The fallacy of freeness in education

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Recently, I had a conversation with a parent whose child attends a high school in Kingston. She expressed her frustration with the government’s policy on secondary-school fees, which basically is, “If you no want to pay you no haffi pay”. She informed me that, since this policy was implemented for fifth form and below, payment of school fees dropped from around a 90 per cent compliance rate to approximately 60 per cent at her child’s school. Now that sixth form is compulsory and the same fees policy applies, there has been a similar fall-off in compliance this schoolyear. I believe it is safe to assume this is so at every secondary school right across the island.

She further stated that this has affected the school in several areas – specialist subjects were being cut because the school could no longer afford specialist teachers; a combined number of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities are under threat of being cut; further, funding for necessary maintenance of the school has become a challenge.

The school-fee issue is a contentious one for various reasons. For example, parents with higher incomes would naturally find it easier to pay school fees or make direct financial contributions to the school. But these same individuals pay more taxes and at higher tax rates and consequently would be justified in arguing that they already pay more in taxes, so why should they voluntarily pay these fees? Parents of lesser means have even less incentive to pay.

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY

It has long been a fallacy that education can be free; someone has to pay. The amount the government budgets for education is woefully inadequate. So the question is, where are the additional funds necessary for a quality secondary-school education to come from? There is only one answer, parents.

Prior to the current policy, the perception that a student could be barred from school for non-payment of school fees was a driving factor for many parents to pay fees. It was this government declaration, which seems is for nothing more than political reasons, that school fees are not compulsory, which led to this reduced compliance rate.

This is a muddle of the government’s own making. If only they had not implemented this policy, we would not be in this pickle. In my view, the government erred when it adopted the current policy. Those who can should be encouraged to pay or the quality of secondary education will continue to decline. This is a most undesirable situation for both parents and the government. If the underfunding of education remains as is, the already-poor education output will likely worsen and continue to have a deleterious effect. It is time to rethink this and reverse the course.

ALWYN GREGORY

Manchester