The recent implementation of the “No Fees Stress Policy” by the current government, which waives fees for all first-year tertiary students, has sparked both applause and concern. While the intention to ease the financial burden of higher education is laudable, the blanket nature of this policy raises critical questions about its economic rationale and sustainability.
One of the long-standing concerns surrounding the Free SHS policy, now extended in spirit to the tertiary level, was its wholesale implementation. Critics, including myself, cautioned against applying a one-size-fits-all solution in a country where income disparities are well known. The essence of a good social intervention is not just in its scope but in its precision. By covering the fees of all students regardless of their financial backgrounds, the government has missed an opportunity to channel limited resources more strategically.
There is no denying that poverty remains a significant barrier to education in Ghana. Many bright students are unable to reach their academic potential simply because they cannot afford the cost. These are the individuals who truly need the government’s help. However, there is also a considerable segment of the population whose parents or guardians have the means to pay for tertiary education without government assistance. For such families, a fee waiver is not a necessity but an unnecessary bonus funded by public resources.
Instead of subsidising education for all, the government could have adopted a means-testing approach. Families with demonstrable financial need should receive full support, while others should be encouraged to shoulder their responsibilities. This targeted intervention would not only ensure that the truly needy are supported but would also free up government funds to invest in critical areas like infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, and youth employment.
Moreover, tertiary education is inherently expensive. This reality is not unique to Ghana; globally, governments are struggling to maintain affordable higher education systems while balancing national development needs. Our approach should therefore be one of balance and pragmatism, not populist overreach or a sort of political voting wooing.
Another overlooked casualty of the “No Fees Stress Policy” is the existing student loan scheme. Designed to offer financial support to students in need, the student loan scheme is a more focused and sustainable model. Interestingly, not all students opt to access student loans throughout their academic journey. This alone is proof that not every student requires full government sponsorship.
By introducing free tertiary education for all first-year students, the government risks undermining the relevance and effectiveness of the student loan programme. Instead of complementing the loan scheme, the new policy creates duplication and wastes resources that could be better deployed.
To draw the curtains down, while the government’s desire to improve access to tertiary education is commendable, the “No Fees Stress Policy” in its current form lacks economic sense. A more prudent path forward would involve a well-targeted subsidy system that identifies and supports genuinely needy students. By doing so, the government would not only be acting responsibly but also preserving vital public funds for broader national development priorities.
Ghanaians are watching!!!
FAB’s Gist
