Public affairs analysts have called on the Enugu State Government to review and refine its recently announced policy regulating graduation ceremonies, extracurricular levies and other charges in schools, urging the Ministry of Education to adopt an evidence-based, consultative approach that balances the interests of parents, school proprietors and learners.
The recommendations were made during Freedom Square Live on Solid 100.9 FM Enugu, hosted by Uchenna Cyril Anioke, Ph.D., where public affairs analysts examined the theme, “Protecting Parents or Stifling Milestones?: Enugu State Policy 31: Ban on Graduation, Career Day, Christmas, End-of-Year, Transition Levies and Matters Arising.”
The discussants.. Ambrose Igboke, Ph.D., Chairman of the Guild of Public Affairs Analysts of Nigeria (GPAAN), Enugu State Chapter; Dr. Chikezie Obasi, Secretary of the Guild; Umeh Clinton, Financial Secretary of the Guild; and Emeka Odom, a member of the Guild.. generally agreed that while the government’s intention to protect parents from excessive financial demands is commendable, the policy requires broader consultation, clearer communication and a more practical implementation framework.
Throughout the discussion, the panelists acknowledged that many parents have become increasingly burdened by rising costs associated with private education. They noted that several schools now require multiple sets of uniforms for different days of the week, replacing the traditional practice of one school uniform and a sports outfit.
According to the analysts, parents have consistently complained about compulsory payments for graduation ceremonies, transition activities, Christmas parties, career days, excursions and numerous other levies, many of which are introduced after school fees have already been paid.
They argued that government intervention to address these concerns is justified, particularly where schools impose hidden charges that leave parents with little option but to comply.
However, the panelists maintained that the policy should distinguish between exploitative practices and educational activities that contribute meaningfully to children’s intellectual, social and emotional development.
Igboke observed that graduation ceremonies, career days and other school programmes should not necessarily be abolished but should instead be properly regulated. He argued that schools should inform parents of any planned activities and associated costs at the beginning of each academic session, allowing families to prepare financially while eliminating unexpected demands.
He further recommended that the Ministry of Education establish clear pricing templates or cost benchmarks to guide schools, noting that what constitutes a “modest” charge varies across communities and socioeconomic groups.
The GPAAN chairman also questioned the extent of government’s regulatory powers over the day-to-day operations of private schools, stressing that while broad policy direction is appropriate, implementation must be carefully defined to avoid unnecessary conflict with school operators.
Dr. Obasi argued that the debate should go beyond school ceremonies to address the underlying reasons many parents choose private schools over public institutions.
According to him, the popularity of private schools reflects shortcomings within the public education system, including overcrowded classrooms, inadequate infrastructure, limited extracurricular opportunities and declining learning environments.
He observed that many private schools now offer robotics, music, technology education and other modern programmes that better prepare children for future careers.
Rather than concentrating primarily on regulating ceremonies and levies, Obasi urged government to strengthen public schools so they become competitive alternatives capable of attracting parents on the basis of quality.
He also questioned whether the Ministry of Education possesses sufficient institutional capacity and reliable data to regulate private schools effectively, recalling his own experience while conducting research into private education in the state.
To improve policymaking, he proposed baseline surveys involving parents, school proprietors and students before implementing any reforms.
According to him, parents should be consulted on the financial pressures they face, schools should be asked about their operational challenges, while students should also be given opportunities to express which educational activities they value.
The findings, he said, should then form the basis of a broad stakeholder consultative forum involving all relevant groups.
Clinton equally argued that the policy appeared to have been introduced without sufficient consultation.
He maintained that government should first engage school proprietors, teachers and parents before issuing directives affecting school administration.
According to him, the Ministry of Education should develop operational templates applicable to both public and private schools instead of imposing restrictions from within government offices.
He also recommended encouraging schools to organise modest, school-based ceremonies while discouraging unnecessary extravagance and inappropriate performances involving young children.
Rather than making payments compulsory, Clinton suggested that parents should be allowed to make voluntary contributions towards approved activities.
He further called for the establishment of a complaints mechanism through which parents could report cases of exploitation, as well as a transparent monitoring framework to ensure compliance with approved standards.
Clinton also urged the ministry to publicise its engagements with stakeholders in the same manner as other government ministries and agencies, arguing that greater transparency would strengthen public confidence in education reforms.
For his part, Odom welcomed government’s desire to protect parents but warned against policies that unintentionally undermine children’s developmental experiences.
Drawing from his own educational background, he recalled that graduation ceremonies, literary competitions, debates and public presentations had played significant roles in shaping his confidence and communication skills.
He noted that many school events help children discover talents in public speaking, music, arts and leadership, stressing that government should regulate excesses rather than eliminate opportunities for personal development.
Odom also argued that Nigeria’s capitalist economy allows parents to choose schools according to their financial capacity and educational expectations.
He cited examples of schools charging widely different tuition fees, insisting that government’s responsibility should be to ensure value for money rather than imposing uniform cost structures.
According to him, schools charging premium fees should equally provide premium educational services, while government ensures that parents are not exploited.
Contributing via a telephone call,Hon. Chinedu Onu, Ph.D., Founder and President, Michael Okpara Centre for Leadership and Entrepreneurship, University of Nigeria, Nsukka., called for stronger collaboration between the Enugu State Government and private school proprietors in implementing the policy.
He urged the government to engage private school owners and the Private School Management Board in dialogue, warning that an outright ban on graduation ceremonies and other milestone celebrations could deprive children of memorable educational experiences.
According to him, while the rising cost of education requires government intervention, the focus should be on regulating charges and maintaining standards rather than abolishing activities that mark pupils’ academic milestones.
Dr. Onu also urged the government to use the opportunity to strengthen quality assurance in private schools by ensuring that the education pupils receive reflects the fees paid by their parents.
He maintained that although parents who choose private schools often have the financial capacity to do so, government still has a responsibility to regulate fees, uphold standards, and protect both parents and learners through constructive engagement with school operators.
The analysts also questioned the communication surrounding the Ministry of Education’s circular, observing that references to both a “ban” and “regulation” created uncertainty about the government’s actual intentions.
They described the apparent contradiction as a communication flaw that should have been addressed before the policy was made public.
According to the panelists, major public policies should be founded on evidence gathered through research and consultation rather than assumptions or isolated complaints.
They recommended that the ministry suspend implementation of the policy until comprehensive stakeholder engagements are completed during the long vacation, allowing sufficient time to refine the framework before the next academic session.
The analysts further suggested that government explore incentives capable of reducing operational costs for private schools, including teacher training, instructional materials and other forms of institutional support.
They also proposed strengthening Parent-Teacher Associations as platforms for discussing school charges and holding school management accountable for fees collected from parents.
On public education, the discussants urged government to continue improving infrastructure, teacher quality, security and classroom conditions so that government-owned schools become genuinely competitive with private institutions.
According to them, sustainable regulation of private education will be more effective when parents have confidence in the quality of public schools.
In their closing remarks, the panelists commended the Commissioner for Education for seeking to restore sanity in the education sector but urged him to revisit the policy through broad consultation with parents, school proprietors, teachers, students and other stakeholders.
They emphasized that their contributions were not intended to oppose government but to provide constructive professional feedback capable of strengthening policy implementation.
The analysts concluded that meaningful education reform should be driven by evidence, dialogue and collaboration, arguing that policies developed through stakeholder consensus are more likely to achieve public acceptance while protecting parents from exploitation without denying children valuable educational experiences.