The recent interdiction of headteachers across various regions in Ghana for allegedly charging unauthorized fees has sparked intense debate. While the Ghana Education Service (GES) claims that interdicting these headteachers is necessary to protect students from financial burden, there are compelling reasons to argue against such interdictions. This article presents a solid argument against the interdiction of these headteachers and argues that in some cases, the students severely need the items being charged for.
One major argument against the interdiction of headteachers is the need to consider the context in which they charged these fees. In some cases, students need certain items for effective learning and academic success. For example, students require textbooks, calculators, and other learning aids that are not readily available in schools. To ensure that students have access to these items, headteachers may require them to pay for them. Thus, interdicting headteachers who charge such fees without examining the context is an unfair punishment that could negatively impact the education system.
While unauthorized fees are not ideal, it is imperative to consider the need for prior approval before interdicting headteachers. The GES must ensure that headteachers have access to a comprehensive list of authorized fees required for effective teaching and learning. Headteachers should be required to seek prior approval before charging any form of fees outside the authorized list. Interdicting headteachers without providing means for seeking prior approval is, therefore, an unfair punishment.
Interdicting headteachers who charged unauthorized fees could have adverse consequences on students. In some cases, students require the items that headteachers charged for to be able to thrive effectively in school. Denying students access to these items could negatively impact their academic progress. For instance, students may lack access to essential textbooks, calculators, track suits, and other materials required for studies, athlectics, or co-curricular activities. Such a situation is liable to harm students’ academic progress and leave them unable to compete with their counterparts.
To limit the number of unauthorized fees charged by headteachers, it is crucial for the GES to disclose explicitly all authorized fees to headteachers. The GES should issue transparent guidelines on what fees can be charged and list the exact amount required for each. This measure would limit conflicts between headteachers and parents concerning fees charged. Consequently, this would provide headteachers with a clearer understanding of their responsibilities.
One puzzling question is whether this interdiction is because the supply of these products is not coming from the top.
While unauthorized fees should not be encouraged in schools, interdicting headteachers who charge them is not a balanced approach. The GES must consider the context surrounding the charging of these fees and ensure that each headteacher has access to a comprehensive list of authorized fees. It is vital to put students’ needs into perspective when making decisions that could significantly impact their academic progress. In conclusion, headteachers should be accountable for the fees they charge, but interdiction should not always be the go-to solution.
By Evans Mawunyo Tsikata – BBA, LLB, MEd, LLM
