The place of education in national development cannot be overemphasised. It is for this reason that successive governments have sought to modify existing templates in response to changes that keep coming.
The colonial authorities during their times adopted the free education module in the Northern Territories which the first President continued.
It was a game-changer which saw many acquire western education gratis.
The technological developments which are driving the world at cruising speed today call for constant changes in our approach to education.
The ‘born-before-computer’ slang applies to those who because of peculiar circumstances have been unable to embrace the new trend of technological superhighway.
Adaptation to the changing times is a costly enterprise beyond the means of the poor.
The free senior high school (SHS) concept, which the previous government adopted just so those who would have otherwise not been able to afford senior high school education, is a response to the reality of poverty and its attendant socio-economic restrictions.
Many talents would have remained untapped but for the gratis senior high school education, the bedrock of tertiary and vocational education.
One of the multiple committees launched by President John Mahama is intended to address the challenges of education.
Any intervention which is intended to address shortfalls in the delivery of quality education is welcome provided this is borne out of genuine and sincere intention.
One of the outcomes of the stakeholders’ engagement on education is that, come-what-may, the face of the free SHS will not be the same with President Mahama at the helm. Whether the changes will inure to the public interest or not is a matter for public discourse.
Some cynics think that the President’s promise of not scrapping the free SHS notwithstanding, he will have his way in presenting a new-look education system which by and large will    spare government the overwhelming burden of footing the bill of free SHS.
We are concerned about the likelihood of boarding system going to be restricted to those who can afford it. We are also concerned that the children of the poor will not be able to  attend the grade A schools, opportunity which the current template has made possible.
We are going to lose the national cohesion dividend which the boarding system brings. Children of the rich and the poor irrespective of existing faith and ethnic background variations study and sleep under the same roofs, the positive impact of which can be appreciable in the long run in such areas as national cohesion and of course progress.
We are not oblivious to the financial challenges government is facing in tackling everyday needs of the state. It is the opportunity cost management of such situations which stand a good government to what is not.
As government without skepticism readies to implement to the restrictive aspects of the recommendations emanating from the stakeholders’ engagement, we wish to                       counsel that haste be made slowly lest the future of many an individual is disrupted because of the resumption of restrictive education.
We still stand for free SHS in its original form because the previous government was able to undertake this campaign promise soon upon assuming the reins of governance.