Balford Henry, News EditorExtensively researching the history of cost sharing, over the past few weeks, has caused me to stumble upon a number of indisputably facts, as well as a few irrefutable conclusions.
For one, it is a fact that while Michael Manley declared free education in 1973 in Parliament, it was not disturbed by the Edward Seaga administration of the 1980s, except for a seven per cent of cost cess which his government introduced at the University of the West Indies (UWI) and the former College of Arts, Science and Technology(CAST).
In fact, it was not until 1994 that the current Minister of Education, Burchell Whiteman, reintroduced fees for secondary students under cost sharing, which required parents to share the cost of their children's education at the secondary level.
But, the truth is that, basically, free education was available even before Mr. Manley's move in 1973. Up to then, except for students attending the UWI and CAST as well as those then known as 'half scholarships' to high schools, no student paid for attending any public school.
The research showed that the JLP had indeed consistently opposed cost sharing and had raised it in their 1997 election campaign without much success.
Far from original
Indeed, the current proposals being made by Mr. Seaga are far from original. The Opposition Leader had proposed in 1996 that young people from three to 18 years old should not have to pay for their education. Delroy Chuck, the party's spokesman on education in the mid-1980s had asked for its removal as well as funding to make basic school education free.
The introduction of a cess by the JLP in the 1980s, however, had created a public uproar, which was only calmed when a task force headed by Sir Phillip Sherlock found that it was not unreasonable as long as the fees remained reasonable.
By now it is probably common knowledge that Mr. Manley had promised, in his 1989 political campaign, to remove that cess but failed to do so.
The introduction of the cost sharing policy in 1994 was not capricious. The truth is that decreasing allotments to his ministry in the annual budget which, in turn, led to decreasing allotments to the schools, led to this policy under Mr. Whiteman's watch.
The Government ended up paying only for the salaries of the teachers and the ancillary staff of the schools, while the management of the schools were left on their own to meet other costs, including fast rising utility bills.
But, while the cost sharing policy seemed an economic necessity at the time, parents were, in the meantime, being overwhelmed by other rising costs including those of uniforms, shoes, transportation and lunch.
The schools were required to set their fees based on their projected operational costs and expenditures. They were instructed to ensure that the charges were not exorbitant and principals were told to accept whatever quantum the child's parents were able to pay and that no child should be turned away because of their inability to pay the fees.
But this is far easier said than done and the Government got the plan off to miserable start with less than required input from the ministry which has never caught up.
Concerns about the introduction of cost sharing were first expressed in Parliament in November, 1993, by Senator Hugh Dawes, the JLP spokesman on education.
"I was angry at cost sharing and I am still displeased," said Mr. Dawes.
The Gleaner reported in August 1994 that, "despite mounting calls for it to be put on hold, the government said it was sticking to its plans to implement the controversial scheme in September."
In that same article, Sir Phillip Sherlock, the former vice-chancellor of the UWI suggested that, "cost sharing is another name for let the poor bear the burden."
Mr. Whiteman, in a bid to calm tempers explained:
"In the past, and up to the last term, the ministry would pay all the teachers and other approved staff and, in addition, send a small grant towards the other running costs. As of next term, that small grant is automatic. It will be pooled, it will be increased from sources within the ministry and it will be shared out as school assistance for the students who are in need.
"What this means is that we are no longer subsidising everybody, including those who are comfortably able to pay their share in their school. Instead, we are now targeting the subsidy to those who need it most."
He said that the fees were designed to increase resources needed to provide improved quality education for all secondary school students.
"Let us be clear that the alternative is not to stand still or - more likely - go into reverse; that we cannot afford to do," he added. "Cost sharing is una-voidable at this point and even if it means we will need modification at a later date, it will be implemented." It was expected then that parents would pay 30-40 per cent of the fees.
On August 31, 1994, the JLP's Area One Council, which comprises the 15 constituencies of Kingston and St. Andrew, issued a statement calling for the postponement of the implementation of cost sharing on the basis of its, "having taken into account the hardships being imposed on parents and students as a result of the unbearable school fees, starting in September."
The statement suggested that cost sharing would affect mainly the children of poor families, excluding them from access to secondary education, "thus creating higher unemployment, more teenage pregnancy and increased crime."
After cost sharing was introduced in September 1994, three months later Dr. Alfred Sangster, head of CAST, speaking to principals of technical high schools, questioned whether Jamaica was, "in danger of returning to the days when only those who could afford it had access to secondary education."
The first term of cost sharing was unbearable for both students and schools.
It was projected that by the end of the term in December 1994 the Government would have owed millions to the schools for outstanding cost sharing payments. The principals felt that the situation would be even worse in January 1995. But, the Government did pay up some of the fees, though not all, by January.
By May 1995 it was revealed that 20 per cent of the children in high schools had not paid their portion of the fees nor applied for assistance from the Ministry. This was seen as proof that cost sharing was not working up to then.
In July 1996, the figures were that 30,000 secondary school students were not paying their cost sharing portions. About 300 secondary school students dropped out during the period, because they couldn't afford the fees. The dropouts were identified from a census of schools done by the Ministry of Education.
The figures also showed that: only 5,085 students sought full support; 8,872 sought partial support; 113,000 paid their fees in full; and 25,355 paid in part. The total accumulated was $315.2 million.
Hard on parents
In October 1996, Delroy Chuck, who by then had assumed the role of JLP spokesman on education, called for secondary education to be made free.
"As the present state of the economy makes it extremely hard on parents to maintain a decent quality of life at home, while attending to the basic needs of a school child," he explained.
In November 1996, Opposition Leader Edward Seaga said that he would remove the cost sharing programme from the secondary schools, "to make education at that level completely funded by the government," if his party won the 1997 general election.
The Gleaner reported on November 9, 1996 on a meeting with UWI students that: "Mr. Seaga said he was committed to any programme that would end the situation where some children in secondary schools could not afford to go to school."
The Gleaner also added that, "Mr. Seaga reiterated his view that children should graduate from secondary school at age 18 years, instead of 16 years. The two extra years, he said, would allow children to become competent in the most important subjects, English and Mathematics."
He repeated the concern again in September 1997 as follows: "It is time for the government to take a second look at the whole question of cost sharing; because we cannot afford to run the risk of whether our children get educated or not.."(Gleaner, September 5, 1997).
National Democratic Movement (NDM) leader Bruce Golding also criticised the policy, saying: "Cost sharing is creating havoc for many poor parents and it is depriving poorer students of secondary education."
Mr. Whiteman firmly declared in September 2001, that parents who had not paid their fees in full within four weeks of their child's admission were expected to make arrangements for payment, "failure to do so would see the child being sent home until proper arrangements are made." (Gleaner, September 9, 1998).
This seemed, however, to be contradicting the statement from Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, the following month, that "No student should be denied an education because of inability to pay school fees."
Dr. Omar Davies, Minister of Finance, however seemed to have put the matter in perspective in November 1998 when he said that if increased expenditure on education could not be translated into increased output per worker, then additional financial allocation to the sector could not be justified.
But that was until Mr. Patterson declared that same month, that achievement of economic growth was integrally linked to the level of education of the population.
In October 2000, the Auditor-General, Adrian Strachan, told a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament that he noted that an audit of the cost sharing system had revealed a need for improvements in the method of assessing students and awarding benefits.
According to Mr. Strachan, the process seemed to be "discretionary" and needed clearer guidelines for consistency and equity.
"The impression I got is that there either was none (guidelines), and if there were, those guidelines were vague and without sufficient details."
He also spoke of the failure of the Ministry to implement a proposal to appointment a review board to assess the effectiveness of the cost sharing scheme, as well as non-compliance among a number of schools in submitting the required reports and statements of expenditure. Only 45 per cent of the schools had submitted reports in 1998/99.
Ministry of Education Permanent Secretary Maguerite Bowie admitted that the system was inadequate. She also agreed that the schools had too much discretion.
She said that too few people took up the offer to work on the review boards and that every effort was being made to improve the system.
But, up to today cost sharing remains a matter of major concern to the schools, the students, the parents and also the politicians.
