When I published my earlier article questioning the rising tide of illegal fees in government schools, I expected debate. What I did not expect was the sheer volume of administrators rushing out to defend the practice with a confidence that bordered on entitlement. The article was widely read, shared across communities, and discussed in staff rooms and WhatsApp groups. As the dust settled, a chorus of school administrators emerged, insisting that the fees they charge are justified, necessary, and even agreed upon by parents.
Some went as far as lecturing me on the legality of parents and school administrations deciding on fees to “support their schools.” Others argued that government capitation grants are too small, forcing them to find alternatives. It is precisely these responses, loud, defensive, and conveniently selective, that make this follow up necessary.
Because if the first article exposed the problem, the reactions exposed the mindset behind it.
Let us begin with the most repeated defence: that parents agree to pay. On the surface, this sounds democratic, even collaborative. But anyone who understands the dynamics of school community relations knows that “agreement” is often a polite word for coercion.
Parents do not sit in these meetings as equals. They sit as people who fear that refusing a fee might lead to their children being targeted, humiliated, or denied access. They sit as people who know that the school holds power over their child’s future. So when administrators claim that parents “agreed,” one must ask: did they agree freely, or did they agree because they had no choice?
And even if we were to accept this argument at face value, it collapses the moment a learner is sent home for nonpayment. If parents and administrators truly agreed, why are children, who were not part of the agreement, the ones being punished? Why are learners chased out of class, embarrassed in front of their peers, and denied their right to study?
Agreement cannot be used as a shield when the consequences fall on innocent children. If the arrangement were truly consensual, no learner would ever be disrupted. Yet disruptions are now routine, almost expected. That alone exposes the hollowness of the “parents agreed” defence.
The second defence, that government pays too little, is equally misleading. Administrators argue that capitation grants are insufficient, that government support is minimal, and that without additional fees, schools cannot function. But this argument conveniently hides the full picture. Government does not only send money. It builds classrooms. It renovates old blocks. It supplies textbooks.
It buys chalk. It funds maintenance. It provides materials that private schools must pay for entirely on their own. Yet private schools, which shoulder all these costs without government support, charge between Shs500,000 and over Shs1 million per term. How then does a government school justify charging between Shs300,000 and Shs400,000? How does a school receiving government support end up demanding fees that nearly match those of private institutions?
The truth is simple: the problem is not insufficient government support. The problem is that some administrators have discovered that parents, desperate for their children’s future, will pay anything if threatened with academic disruption. It is not necessity driving these fees. It is opportunity. It is not survival. It is greed.
One administrator who responded to my earlier article insisted that it is legally acceptable for parents and school administrations to decide on fees. But legality is not the only measure of justice. Common sense alone rules against any practice that punishes children for the financial struggles of their parents.
Common sense rules against any arrangement that excludes the government, the very institution funding Universal Education, from decisions that affect its learners. Common sense rules against any system where a child’s right to education is held hostage by arbitrary payments.
And because these extortionate tendencies have been left unchecked for years, schools have now devised even more creative ways of milking parents dry. The most notorious of these is the rise of valueless education tours, trips that add no academic value yet are enforced with the same brutality as fees. These tours have become ropes tied around the necks of already overburdened parents, tightening with every new demand.
A friend recently shared how her child had been repeatedly sent home for failing to clear payments for two tours scheduled for next term. The total cost of these tours exceeded the school fees she pays for an entire term. Imagine that. After struggling to pay fees in a government school, the administration still finds a way to squeeze more money out of her, threatening her child’s right to learn in the process.
This is not support. This is not community contribution. This is exploitation.
And it is killing the Universal Education vision of the President.
Universal Education was built on the belief that every child deserves uninterrupted learning. It was meant to remove barriers, not create new ones. It was meant to protect learners, not expose them to humiliation. It was meant to ensure that no child is denied education because of poverty.
Yet today, government schools, the very institutions meant to uphold this vision, are the ones undermining it. Every time a child is chased from class, the vision suffers a wound. Every time a parent is forced to choose between feeding their family and paying for a meaningless tour, the promise of free education is betrayed.
The government has been clear from the beginning. If teachers and parents agree to share costs, then wisdom demands that they devise methods that do not disrupt learners. No child should be punished for the financial struggles of their parents. No child should be denied education because of decisions made without their involvement. No school should operate like a private business while receiving government support.
This follow up is therefore not just a response to the administrators who defended illegal fees. It is a call to action. A reminder that Universal Education is not dead, but it is under attack. The attackers are not external forces. They are internal actors who have turned public schools into profit centres. The country must confront this reality with honesty and courage. The future of Uganda’s children depends on it.
The writer is the Deputy Resident City Commissioner for Nakawa.
English 