Hon AKK Criticizes FQSE

By Abdul Rahman Bah

Opposition Whip in Parliament, Hon. Abdul Karim Kamara, has launched a strong critique of Sierra Leone’s Free Quality School Education programme, questioning whether the policy was adequately assessed before implementation and arguing that the government must confront the growing financial and infrastructural pressures facing schools.

Kamara said the promise of free education must be examined beyond the removal of school fees, arguing that parents continue to carry significant costs through uniforms, socks, learning materials and other school-related requirements. He cited the price of school-branded socks, which he said could cost about NLe60,000 at some schools, arguing that when uniforms and other expenses are added, the financial burden on parents can approach hundreds of thousands of leones.

According to the opposition lawmaker, the central question is how schools are expected to function if government funding does not adequately cover the basic operational needs of schools. He questioned how schools can maintain furniture, repair classrooms, provide functional toilets, ensure water supply and meet other essential needs if the financial contribution expected from parents has been drastically reduced.

Kamara argued that government cannot simply announce free education and then leave schools struggling to finance basic services. He said the issue should be viewed as a national investment because education is one of the foundations upon which the country’s future economic and social development depends.

He also questioned the role of local councils in the delivery of education services, arguing that if councils are expected to take responsibility for certain aspects of education under the devolved system, they must be adequately financed. He pointed to grants provided to councils and questioned whether those resources are sufficient to enable them to perform the responsibilities assigned to them.

The opposition lawmaker warned that Sierra Leone risks undermining the very fabric of its society if education is treated primarily as a political achievement rather than as a long-term national development programme. He argued that governments must resist the temptation to use education as a political commodity while failing to address the everyday realities faced by pupils, teachers, parents and school administrators.

Kamara further questioned whether a comprehensive assessment of the education sector was conducted before the Free Quality School Education programme was introduced. He said government should have first examined the distribution of teachers, availability of classrooms, condition of school furniture, school population, water and sanitation facilities and the overall capacity of schools to absorb the anticipated increase in enrolment.

The APC lawmaker acknowledged that the introduction of Free Quality School Education was a significant policy decision, but argued that the speed of its implementation created challenges that could have been reduced through a more comprehensive evaluation of the sector.

He said a national programme intended to remain a major government priority for several years should be supported by reliable data and continuous assessment. According to him, the government needed to determine exactly how many additional classrooms were required, how many schools lacked adequate furniture, where teacher shortages existed and which schools required urgent rehabilitation before expanding the programme.

Kamara questioned the adequacy of teacher allocation, particularly in specialised subjects. He argued that some schools receive insufficient numbers of mathematics, chemistry and other subject teachers, creating an imbalance between increased enrolment and the capacity of schools to provide quality instruction.

He also raised concerns about school infrastructure, saying some schools have reportedly gone years without significant improvements to classrooms or furniture. For him, free education cannot be considered genuinely successful if children are sitting in overcrowded classrooms or using damaged furniture while schools struggle with basic infrastructure.

The opposition Whip further challenged the financial model behind the programme. He argued that government could consider broader and more targeted revenue measures to sustainably finance education instead of relying solely on general government resources. He suggested that carefully designed taxes on selected sectors or products could potentially generate additional resources for education, although such proposals would need to be assessed for their impact on consumers, businesses and the wider economy.

Kamara also questioned whether the creation of a dedicated Free Quality School Education Secretariat, alongside the Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education, has produced sufficient results in terms of monitoring, coordination and accountability.

He argued that the existence of institutions and officials responsible for education should translate into measurable improvements on the ground. If schools continue to experience shortages of teachers, furniture, sanitation facilities and other necessities, he said government must ask whether the existing administrative structure is delivering value for money.

The lawmaker also turned his criticism toward implementation and monitoring, alleging that there have been complaints about the misuse of subsidies and school-feeding resources. He suggested that if such allegations are substantiated, stronger monitoring and accountability mechanisms would be required to ensure that resources intended for pupils actually reach schools and beneficiaries.

Such allegations, however, require proper investigation and evidence before individuals or institutions can be held responsible. The broader concern remains that any leakage of education resources would undermine public confidence in a programme that consumes significant public funds.

Kamara argued that political leaders must be willing to evaluate policies honestly rather than defending them simply because they were introduced under their administration. In his view, the success of Free Quality School Education should be measured by what pupils experience in classrooms rather than by political speeches, budget announcements or the number of children officially enrolled.

He further argued that the government should consider whether a modest contribution from parents could help address some of the operational challenges confronting schools, particularly at the secondary level. He maintained that a reasonable and carefully regulated contribution should not necessarily undermine the principle of free basic education if government continues to protect vulnerable families and ensures that no child is denied access because of inability to pay.

That argument is likely to generate debate because the removal of school fees has been one of the government’s flagship social policies. Any proposal to reintroduce fees or compulsory contributions would require careful consideration to avoid reversing gains in access, particularly for poor households.

The bigger issue, however, is whether Sierra Leone can sustain free education while simultaneously maintaining quality. The country’s education system faces competing demands: expanding access, recruiting and retaining teachers, building classrooms, supplying learning materials, maintaining furniture, improving sanitation and ensuring that schools have adequate operational funding.

The government has repeatedly presented education as a central pillar of its development agenda. But as enrolment expands, the financial requirements of maintaining quality education also increase. The challenge is therefore not simply getting children into school; it is ensuring that those children receive meaningful education in safe and properly equipped learning environments.

Kamara’s intervention also raises the question of whether Sierra Leone has sufficiently strong monitoring systems to determine the actual cost of educating each child. Without reliable school-level data, government may struggle to determine whether subsidies are adequate, whether resources are reaching intended beneficiaries and where the greatest gaps exist.

A more comprehensive evaluation could therefore provide government and Parliament with evidence on the real cost of the programme. Such an assessment should examine teacher-pupil ratios, classroom capacity, school furniture, water and sanitation, learning materials, school feeding, transportation challenges and regional differences in education needs.

For the opposition lawmaker, the ultimate measure should be the quality of the outcome. A child may be officially enrolled under a free education programme, but if that child is learning in an overcrowded classroom, lacks textbooks, sits on broken furniture or attends a school without adequate sanitation, the promise of quality education remains incomplete.

Kamara said he does not believe that modest contributions from parents would necessarily destroy the economy, arguing that carefully structured payments could help schools meet basic needs while government concentrates its resources on the poorest and most vulnerable families.

But that proposition raises another question: who should pay and how much? Sierra Leone has significant income inequality, meaning a contribution that appears small to one household could be unaffordable to another. Any such system would therefore require clear exemptions, safeguards and transparent collection mechanisms.

The debate ultimately comes down to whether Free Quality School Education should remain primarily a political promise or evolve into a fully costed, independently evaluated and sustainably financed national education system.

Kamara’s criticism places pressure on the government to demonstrate not only how much it spends on education, but what pupils, teachers and communities are actually receiving in return.

As Sierra Leone looks toward the future, the country’s education policy cannot afford to become a political football. Governments will come and go, but the children currently sitting in classrooms will determine the country’s workforce, institutions and economy in the decades ahead.

The real test of Free Quality School Education, therefore, is not whether government can say education is free. It is whether a child from a poor family can enter a properly equipped school, learn from enough qualified teachers, access basic learning materials, study in a safe environment and graduate with skills capable of improving his or her future.

That is the standard against which the programme should ultimately be judged and the standard that Parliament, government, parents and the public should continue to demand.