A Short-Sighted Cut? The Case Against Ending Free Education
The new government’s decision to scrap free education for government schools has raised serious concerns about the logic behind this policy shift. The previous administration had carefully planned and accounted for the costs associated with free education, recognising it as an investment in the future rather than an unnecessary expense. So why the sudden reversal?
An Investment, Not a Burden
When former Prime Minister Sovaleni introduced free education for all students from Class One onwards, it was framed as a long-term strategy to ensure students remained in school and had the best possible chance to succeed. The government had already accounted for the revenue loss in the Ministry of Education’s budget, which had been passed.
In other words, there was no additional cost to the government—this was simply a cost-cutting measure at the expense of education. If the funds were already allocated, where is the logic in removing a programme designed to help thousands of families struggling with school fees?
Evidence of Need
One of the biggest deterrents to continued education is the cost of schooling. The World Bank’s program, which covered the fees of 5,000 children identified as financially vulnerable, provided concrete evidence of this. Even as the programme was ending, there were still 3,000 children in desperate need of financial assistance—a clear sign that school fees remain a major obstacle for many families.
If money is preventing children from finishing school, shouldn’t the government be finding ways to remove this barrier rather than reinstating it?
Government’s Role in Education
The Ministry of Education has a legal obligation to ensure children receive an education from ages 4 to 18. One of the key objectives of the Ministry is to encourage students to stay in education until 18, yet the new decision contradicts this goal.
Furthermore, while the government provides support to non-government schools ($770 per student annually) and technical colleges ($1,200 per student, with a proposed 10% increase in 2025), it does not have decision-making power over private institutions. The Minister of Education’s authority extends only to government schools, meaning this funding cut specifically targets public education—the very system designed to support those who cannot afford private schooling.
A Policy That Worked for Families
The free education initiative was not mandatory—it included an opt-out clause for families who could afford to pay school fees. This meant that those who genuinely needed financial assistance received it, while those who could afford to contribute were not forced to take the benefit. The system was fair, flexible, and effective.
Long-Term Consequences
By scrapping free education, the government risks:
- Higher dropout rates due to financial constraints.
- Widening the gap between rich and poor, as only wealthier families can afford to keep their children in school.
- Increased reliance on external aid for education, rather than sustainable government policies.
Final Thought: A Regressive Step Backwards
Education is not an area where cost-cutting should take priority over long-term national development. If the previous administration had already budgeted for free education and identified a clear need for financial assistance, then the new government’s decision appears to be more about reversing political decisions rather than making sound policy choices.
If the goal is to create a better-educated, skilled workforce, then removing free education for government schools makes little sense. Rather than pulling support from those who need it most, the government should be doubling down on efforts to ensure all children have access to quality education—regardless of their financial situation.
