Broken Promises: When Free Education Still Costs the Poor Their Future

Removing school fees is important, but families can still face costs that interrupt learning. A credible promise of access must address the whole school day.

Removing school fees changes an important part of a family's education costs, but it does not pay for every requirement of a school day. A learner may still need transport, clothing, materials and a meal. When those needs cannot be met, a place in school can be difficult to use consistently. The question for Zambia is how to protect the gain in access while addressing the conditions that continue to interrupt learning.

The distinction should be made fairly. Free education does not become worthless because other barriers remain. Equally, the removal of fees should not be used to suggest that every obstacle has been resolved. UNESCO's Zambia education brief identifies financial barriers and limited school places among the factors affecting progression. Policy should therefore be assessed through the learner's complete journey, from getting to class to receiving the support needed to make progress.

Costs can accumulate in ways that are difficult to see from a national announcement. An occasional journey to obtain a document, the replacement of a damaged exercise book or a requirement to return with a particular item may appear modest on its own. For a household balancing several children's needs, the combined demand matters. Schools should examine what they ask families to provide and be able to explain why each requirement is necessary.

Support should be predictable enough for families to plan around. A learner should not have to wait for a public display of hardship before assistance becomes available. Clear information, a confidential conversation and a workable referral to appropriate services would help. School staff also need to understand what they can offer directly and where another institution has responsibility, so that a family is not repeatedly sent elsewhere without an effective handover.

The conditions inside school deserve the same attention. Access becomes less meaningful if a learner cannot see the board, obtain feedback or find help with a persistent difficulty. Teachers need usable materials and a workload that allows them to respond. Expanding participation creates responsibilities for planning, staffing and maintenance. Those obligations should be discussed alongside enrolment so that the system prepares for the people it has rightly invited to enter.

Families can be valuable partners without being expected to provide identical support. Some caregivers can help with homework easily; others may have limited time, literacy or resources. Communication should take those differences into account. A useful discussion identifies a specific learning or attendance problem and a realistic action. It avoids treating a family's constraints as proof that it does not value education, while remaining clear about shared responsibilities for a child's welfare.

Public reporting should connect resources with experience. Communities need to know whether a promised classroom is usable, whether a staffing gap is being addressed and how concerns can be raised. Schools should also have a way to explain constraints accurately. An honest account of what is working and what remains difficult is more useful than either unqualified celebration or a general claim that nothing has improved. It allows the next decision to respond to evidence.

A stronger education promise would be measured through attendance, retention, learning and fair progression, as well as the number of learners registered. It would ask who is still being missed and what practical change would help them participate. Zambia's task is to make the right to learn increasingly dependable through the ordinary school day. That requires sustained attention to the costs, services and relationships around education, with every improvement judged by whether it helps a child remain engaged and move forward.