Tweet
Cost sharing in education
Wesley Barrett
Monday, September 24, 2007
The harsh realities and grave funding difficulties that faced many governments in the '80s and early '90s virtually forced them to consider and devise schemes to garner additional funds for their education budgets.
Wesley Barrett
As the demand for educational services increased, governments, strapped for funds, returned to the familiar strategy of imposing fees while coining new and palatable phrases to disguise this. "Cost sharing" and "user fees" became the used phrase in many educational systems including our own.
Much justification for the initiative, some reasonable, some self-serving, was advanced. The idea and initiative succeeded because bodies such as the World Bank gave tacit support. Furthermore, cost sharing had an appeal to a segment of the population that viewed government as not being a dependable, predictable, stable and secure source of educational financing. They had a stake in educational financing and they wanted to demonstrate that.
Many people then and now think that by contributing directly to their children's education through providing resources to schools on a predictable way, they would enhance their children's education and would have a greater say in it. They could more boldly demand value for money. School administrations welcomed cost-sharing schemes where they could collect resources locally and directly thus increasing access to and control over well-needed funds on a timely basis. They were all correct then.
The public did not mind all the euphemisms used since what was important was securing a good education for their children. It is in the light of the situation then and now that we need to understand the discussion on cost sharing in education in Jamaica. Instead of a post-mortem on the formal government-sanctioned cost-sharing programme at the secondary level in light of the new government's commitment to abolish it with immediate effect, we should analyse and evaluate the issues and the next steps forward.
Before we proceed, we should get a few definitions correct and clear. The fees that have been endorsed in the formal cost-sharing programme that began in 1992 at the secondary level in Jamaica have not been for tuition or instruction. They have been charged for other purposes. Only in private schools and privately-run classes are tuition fees per se charged.
What has been charged in the cost-sharing programme is a fee for the provision of learning materials, minor repairs to buildings, payment of utility bills, maintenance of sanitation services and some approved programmes.
The associated costs represent a relatively small percentage of total school- related costs. The major cost is the cost to pay the teachers for instructional services. The clarification is important for the country must know that education is hugely costly, and that the bulk of the cost is borne by the state in paying teachers' salaries in all public infant, primary and secondary schools or departments.
The important fact for many low-income families, however, is that the fees will now be abolished. But the new means of financing the schools, however, will have important social, management and educational implications which we will be well advised to consider.
With the abolition of the defined school charges, many parents, particularly of the low-income group, will experience greater flexibility in re-allocating scarce household income. Their economic and hence social circumstance should be positively impacted. But will there be allowed a proliferation of other charges being now made by many schools so that parents are put back "at square one"? I will address this issue later.
Many "no-income" and low-income families will probably feel more comfortable that they are no longer the only ones who receive support for school fees from the state. They will now not suffer any embarrassment from some school administrators who humiliate them when they do not "pay up".
Of course, anecdotal reports have circulated suggesting that many students have suffered ridicule on account of their not paying the fees through inability. School administrators, however, deny the charges. Much acrimony should now cease and energies redirected.
There are parents who experienced pride in the knowledge that they contribute to their children's education in a direct way and can demand accountability at the schools. Anecdotal reports indicated that the payment of fees by some parents engendered their showing greater interest in their children's education.
Unless means are found to maintain their positive attitude towards contributing to the education of their children, there could be damage to their psyche and motivation. That would be unfortunate. The matter therefore begs careful consideration and management in the new era.
Some school administrators will breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have to battle with some parents about school-fee payment. Others will experience a loss of power. Generally, for the administrators, however, more time will be available to attend to critical learning objectives and programmes. What may increase is tension about the flow and timeliness of financial contributions from government.
Late arrival of and inadequate resources are lethal to smooth school operations. No doubt the new government will make this matter a prime concern and devise appropriate responsive procedures.
The new school-financing regime at the secondary level will require not less but more accountability systems which are also not onerous. Where greater funding is provided from the public purse, the need for greater accountability will be called for.
Perhaps more guidance should be given to the schools in budgeting, accounting and in allocating the resources with a distinct bias towards weak areas such as mathematics and science education as well as literacy. The area of accountability systems and high-impact programmes should not be overlooked by the authorities.
The economic justification for the state to contribute proportionally more to early childhood, primary and secondary education is based on the notion, if not evidence, that proportionally more of the returns on investment at these levels accrue to the society than to the individual.
At the tertiary level, the opposite is true. But the educational justification for the state allocating more resources to secondary education is equally compelling. The fact is that secondary education up to grade 11 is now considered a part of basic education, which is foundational for all other levels. At a minimum, the state should provide basic education for its citizens.
Cost sharing by whatever name has been a feature in educational systems in the past and up to the present. It will be indispensable in the future, but its role and purpose should be redefined. Now is a good time to think it through.
Wesley Barrett
Monday, September 24, 2007
The harsh realities and grave funding difficulties that faced many governments in the '80s and early '90s virtually forced them to consider and devise schemes to garner additional funds for their education budgets.
Wesley Barrett As the demand for educational services increased, governments, strapped for funds, returned to the familiar strategy of imposing fees while coining new and palatable phrases to disguise this. "Cost sharing" and "user fees" became the used phrase in many educational systems including our own.
Much justification for the initiative, some reasonable, some self-serving, was advanced. The idea and initiative succeeded because bodies such as the World Bank gave tacit support. Furthermore, cost sharing had an appeal to a segment of the population that viewed government as not being a dependable, predictable, stable and secure source of educational financing. They had a stake in educational financing and they wanted to demonstrate that.
Many people then and now think that by contributing directly to their children's education through providing resources to schools on a predictable way, they would enhance their children's education and would have a greater say in it. They could more boldly demand value for money. School administrations welcomed cost-sharing schemes where they could collect resources locally and directly thus increasing access to and control over well-needed funds on a timely basis. They were all correct then.
The public did not mind all the euphemisms used since what was important was securing a good education for their children. It is in the light of the situation then and now that we need to understand the discussion on cost sharing in education in Jamaica. Instead of a post-mortem on the formal government-sanctioned cost-sharing programme at the secondary level in light of the new government's commitment to abolish it with immediate effect, we should analyse and evaluate the issues and the next steps forward.
Before we proceed, we should get a few definitions correct and clear. The fees that have been endorsed in the formal cost-sharing programme that began in 1992 at the secondary level in Jamaica have not been for tuition or instruction. They have been charged for other purposes. Only in private schools and privately-run classes are tuition fees per se charged.
What has been charged in the cost-sharing programme is a fee for the provision of learning materials, minor repairs to buildings, payment of utility bills, maintenance of sanitation services and some approved programmes.
The associated costs represent a relatively small percentage of total school- related costs. The major cost is the cost to pay the teachers for instructional services. The clarification is important for the country must know that education is hugely costly, and that the bulk of the cost is borne by the state in paying teachers' salaries in all public infant, primary and secondary schools or departments.
The important fact for many low-income families, however, is that the fees will now be abolished. But the new means of financing the schools, however, will have important social, management and educational implications which we will be well advised to consider.
With the abolition of the defined school charges, many parents, particularly of the low-income group, will experience greater flexibility in re-allocating scarce household income. Their economic and hence social circumstance should be positively impacted. But will there be allowed a proliferation of other charges being now made by many schools so that parents are put back "at square one"? I will address this issue later.
Many "no-income" and low-income families will probably feel more comfortable that they are no longer the only ones who receive support for school fees from the state. They will now not suffer any embarrassment from some school administrators who humiliate them when they do not "pay up".
Of course, anecdotal reports have circulated suggesting that many students have suffered ridicule on account of their not paying the fees through inability. School administrators, however, deny the charges. Much acrimony should now cease and energies redirected.
There are parents who experienced pride in the knowledge that they contribute to their children's education in a direct way and can demand accountability at the schools. Anecdotal reports indicated that the payment of fees by some parents engendered their showing greater interest in their children's education.
Unless means are found to maintain their positive attitude towards contributing to the education of their children, there could be damage to their psyche and motivation. That would be unfortunate. The matter therefore begs careful consideration and management in the new era.
Some school administrators will breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have to battle with some parents about school-fee payment. Others will experience a loss of power. Generally, for the administrators, however, more time will be available to attend to critical learning objectives and programmes. What may increase is tension about the flow and timeliness of financial contributions from government.
Late arrival of and inadequate resources are lethal to smooth school operations. No doubt the new government will make this matter a prime concern and devise appropriate responsive procedures.
The new school-financing regime at the secondary level will require not less but more accountability systems which are also not onerous. Where greater funding is provided from the public purse, the need for greater accountability will be called for.
Perhaps more guidance should be given to the schools in budgeting, accounting and in allocating the resources with a distinct bias towards weak areas such as mathematics and science education as well as literacy. The area of accountability systems and high-impact programmes should not be overlooked by the authorities.
The economic justification for the state to contribute proportionally more to early childhood, primary and secondary education is based on the notion, if not evidence, that proportionally more of the returns on investment at these levels accrue to the society than to the individual.
At the tertiary level, the opposite is true. But the educational justification for the state allocating more resources to secondary education is equally compelling. The fact is that secondary education up to grade 11 is now considered a part of basic education, which is foundational for all other levels. At a minimum, the state should provide basic education for its citizens.
Cost sharing by whatever name has been a feature in educational systems in the past and up to the present. It will be indispensable in the future, but its role and purpose should be redefined. Now is a good time to think it through.