Letter of the Day | Don’t coerce parents to pay for fancy graduation ceremonies

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing with reference to the ostentatious graduation exercises for which parents are forced to pay. One wonders who is really on the side of parents? Who steps in to look out for them and can definitively say no, to some of the situations into which parents are thrust in? Are the parents simply at the mercies of out-of-touch school boards, oft vindictive principals and PTA members who, it seems, are simply looking to top up their résumé or widen social networks?

Parents have been subjected to bad school management, and a lot of them felt it in their pockets. There have been instances where parents were called upon to fork out thousands of dollars under the guise of funding graduation exercises. For long we thought that parents were the culprits, trying to show off on such occasions. The parents are unwittingly pulled into these schemes by principals who are simply poor managers of their resources.

Parents were asked to fork out upwards of $35,000 for graduation, in addition to picture packages of $6,000 and school rings which ranged from $5,000 to $50,000. The prom came with an additional price tag of $15,000 per student and their date/chaperone.

It is difficult for the parents if there is just one child involved – but what of families that have more than one child graduating? There have been instances when parents dared to query the costs they were scolded – some publicly – for not saving or planning properly.

The question is, is it necessary to force parents to pay for these fancy exercises? There are examples of better-run schools that manage their resources well, including hosting the ceremonies in their own facilities or on school grounds – thus saving on exorbitant rental fees at hotels.

These schools ask speakers from their alumni, staff or the education ministry to come and not invite guest speakers who charge an enormous fee. They engage with parents, and the PTA on how packages could be tailored to fit the pockets of parents and not thrust upon them a ‘take it or leave it’ option.

MOULDING YOUNG MINDS

The better-run schools took into account that they were moulding young people for adulthood and communicated regularly, steering the wayward back on to the path of good, instead of labelling them as bad eggs, irredeemable and punished by exclusion from graduation.

But as they say, ‘class is class’. There is a misguided sense among bad school managers that a graduation package has to be expensive to have an excellent outlay, and deliver some measure of elitism – you have to be able to afford it. If you can’t – too bad.

A graduation is the culmination of a student’s five years at an institution, which should be inclusive. No child should be excluded because their parents cannot afford to pay for extravagant ceremonies.

Principals of church schools especially who practise this exclusion have a lot to think about. It is sad that schools have come to this. Church schools were set up so that the children of former enslaved people would have a chance to be educated and stand proud. Our country was built by leaders who have had their education/schooling sponsored by someone else. It is a shame, and an absolute scar on our system that poor children and families are treated this way by the schools.

The education minister needs to help parents who are suffering at the hands of these schools’ management.

HOPING FOR A CHANGE