‘Tuition fees’ vice alive eight years after ban
School heads use the “tuition” as a management tool to appease teachers.
Parents Association national chairperson Nicholas Maiyo is a classic reminder of the story of the ostrich that buries its head in the sand. He says parents have no problem paying school fees arrears but wants Education Cabinet Secretary George Magoha to take action against school heads who charge ‘tuition fees’.
Mr Maiyo should spare parents his theatrics. It is not a coincidence that it was after Prof Magoha asked parents to clear fee balances that Maiyo suddenly woke up to remind the minister that tuition payment has been going on in schools. Why now?
Besides, Maiyo used the words “extra charges” or “levies” to safely navigate around the Basic Education Act (2013). The Act banned the “tuition fees” to reduce the cost of education, hence making it more accessible to most learners, including the poor.
Free education
In 2002, the Kibaki government introduced free primary and secondary education with the same aim. That means the government pays tuition fees for every learner in public school. In addition, the state pays for operations and, occasionally, infrastructure development funds.
Before the tuition fee ban, parents in public schools were overburdened by the high cost of educating their children. Of particular concern to parents was the “holiday tuition”, where learners were forced to pay cash to be allowed in school during the holidays by exploitative teaching staff cartels.
The Education ministry had to issue fee guidelines according to the category of a school. It was hoped that this would help to protect parents from the insatiable greed for cash by the extensive cartels. To bypass the law, the networks sugarcoated the fees with words such as “motivation fees”, “extra levies” or even “remedial fees”.
Exploitation
As a parents’ representative, Maiyo should admit that he has been party to their wanton exploitation. School heads would not, by themselves, ask for tuition money without the involvement of boards of management. These heads of institutions rope in friendly members of BoMs to solicit these levies.
School heads use the “tuition” as a management tool to appease teachers. As long as the teacher is getting weekly payment from the programme, then the head — especially those heads who prefer not to be on the ground — is at peace with the teaching staff. Busy earning teachers cannot complain.
There is hardly a way to decide whether these programmes add value to the learner. While teaching is done in the guise of completing the syllabus on time, little is done to evaluate the quality of the learning process. The focus is on the teacher’s work and not the learner’s aptitude.
Most of the rich, educated and urban parents have no problem with payment of these charges. To them, any investment in the children’s education is worth the cost. However, the poor, uneducated and rural parents may find it difficult to understand why schools ask for tuition money when they know their government subsidises basic education.
Now that the parents’ rep has formally complained, would Prof Magoha stop the illegal levies ?
