ISSUES BRIEF School Fee Abolition: Parents’ Perspectives Introduction Parents make many important choices regarding their children’s education beyond the decision to enroll them in school. These choices include the type of school their child attends, whether to use private tutoring, and their level of school involvement and support. School fees, or the lack thereof, can have important implications for each of these decisions. While substantial evidence indicates that school fees are a barrier to education, little attention has been paid toward the effects of Free Primary Education (FPE) policies, and even less attention has been given to FPE’s effect on parents’ responses, perceptions, and attitudes regarding their child’s education. School Fees as a Barrier to Education In many countries, parents spend a significant portion of their income to educate their children, a burden that is often greatest How much do parents spend on education? for the poorest families. There is ample evidence that these costs are a barrier that • In Bangladesh, Nepal, Uganda, and Zambia prevents some parents from enrolling (prior to FPE), the percentage of household expenditure allocated to education ranges or keeping their children in school. from 6.5 percent to 15.2 percent (Boyle et al., According to the 2002 DHS EdData 2002). survey in Zambia, prior to school fee • In Egypt, parents pay an average of 10 percent abolition, 51 percent of parents of of their annual expenditures toward education children who had never enrolled in (Moreland et al., 1996). school reported that monetary costs were • In Lahore, Pakistan, parents with incomes of a factor for non-enrollment (NSO & less than 2,000 rupees per month spend 10–11 ORC Macro, 2003). For those parents percent of their income on education, while whose children had dropped out, 59 those with monthly incomes above 10,000 percent cited monetary costs as one of rupees spend 6 percent (Alderman et al., the reasons their child did not continue 2001). in schooling. The influence of the cost of • In China, the potential cost of education education on enrollment and persistence represents 12.2 percent of household is understandable: the annual per-pupil expenditures, with the richest quartile household expenditure on public primary spending 6.6 percent and the poorest quartile education in Zambia was US$29 in spending 47.1 percent on education (Wang, 2002, when the per capita GDP was only 2001; as cited by Bray et al., 2004). US$340 (EPDC, 2010). Research by Sanjay Reddy and Jan Vandemoortele (1996) has shown that for some families, the desire to send their children to school results in parents making sacrifices in other areas of their lives. In Zambia, parents reported to Oxfam (2001) that payment of fees led to reduced food consumption and ultimately malnutrition, disease, and poor health. Similarly, in Tanzania Patrick Watt and Rick Rowden (2002) found that, prior to fee abolition, a family’s ability to pay for either a health or an education service was considered to be a sign of privilege, as both were unaffordable for most households. School Fee Abolition: Parents’ Perspectives Parent Response to Free Primary Education Given the obstacle that the cost of schooling presents for parents, it follows that fee abolition leads to dramatic enrollment increases. According to the World Bank (2007), among the four countries that have witnessed the largest post-abolition surges in enrollment—Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda—an additional 6.4 million children were added to the rosters in the first year of fee abolition alone (see Table 1). While much of the literature focuses on these increases, considerably less is known about how parents learned about FPE, their feelings about the policy, and how FPE has changed their involvement in school. Table 1: Changes in enrollment one year after school fee abolition in selected countries Year of School Change in Fee Abolition Before FPE After FPE Enrollment Kenya 2003 4,903,529 5,926,078 1,022,549 (2002) (2004) Malawi 1994 1,895,423 2,887,107 991,684 (1993) (1995) Tanzania 2002 4,881,588 6,562,772 1,681,184 (2001) (2003) Uganda 1997 3,068,625 5,806,385 2,737,760 (1996) (1998) Source: World Bank, 2007 One of the few exceptions to the lack of literature is UNESCO’s 2005 study of FPE in Kenya, where tuition fees were abolished in 2003 and mandatory levies prohibited. Focus groups with Kenyan parents revealed that most parents heard about FPE during political campaigns via radio, television, and newspapers. The message, “education is free,” was clear. Parents’ attitudes toward fee abolition were generally positive, as they saw this as an opportunity for their children to attend school. The feelings of a fundamental right to free primary education were also strong among the Kenyan focus groups. Several parents reported that if asked to pay, they would refuse and insist that the government had taken on that responsibility. In addition, some parents and pupils recognized that FPE would allow them to save for secondary school. However, a common complaint among parents in Kenya was that once fee abolition was under way, information about the policy and the roles of each stakeholder were unclear. There was significant discord in parents’ views of their level of responsibility, as some believed they did not have to contribute at all, while other parents still felt responsible for purchasing school uniforms and other items. In light of this confusion, there were many reports of declining parental involvement in Kenya post-FPE. Some parents refused to pay for exams as they had in the past. Projects started before FPE were left unfinished and parents refused to pay extra tuition for classes on weekends and holidays. Some parents failed to attend meetings with teachers and were no longer involved in school management as they felt that authority was tied to monetary contributions. Furthermore, parents stopped giving rewards to high-performing teachers, reducing incentives for teachers. Generally, parents did not feel obligated to contribute to their children’s schools as education had become solely the government’s responsibility. 2 A similar trend appeared in Malawi soon after fee abolition in 1994. As reported by Esme Kadzmira and Pauline Rose (2003), “In many cases, communities felt that FPE means that it is now the responsibility of the government to provide facilities so that, at some schools, communities were reluctant to be involved in construction and maintenance where they were previously willing to contribute.” Some Malawian parents no longer felt responsible for their child’s education following FPE and blamed teachers for discipline problems. Parents appeared to be less interested in their children’s schooling and, as a result, teacher performance and morale suffered. It is unclear to what extent parents are no longer contributing because they feel education is now the government’s responsibility. In addition, little is known about whether or not this attitude is shared by the majority of parents. It is clear however, that some parents are withdrawing their support in important ways. Perception of Quality after Free Primary Education Compounding the problem of reduced parental involvement after fee abolition is the reduction in educational quality that often occurs, as shown by proxy indicators such as pupil/teacher ratios or changes in qualifications. How parents evaluate and respond to judgments of quality is somewhat vague and not well investigated. It is unclear whether parents use the same indicators of quality and learning as teachers, governments, or donor agencies, and it is not apparent how parental expectations of the education system play into their evaluations of school quality. According to DHS EdData surveys following FPE in Malawi and Uganda, parents believed that the quality of education had generally improved, particularly with regard to buildings and infrastructure (UBS & ORC Macro, 2001; NSO & ORC Macro, 2003). There were clear differences between rural and urban parents from each country however, with parents in rural areas more likely to report that quality had improved when compared to parents in urban areas (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Parental perceptions of the effect of FPE 90 80 7700 s e s n60 o p s Malawi-Urban e50 RR nt Malawi-Rural e40 r Pa Uganda-Urban of 30 % Uganda-Rural 20 10 0 Pupils learn more Teachers perform Building quality More textbooks better improved available Source: Uganda 2001 and Malawi 2002 DHS EdData Surveys 3 School Fee Abolition: Parents’ Perspectives Despite the high percentage of Malawian parents believing education has improved since FPE, a relatively high proportion of Malawians reported frequent problems with various aspects of the education system. According to the 2005–2006 Afrobarometer public opinion surveys, 40 percent of Malawians reported having problems with textbooks or supplies, 37 percent reported problems with teaching, 33 percent reported problems with absent teachers, 42 percent reported problems with overcrowded classrooms, and 40 percent complained about the poor conditions of facilities (Logan, Fujiwara & Parish, 2006). What accounts for the incongruity in these findings is unknown but suggests that parents’ evaluation of quality is an area in need of further investigation. Response to the Change in Quality: Private Schools For some parents, the perceived deterioration of school quality post-FPE has caused them to transfer their children to private schools. Multiple studies from Kenya confirm this trend including UNESCO’s Challenges of Implementing Free Primary Education in Kenya (2005), Alubisia’s UPE Myth or Reality (2005), and Tooley, Dixon, and Stanfield’s “The Impact of free primary education in Kenya” (2006). Initially after FPE was implemented, some students transferred from private to free government schools, and from poor to higher performing government schools. However, by 2004, Kenyan families began to pull their children out of free government schools to send them to private schools with better quality. According to Victor Chinyama (2006), private school enrollment rose by 34 percent as well-to-do parents transferred their children from government schools. As a result, in some areas, government school enrollment actually declined following the initial surge in enrollment. In 162 government schools sampled across Kenya in 2003, enrollment had increased by over 18,000 to 92,974 pupils when FPE was introduced. However, one year later, this figure had fallen to 88,356 pupils, a drop of 5 percent (UNESCO, 2005). It is unclear how many of these disappearing students transferred to other schools and how many dropped out altogether, but the quality of education may be an important factor. Tooley, Dixon, and Stanfield found that, in focus groups with private school parents in Kenya, the negative quality of government schools was repeatedly cited as a factor for staying in private schools or returning to them after briefly enrolling in government schools. The parents’ primary concern was the high pupil/teacher ratio of government schools. They also complained that government school teachers did not work as hard as those who were taking fees from parents, who felt a sense of obligation to perform well. The same trend is found in Kampala, Uganda where Alubisia identified 1,000 private primary schools versus only 86 government schools. Parents with the ability to pay appear to prefer private schools due to smaller class sizes and a greater emphasis on active learning and participatory approaches to teaching. The result of these shifts appears to be the creation of an inequitable education system. Children of parents who lack the ability to pay for schooling are constrained to ill-equipped government schools, while children of wealthier parents have the choice to get a better education in private schools. Furthermore, according to Alubisia, boys in the Kapchorwa and Kumi districts of Uganda are more likely to be sent to private schools, while girls are more likely to attend the free primary schools, potentially unraveling some of the success in gender equality that fee abolition sought to achieve. 4 Even for those who do not shift to private schools, inequalities persist. One mechanism is the use of private tutoring. Although banned in some countries, the practice appears to remain quite prevalent. For example, one father interviewed in Kenya noticed that his children’s performance in school was declining and he subsequently sought out private tutoring. In Tanzania, a mother summed up what appears to be many parents’ concerns by stating, “I think they don’t teach properly during regular time in order to attract children to their tuition class” (Alubisia, 2005). Only some families, however, are able to afford this added cost. Remaining Barriers Despite eliminating some of the costs for parents to send their children to school and leading to significant initial gains in enrollment, school fee abolition has not led to full universal primary enrollment. In Tanzania, for example, over 600,000 children of primary school age were out of school in 2005, while in Kenya the figure was nearly double, at 1.1 million according to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS, 2006). Two reasons may explain this trend. First, some costs remain and may still be prohibitive to the poorest families. Second, other non-monetary barriers may still prevent children from enrolling. Understanding the remaining barriers provides additional insight into how parents make their decisions to send or not send their child to school. Monetary Barriers School fee abolition most often refers to the elimination of tuition fees, but tuition fees are not always the most pressing cost for families. In several cases, uniforms are the most expensive and burdensome cost. According to Oxfam’s report titled, Education Charges: A tax on human development (2001), uniforms were mandatory and cost US$3-5 per year in Tolon, Ghana. Many parents cited this cost as the reason their children were unable to attend school. In the Kagera region of Tanzania before school fee abolition, almost half of parents’ education expenditure was for uniforms (Burke & Beegle, 2004). Furthermore, tuition was not always a significant cost. In Mozambique prior to school fee abolition, World Bank (2005) analysis of household data revealed that tuition fees were minimal and did not have a significant impact on enrollment and persistence. Instead, parents felt that the costs of textbooks and other learning materials, as well as high opportunity costs, were a more substantial burden. In Nigeria, Uganda, and Zambia, analysis of household expenditures on primary education from the DHS EdData surveys shows a substantial number of potential costs a family must pay toward education (see Table 2). While some costs, such as transportation in Nigeria, appear to be particularly high, relatively few households report paying these costs. However, other fees, such as parent-teacher association fees or textbook purchases, are smaller in value yet paid by large proportion of families. In the case of Nigeria and Uganda, these data were collected several years after school fee abolition, suggesting that despite the elimination of tuition fees, many other costs remain. For Zambia, the data were collected one year before school fees were eliminated. Kenya provides another case where, despite the abolition of tuition fees and mandatory charges, other costs remain. As part of the school lunch program, some schools require 5 School Fee Abolition: Parents’ Perspectives students to pay as much as KSh50 per month for meals (Princeton University, 2006). In addition, the cost of uniforms ranges from KSh500 to KSh1,000. Many parents in Kibera, Kenya cited that schools require their children to have two uniforms to attend government schools, a cost which many parents cannot afford (Tooley, Dixon & Stanfield, 2006). Another parent in Kibera was told to pay KSh11,000 for a building maintenance fund. Finally, Alubisia notes that some reports from Kenya indicate that parents must pay to secure a place for their child in the overcrowded schools. Table 2: Average annual per-pupil household expenditure on primary schooling (US$) for government primary school students with non-zero expenditures Exam Uniforms/ Books/ Tuition PTA Dev’t Fees Fees Boarding Clothing Supplies Nigeria 12.86(14) 1.33(70) 2.68(29) 1.72(39) (0.2)a 5.54(88) 6.19(99) Uganda 5.88(13) 1.57(16) 1.84(57) 1.24(19) 2.84(1) 3.92(79) 3.57(98) Zambia 12.05(73) 1.48(67) --- 2.27(2) (0.2)a 9.68(81) 4.44(98) Private Sports Maint. Furniture, Transp. Food Tutoring Fund Fee Tools Other Nigeria 109.94(5) 33.38(62) 10.02(23) --- 1.58(18) 2.77(14) 2.36(14) Uganda 20.28(3) 9.38(20) 10.79(5) --- --- --- 3.82(22) Zambia --- (2) 77.05(24) 15.67(12) 0.91(24) --- --- 1.73(4) a. Sample size insufficient to calculate mean non-zero expenditures. Note: Percentage of all households who reported having paid that cost in the previous year in () Note: For each country, the school year is the one preceding the year of the survey. In Uganda, for example, expenditures are from the 2000 year. Source: UBS & ORC Macro, 2001; CSO & ORC Macro, 2002; and NPC & ORC Macro, 2004 Fee creep is another financial burden that can prevent parents from enrolling their children, as previously banned fees return. For example, according to the DHS EdData survey in Uganda, 13 percent of households whose children attended government schools paid tuition fees, despite the abolition of tuition fees four years earlier. Furthermore, in Malawi, FPE policy from 1994 included not only free tuition, but also free books and stationery. However, over 83 percent of parents report having paid for books and supplies in 2002. In many countries, such as Kenya and Nigeria, fee abolition policies have been put into place multiple times over the last few decades. Perceptions of poverty may also play a role in how fees are perceived by parents and whether they act as a barrier to enrollment. According to the World Bank (2005), prior to fee abolition in Mozambique, government policy stipulated that children were exempt from paying school fees if they could not afford them. However, many parents were unaware of the policy and did not enroll their children. Yet most parents, when interviewed, stated that even if a mechanism existed to allow their children attend school without paying fees, they would not take advantage of it for fear of ridicule. Interestingly, the cost of uniforms was found to have a positive effect on enrollment in Grades1–5. One potential explanation was that uniforms hid differences in socio-economic status and thus parents preferred to send their children to school in uniforms, even if the cost was high. 6 Non-Monetary Barriers The DHS EdData surveys in Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, and Zambia provide nationally representative data about parents’ reasons for their child never enrolling in or dropping out of primary school (See Figures 2 and 3). With the exception of Zambia, each country had abolished tuition fees at the time of the survey yet monetary costs remained an important barrier, particularly for students who dropped out. These surveys also highlight many of the other barriers that families report. From this extensive list of barriers to enrollment and persistence, several reasons deserve attention. One such reason is that the child has no interest in schooling. Based on results from the 1995 and 2000 rounds of the DHS survey, Egyptian mothers from all income groups reported “child not interested” as the number one reason for school drop out for both boys and girls (Suliman & El-Kogali, 2002). In Malawi and Uganda, 34 and 12 percent of parents, respectively, reported that “child not interested” was the reason their child was not enrolled in school. For those parents whose children had dropped out, 45 percent of parents in Malawi, 23 percent of parents in Nigeria, 25 percent of parents in Uganda, and 12 percent of parents in Zambia, responded that their child dropped out because he or she no longer wanted to attend school or had received enough schooling. Figure 2: Reasons for not currently attending school reported by parents of school-aged children who have never enrolled 60 50 s e sons 40 Malawi sp Nigeria e R nt 30 Uganda e rar Zambia P of 20 % 10 0 Source: Uganda 2001, Zambia 2002, Malawi 2002, and Nigeria 2004 DHS EdData Household Surveys These findings are particularly noteworthy given that parents involved their children in the decision to attend school in only 2 percent of households and children almost never made the decision to attend school without parental involvement. The “child not interested” response also raises questions about the causes of a child’s disinterest: Is it because of the low quality of education provided? Is it because of the perceived lack of benefits of attending school? 7 School Fee Abolition: Parents’ Perspectives Figure 3: Reasons for dropping out of primary school reported by parents of school- aged children 60 Malawi 50 Nigeria s ee ons 40 Uganda p s Zambia e R nt 30 ee ar P of 20 % 10 0 Source: Uganda 2001, Zambia 2002, Malawi 2002, and Nigeria 2004 DHS EdData Household Surveys Opportunity cost is another barrier. For families living in poverty or in rural areas, the lost value of child labor due to time in school is high and is exacerbated by the time it takes to travel longer distances to school and to complete homework. In Tanzania prior to school fee abolition, Mason and Khandker (1996) estimated that the value of children’s work that is foregone because of school is about three times the value of a family’s expenditures on education. These opportunity costs comprise a larger share of the costs of education in poorer households than in wealthier households. According to Suliman and El-Kogali, a poor Egyptian family with an annual income of LE3,600 (US$1,028) spent an average of LE348 (US$99) at the primary level, per child. However, the estimated income of a working child was estimated to be LE534 (US$153), which may suggest why many children do not stay in school. It is important to identify the relative burden of each of these barriers on parental decisions to ensure that children enroll and stay in school. As noted, school fees are not always the most critical concern of parents. Although fee abolition typically results in massive enrollment, other barriers may dissuade parents from continuing their child’s education and may limit a child’s interest in school. Recommendations There are many gaps in the findings about parental perceptions and responses toward FPE. These limitations are a product of both a lack of breadth (certain issues are not addressed at all) and a lack of depth (it is unclear to what extent findings are widespread). Consequently, while a few recommendations can be made, the focus moving forward should be to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of parents. • Little is known about the parents’ decision-making process and, more importantly, the roles of quality and expectations in that decision. How do parents decide who in their family attends school? What signals do they receive from teachers, family, or societal norms that communicate the importance of education? What do parents expect from their child’s education and how do they determine if this expectation is being met? 8 Understanding the nature of parental demand for education is important in ensuring that the government provides services that are desired and supported by families. • Prior to abolishing fees, governments should more carefully investigate the impact of the various obstacles to education, including the costs of tuition and uniforms, opportunity costs, and other non-monetary barriers. If costs prove to be the most significant barrier, countries need to examine various policies for reducing them. It is possible that alternative polices for reducing costs, such as providing free uniforms or targeted subsidies, may be complementary or even more effective at getting children to enroll and stay in school. Further research in this area may also pinpoint what additional policies should be combined with cost reduction to ensure the greatest impact on enrollment and persistence. • Clear and consistent plans for the abolition of school fees (including the role and level of responsibility of parents) need to be determined before the policy is enacted, and these policies need to be plainly presented to parents in a consistent format. Confusion over what fee abolition means abounds and can lead to ineffective policy implementation. In Malawi, for example, some parents interpreted “free” to mean that parents are free to decide if their child attends school, despite education being compulsory (Chimombo, 2005). • Based on available data, reviews of parental support of education are mixed, with parents feeling a range of responsibility after FPE. Ministries of education need to create pathways to involve parents in their child’s education and to make sure that parents understand that their support is desired. Developing a list of the activities in which parents can partake, such as helping with homework or PTAs, and coupling this with an information campaign can help mobilize parental support. • Reports have suggested that despite enrollment increases associated with FPE, some inequalities remain and may be exacerbated by such practices as paying for extra tutoring or enrolling children in higher quality private schools. Parents will often seek out ways to give their children an educational advantage and it is unlikely these practices can or should be curbed. However, recognizing that these practices exist and how they perpetuate inequalities is an important step. At a minimum, countries need to make sure that the government education system is providing sufficient spaces with adequate quality, such that those children who do not have parents with the desire or means to support their education are not left behind. Conclusion Little empirical research has investigated the effects of school fee abolition, and only a fraction of that has examined parents and their perceptions of the policy. While the evidence in this brief may indicate some change in education decisions, such as the use of private tutoring or withdrawal of support for school, the extent of these changes has not been studied in depth and cannot be generalized broadly. Furthermore, while FPE has clearly resulted in an enrollment increase, millions of children are still not in school. While reducing the costs of education has helped tip that balance in favor of enrollment and persistence, there are many other barriers that remain and play a role in parental decision- making. Ultimately, parents are the ones who decide whether or not to enroll their children in school. Giving parents a greater voice and listening to their views and perceptions is necessary to understand how we can best achieve universal primary education. 9 School Fee Abolition: Parents’ Perspectives References Alderman, H., Orazem, P., & Paterno, E. (2001). “School quality, school cost, and the public/private school choices of low-income households in Pakistan.” Journal of Human Resources, 36(2), 304-326. Alubisia, A. (2005). UPE myth or reality: A review of experiences, challenges and lessons from East Africa. London: Oxfam GB and ANCEFA. Boyle, S., Brock, A., Mace, J., & Sibbons, M. (2002). Reaching the poor: The ‘costs’ of sending children to school. A six country comparative study. (Educational Papers). London: Department for International Development. Bray, M., Xiaohao, D., & Ping, H. (2004). Reducing the burden on the poor: Household costs of basic education in Gansu, China. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, Hong Kong University. Burke, K., & Beegle, K. (2004). Why children aren’t attending school: The case of Northwestern Tanzania. Journal of African Economies, 13(2), 333-355. Central Statistical Office [Zambia] & ORC Macro. (2003). Zambia DHS EdData Survey 2002: Education Data for Decision-making. Calverton, Maryland, USA: Central Statistical Office and ORC Macro. Chimombo, J.P.G. (2005). Quantity versus quality in education: Case studies in Malawi. International Review of Education, 51, 155-172. Chinyama, V. (2006). Kenya’s abolition of school fees offers lessons for rest of Africa. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_33391.html EPDC. (2010). Education Policy and Data Center. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from http:// www.epdc.org/Default.aspx Kadzamira, E., & Rose, P. (2003). Can free primary education meet the needs of the poor? Evidence from Malawi. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 501-516. Kigotho, W. (2002, June 14). Parents will exchange chickens and corn for lessons. The Times Educational Supplement, p. 18. Logan, C., Fujiwara, T. & Parish, V. (2006). Citizens and the State in Africa: New Results from Afrobarometer Round 3 (Working Paper No. 61). South Africa: The Afrobarometer Network. Mason, A., & Khandker, S. (1996). Measuring the opportunity costs of children’s time in a developing country: Implications for education sector analysis and interventions (Human Capital Development Working Paper No. 72). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Moreland, R. S., Naguib, N. G., El-Zanaty, F., El-Daw, E. D. A., & Olson, K. (1996). Putting children first: Household expenditures on children in Egypt. Cairo: National Population Council, RAPID IV Project, USAID-Cairo. 10