Online Reporter
Nick Mangwana
Government Up Close
AS schools re-opened this week, the familiar struggle between authorities and parents over unpaid fees has resurfaced. Term after term, learners are sent home due to their parents’ failure to settle fees, sparking a contentious standoff.
School administrators argue that timely payments are crucial to keeping their institutions afloat, while parents plead for more time, citing economic hardships. This recurring drama raises critical questions about the morality, policy and legality of using punitive measures to compel parents to pay fees.
This piece will examine the multifaceted arguments against sending learners home and explore alternative solutions that prioritise students’ education and well-being. We will also discuss why it is wrong to send learners home because parents have failed to pay fees and how this practice undermines the fundamental right to education.
While schools argue that fees are necessary to maintain operations, the reality is that this practice disproportionately affects vulnerable students and constitutes a form of extortion.
Education is a fundamental human right, enshrined in various international and national laws. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) emphasize that every child has the right to education, regardless of their socio-economic background. By sending learners home due to unpaid fees, schools are, in effect, denying these children their right to education and perpetuating inequality.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe, specifically Section 75, guarantees every citizen and permanent resident the right to a basic state-funded education. However, some schools continue to deny students this fundamental right by sending them home due to unpaid fees. To address this issue, an amendment to the Education Act was promulgated in 2020. This resulted in the insertion of a new section, 68C, which clearly states that “No pupil shall be excluded from school for non-payment of school fees.” This is meant to ensure that students are not penalised for circumstances beyond their control.
This provision is crucial in promoting inclusivity and upholding the Constitution. By prohibiting exclusion due to unpaid fees, we can prevent students from falling behind in their studies and reduce the risk of them dropping out of school altogether. The State has taken its responsibility seriously and hence has put in place reasonable legislative measures to achieve the progressive realization of the right to education. By passing this amendment, Zimbabwe took a significant step towards ensuring that every student in Zimbabwe has access to quality education, regardless of their financial background.
Furthermore, Section 68C also protects pregnant students by stipulating that they cannot be excluded from school “on the basis of pregnancy.” This provision recognizes the importance of education for all students, regardless of their personal circumstances. By ensuring that pregnant students can continue their education without interruption, this section promotes gender equality and supports the well-being of young mothers.
The impact on learners
Being sent away from school due to unpaid fees can have a profound psychological impact on learners. It can lead to feelings of shame, embarrassment, and low self-esteem, making them feel like they are being punished for circumstances beyond their control. This can result in decreased motivation, disengagement from academic activities, and a negative attitude towards school. The stigma associated with being sent home can also affect their relationships with peers, making it challenging for them to reintegrate into the classroom when they return.
From a practical perspective, sending learners away from school disrupts their learning continuity, causing them to fall behind in their studies. This can lead to poor academic performance, decreased confidence, and reduced opportunities for future success. Learners who are frequently absent or sent home may struggle to keep up with their peers, making it challenging for them to catch up on missed work and assignments. Furthermore, the lost learning time can have long-term consequences, affecting their ability to secure better-paying jobs or pursue higher education opportunities.
The emotional toll of being sent away from school can be devastating for learners. It can lead to feelings of anxiety, stress, and uncertainty about their future. Learners may feel like they are being denied the opportunity to reach their full potential, and that their dreams are being put on hold. The emotional distress can also affect their relationships with their families, creating tension and conflict at home. By sending learners away, schools may inadvertently be perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage, rather than providing a supportive and nurturing environment that fosters growth and development.
Extortion through children
Using children as leverage to extort parents is a morally reprehensible practice. Schools that send learners home due to unpaid fees are, in essence, holding the children’s education hostage. This approach not only punishes the child for the parent’s actions but also creates a toxic environment where students are caught in the middle of a dispute between parents and the school administration.
The contractual relationship regarding school fees is between the school and the parent or guardian, not the learner. When parents or guardians agree to pay fees, they enter into a contractual obligation with the school. If challenges arise in fulfilling this obligation, it is up to the contracting parties — the school and the parent — to negotiate and find a solution. Learners, who are not parties to this contract, should not be held hostage or punished for their parents’ or guardians’ failure to pay fees. It is unfair and unjust to deny them their right to education due to circumstances that are beyond their control.
Punishing learners by sending them away from school is not only unfair but also ineffective in resolving the issue of unpaid fees. Instead of addressing the root causes of non-payment, schools are shifting the burden to the most vulnerable party — the learner. Schools and parents should work together to find alternative solutions, such as payment plans, financial assistance, or subsidies, to ensure that learners are not disadvantaged. By doing so, schools can uphold their commitment to providing quality education while also supporting learners and their families in overcoming challenges.
The burden on parents
Parents, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, often struggle to pay school fees. Poverty, unemployment, and illness can all impact a family’s ability to pay fees. By sending learners home, schools are not only adding to the family’s stress but also exacerbating the cycle of poverty. Instead of working with parents to find solutions, schools are essentially abandoning their responsibility to provide education.
While it’s true that some parents genuinely struggle to pay school fees due to economic hardships, our arguments against sending learners home should not be used as a refuge for irresponsible parents who prioritize frivolous expenses over their children’s education. There are parents who have the means to afford luxuries such as the latest cars, dining at high-end restaurants, or enrolling their children in unnecessary extramural activities, yet they fail to prioritize their children’s education by not paying school fees.
Such parents, who recklessly disregard their children’s future, should be held accountable. In these cases, schools should pursue legal action against them to recover the unpaid fees, without penalising the learners who are innocent victims of their parents’ neglect. After all, children did not choose their parents, and it’s not their fault that their parents are not valuing their future. By distinguishing between genuinely struggling parents and irresponsible ones, we can ensure that our advocacy for learners’ rights does not inadvertently enable parental neglect.
Alternative solutions
Instead of resorting to punitive measures, schools can explore alternative solutions to address unpaid fees. One approach is for schools to offer flexible payment plans, allowing parents or guardians to pay fees in instalments. Schools can also provide financial assistance.
Establishing a scholarship fund is a vital initiative for every school, enabling them to support talented but deprived learners. By engaging with philanthropic business people, schools can secure donations and sponsorships to fund these scholarships. This not only provides financial assistance to deserving students but also fosters a culture of giving and community involvement. Scholarship funds can cover tuition fees, educational resources, and other expenses, empowering learners to reach their full potential and pursue their academic goals without financial burdens. This initiative can have a transformative impact on individual students and the broader community.
Another innovative solution is for schools to adopt Education 5.0, a model that emphasizes practical projects and income-generating activities. By integrating production and entrepreneurship into the curriculum, schools can create opportunities for learners to contribute to their own education costs. For example, schools can establish farms, workshops, or small businesses that generate income, which can be used to support learners who are struggling to pay fees. This approach not only helps to sustain the school but also equips learners with valuable skills and experience.
By embracing Education 5.0, schools can reduce their reliance on fees and create a more sustainable and inclusive model of education. Learners can engage in practical projects that generate income, such as agriculture, crafts, or technology-based initiatives. This approach also fosters a culture of entrepreneurship, innovation, and self-sufficiency, preparing learners for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
The role of Government
Governments have a critical role to play in ensuring that all children have access to education, regardless of their socio-economic background.
Primary and Secondary Education is one of the most prioritized votes in each annual budget. Government continues to put Education at the heart of its policy thrust. One of the initiatives used by Government to support those who struggle to afford basic education is the Basic Education Assistance Module (BEAM). This is a Zimbabwean Government initiative aimed at supporting vulnerable children in accessing basic education. BEAM provides financial assistance to cover tuition fees, levies, and other educational expenses for disadvantaged learners. By doing so, it helps to reduce the burden on families and enables children to attend school, thereby promoting education as a fundamental right.
Since its inception, BEAM has made significant strides in supporting learners from low-income backgrounds. The program has helped thousands of children access education, thereby contributing to increased enrolment rates and reduced dropout rates. BEAM’s impact extends beyond the individual learners, as it also benefits their families and communities by breaking the cycle of poverty and promoting socio-economic development.
BEAM’s success can be attributed to its targeted approach, which prioritizes the most vulnerable learners, including those affected by poverty, HIV/AIDS, and disability. The programme’s effectiveness has been enhanced by partnerships with donors, NGOs, and local communities, which have helped to mobilize resources and support. By continuing to support BEAM, stakeholders can help ensure that more children in Zimbabwe have access to quality education, ultimately contributing to a more educated and prosperous society.
Some have suggested that we should just go all the way to make Primary Education free in Zimbabwe. There are some among our contemporaries that have gone down that route and it has worked for them but there is a threading theme; none of them has done it without donor support.
In Kenya, the government introduced free primary education in 2003, significantly increasing enrolment rates. To fund this initiative, the government allocated more resources to the education sector, and international donors provided financial support. The government also implemented a capitation grant system, where schools received a fixed amount per student to cover operational costs. This approach has helped reduce the burden of school fees on parents and increased access to education for disadvantaged children.
In Ghana, the government introduced the capitation grant scheme in 2005, which provided schools with funds to cover tuition fees and other expenses. The scheme was funded by the government, with support from development partners such as the World Bank and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). The capitation grant scheme has helped increase enrolment rates, particularly in deprived areas, and reduced the financial burden on parents.
In Malawi, the government introduced a national school grant system in 2006, which provided schools with funds to support disadvantaged students. The system was funded by the government, with support from international donors such as the World Bank and UNICEF. The grant system helped increase enrolment rates and reduced dropout rates, particularly among girls and vulnerable children. These alternative solutions have shown that with proper funding and implementation, governments can increase access to education and reduce the burden of school fees on parents.
The experiences of Kenya, Ghana, and Malawi demonstrate that innovative funding solutions and government commitment can increase access to education and reduce the burden of school fees. However, Zimbabwe’s ability to replicate these successes is hindered by the nuances of economic sanctions imposed on the country. These sanctions limit access to international funding and resources, making it challenging for Zimbabwe to implement similar initiatives. As a result, Zimbabwean children are denied the benefits of these innovative approaches, perpetuating educational disparities and inequality. Lifting or easing these sanctions could potentially unlock opportunities for Zimbabwe to develop its education sector and improve the lives of its citizens.
Conclusion
Sending learners home due to unpaid fees is a practice that undermines the fundamental right to education and perpetuates inequality. By using children as leverage to extort parents, schools are not only punishing the child but also creating a toxic environment that can have long-term consequences for the student’s well-being and academic performance. Instead of resorting to this draconian measure, schools should work with parents to find solutions, explore alternative approaches to address unpaid fees, and prioritize the education and well-being of all students. Governments also have a critical role to play in ensuring that all children have access to education, regardless of their socio-economic background. It is time for us to prioritize the education and well-being of all students, rather than using them as pawns in a game of fee collection.
Nick Mangwana is the Permanent Secretary for Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services
