Report-00-08-04July2020 The Impact of Covid On Education

Private Bag X44, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa, ISIbalo House, Koch Street, Salvokop, Pretoria, 0002
www.statssa.gov.za, info@statssa.gov.za, Tel +27 12 310 8911
Social impact of COVID-19 (Wave 3):

Mobility, Migration, and Education
in South Africa
Embargoed until:
27 July 2020
10:30
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA ii
Social impact of COVID-19 (Wave 3): Mobility, Migration, and Education in South Africa / Statistics
South Africa
Published by Statistics South Africa, Private Bag X44, Pretoria 0001
© Statistics South Africa, 2020

Users may apply or process this data, provided Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) is acknowledged as the
original source of the data; that it is specified that the application and/or analysis is the result of the user's
independent processing of the data; and that neither the basic data nor any reprocessed version or application
thereof may be sold or offered for sale in any form whatsoever without prior permission from Stats SA.
Stats SA Library Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) Data

Social impact of COVID-19 (Wave 3): Mobility, Migration, and Education in South Africa / Statistics South
Africa. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa, 2020
Report no. 00-80-04

32 pp
ISBN 978-0-621-48636-0
A complete set of Stats SA publications is available at Stats SA Library and the following libraries:
National Library of South Africa, Pretoria Division

National Library of South Africa, Cape Town Division
Library of Parliament, Cape Town
Bloemfontein Public Library
Natal Society Library, Pietermaritzburg
Johannesburg Public Library
Eastern Cape Library Services, King William’s Town
Central Regional Library, Polokwane
Central Reference Library, Mbombela
Central Reference Collection, Kimberley
Central Reference Library, Mmabatho
This report is available on the Stats SA website: www.statssa.gov.za
Enquiries on Mobility and Migration

Diego Iturralde
Tel: 082 413 2661
Email: diegoi@statssa.gov.za
Princelle Dasappa-Venketsamy
Tel: 079 699 3579
Email: princelled@statssa.gov.za
Enquiries on Education
Dr Seble Worku
Tel: 082 884 3366
Email: seblew@statssa.gov.za
Social impact of COVID-19 (Wave 3): Mobility, Migration, and Education in South Africa, Report 00-80-04
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ v
KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................... vii
MOBILITY ..................................................................................................................................................... vii
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ................................................................................................................... vii
EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................. vii
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
General survey information ........................................................................................................................... 1
Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the sample .................................................................... 2
Spatial distribution of the respondents in the sample during the national lockdown ..................................... 3
2. FINDINGS ON MOBILITY WITHIN SOUTH AFRICA.................................................................................. 3
Change of provincial residence during lockdown .......................................................................................... 3
Inter-provincial travel during the national lockdown ...................................................................................... 4
Reason for inter-provincial travel ................................................................................................................... 5
3. FINDINGS ON INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION .......................................................................................... 5
Categorisation of migrant groups .................................................................................................................. 5
Country of birth .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Reason for remaining in South Africa at the start of the lockdown ............................................................... 7
Remittances ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Employment status ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Vulnerability framework ............................................................................................................................... 10
4. EDUCATION .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Education before lockdown ......................................................................................................................... 12
Education during lockdown .......................................................................................................................... 13
Structured programmes and support ........................................................................................................... 14
Technology .................................................................................................................................................. 16
5. CHILDREN’S WELLBEING ....................................................................................................................... 19
Return to school ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Safe for children to return to school ............................................................................................................. 21
6. TIME USE ................................................................................................................................................... 23
7. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 23
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: General survey information .............................................................................................................. 1
Table 1.2: Distribution of the respondents in the sample, by demographic characteristics .............................. 2
Table 1.3: Spatial distribution of the respondents in the sample during lockdown ........................................... 3
Table 2.1: Percentage distribution of respondents who changed their provincial residence during
lockdown ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Table 3.1: Distribution of the sample by migration status .................................................................................. 6
Table 3.2: Rationale for selection of vulnerability indicators ........................................................................... 11
Table 3.3: Percentage distribution of respondents by migration status and vulnerability indicators ............... 11
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Percentage distribution of respondents who travelled across provincial boundaries during
lockdown ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.2: Percentage distribution of respondents by reason for inter-provincial travel during lockdown ....... 5
Figure 3.1: Categorisation of the population by migration status ...................................................................... 6
Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of the respondents who are migrants by country of birth .......................... 6
Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of migrant respondents by reason for remaining in SA during the
lockdown ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of migrants who remitted during lockdown ................................................ 8
Figure 3.5: Percentage distribution of migrants by amount remitted during lockdown compared to amount
remitted before lockdown................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3.6: Percentage distribution of migrants by reason for not remitting during lockdown compared to
amount remitted before lockdown ..................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.7: Percentage distribution of employment status of the respondents, aged 18–64 .......................... 10
Figure 4.1: Percentage distribution of respondents by number of children in the household who were
attending educational institutions before the start of the lockdown ................................................................. 12
Figure 4.2: Percentage distribution of respondents by the number of children in the household and
educational institutions attended before the start of the lockdown .................................................................. 12
Figure 4.3: Percentage distribution of respondents by the number of children in the household and type
of educational institution attended before the start of the lockdown ............................................................... 13
Figure 4.4: Percentage distribution of respondents by participation in home schooling during the
lockdown .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4.5: Percentage distribution of respondents by primary person who supervises home learning
during the lockdown ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4.6: Percentage distribution of respondents by school activities during the lockdown ........................ 15
Figure 4.7: Percentage distribution of respondents by type of the Department of Basic Education
educational materials used during the lockdown ............................................................................................. 15
Figure 4.8: Percentage distribution of respondents by assistance received during the lockdown .................. 16
Figure 4.9: Percentage distribution of respondents by tools available for home learning ............................... 16
Figure 4.10: Percentage distribution of respondents who share tools available for home learning ................ 17
Figure 4.11: Percentage distribution of respondents with children in households with limited access to a
computer or tablet at home to do school work ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 4.12: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to internet for educational purposes ......... 18
Figure 4.13: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to internet fast enough to stream
videos............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4.14: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to enough data to complete their online
learning ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5.1: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to a quiet area where they can focus on
school work ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA vi
Figure 5.2: Percentage distribution of respondents with children who experienced difficulty with the
amount of school work and who felt anxious at home ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 5.3: Percentage distribution of respondents who think that it was not safe for their children to
attend school ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5.4: Percentage distribution of respondents by reasons given why it was not safe for children to
attend school ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 5.5: Percentage distribution of respondents by return date to school and readiness of schools to
receive children ................................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 6.1: Percentage distribution of respondents by type of activities spent by children during the
lockdown .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA vii
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings of the Wave 3 survey on the impact of COVID-19 on mobility, migration and education,
conducted by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) between 17 June and 4 July 2020, were:
MOBILITY
 Change in residence: About six per cent of respondents changed their provincial residence during the
national lockdown. Of these respondents, the highest proportion moved during the few days between the
announcement of the lockdown and the start of the lockdown. Regarding the reason for move, about one
quarter of respondents indicated that they wanted to be closer to their family or friends.
 Inter-provincial travel: Approximately 12% of respondents indicated that they travelled across provincial
boundaries since the start of the national lockdown. More than a quarter of these respondents indicated
that they crossed provincial boundaries to attend funerals, while about 15% of respondents travelled to
provide essential services, and approximately 13% travelled for non-essential work or business related
travel. About 15% of respondents travelled to visit family or friends.
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
 Migrant respondents: About 90% of the respondents indicated that they were born in South Africa (non-
migrants), whilst about nine per cent were international migrants (respondents indicated that they were
born outside South Africa).
 Remittances: About 18% of migrants remitted during lockdown. About one-third of migrant respondents
indicated that they remitted a smaller amount than they usually do. More than one-fifth of migrant
respondents indicated that they did not remit during lockdown because they could not afford to send
money.
 Employment: A much larger percentage of migrant respondents (22,5%) were unemployed as compared
to non-migrants (9%). The report emphasizes the important role of mobility and migration in the South
African economy.
 Vulnerability: Results from the vulnerability framework show that migrant respondents were generally
more vulnerable than non-migrant respondents.
EDUCATION
 Education before lockdown: Overall, more than nine-tenths of respondents indicated that their children
were attending educational institutions before the start of the lockdown. The majority of the respondents
(close to 73%) also said their children were participating in home schooling during the lockdown.
 Technology: Most of the children used educational material sent by the school through
WhatsApp/email/D6 for home learning. More than three-quarters (75,9%) of respondents indicated that
children had smart phones that could be used for home learning although many children had to share
these devices with other users.
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA viii
 Children’s wellbeing: Only about one-quarter of respondents (25,7%) felt that it was safe for the children
to return to school. Four-tenths (42,7%), however, felt that schools were ready to reopen after the
lockdown.
 Time use: More than two-thirds (68,5%) of respondents strongly agreed that children spent more time
watching television during the lockdown than usual, while close to 60% of respondents strongly agreed
that children spent more time on the internet during the lockdown than usual. Furthermore, half of the
respondents strongly agreed that children spent more time playing video games during the lockdown than
usual.
STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact worldwide. The pandemic reached South Africa later
than most of the world, but despite the delay, it has still had a wide-reaching impact on all South Africans. The
president declared a state of national disaster on 23 March 2020. The lockdown, which was implemented on
26 March 2020 to prevent new infections, has influenced all residents and Statistics South Africa (Stats SA)
has embarked on a series of three online surveys to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
individuals in the country. Any person aged 18 years and older and who was present in South Africa during
the national lockdown was able to participate and complete the survey.
The purpose of the surveys is to provide information that could be used by government and other service
providers, to better understand the impact of the pandemic and to devise interventions to assist the population.
This publication will be reporting on the third and final round of the survey (Wave 3), which focused on
education, mobility and migration. Data collection for Wave 3 occurred during level 3 of the national lockdown
between 17 June and 4 July 2020.
The first round (Wave 1) focused on health-related issues, specifically on behaviour, knowledge and
perceptions around COVID-19 and the results were published on 30 April 2020 (download
http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=Report-00-80-02). The second round (Wave 2) focused on
employment and income around COVID-19 and the results were published on 20 May 2020 (download
http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=Report-00-80-03).
General survey information

Table 1.1 provides the general information about the Wave 3 survey, including details on the survey objectives,
sample, selection criteria, the number of respondents, collection period and limitations.
Table 1.1: General survey information
Survey Information
Survey objective To provide information on the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on mobility, migration
and education in South Africa
Sample Non-probability, convenience sample
Selection criteria Any person aged 18 years and older and who was present in South Africa during the national
lockdown was able to participate and complete the survey
Number of respondents 1 323
Collection period 17 June–4 July 2020
Limitations This survey used a non-probability sample and respondents who chose to respond to this
survey are not representative of the entire South African population. The results can,
therefore, not be generalised to the entire South African population.
Despite the limitations, convenience sampling was selected since it provides a quick,
convenient and affordable way to gather data, particularly during a period where face-to-
face visits are not possible.
Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the sample

The distribution and number of respondents by demographic characteristics (sex, population group, and age)
are presented in Table 1.2. The survey sample largely consisted of females (56,2%), while six-tenths (61,3%)
were black Africans, and one-quarter (25,1%) were white (25,1%). Coloureds (7,3%), Indian/Asians (4,2%)
and unspecified population groups (2,1%) comprised the rest. The highest proportion of respondents were
aged between 35 and 44 (36,0%), while 23,9% were younger than 35 years of age.
Table 1.2: Distribution of the respondents in the sample, by demographic characteristics
Demographic characteristic Number of respondents Percentage

Sex
Male 572 43,2
Female 744 56,2
Other/ Unspecified 7 0,5
Population group
Black African 811 61,3
Coloured 96 7,3
Indian/Asian 56 4,2
White 332 25,1
Other/ Unspecified 28 2,1
Age cohort
18–34 316 23,9
35–44 476 36,0
45–54 375 28,3
55–64 128 9,7
65–74 22 1,7
75 and older 6 0,5
South Africa 1 323 100,0
Spatial distribution of the respondents in the sample during the national lockdown
The number of respondents and their provincial distribution are presented in Table 1.3. The majority of
respondents (53,4%) resided in Gauteng during the national lockdown, followed by 12,8% in Western Cape
and 6,9% in Eastern Cape.
Table 1.3: Spatial distribution of the respondents in the sample during lockdown
Province Number of respondents Percentage

Western Cape 170 12,8
Eastern Cape 91 6,9
Northern Cape 26 2,0
Free State 54 4,1
KwaZulu-Natal 58 4,4
North West 53 4,0
Gauteng 706 53,4
Mpumalanga 45 3,4
Limpopo 46 3,5
Unspecified 74 5,6
South Africa 1 323 100,0
2. FINDINGS ON MOBILITY WITHIN SOUTH AFRICA

This section analyses the response from the respondents in the survey regarding mobility within South Africa
during the national lockdown.
Change of provincial residence during lockdown

Respondents were asked if they moved from one province to another after the national lockdown was
announced, the timing of their move, as well as the reason for the move. Table 2.1 indicates that about six per
cent of respondents changed their provincial residence during the national lockdown. Of these respondents,
the highest proportion moved during the few days between the announcement of the lockdown and the start
of the lockdown and more than a third of these respondents moved during May 2020. Regarding the reason
for move, about one quarter of respondents indicated that they wanted to be closer to their family or friends.
About twenty per cent of respondents attributed their move due to returning to their usual provinces of
residence.
Table 2.1: Percentage distribution of respondents who changed their provincial residence during lockdown
Provincial residence during lockdown Percentage

Change of provincial residence during lockdown
Yes 5,9
No 94,1
Period of move
In the few days between the announcement and the start of the lockdown 43,3
During April 2020 4,5

During May 2020 35,8
Since the beginning of June 16,4
Reason for move
I returned to my usual province of residence after spending the initial lockdown period in
another province 19,1
I wanted to be closer to family/friends 25,0
I did not feel safe in the province I usually live 4,4
It is cheaper to live here 1,5
Healthcare is better here 2,9
Other 47,1
Inter-provincial travel during the national lockdown

Respondents were asked if they travelled across provincial boundaries during the national lockdown. This
question is different to the one discussed in Table 2.1 as that question involves a change in residence. This
question deals with traveling across the province for purposes other than a change in residence. Figure 2.1
indicates that twelve per cent of respondents indicated that they did travel across provincial boundaries since
the inception of the national lockdown.
Figure 2.1: Percentage distribution of respondents who travelled across provincial boundaries during
lockdown
Yes
12%
No
88%
Reason for inter-provincial travel

Figure 2.2 illustrates that more than one-quarter (25,6%) of respondents that travelled across provincial
boundaries did so to attend a funeral. An equal percentage (about 15% each) of respondents travelled to
provide essential services, or to visit family or friends, whilst about 13% travelled for non-essential work or
business related travel.
Figure 2.2: Percentage distribution of respondents by reason for inter-provincial travel during
lockdown
Other 31,8
To visit family or friends 14,7
To attend a funeral 25,6
Other work or business related travel 13,2
To provide essential services 14,7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage
3. FINDINGS ON INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

This section focuses on international migration, and provides results on employment, remittances and
vulnerability. During a pandemic, livelihoods are affected and income-generating activities are reduced. As
migrants are already a vulnerable group, therefore the COVID-19 lockdown could further impede migrants.
This impact is far-reaching and goes beyond simply disrupting migrants’ earnings. It would also have a
negative impact on the families and communities who depend on migrants’ support through remittances.
Categorisation of migrant groups

In this section, lifetime migrants and non-migrants are compared. A lifetime international migrant is a person
who was born in a different country than the one they reside in. While a non-migrant was born in South Africa,
migrants are persons who resided in South Africa, but who were born in another country. This is presented in
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Categorisation of the population by migration status
Born in
Non-migrant
South Africa
Populations
Born outside
Migrant
South Africa
Table 3.1 shows that more than less than one-tenth (9,2%) of respondents were born outside South Africa.
Table 3.1: Distribution of the sample by migration status
Number of respondents Percentage

Non-migrant 1 129 90,8
Migrant 115 9,2
Country of birth
The foreign born respondents’ countries of birth are presented in Figure 3.2. The figure shows that almost half
of lifetime migrants were born in Zimbabwe (22,6%) and Europe (22,6%), while 10,4% were born in either the
Democratic Republic of Congo and other countries. One-third of respondents were born in countries that are
part of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Other areas featured were South
America, North America, the rest of Africa (outside the SADC region) and Asia.
Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of the respondents who are migrants by country of birth
Oceania 0,9
Zambia 0,9
Kenya 0,9
Botswana 0,9
Asia 1,7
Tanzania 1,7
Congo, Republic 2,6
Rest of Africa 3,5
North America 4,3
South America 4,3
Namibia 6,1
Lesotho 6,1
Other 10,4
Congo, Democratic Republic 10,4
Europe 22,6
Zimbabwe 22,6
0 5 10 15 20 25
N = 115 Percentage
Reason for remaining in South Africa at the start of the lockdown

The reasons why migrant respondents remained in South Africa rather than return to their countries of birth
when the lockdown was announced is presented in Figure 3.3. More than four-fifths (82%) of migrant
respondents considered South Africa as their home, while 11% felt that the COVID-19 pandemic was global
and that they would still be at risk, regardless of whether they moved. Five per cent of migrant respondents
indicated that they were concerned that if they left South Africa they would be unable to re-enter South Africa,
when they wanted to.
Figure 3.3: Percentage distribution of migrant respondents by reason for remaining in SA during the
lockdown
1%
1% 11%
SA is my residence now
5%
I was concerned that I would not
be able to re-enter SA
It was too expensive
I was unable to get the logistics

in place in time
I would have been affected
wherever I went
82%
Remittances
Remittances are very often an important source of income for sending families, and any changes in the amount
of remittances they receive will have a direct impact on the food security status, health and wellbeing of families
in the countries of origin. The lockdown has, however, limited the amount of money migrants can remit while
also preventing the sending of physical goods across borders due to the closure of the country’s borders. Less
than one-fifth (18%) of migrant respondents continued to remit during the lockdown. This is presented in Figure
3.4.
Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of migrants who remitted during lockdown
Yes
18%
No
82%
Figure 3.5 illustrates that very similar percentages of migrants remitted: a smaller amount (31%); the same
amount (32%) and a larger amount (37%) than they usually did.
Figure 3.5: Percentage distribution of migrants by amount remitted during lockdown compared to
amount remitted before lockdown
Larger amount Smaller amount

37% 31%
Same amount
32%
Figure 3.6 shows that 58,6% of migrants who did not remit money have never done so, while 21,8% could not
afford to do so during lockdown. A small proportion of migrants indicated that they did not remit money because
they could not use the usual channels through which they used to remit.
Figure 3.6: Percentage distribution of migrants by reason for not remitting during lockdown compared
to amount remitted before lockdown
Other reason 18,4
I could not send back money through the usual channels 1,1
I could not afford to send money 21,8
I have never remitted money 58,6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage
Employment status
While the COVID-19 pandemic is having a far-reaching impact on the health of individuals, the national
lockdown is also affecting the economy and the labour market. The impact of the pandemic on the economy
and the labour market is likely to continue for some time into the future. South Africa was already in a technical
recession before the national lockdown and the lockdown will lead to further contraction and job losses. While
many businesses were, and remain closed, some had to cut back on their hours of operation leading to lay-
offs and a reduction of working hours and wages for many individuals. By contrast, some individuals continue
to work as usual, either physically or remotely. The aim of this section is to assess the impact of COVID-19 on
some aspects of the labour market. It should be noted that the sample is not representative of the larger
population as it is a non-probability sample.
Figure 3.7 compares the employment status of migrant and non-migrant respondents. A higher percentage of
non-migrants (77,3%) than migrants (51,4%) were employed on a full time basis. Inversely, 22,5% of migrants
were unemployed compared to 9% of non-migrants. A higher proportion of migrants were employed in the
informal sector, or were self-employed. Employment in the informal sector is largely an unprotected sector,
with little or no safety nets. In a time such as any pandemic, those involved in the informal sector may be left
more vulnerable without access to Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF), and may operate on the “no work,
no pay” basis.
Figure 3.7: Percentage distribution of employment status of the respondents, aged 18–64
51,4
Employed: full time
77,3
7,2
Employed: Informal sector/part time
2,6
11,7
Self-employed
5,1
Migrant
22,5
Unemployed Non-migrant
9,0
6,3
Full-time student
3,0
0,9
Retired/ Home duties
3,1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percentage
Vulnerability framework
Identifying and targeting those most vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, as well as those most likely to be
affected by the pandemic, is key to slowing the spread of the virus. The questionnaire included six variables
relevant to vulnerability and was used to create a vulnerability framework for respondents. Vulnerability was
considered in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indicators included population aged sixty years and older,
unemployment, participation in the informal sector/ working part-time, living in an informal dwelling/ shack, a
household member with a chronic condition and living in a crowded household (a household with six people
or more); or settlement. Table 3.2 provides the rationale for the selection of the vulnerability indicators.
Table 3.2: Rationale for selection of vulnerability indicators
Vulnerability indicator Rationale

i. Population aged sixty years All age cohorts are at risk of contracting COVID-19. However, older people face
and older substantial risk of developing severe illness if they contract the virus. This is due to
physiological reasons that are associated with ageing, such as increased morbidity
and underlying health conditions.
ii. Unemployed Persons who are unemployed may have limited finances to be able to eat nutritious
meals, buy medication and access healthcare.
iii. Informal sector/ part time Persons who are working in the informal sector or part time may be unable to work
during the lockdown. They may have limited finances to be able to eat nutritious
meals, buy medication and access healthcare.
iv. Informal dwelling/ shack Persons living in informal dwellings may have to share water points and sanitation
facilities with others, which may make them more vulnerable to contracting COVID-
19.
v. Household member with a Persons with chronic conditions may be more at risk with developing more serious
chronic condition symptoms.
vi. Crowded households (6+) Persons living in crowded households may not be able to self-isolate where
necessary. They may also not be able to keep the necessary distance from each
other.
Table 3.3 indicates that migrant respondents were generally more vulnerable than non-migrant respondents
in four areas. These four areas were age, issues related to employment such as being unemployed, or
participation in the informal sector as well as living in informal dwellings or shacks. Non-migrants (or those
born in South Africa) were more vulnerable in one indicator (respondents indicating that a household member
had a chronic condition). Responses were similar with migrants and non-migrants with regards to living in
crowded households.
Table 3.3: Percentage distribution of respondents by migration status and vulnerability indicators
Non-migrant Migrant
i. Population aged 60 and older 5,7 7,8
ii. Unemployed 9,0 22,5
iii. Informal sector/ part time 2,6 7,2
iv. Informal dwelling/ shack 3,0 4,5
v. Household member with chronic condition 47,4 28,9
vi. Crowded household (6+) 16,1 15,2
4. EDUCATION
Education before lockdown
Figure 4.1 indicates that the majority of respondents (90,9%) had children who were attending educational
institutions before the start of the lockdown period. Among households that only had one child, 86,1% were
attending school while 94,4% of households with five children and more were attending school before the start
of the lockdown.
Figure 4.1: Percentage distribution of respondents by number of children in the household who were
attending educational institutions before the start of the lockdown
Attending Not attending
100 5,6
13,9 6,9 7,6 9,1
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10 86,1 93,1 92,4 100,0 94,4 90,9
0
One child Two Children Three Children Four children Five or more Total
children
Approximately 45% of respondents had children who were attending primary school before the start of the
lockdown, while approximately one-third (32,3%) attended secondary schools. This is presented in Figure 4.2.
educational institutions attended before the start of the lockdown
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Two Three Four Five or more
One child Total
Children Children children children
Other 5,7 1,4 0,8 3,2 0,0 2,4
Home based 0,0 0,4 0,4 0,0 3,2 0,4
Secondary 41,3 27,9 31,1 33,9 29,0 32,3
Primary 38,4 48,1 44,5 46,8 45,2 44,7
Pre-school 14,6 22,2 23,2 16,1 22,6 20,2
Figure 4.3 shows that close to two-thirds (64,3%) of respondents had children who attended public schools
while 35,7% had children who attended private schools. Five out seven of respondents (71,5%) in a household
had three children who attended public schools.
type of educational institution attended before the start of the lockdown
Public school Private school
100
90 15,2
21,4
28,5
80 35,8 35,7
43,0
70
Percentage
60
50
40 84,8
78,6
71,5
30 64,2 64,3
57,0
20
10
0
children
Education during lockdown

Figure 4.4 shows that the majority of respondents (72,9%) said that their children were participating in home
schooling during the lockdown. Among respondents whose children attended public schools, 67,1% reported
that their children participated in home schooling compared to 83,5% of those with children in private schools.
Figure 4.4: Percentage distribution of respondents by participation in home schooling during the
lockdown
Home schooling during lockdown No home schooling during lockdown Do not know
100
90 16,5
26,2
80 31,7
70
Percentage
60
50
40 83,5
72,9
67,1
30
20
10
0
Public school Private school Total
The majority of the respondents indicated that mothers were the primary supervisors who were guiding the
learners during home education while approximately 20% of respondents indicated that fathers and mothers
were involved equally in the supervision of learners. About 2,6% of respondents indicated that nobody
supervised the learners during home education. This is presented in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Percentage distribution of respondents by primary person who supervises home learning
during the lockdown
Nobody 2,6
Other relative(s) 2,8
Tutor 1,3
Helper/Caregiver 1,1
Sibling(s) 4,3
Mother and Father equally 19,7
Father 9,2
Mother 59,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage
Structured programmes and support

More than half of respondents (51,3%) said that they used educational material sent by the school through
WhatsApp/email/D6, while more than one-third (34,6%) used interactive online learning through special
platforms. About 10% of respondents used materials sent home by the schools before they were closed. This
is presented in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Percentage distribution of respondents by school activities during the lockdown
Other 1,6
Assignments/work done by material developed by

parents/caregivers 1,8
Assignments/work done through learning resources made

available by the Department of Basic Education 0,8
Assignments/work done using educational material sent by

the school through Whatsapp/email/D6 51,3
Interactive online learning through special platforms 34,6
Assignments/work done using school material sent home by

the school before closure of schools 9,8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage
Respondents’ responses indicated that they made little use of educational material made available by the
Department of Basic Education on radio and television. Only approximately 5% of respondents said they used
material on radio, while about 28% made use of the material on television. By comparison, 46% of respondents
indicated that they used online material made available by the by the Department of Basic Education (Figure
4.7).
Figure 4.7: Percentage distribution of respondents by type of the Department of Basic Education
educational materials used during the lockdown
Used Not used
Material on television 27,6 72,4
Material on radio 4,7 95,3
Online material 46,0 54,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
By and large, the majority of respondents were satisfied by the support and material they received from the
schools for home school education. Almost two-thirds (65,3%) indicated that they received enough support
from the school for home school education while 71% said teachers were generally available for consultations
when required. More than two-thirds of respondents (66,9%) also specified that the educational material
provided by the schools were sufficient. This is presented in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8: Percentage distribution of respondents by assistance received during the lockdown
Yes No
100
90
29,0 33,1
80 34,7
70
Percentage
60
50
40
71,0 66,9
30 65,3
20
10
0
Learners received enough support from Teachers were generally available for Educational material that was provided
the school for home education consultations when required was sufficient
Technology
More than three-quarters of respondents (75,9%) indicated that they had smart phones that could be used for
home learning. More than a third (36,1%) had access to tablets while 61,2% could use laptops to support home
learning. A surprisingly small percentage of respondents indicated that learners could access and use
television (53,3%) and radio (27,9%) to support home learning (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9: Percentage distribution of respondents by tools available for home learning
Yes No
100
90 24,1
80 38,8
46,7
70 63,9
72,1
Percentage
60
50
40 75,9
30 61,2
53,3
20 36,1
27,9
10
0
Smart phone Tablet Laptop Television Radio
Four-tenths of respondents who had access to a smart phone for home learning had to share their devices
with others from time to time, while 23,8% had to continuously share their smart phones. By comparison,
36,1% of smart phone users did not have to share their devices. Among those who had access to tablets for
home learning, 42% did not have to share the use of the devices. Figure 4.10 also shows that 38% of laptop
users never had to share their devices, while about one-fifth (21,7%) continuously had to share the devices.
Figure 4.10: Percentage distribution of respondents who share tools available for home learning
Never Sometimes Continuously
100
90 17,0 21,7
23,8
80
70
Percentage
60 41,0
40,1 40,3
50
40
30
20 36,1 42,0 38,0
10
0
Smart phone Tablet Laptop
Figure 4.11 shows that approximately 23% of respondents strongly agreed that they had limited access to a
computer or tablet at home to do school work while close to 17% agreed that they somewhat had. On the other
hand, 36% of respondents strongly agreed that they had adequate access to a computer or tablet at home to
do school work.
Figure 4.11: Percentage distribution of respondents with children in households with limited access
to a computer or tablet at home to do school work
Disagree strongly 36,0
Disagree somewhat 14,6
Neither agree nor disagree 9,1
Agree somewhat 16,8
Agree strongly 23,4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percentage
The type of internet access used by learners is presented in Figure 4.12. The figure shows that 44% of
respondent households used cellular devices (44%) while one-quarter (24,9%) had access to fibre. Free Wifi
hotspots accounted for 13,3% of access while 9,9% used DSL access. It is noticeable that 6,1% of respondent
households did not have access to any internet for educational purposes.
Figure 4.12: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to internet for educational purposes
Cellular 44,0
Wireless hotspots (i.e. TshWi-Fi Free Wifi) 13,3
Satellite 1,8
Fibre 24,9
DSL 9,9
Do not have access to the Internet 6,1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percentage
According to Figure 4.13, 61,8% of respondents indicated that their internet was fast enough to stream videos,
while about one-third (34,4%) reported that their internet connection was not fast enough to do so. Adequate
speed to stream videos was highest for fibre connections (93,4%), DSL (84,7%) and satellite connections
(84,6%), and worst for cellular connections (38,8%).
Figure 4.13: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to internet fast enough to stream
videos
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Wireless
hotspots (i.e.
DSL Fibre Satellite Cellular Total
TshWi-Fi
Free Wifi)
Do not know 2,8 1,1 0,0 2,1 6,3 3,8
Not enough 12,5 5,5 15,4 40,2 54,9 34,4
Fast enough 84,7 93,4 84,6 57,7 38,8 61,8
Figure 4.14 shows that almost 40% of respondent households did not have enough data to complete their
online learning. Two-thirds of respondent households with cellular connections reported inadequate access to
data, compared to 15,4% with satellite access, 14,1% with DSL access, and only 4,4% with fibre.
Figure 4.14: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to enough data to complete their
online learning
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Wireless
hotspots (i.e.
DSL Fibre Satellite Cellular Total
TshWi-Fi
Free Wifi)
Do not know 4,2 2,2 0,0 3,2 2,5 2,7
Not enough 14,1 4,4 15,4 38,3 66,6 39,6
Enough data 81,7 93,3 84,6 58,5 30,9 57,8
5. CHILDREN’S WELLBEING
The majority of respondents indicated that the children had a quiet area to focus on school work. The
availability of a quiet area to focus on school work was highest for respondents with one child (90,1%), and
lowest for respondents with five children or more (37,5%). This is presented in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Percentage distribution of respondents with access to a quiet area where they can focus
on school work
Study place No study place
Five or more children 62,5 37,5
Four children 68,4 31,6
Three Children 76,6 23,4
Two Children 85,1 14,9
One child 90,1 9,9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
Almost two-thirds (63,6%) of respondents reported that learners in their households had experienced difficulty
to keep up with the amount of school work during the lockdown period, while 68,4% of respondents said that
learners in their households were struggling to adapt to the new mode of learning. About 59,4% of respondents
reported that learners were anxious about the amount of school work they had to complete. While about one-
half (49%) of respondents reported that children were stressed at home, 20,8% disagree very strongly with the
statement. This is presented in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2: Percentage distribution of respondents with children who experienced difficulty with the
amount of school work and who felt anxious at home
Agree strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly
Stressed at home 28,9 20,1 12,1 18,1 20,8
Anxious with amount of school work they have to complete 36,7 22,9 12,7 14,5 13,1
Difficulty in adapting with new mode of learning 38,1 30,3 8,4 13,3 9,9
Difficulty to keep up with amount of school work 39,2 24,4 11,4 11,4 13,6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
Return to school
Although one-quarter (25,7%) of respondents agreed that it was safe for their children to attend school, 58,6%
deemed it unsafe. Figure 5.3 shows that the feeling that it was not safe for children to attend school was
highest for respondents with five children or more (92,9%) and lowest for those with only one child (56,6%).
Figure 5.3: Percentage distribution of respondents who think that it was not safe for their children to
attend school
Safe to attend school Not safe to attend school Do not know
100 3,2 7,1

90 16,2 17,6 14,4 15,8
80
70
Percentage
60
56,0 54,6 63,2 83,9 58,6
50
92,9
40
30
20
27,8 27,8 22,4 25,7
10
12,9
0
children
Safe for children to return to school

Figure 5.4 shows that, amongst respondents who felt it was unsafe to send children back to school, 82,8%
were concerned that it would pose a risk to the children’s health, while two-thirds (67,3%) were concerned
about the infection risk that the attendance of the children posed to others in the households. Compared to the
other reasons, the risks to extended family like grandparents and teachers were perceived low by the majority
of respondents (36,2% and 36,5% respectively).
Figure 5.4: Percentage distribution of respondents by reasons given why it was not safe for children
to attend school
Yes No
Other 7,8 92,2
Is poses a risk to teachers 36,5 63,5
It poses a risk to extended family like grandparents 36,2 63,8
It poses a risk to others in the household 67,3 32,7
It poses a risk to them 82,8 17,2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
Three out of seven respondents (42,7%) were of the opinion that schools were ready to reopen after the
lockdown, compared to 31,1% who thought that schools were not ready to reopen. Approximately one-quarter
(26,1%) expressed no opinion about the readiness of the schools. Of the respondents who felt that schools
were ready to reopen immediately, nearly all (close to 99%) said that children should return to school
immediately. However, three-quarters (74,8%) of respondents who said that schools were ready to reopen
also said that learners should only go to school as soon as all schools are ready to accept all learners back to
schools. About 37% of respondents who were of the opinion that children should only be back at school in
spring, once the risk of the disease has subsided, believed that schools were not ready to reopen. Close to
60% among respondents who were of the opinion that children should only be back at school during the next
academic year, also believed that schools were not ready to reopen (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5: Percentage distribution of respondents by return date to school and readiness of schools
to receive children
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
As soon as
Only in
all schools
spring once Only next
Immediately are ready to Not sure Total
the risk has year
accept
subsided
learners
Do not know 1,5 16,6 35,6 22,2 50,0 26,1
Schools not ready to reopen 0,0 8,6 37,2 59,7 21,9 31,1
Schools ready to reopen 98,5 74,8 27,2 18,1 28,1 42,7
6. TIME USE
More than two-thirds (68,5%) of respondents strongly agreed that children spent more time watching television
during the lockdown than usual. Close to 60% of respondents strongly agreed and close to 19% agreed
somewhat that children spent more time on the internet during the lockdown than usual. Furthermore, half of
the respondents strongly agreed that children spent more time playing video games during the lockdown than
usual.
Figure 6.1: Percentage distribution of respondents by type of activities spent by children during the
lockdown
Agree strongly Agree somewhat Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree somewhat Disagree strongly
Children spent more time playing video games during the

50,0 18,8 12,7 8,7 9,8
lockdown than usual
Children spent more time on the internet during the

60,2 18,6 8,4 7,6 5,2
lockdown than usual
Children spent more time watching television during the

68,5 15,2 6,1 6,3 3,8
lockdown than usual
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
7. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Wave 3 survey aimed to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on movement, migration,
education, children’s well-being and time use of individuals living in South Africa. The survey is based on a
non-probability, convenience sample and was implemented using a web-based collection method. Given the
method of collection, respondents were required to have access to technology (e.g. smartphones or computers
with access to the internet) to be able to participate in the survey. This makes the survey biased in the type of
respondents that completed the survey. The number of valid responses obtained for the survey was 1 323 and
are not representative of the general population of South Africa.
The survey found that about six per cent of respondents changed their provincial residence during the national
lockdown. Of these respondents, the highest proportion moved during the few days between the
announcement of the lockdown and the start of the lockdown. Regarding the reason for moving, about one-
quarter of respondents indicated that they wanted to be closer to their family or friends. Twelve per cent of
respondents indicated that they travelled across provincial boundaries since the start of the national lockdown.
More than a quarter of these respondents indicated that the interprovincial travel was due to attend a funeral.
About fifteen per cent of respondents travelled to provide essential services whilst about thirteen per cent
travelled for non-essential work or business-related travel, whilst about fifteen per cent of respondents travelled
to visit family or friends.
About ninety per cent of the respondents indicated that they were born in South Africa (classifying them as
non-migrants). About nine per cent were international migrants (respondents indicated that they were born
outside South Africa). About 18% of migrants remitted during lockdown. About one-third of migrants indicated
that they remitted smaller amounts than they usually do. More than twenty per cent of migrant respondents
indicated that they did not remit during lockdown because they could not afford to send money. A much higher
percentage of migrant respondents (22,5%) were unemployed as compared to non-migrants (9%). Results
from the vulnerability framework showed that generally migrant respondents were more vulnerable than non-
migrant respondents.
The survey shows that most households experienced a disruption in the education process. Not all learners
were participating in home schooling during the lockdown. The percentage of learners who participated in
home schooling was much higher among those who were attending private schools before the start of the
lockdown.
Home schooling was mostly conducted through material sent by schools through WhatsApp/Email/D6 which
require the use of internet. The most common method of internet access by households for educational
purposes was through cellular devices while fibre internet access was also one of the most important means
of access. Access to fast internet was an issue for close to one third of respondents while close to 40% of
respondents indicated that children did not have enough data for online learning. Close to 59% of the
respondents said it was not safe for the children to return to school because they were mostly concerned about
the risk it poses to the children. The findings of the survey also show that children spent more time watching
television, more time on the internet and more time playing video games during the lockdown than usual.

Report-00-08-04July2020 The Impact of Covid On Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report-00-08-04July2020 The Impact of Covid On Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Private Bag X44, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa, ISIbalo House, Koch Street, Salvokop, Pretoria, 0002

www.statssa.gov.za, info@statssa.gov.za, Tel +27 12 310 8911

Social impact of COVID-19 (Wave 3):

Published by Statistics South Africa, Private Bag X44, Pretoria 0001

© Statistics South Africa, 2020

Stats SA Library Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) Data

Report no. 00-80-04

National Library of South Africa, Pretoria Division

This report is available on the Stats SA website: www.statssa.gov.za

Enquiries on Mobility and Migration

General survey information

Table 1.1: General survey information

Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the sample

Table 1.2: Distribution of the respondents in the sample, by demographic characteristics

Demographic characteristic Number of respondents Percentage

Province Number of respondents Percentage

2. FINDINGS ON MOBILITY WITHIN SOUTH AFRICA

Change of provincial residence during lockdown

Provincial residence during lockdown Percentage

During April 2020 4,5

Inter-provincial travel during the national lockdown

Reason for inter-provincial travel

To visit family or friends 14,7

To attend a funeral 25,6

Other work or business related travel 13,2

To provide essential services 14,7

3. FINDINGS ON INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Categorisation of migrant groups

Figure 3.1: Categorisation of the population by migration status

Table 3.1: Distribution of the sample by migration status

Number of respondents Percentage

Reason for remaining in South Africa at the start of the lockdown

I was unable to get the logistics

Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of migrants who remitted during lockdown

Larger amount Smaller amount

Other reason 18,4

I could not afford to send money 21,8

I have never remitted money 58,6

Table 3.2: Rationale for selection of vulnerability indicators

Vulnerability indicator Rationale

Attending Not attending

Public school Private school

Education during lockdown

Other relative(s) 2,8

Mother and Father equally 19,7

Structured programmes and support

Assignments/work done by material developed by

Assignments/work done through learning resources made

Assignments/work done using educational material sent by

Interactive online learning through special platforms 34,6

Assignments/work done using school material sent home by

Used Not used

Material on television 27,6 72,4

Material on radio 4,7 95,3

Online material 46,0 54,0

Never Sometimes Continuously

Disagree strongly 36,0

Disagree somewhat 14,6

Neither agree nor disagree 9,1

Agree somewhat 16,8

Agree strongly 23,4

Wireless hotspots (i.e. TshWi-Fi Free Wifi) 13,3

Do not have access to the Internet 6,1