Do you agree with this view? Give reasons for your answer.

A helpful guide to structure your answer:

1. Stance/Opinion :

2. Supporting stance with reasons :

3. Examples/Illustrations to bring out reasons :

State your Name & Reg No.

T.LOSHAN

Opinion

I do not agree with the statement that school fees should be left to market forces. Ensuring access to education for all children is a fundamental social obligation that should not be compromised by economic barriers.

Supporting stance with reasons

Leaving school fees to market forces can exacerbate inequality. Education is a basic human right and should be accessible to all, regardless of economic background. Market-based approaches to education often lead to disparities where only those who can afford it receive quality education, leaving behind children from poorer families. market forces prioritize profit over accessibility and quality, which can lead to underfunded public schools and a lack of investment in marginalized communities. Education should be viewed as a public good, essential for the overall development and progress of society. By making education affordable and accessible to all, we can ensure a more equitable and just society.

Examples/Illustrations to bring out reasons

An example of the negative impact of leaving education to market forces can be seen in some developing countries where private schools proliferate, but public schools are neglected. In countries like India, private schools often provide better facilities and education compared to underfunded public schools. However, these private institutions are only accessible to those who can afford high fees, thereby excluding a significant portion of the population from quality education.

On the other hand, countries that have prioritized affordable and accessible education for all, such as Finland, demonstrate the benefits of such an approach. Finland's education system is publicly funded and provides free education from primary to higher education.

My opinion is that leaving school fees to decided my market forces isn’t a appropriate thing. Because, leaving school fees to market forces means that the cost of education would be determined by supply and demand, like any other product or service. This could lead to higher fees for families, making education less accessible for those who cannot afford it. By keeping school fees regulated or controlled by the government, it ensures that education remains affordable and accessible to all, regardless of their financial situation.

• Families with limited income may struggle to afford the cost of education, particularly in high fee areas, which could lead to inequality in educational opportunities.

• Profit making incentives can distort education priorities, potentially resulting in lower quality.

  M.FAmani(A/21/022)

Tharushi Navodya

M.I.H Farwin

I disagree with the view that school fees should be left to market forces.

Supporting stance with reasons

Leaving school fees to market forces can lead to inequality. Poor families might not afford good education, leading to a gap between rich and poor. Education is a basic right and should be accessible to

everyone, not just those who can pay more.

Examples to bring out reasons

In Sri Lanka, many public schools offer free education, ensuring all children, regardless of their financial background, can attend school. If school fees were left to market forces, only wealthy families might afford quality education, increasing social inequality.

In Chile, education changes in the 1980s introduced market-based school fees. This led to major inequality.

It is true we have to pay some amount of money for education such as school fees, tution fees, course fees. But depending on that we can not say money can buy education .

If you are a university student you might be thinking that private universities are very fine and awsome but not as the government . But after several years you get you degree for free while private university students get it by paying for it. So what is the different ?

But there is something that I would like to mention . In present days many students are complain that the private education is so fast but government schools and universities are very slow

Some times they do not have subjects to study. It is free but not effective. So according to this matter people will also accept the private education system.

But it can not say that money can give education . It is a treasure that you have to earn. Simply you can get education by spend money but being educated is your responsibility

Chethika jayasekara

A/21/286

B.H.F Amna

The opinion that school fees should not be left to market forces is based on the belief that education is a fundamental right and should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their financial situation.If school fees are left to market forces, only wealthy families might be able to afford good quality education, leading to greater inequality in society. Also High fees can prevent children from low-income families from accessing education, which is essential for personal and national development & Education should be based on merit and ability, not on the ability to pay. Talented students from poor backgrounds should have the same opportunities as those from rich families.Sri Lanka has a large network of public schools where education is free. This ensures that children from all economic backgrounds have access to basic education.The government offers scholarships, like the Grade 5 Scholarship Exam, which help bright students from low-income families to continue their education in prestigious schools without worrying about fees.Programs like free textbooks and uniforms ensure that financial constraints do not keep children out of school. These initiatives would be undermined if fees were left to market forces.

I disagree with it. Because of the both things have good and bad results.

In this modern society we can see private education systems are better than the government education systems. So I think we can get better education by private centers . As an example In this season there is a strike in government campus So students in there can not learn. But in this season, private campus are active.

But I think if government give enough essential things for it, People do not move to private educational places. So We can face equality without any gaps in classes by it

A/21/716

According to my point of view,I think a balance between market forces and social obligations regulatory oversight might be necessary.Because we can ensure the quality and equality access through that.

When the market system leave school fees completely or unconditionally to market forces, it might be harmful and be difficult for everyone.poor and marginalized communities might have limited access to quality education if completely over to market forces.

But there can be rules and limitations properly among both sectors .it might be supportive for both.if it is be like that we can ensure a quality and equal accessibility for education.

W.V.K.Kaveesha

I do not agree with that because if the market system is allowed to control education, the existing equality in education will not be preserved.  Then what happens is that education is completely privatized. Then what happens is that a system of getting education by paying money is created and only rich children can get education and poor children cannot get education.  Then the children of poor families have to spend their time as destitutes. Blocking education, which was the only way for them to build their lives, causes them to work like the slaves of the rich, as in the past.

Moreover, giving education to the market system leads to a deterioration of the existing standard of education.  Because education is dependent on money, the quality of education given for money decreases.

Currently, many problems have arisen regarding the medical degree offered in private universities in Sri Lanka. Not only Even today's school education is based on additional classes, so there is very little tendency for students to study advanced level in schools.   Therefore, there have been obstacles to provide high level education in schools. Therefore, if the market system is completely handed over to control education, the entire school system will be weakened.Indeed,many problems have arisen from the education given on the basis of money.    So I feel that everyone should be given a common education.

N.H.T.J.Nilmalgoda

Here too I have a neutral opinion. Capitalist countries such as America, England, and France, which only aim to make profits, make excessive money by privatizing all human needs such as education, health, etc. It also provides maximum quality service to the customers through these private institutions. Although the process is not a hindrance to those who have money, it causes great injustice to the poor. At least a quality education system should be created for the poor children. That is, because the reduction of poverty through education is good for the entire country.

Many leaders who changed the world came from poor families and rose to higher Social Levels through Education. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther, Abdul Kalam are the best examples for that.

Esuring the well-being of all the people of a country is the main responsibility of a government. So the government of developing countries should take Education System under their Government and raise the implementing formal scholarship scheme as a measure to eliminate poverty.

Also government of developing countries should start a scholarship system only for poor children in private schools and provide them with free education facilities up to university education. Otherwise, private educational institutions and independent educational institutions with similar facilities should be established with proper regulation. Most of the developing countries of the third world, which are post-colonial countries, are poor people. Therefore, appointing educational institutions like schools as fully profit-making institutions is a serious injustice to the people of third world developing countries like Sri Lanka and African Countries. Therefore, at least the poor people should be given the right to free education. It is a global necessity as well as a responsibility to provide the suitable support of capitalist countries and international organization for that.

D.M.S.S. Premarathna

A/21/LLB/048

Nimni Jayathilake

Because of, I can specify some Arguments against market-determined school fees, Those are:

• Inequality: Wealthier families could afford better schools, exacerbating social and economic inequalities.

• Standardization: Schools might prioritize subjects valued in the job market over well-rounded education.

• Accessibility: Low-income families might be excluded from quality education.

Current situation:

Most countries have a mixed system, with a combination of public (government-funded) schools and private (fee-paying) schools. There's ongoing debate about the ideal balance between these two models.

A/21/AI/870

M.K.R.F Afla

M.U.F.Yumna

I disagree with this statement

because,this system prevents all student from getting an equal education.

Through this system people who have money get it education while those who don't have money but prefer to study will suffer from not being able to study.

In my opinion providing quality education free to all without inequality is appreciated. If it is not possible to provide such it can be provided through scholarship system.

Commercialization of education should be prevented in order to prevent difficulties in obtaining education.

For this Sri Lanka should introduce many programs like the Mahapola, bursery scholarships and expand the policies so that everyone can get education.

When we focus on privatization of education and become a business of learning process we can find different types opinions about this topic. My opinion is the market system can be used only developed countries because every citizen of that countries has good economic condition .They will be able to afford the expenses .

But when consider the developing countries every person can't pay for education .They should want free education .By privatizing education in those countries poor people can't engage with education .Because they can' t pay lot of money for that.In that case, they want help from their government .That way everyone gets the right to learn equal way.And also it protects the social equality of a country .

We can let market system to decide how education system works. But I think this limits the amount of education available in the developing country even Sri Lanka.

In addition I think the main aim of private schools and universities is gain profit by selling education for money and it chases only knowledge .The main objective of education not only give knowledge but also attitudes,skills,and discipline .

When we talk about education of our country has free education system .There ara more than 10000 government schools and 17 government universities because of this every child in our country has received in education .

There is nothing wrong with the established of such private institutions but it should be under constant supervision of the government .Also, free education should be further developed in the country .It is help to choose private or free education . Who can afford expenses for private education they can learn using private education system and who can not engage with private education they will be able to select free education .

Access to Education: In a developing country like Sri Lanka, a significant portion of the population may not be able to afford high school fees if they are determined solely by market forces. This would create a barrier to education for many children, particularly those from low-income families, exacerbating inequality and hindering social mobility.

Equity and Social Justice: Education is a fundamental right and should be accessible to all, regardless of socio-economic status. Allowing market forces to dictate school fees could lead to a situation where only the wealthy can afford quality education.

Quality and Standards: Market-driven education can lead to significant disparities in the quality of education provided. Schools in wealthier areas might have better facilities and teachers, while those in poorer areas might struggle with inadequate resources.

According to this reasons, I don't really agree with this.

A/21/GIS/066

O.J Sudasinghe