By Kenrick Quashie
I raised some of these concerns with Ministry of Education officials a few months ago and thought it best to give that conversation time. With schools reopening in a few weeks and the abolition of registration fees, however, I believe the matter now deserves wider public discussion.
Although I will refer to instances involving the Girls’ High School, this is not necessarily an attack on the school, its administration, teachers, PTA or any individual. I use GHS because some of what I have observed at that school points to a wider problem that we need a clear, government-approved policy governing school fundraising and contributions from parents.
Let us first be clear about what the government has abolished. What some schools have traditionally collected are registration fees, along with other contributions used to supplement the resources provided by the government.
That distinction is important because schools have real expenses, and government funding does not always cover everything they need. Registration fees and fundraising have, therefore, helped schools pay for equipment, maintenance, competitions, extracurricular activities and other necessities.
The government’s decision to abolish registration fees should provide some relief, especially for families struggling with the increasing rise in cost of living or preparing several children for the new school year.
However, it also raises the practical question as to whether schools were using registration fees to meet expenses not adequately covered by the government and how those expenses will then be met.
The government may provide additional funding to cover the shortfall. (Interestingly, the 2025 Budget does not make provision for this shortfall). But if it does not, schools may feel compelled to recover the lost income through more fundraising, contributions and collections. In that case, the registration fee would disappear while the overall financial burden on parents could remain much the same.
Let us consider the constant fundraising activities associated with the Girls’ High School. Schools need money, and parents understandably want to support their children’s education. There is nothing inherently wrong with fundraising or asking a school community to support a worthwhile project.
There must, however, be a clear line between voluntary support and an expected payment. When does a contribution stop being voluntary? At what point does repeated fundraising become a financial obligation? Who decides what schools may reasonably ask parents to pay? These questions should not be left to each school to answer for itself.
I have heard of cases where students are told that they must engage in fundraising activities in order to qualify to become a prefect or even told that there is a minimum amount that they must raise.
There is also the important matter of accountability. Suppose a school raises thousands of dollars during the year but ends that year with less than $10,000 in its account. Whilst there may be an entirely legitimate reasons for that balance or that the money had been spent on students, equipment, maintenance, activities, transportation or competitions, it must still be accounted for.
If the money was properly spent, parents should be able to see that. A simple financial statement should show how much was collected, where it came from, how it was spent and what remained at the end of the year. It is not an unreasonable demand.
In fact, it is the minimum standard that should apply whenever parents are asked to contribute money. It is time for the schools’ financial statements to be public.
Then there is the issue of PTA bank accounts. The school has a bank account, and now the PTA has a bank account that is not obligated to report to the Ministry of Education or even parents.
I understand that a PTA may have its own organisational structure and financial responsibilities. However, money collected from parents because their children attend a particular school should not exist in a financial universe beyond their view and neither should a PTA account associated with the government school not fall under the Ministry of Education’s purview.
Parents as well as the Ministry of Education are entitled to know where the money is held, who controls the account, what the funds may be used for and how the spending is reported. The distinction between “school money” and “PTA money” may make administrative sense. However, it does not remove the need for accountability to the parents from whom the money was collected and the Ministry of Education who owns the school. Frankly, it is time for the Accounts Department at the Ministry of Education to begin auditing schools and PTA’s accounts.
Then there is the practice of asking parents of students entering Form 3 to contribute $80 per term towards graduation several years later. At that rate, a family may pay several hundreds of dollars before the child reaches graduation.
There should be clear rules governing how those funds are managed. Is it even right or approved by the Ministry of Education to force parents to start paying $80 per term from Form 3? Where is the money held, and who accounts for it? Does it appear in the school’s financial statements or in a separate PTA account? What happens if the child transfers to another school or leaves before graduation? What if the ceremony costs less than anticipated, and who decides what happens to any surplus?
These are questions that any parent should be able to ask and have answered. More importantly, these are questions that a proper national policy would settle before any disagreement arises.
The ministry must, therefore, consider whether schools have been given an adequate framework for operating without registration fees. If those fees were helping schools meet legitimate expenses, abolishing them cannot be the end of the policy.
The government must either provide schools with enough money to cover the resulting shortfall or establish clear rules governing how schools may seek additional support from parents and the wider community.
Otherwise, the registration fee could simply be replaced by a succession of smaller requests such as a contribution to one project, a fundraiser for another, payment for an activity, money towards graduation and yet another collection before the term ends.
The real measure is not whether the registration fee has disappeared. It is whether the financial burden on parents has actually been reduced while schools continue to receive the resources they need to function properly.
There is also the matter of equity. Some schools have large and active PTAs supported by parents and alumni with the means to raise substantial sums. Other schools serve communities where families are already struggling to meet basic household expenses.
If fundraising becomes a significant source of school financing, we risk creating a system in which the resources available to a child depend partly on the fundraising capacity of that child’s parents. Students at one school may have better equipment and more opportunities because its parents can raise $200,000, while students at another may have to settle for less because their parents can only raise $20,000.
That cannot be an acceptable consequence of abolishing registration fees. Public education should not become better resourced in one community than another simply because one group of parents has a greater capacity to contribute.
Consequently, I am not calling for an end to school fundraising. The generosity of parents, alumni and communities is one of the strengths of our society and should be encouraged. Schools will always benefit from people who are willing to contribute more than the government can provide, but generosity does not remove the need for accountability.
What we need is a national policy covering school fundraising and parental contributions. It should define what schools may collect, distinguish voluntary donations from expected payments and establish basic financial reporting standards. It should also address the management of PTA funds and set rules for money collected years in advance for a specific purpose.
Parents should know who holds their money, who authorises its use and what happens to any balance or surplus. The ministry should also consider the cumulative burden being placed on families because a series of smaller requests can eventually cost parents more than the registration fee that was abolished. Abolishing registration fees is one thing, but ensuring that schools are properly funded while genuinely reducing the burden on parents is another.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].