Online Reporter
Zimbabwe’s task of integrating children returning from South Africa after anti-migrant unrest is, at its heart, a test of how seriously the State treats education as a right — not a privilege.
The Government’s recent instruction to stop schools from demanding performance reports and transfer letters for such children is therefore more than administrative guidance. It is a moral correction: a recognition that families did not abandon their responsibilities out of choice, but out of necessity, and that schooling must not become the next casualty of displacement.
For weeks, reports have suggested that some school heads were reluctant to admit returning learners unless they produced documentation that many parents and guardians could not obtain in the chaos of flight.
In normal circumstances, such requirements are meant to support effective placement — knowing where a child left off, understanding their level, and ensuring continuity. But displacement creates an emergency in which “normal procedures” become barriers. When schools insist on documents that refugees and returnees cannot realistically retrieve, they do not strengthen learning; they postpone it.
And the cost of postponement for children is not abstract. A missing term can become months of lost progress, gaps in foundational learning, and heightened vulnerability — particularly for those who have already been exposed to trauma, instability, and economic hardship.
That is why the Government’s directive to District Schools Inspectors (DSIs) to ensure smooth integration matters.
“No school will be allowed to turn away the children,” as stated by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary
Education’s communications and advocacy director, is not merely a reassurance for affected families; it is a clear signal that the state will not permit displacement to translate into educational exclusion. It also challenges the bureaucracy of documentation culture — the tendency to treat forms and letters as more important than the learner sitting in front of the teacher.
The Government’s emphasis on the Heritage-Based Curriculum (HBC) also offers a potentially useful framework for integration. A standardised curriculum can, in theory, reduce placement anxiety for returning learners and reduce the burden on schools to “figure out where the child belongs” based on external documentation.
If all schools are adopting HBC, then teachers can build learning from the curriculum’s progression rather than relying entirely on a learner’s previous school record. This could promote fairness and consistency — particularly for
learners who were previously in unfamiliar systems or who have no formal documentation to show for their prior learning.
Educationist Miriam Dliwayo’s view — that children will adapt “with ease” given their inquisitive nature and the right encouragement — is comforting, but it should not lead to complacency. Childhood resilience is real, but resilience does not erase trauma.
Children returning from upheaval may be anxious, distracted, or reluctant to speak up. Some may be coping with family separation, loss of income, and long periods of uncertainty. Teachers and school counsellors (where available) must therefore practise not just academic inclusion but social and emotional inclusion. A child who is told, implicitly or explicitly, that they are an administrative burden will eventually internalise that message, regardless of whether a space has been offered.
Still, the success of this integration drive will be measured not by announcements, but by outcomes. Several standards should guide the State and stakeholders going forward.
First, there must be monitoring mechanisms to ensure that directives are actually implemented at school level.
Policies often fail in the gap between headquarters and classroom realities. DSIs must therefore report adherence, and any school found to be obstructing admissions should face consequences. The point is not punishment for its own sake; it is accountability that protects children from bureaucratic gatekeeping.
Second, placement processes should be humane and rapid. The aim should be to enrol first, assess quickly, and support learning aggressively rather than delay admission pending documentation.
Third, resource planning must be realistic. Integrating nearly 100 000 returnees, including children, requires sustained investment in teachers, classroom space, learning materials, and learner support. If schools are overwhelmed in one district, the ministry must reallocate staffing and supplies rather than expecting local schools to absorb pressure alone.
Fourth, the State should promote community and peer support. The Government has acknowledged communities for supporting reintegration. That acknowledgement should translate into programmes: mentorship, community-school liaison, and teacher sensitisation on trauma-informed practices and anti-stigma approaches. Integration is easier when learners and parents feel the community is welcoming and the school is not merely complying.
Finally, this editorial must emphasise a broader principle: the education system cannot pretend that displacement is temporary. Even if unrest in South Africa eventually stabilises, there will likely be future waves of movement in the region. Zimbabwe’s ability to integrate displaced children smoothly will therefore determine how resilient the education system is in the face of regional shocks. In that sense, current reforms should become lessons for long-term policy: documentation-flexible admissions, emergency learner support protocols, and cross-sector co-ordination.
In the end, the Government’s instruction to stop demanding reports and transfer letters is a decisive step toward protecting children’s right to schooling. But the directive must be matched by capacity — teachers, resources, assessment strategies, and psychosocial support — so that the phrase “no school will be allowed to turn away the children” becomes a lived reality. Zimbabwe has an opportunity now to demonstrate that when families are displaced through circumstances beyond their control, the state responds not with paperwork barriers, but with humane, effective inclusion.
derick.khumalo