VOLUNTARY organisations caring for extremely mentally handicapped chil­dren have asked the Western Cape High Court to order the province - and the central government - to increase the subsidy paid for educating the children.

These children are so handicapped that they do not attend any state school at all, but are educated by charities.

The Western Cape Forum for Intel­lectual Disability, which is represented by the Legal Resources Centre, asked the court to order the state and the province to take steps to ensure that these children have access to a basic education of adequate quality.

Special schools built and funded by the state cater for the needs of children who are classified as having moderate to mild intellectual disabilities, or children with IQ levels of between 35 and 70.

Children with an IQ under 35 are considered to be severely or profoundly intellectually disabled and they are not admitted to special schools, or to any other state schools.

Instead, the forum argued, the province left the provision of education to the members of the forum - voluntary organisations which ran special care cen­tres. There are 1 000 of these children attending school at these centres, The government provided a limited subsidy to those centres. The forum said the state provided the special care centres with a subsidy that was inadequate in relation to the educational needs of such children and was less than the contribution it made to the education of children who were not so disabled.

In the Western Cape, the Department of Health paid an annual subsidy of R5 092 a child for children with severe or profound intellectual disabilities who at­tended special care centres, while the province spent R6 632 a year on each child attending a mainstream school. The province also spent R26 000 a child each year on children with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities who attended special schools.

The forum argued the state provision for children with severe or profound in­tellectual disabilities was therefore much less than was provided for other children, was inadequate to cater for the children's educational needs and was only made available where a nongovernmental organisation provided such facilities.

The state argued that the parents of the children concerned should educate them at home and that such children did not necessarily need specially qualified teachers and other staff.

The forum's advocates, Geoff Budlender SC and Elsa van Huyssteen, argued that the state's attitude required the par­ents, who were are already under severe strain, to take on the additional burden of the state's responsibility to provide an education to these children.

The court reserved judgment.

By Ernest Mabuza