Stephen Vasciannie | Education – free and unfree

In 1974, Prime Minister Michael Manley announced in an eternally memorable Budget Speech – easily the most famous Budget Speech in the history of independent Jamaica – the introduction of a policy of free education. “Free education is change” declared Manley at his eloquent best, following his enunciation of elements of the policy.

Significantly, the free education policy covered all stages of formal schooling. Education at the primary level in government schools had long been available without fees to students. Following the Manley initiative, secondary education in all grant-aided schools was also offered free of cost. In effect, this meant the abolition of the so-called “half scholarships” under which some students were required to cover some of their secondary school fees. All secondary education was made free of cost in public sector schools.

The approach was also applied at the tertiary level. Thus, students at the University of the West Indies (UWI), the then College of Arts, Science and Technology (CAST), various teachers’ colleges, and other public institutions of higher learning were exempt from the payment of school fees. In the case of tertiary education, each student was also entitled to a Boarding Grant intended to cover fully or at least supplement accommodation and living expenses.

GAME CHANGER

This was Manley’s game-changer for Jamaican society. All students, regardless of their financial circumstances, were to be educated; and this was to be up to the level justified by academic aptitude, attitude and desire. Many Jamaicans celebrated the approach on the basis that it could bring about fundamental social change, and immediately following Manley’s Budget speech, former Education Minister Edwin Allen, a veteran Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) member of parliament, shook Manley’s hand in a manner that symbolized enthusiastic cross-party support.

Some supporters of free education used the policy as a means of spurring on students, describing it as a golden opportunity for all, and reminding students of the responsibilities that came along with the opportunity. And on this point, at least two responsibilities – one general, the other specific – were emphasised.

DUTY TO SHINE

The general responsibility was that students had a duty to shine because Jamaican taxpayers’ money was giving us special privileges; to paraphrase a thoughtful supporter, money that could provide a decent home for children living in “old cars” was being spent on our intellectual upliftment, so no slacking off was allowed.

The specific responsibility concerned the National Youth Service, introduced by the Manley Government simultaneously with the policy of free education. In return for the Government’s coverage of school fees, all student beneficiaries were required to give two years of service to Jamaica. Youth Service workers received a stipend for their services, and students going on to post-secondary education could postpone the period of their service.

NAYSAYERS

However, even as the free education was widely supported in Jamaican society, there were naysayers. Some persons – splitting hairs – said education could never be free, for taxpayers had to pay the price. Yes, yes, we knew this, but the point was that education was being made available to all, through funding from the state, and that this would raise levels of attainment for the entire society.

Other naysayers complained that the Manley approach encouraged the freeness mentality abroad in Jamaican society, and tended to reduce the quality of education.by making a scarce commodity widely available. These arguments were cogently countered. The National Youth Service made it clear that beneficiaries of the new education policy would make a contribution to society upon graduation – thus paying back and countering the freeness mentality point. As to quality, the fact of expansion of opportunity in itself would not undermine standards, provided the state, teachers and students were committed to upholding the rising tide.

AFFORDABILITY

But could Jamaica afford free education in terms of the Manley initiative? This was the real question, although I would add an important corollary: could Jamaica afford not to have free education, given the country’s history and consequential social divisions? Many were the assertions that free education was inherently a good thing for society, but that Jamaica, as a poor society, could not find full funding for all up to university level.

The issue of affordability remained subject to debate in the decade of the 1970s, and there was even the story – likely to have been apocryphal – that Manley’s announcement of free education caught his Minister of Finance completely by surprise. This was intended to suggest that all self-respecting guardians of the coffers would have been obliged to oppose Manley’s visionary, missionary zeal by reference to the financial bottom line.

NEW DISPENSATION

Enter the 1980s, a new dispensation, and greater attention to whether the Jamaican state could afford free tertiary and secondary education for all. The Seaga Government said no, and so, notwithstanding some degree of tertiary student resistance, fees were reimposed: tertiary students had to pay a ‘cess’ (such an awkward term), while parents and guardians were called upon to cover certain secondary fees.

Since the 1980s, therefore, the Seaganomic plan of partial payments has prevailed under both JLP and People’s National Party regimes. There have been variations and adjustments on payment schemes, but the core idea is that students at secondary schools and universities are generally expected to pay some school fees. Sometimes – as seems presently to be the case in high schools – this is a ‘registration fee’ ranging between about $6,500 and $14,500 depending on the school. And sometimes political people and governmental bureaucrats describe high school fees as optional, giving rise to massive collection headaches for cash-strapped institutions.

At the tertiary level, fees for some programmes now require students to pay up to US$10,000 per annum – this in a country whose per capita income hovered in the region of US$7,500 last year. Some courses are less expensive, but we should note that the student doing a course only because it is less expensive than others may be seriously demotivated in the pursuit of studies.

RECONSIDERATION

Various persons have highlighted the idea that our schools have apartheid elements from early levels – and this is almost certainly true. Several other structural and long-term challenges also confront diligent instructors and bureaucrats on a daily basis. The fact, though, that many students with high academic potential are quietly barred from achieving their aspirations because they cannot afford school fees should be a matter for full attention.

It is time to reconsider properly the question of free education along the lines of the Manley approach from 1974. In this reconsideration, there should be a presumption in favour of free education – and it should be withheld only if it is genuinely unaffordable. We must not pull the ladder up behind us.

Stephen Vasciannie is professor of international law at The University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com