Adopt proposed fees to lift heavy burden on parent

The task force set up to review secondary school fees following a public outcry from parents last year has come up with tentative proposals that, if implemented, could alleviate the fee burden on parents.

The report is yet to be handed to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, pending moderation by stakeholders.

The high cost of education and other levies charged by individual schools have put education out of the reach of the common man.

In fact, it has now become a preserve of the well-to-do in society.

In a society where only the fittest survive, those disadvantaged by poor education cannot hope to better their lot. In truth, society lays too much emphasis on academic qualifications.

Besides the proposals to cut down on the high fees chargeable, Prof Jacob Kaimenyi should take charge of all schools to ensure that policies, guidelines and directives are adhered to. That responsibility has been abdicated by the ministry, allowing school heads to do as they wish without the fear of being held accountable by the parent ministry.

Directives by the ministry are routinely ignored by head teachers.

The proposal to increase State subsidy per child should be matched by action and expediency.

This is not the first time the Government has proposed higher subsidies but failed to follow up with cash to respective schools. 

At the ongoing secondary school heads’ meeting in Mombasa, Education Principal Secretary Belio Kipsang admitted that the Government had not released funds to the ministry for the second batch of subsidies for the 2013/2014 financial year.

Head teachers have complained about the late disbursement of funds, saying it hinders operations in schools. Tuition fee has been the bone of contention, with many schools levying high charges.

Some schools ingeniously placed the tuition fee into three categories; normal tuition, weekend tuition and holiday tuition.

Proposals to make the fee uniform will be a relief to many parents.

Schools have devised ways of piling charges on parents using acronyms in fee structures. The tendency by schools to make additions to their fee structures in January, after having issued revised structures at the end of third term, should be discouraged.

This is why students are always being sent home to collect fee balances at the expense of learning.

No doubt, these disruptions affect their performance at the end of the term. The ministerial order that no student be sent away for failure to pay the entire fee on time should also be reinforced.

The need to scrap development fee because of abuse should have considered other levies like maintenance and school bus projects, some of which have been running for decades.

Moreover, most schools compel parents to buy uniforms every second year from specific suppliers, providing grounds for extortion and corruption.

These outlets charge three times more for uniforms than other outlets.

This should be discouraged.

In the end, society will benefit more when the school-going population gets through secondary education without much interruption for lack of school fees.