Children who belong to poor socio-economic conditions need to be given education free of cost, and their richer counterparts should be asked to pay for them by way of higher fees.

• How far do you agree or disagree with this?

When it comes to poor children, access to education is not that easy. In this respect, some people believe that it is right to impose higher fees on rich children so that the poor could be given education free of cost. To me, this idea sounds unfair and impractical.

The primary argument opposing the view is that the number of poor children so huge that their richer counterparts cannot meet these expenses by way of higher fees, no matter how high such fee/s could be. For example, a typical classroom may have a few rich children and their contribution may not meet the expenses generated by the majority. Secondly, such an academic policy would create rifts between rich and poor students; the rich may turn hostile and the poor may become at the mercy of the rich and dependent. This is extremely unfair.

However, the need for giving education to poor children is of great significance and the same cannot be imparted free of cost either. What is the way out then? The thing that comes to my mind is that governments may allocate special funds for the uplift of the poor so that the poor may be able to offer education to their children. A much better idea could be to offer education for affordable fee structures. For example, when rich students are asked to pay full fee, the poor may be given concessions and convenient payment options.

In short, the need for educating all children is very important, and poor socio-economic status should not stand on the way of one’s academic dreams. Since free education for all is a pipedream, a fair fee structure will be of some help the poor.

280 words
Ajaypeesdoc. 19.03.12