• Parents point out routine practices by Govt. schools despite Edu Ministry denials and circulars
• Parents call for audits, stronger enforcement of regulations

Sri Lanka’s long-standing promise of free education is once again under scrutiny, as parents across the country complain of increasing financial demands from Government schools, despite repeated assurances from authorities that such collections are not permitted.

From annual school development fees of nearly Rs. 10,000 per student to Rs. 15,000 collections for smart boards and digital classrooms, parents say the cumulative cost of sending a child to a Government school is becoming unbearable – particularly for low- and middle-income families already grappling with the rising cost of living.

While the Ministry of Education maintains that existing circulars prohibit the collection of compulsory funds from parents, trade unions and parents insist that, in practice, schools continue to demand money through various mechanisms, often placing families under intense social pressure. 

For Ramani Fernando, a garment factory worker and mother of two school-going children in Kurunegala, the start of each school year brings anxiety rather than relief.

“Every January we are told education is free, but before the first term even begins, we are asked to pay nearly Rs. 10,000 per child,” she said. “They don’t call it a fee. They say it’s for maintenance, development, or activities. But if you don’t pay, your child is singled out,” Fernando alleged. Hers is not an isolated story, but one repeated in many households islandwide.

Fernando earns just enough to cover rent, food, and transport. School expenses, she says, now force her to borrow money or delay essential household needs. “My children are in a Government school because we cannot afford private education. But now, even Government schools are becoming impossible for families like ours.”

Smart boards, smart pressure

Parents say one of the biggest recent expenses has been the collection of funds for smart boards and digital classroom equipment, with some schools charging up to Rs. 15,000 per student.

In Colombo, Ruwan Perera, a three-wheeler driver whose son attends a popular boys’ school, said that the request came through a parents’ WhatsApp group. “They said every child must contribute Rs. 15,000 for a smart board. They said it’s for the future, for digital learning. But how can a daily-paid worker like myself find that kind of money at once?” he asked. 

Perera said parents who raised concerns were told the contribution was ‘voluntary,’ but the reality felt different. “When most parents pay, and only a few don’t, our children feel embarrassed. Teachers don’t directly punish them, but they know who hasn’t paid. That pressure is real.”

The Education Ministry has publicly stated that schools have not been instructed to collect money for digital classrooms and that the Government plans to provide such facilities to more than 6,000 schools. However, parents say the ground reality tells a different story. 

Many parents who spoke to The Sunday Morning did not wish to name the schools their children attended due to fear of retribution against their children. 

In rural areas, the impact is even harsher. S. Thilakaratne, a farmer from Monaragala, said that his family struggled to pay multiple collections throughout the year. “They collect money for desks, painting classrooms, notice boards, and now even for smart boards,” he said. “Altogether, it goes well beyond Rs. 10,000 a year. For us, that is a huge amount.” 

Thilakaratne said many parents simply remained silent out of fear. “If we complain, we worry our children will suffer. Teachers may not say anything openly, but parents know there are consequences. So we suffer quietly.”

According to teachers’ unions, collections are often carried out through class parent groups, allowing school authorities to distance themselves while still benefiting from the funds.

Circulars versus reality

The controversy centres on Circular 5/2015, which outlines guidelines for school fund collection. Critics argue that the circular has effectively legalised the practice of calculating school expenses and dividing them among students. 

The Ceylon Teachers’ Union (CTU) has repeatedly called for the suspension of this circular, arguing that it contradicts the principle of free education. CTU General Secretary Joseph Stalin warned that without a clear, new directive banning all collections, schools would continue to impose financial burdens on parents. 

He said that schools continued to collect money from parents despite repeated statements by the Education Ministry that such collections were not permitted. 

The CTU General Secretary further noted that Circular 5/2015 had effectively enabled schools to calculate their annual expenses and divide the total among students, resulting in parents being charged amounts ranging from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 11,000 in secondary schools and around Rs. 3,000 in primary schools. In addition, he said that parents were now being asked to contribute as much as Rs. 15,000 per student for smart boards and digital classroom equipment. 

Stalin stressed that many families were unable to afford these costs and warned that verbal statements by authorities were insufficient. He stated that only the suspension of Circular 5/2015, the issuance of a new written circular clearly banning all forms of fund collection, and legal action against schools that violated regulations would ensure compliance and protect parents from financial hardship. 

The ministry, however, insists that schools should not charge parents and says it will address violations directly, even without issuing a new circular. Ministry of Education Secretary Nalaka Kaluwewe said that there was no immediate need to issue a new circular, as several existing circulars already regulated and restricted the collection of money from parents. 

He said that the ministry had not instructed schools to collect funds for any purpose, including the establishment of digital classrooms, and reiterated that schools should not impose financial burdens on parents. He added that Prime Minister and Minister of Education Dr. Harini Amarasuriya had already informed Parliament that schools were not permitted to collect money for digital classroom projects. 

Kaluwewe acknowledged that the ministry had received complaints regarding fund collections and said that action would be taken to directly inform schools of the ministry’s position, even if a new circular was not issued. He also noted that the Government planned to provide digital classrooms to more than 6,000 schools, stressing that such developments should not be financed through parental contributions.

Erosion of a founding promise?

Sri Lanka’s free education system has deep historical roots and is widely regarded as one of the country’s greatest social achievements. 

The policy was formally introduced in 1945 under the leadership of C.W.W. Kannangara, then Minister of Education. His vision was radical for its time: to ensure that every child, regardless of economic background, had access to education from primary school to university.

Free education transformed Sri Lankan society. It enabled children from rural and working-class families to enter professions once reserved for the elite, producing generations of doctors, engineers, teachers, and civil servants. 

For decades, Government schools symbolised opportunity and social mobility. Uniforms, textbooks, and tuition were provided free, allowing education to serve as a powerful equaliser. Today, many fear that this founding promise is slowly eroding. 

Economists and education advocates point out that while schools do face genuine funding constraints, shifting costs onto parents undermines equity and disproportionately harms the poor. 

“When families are forced to pay thousands of rupees, children from the poorest households are the first to suffer,” an education policy analyst noted. “This can lead to absenteeism, dropouts, and long-term inequality.” 

Parents argue that if schools require additional resources, the solution must come from increased State funding – not informal collections. 

Parents’ groups and unions are now urging the Government to move beyond statements and take concrete action, including issuing a clear written circular banning all compulsory collections, establishing complaint mechanisms that protect parents from retaliation, and conducting audits of school accounts and parent-managed funds. Until then, families say they will continue to struggle in silence. 

“Free education is not just a slogan,” Kumari Fernando, a parent, said. “It’s a promise this country made to its children. If that promise is broken, it’s our children who will pay the price.”