₦1,000 CONSULTANCY CHARGE: RURAL PARENTS GROAN AS ONDO’S NEW SCHOOL PAYMENT POLICY TRIGGERS ADMISSION CONCERNS
Fresh concerns have emerged over the Ondo State Government’s newly introduced centralised payment system for public secondary schools, with parents, school administrators and other stakeholders expressing fears that the policy could place an additional financial burden on families ahead of the new academic session. Of particular concern is the reported ₦1,000 consultancy charge to be paid for each student, a development critics say may prove difficult for many rural and low-income parents to cope with.
The payment system, introduced by the Ondo State Ministry of Education, Science and Technology as part of efforts to eliminate illegal collections and strengthen transparency in the management of school finances, requires parents and students to make payments through a government-designatedigital platform rather than directly to individual schools. While the government has maintained that the initiative is aimed at accountability, questions are now being raised over whether the additional consultancy fee is necessary and whether parents in remote communities can conveniently afford and access the system.
Findings indicate that some parents are particularly worried about the cumulative financial implication of the new arrangement. For a family with two, three or more children in public secondary schools, the reported ₦1,000 consultancy charge per student could quickly become a significant expense, especially when added to other approved school-related payments, transportation costs, uniforms, books and other educational necessities. Rural parents, many of whom depend on subsistence farming and other irregular sources of income, may find the additional charge particularly difficult to absorb.
The situation is also generating concern among some school principals, who reportedly questioned the practicality of routing payments through a central account while schools themselves continue to face urgent operational needs. According to sources within the education sector, principals sometimes require immediate funds for stationery, electricity, generator fuel, maintenance and other pressing expenses. They therefore fear that excessive centralisation could make it difficult for school managements to respond promptly to emergencies if funds paid by parents are not immediately available to the schools.
Another major concern is the accessibility of the payment system, especially in rural and riverine communities. Some parents may not have smartphones, reliable internet connections, electronic banking facilities or easy access to the designated bank. In such circumstances, a parent could be compelled to spend additional money on transportation simply to complete a payment for a child’s admission or other school requirements. For a struggling rural family, the cost of reaching a banking facility, combined with the reported ₦1,000 consultancy fee, could make what should be a straightforward admission process unnecessarily burdensome.
The reported ₦1,000 per student consultancy charge has consequently become one of the major talking points among those questioning the new arrangement. Stakeholders want clarification on what exactly the fee covers, who receives it, whether it is compulsory for every student and whether any exemption or alternative arrangement exists for indigent families. They argue that government efforts to improve accountability should not inadvertently make access to public education more expensive for families who are already struggling economically.
There are also fears that the new arrangement could affect the smooth admission process when thousands of parents begin making payments at the same time. School administrators reportedly expressed concern about possible network failures, unsuccessful transfers, double debits, delayed confirmations or payments that may not immediately reflect on a student’s record. A delay of even one or two days, they argue, could create unnecessary difficulties during the peak admission period, particularly for parents travelling from distant communities.
Another issue reportedly raised by school heads concerns the reliance on a designated banking channel. Questions have been asked about what happens to parents who live far from branches of the designated bank or who are unable to use digital payment platforms. Stakeholders suggested that government should consider multiple banking channels and other accessible payment options so that parents are not forced to incur additional transportation expenses merely to pay school charges.
The financial control mechanism has equally attracted questions. School administrators want clear information on how thousands of transactions from different schools and students will be reconciled and how quickly the money will be transferred to the appropriate school accounts. They also want assurances that schools will not be left waiting for funds that are needed for immediate administrative purposes.
Concerns have further been raised over funds generated or contributed by Parent-Teacher Associations. Some school officials reportedly questioned whether PTA contributions should pass through the same central process, particularly where such funds are intended to address urgent needs or meet commitments already undertaken by the associations. They fear that unnecessary delays could affect the ability of PTAs to respond quickly to problems within schools.
Some principals also reportedly complained that they were not sufficiently consulted before the policy was introduced. Although the Ministry has engaged school heads and other education officials in the implementation process, some principals are said to believe that those who manage schools daily should have been given greater opportunity to contribute to the design of the system. Their argument is that practical challenges experienced by schools in urban centres may be significantly different from those confronting institutions in remote communities.
The controversy is coming against the background of concerns over the financial survival of some public schools. Sources within the sector alleged that schools are facing difficulties meeting basic operational expenses, including electricity bills, fuel and stationery. In some communities, old students, PTAs and other stakeholders have reportedly stepped in to support school development and maintenance. School administrators therefore want assurances that the central payment system will not create delays in accessing legitimate funds needed for the day-to-day running of their institutions.
The issue of textbooks has also reportedly added to the concerns of some parents and school officials, with allegations that certain textbooks are being imposed without sufficient consultation. However, Roving Reporters could not independently verify allegations of conflict of interest or establish the identities of any alleged beneficiaries connected with textbook recommendations.
Defending the new payment system, the Commissioner for Education, Science and Technology, Prof. Igbekele Ajibefun, said the initiative was introduced following complaints received during the previous academic session and verification visits to schools. He explained that the payment gateway was developed with relevant stakeholders and the ministry’s technical team to ensure that school financial transactions are traceable and accountable.
According to the Commissioner, cash payments have been banned and all payments are expected to pass through the approved gateway. He also maintained that the arrangement was not designed to deprive schools of their funds, explaining that money paid through the platform would be remitted to the appropriate school accounts.
However, critics of the policy insist that the government’s desire to eliminate illegal collections must be balanced with the economic realities confronting ordinary families. They argue that while accountability in public schools is important, a policy that adds a ₦1,000 consultancy charge to every student could have unintended consequences if adequate consideration is not given to indigent and rural parents.
As the September resumption draws closer, stakeholders are calling on the Ondo State Government to clarify the consultancy charge, explain its purpose and consider measures that would protect families unable to afford additional expenses. They are also asking for alternative payment channels, reliable mechanisms for resolving failed transactions and special consideration for parents in communities without convenient access to banking and internet services.
The central issue, therefore, is not whether government should promote transparency in school finances. Rather, it is whether such transparency can be achieved without putting additional pressure on parents or slowing down the admission process. For thousands of families across Ondo State, particularly those in rural communities, every additional ₦1,000 matters.
If the concerns are not adequately addressed before full implementation, stakeholders fear that a policy designed to eliminate illegal collections and strengthen accountability could inadvertently create a new barrier for parents seeking to secure education for their children. The government may therefore need to urgently review the implementation framework, particularly the reported consultancy fee, accessibility of payment channels and the speed of remitting funds to schools, to ensure that the new system achieves accountability without sacrificing affordability and accessibility.