The question of which kind of education might be most appropriate to African rural development or the African poor has exercised the minds of stakeholders and the South African government for some time, particularly in the new dispensation. To a large extent, rural areas have been neglected in development policies and, similarly, the rural dimension of basic education issues has been largely overlooked. Basic facts, presented and discussed in this mini – dissertation, highlight this oversight and indicate why it is necessary to attend to rural education as a matter of urgency. The research results affirm that the education of Black people in rural areas was, in most instances, negatively affected by previous White government policies. Insufficient funding also had a negative impact on rural schools in particular, making infrastructural provision in rural areas extremely difficult. The research findings of this study point to the singular conclusion that the great majority of children in poor rural communities are receiving less than is their right in a democratic South Africa. Worse still is the fact that this will have a long term effect on their opportunities for development, their capabilities and their lives. Moreover, the communities in which they live will continue to suffer the debilitating effects of poverty and inequality for as long as these problems remain. There is hope for the future of neglected communities in the rural areas of the Limpopo Province only if the vision/dream to improve the quality of education in rural areas across South Africa were to be realized. The provision of well built and well maintained school buildings and other facilities, coupled with a comprehensive curriculum, is only the beginning of the realization of this dream. Based on these research findings and the implications they have for rural education in the Limpopo province, several recommendations with regard to rural education are presented as a conclusion to this study. / Dissertation (MEd)--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Education Management and Policy Studies / MEd / Unrestricted

In an effort to reduce the cost and size of government public service delivery has become more decentralized, flexible and responsive. Public entrepreneurship entailed, among other things, the establishment of special-purpose governments to finance public services and carry out development projects. Community Development Districts (CDDs) are a type of special-purpose governments whose purpose is to manage and finance infrastructure improvements in the State of Florida. They have important implications for the way both growth management and service delivery occur in the United States. This study examined the role of CDDs for growth management policy and service delivery by analyzing the CDD profile and activity, the contribution of CDDs to the growth management and infrastructure development as well as the way CDD perceived pluses and minuses impact service delivery. The study used a mixed methods research approach, drawing on secondary data pertaining to CDD features and activity, semi-structured interviews with CDD representatives and public officials as well as on a survey of public officials within the counties and cities that have established CDDs. Findings indicated that the CDD institutional model is both a policy and a service delivery tool for infrastructure provision that can be adopted by states across the United States. Results showed that CDDs inhibit rather than foster growth management through their location choices, type and pattern of development. CDDs contributed to the infrastructure development in Florida by providing basic infrastructure services for the development they supported and by building and dedicating facilities to general-purpose governments. Districts were found to be both funding mechanisms and management tools for infrastructure services. The study also pointed to the fact that specialized governance is more responsive and more flexible but less effective than general-purpose governance when delivering services. CDDs were perceived as being favorable for developers and residents and not as favorable for general-purpose governments. Overall results indicated that the CDD is a flexible institutional mechanism for infrastructure delivery which has both advantages and disadvantages. Decision-makers should balance districts’ institutional flexibility with their unintended consequences for growth management when considering urban public policies.