

However, we must not forget the imperatives of cadre deployment. No doubt there are loyal cadres out there yearning to be principals of decent schools, but their way has been blocked by those pesky parents who pay taxes plus R10.5-billion in fees to ensure professional leadership for their kids.

More confusion is added to this mess by the open clash between Minister of Basic Education Angie Motshekga and the National Development Plan (NDP) of Trevor Manuel, whose current title I cannot remember.

Manuel's NDP, aside from wishing to magically create 11 million jobs, makes sensible recommendations about education, calling for competency tests for teachers, performance-based pay and the non-interference of unions in the appointment and promotion of teachers and officials.

Motshekga responded: "Areas in the plan are not informed by reality. It's things you want in your ideal world. It's not done anywhere else." Testing teachers, said the SA Democratic Teachers' Union, would be an "insult" leading to even lower morale.

At the Durban High School 60-odd years ago inspectors would arrive unannounced to observe our teachers at work. They never, ever struck.