Showing posts with label TFF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TFF. Show all posts

PNG Govt Tuition Fee Subsidy 2021 - Press Release

PNG School fees and subsidies 2021


This public notice formally announces the PNG Government’s GTFS policy for 2021. In 2021, the government is maintaining the Tuition Fee Subsidy (GTFS) Policy. Under the GTFS, the government is committed to its policy on partnership and to make education a shared responsibility between the national government, provincial governments, DDAs, parents, churches and other stakeholders.


The Marape government reiterates its profound conviction that education is a powerful tool that will transform and sustain our prosperity and therefore will maintain education as a priority policy.

The Marape government is committed to giving every child 13 years of quality education under a standard based education system including a standard-based curriculum that provides an effective platform for measuring children’s performance and for teachers to use evidence to continuously improve childrens’ learning so that they continue to make progress towards fully attaining the benchmarks and hence the attainment of content standards.

We will ensure: 

  • the 1-6-6 school structure that phases out elementary schools and moves grade 1 and 2 into primary schools; 
  • a robust standards assurance system maintained; multiple pathways with FODE and VET for students is provided; 
  • Schools of Excellence implemented; Early Childhood education formalized; and 
  • schools’ functioning have sustained funding from both government and parents.

The Government will prioritise FODE and will from this year pay the full tuition fees. In other words, FODE will be fee-free and will be established in all high and secondary schools from 2021.


The Government Tuition Fee Subsidy (GTFS) Policy underscores its principle to make education cost of our children a partnership between governments, parents, churches and the local communities. We have seen the last regime making our people lazy, detached parents from schools and systematically removed their interest in schools. 

We want to disengage and cut out the dependency syndrome that we have systematically allowed into our PNG culture. The shift in the school financing policy by the Marape government is deliberate to get parents and communities to plough the soil and work hard, and contribute to reviving the economy than creating a ‘handout culture’ and a dependency syndrome.

Papua New Guineans are naturally hard-working, resilient and self-reliant. The GTFS policy will re-establish the missing link between the parents and schools while the Government will invest in raising the quality of education, building more schools and making school managers and boards more accountable.


The total funding for the Government Tuition Fee Subsidy Policy (GTFS) in 2021 will be K486,351,600. This funding remains the same as in 2020. GTFS will have two components:

  • a School Operations and Functional Grant of K388,351,600 (80%) and 
  • a Commodity component of K97,000,000 (20%). 
We will look into a decentralized procurement model that can encourage SMEs but at the same time is affordable and ensures standards and equity.


The following table shows the Total fees per NEB Maximum Fee limits for each component and by sector.

Table 1: Total Tuition Cost and Fee Limits in Kina
Total Tuition Cost and Fee Limits in Kina
NB: The Approved Permitted Schools are no longer supported by the GTFS Policy.
The State will pay the full FODE Fees.  


Given the budget allocation, the State Contribution component will be 62% of the total NEB Maximum School Fee Limit cost and parents will pay 38%.

The actual unit fees to be paid by the state and parents based on the 62/38 sharing model for each student per sector will be as follows:

Table 2: 2021 Student Unit Tuition Fee By Sector in Kina
2021 Student Unit Tuition Fee By Sector in Kina


Parents will be required to pay fifty percent (50%) of the Parental Contribution fee at the start of the school year and the balance must be paid before the end of Term 2. The government will pay its component before the end of Term 3.


Schools are allowed to collect Project Fees, but they must follow very strict approval guidelines. The Provincial Education Board is the only authority to approve a project fee for schools after it has received a School Learning Improvement Plan (SLIP), a Project Plan, Scope and Budget with a P&C Association agreement. 

Where Project Fees are to be collected, it must be less than 20 percent (20%) of the Maximum Fee limit per student rate set by the National Education Board as shown below.

Table 3: Project Fees Limits for 2021
Project Fees Limits for 2021


Church agency fees are to be paid by each student attending a church agency school as per the Education Act, 1983. Provincial Education Boards will set and approve the fees, but must not be above the maximum limits set below.

a) Preparatory/Elementary – K5.00
b) Primary – K7.00
c) High/Secondary and Vocational – K10.00


NO school administration or governing board is to refuse any child from enrolling in school or attending classes for non-payment of any form of fees. Special arrangements should be made between the parents and the school to pay the required fees over a period in the school year. 

Whilst every child has the right to education, schools also need funds to operate, therefore parents are encouraged to cooperate with school boards and pay their component of 38% as early as possible.


Provincial Governments and District Development Authorities are the immediate authorities responsible for the education of students in the general education sector, within their respective jurisdictions.

In the spirit of partnership, we urge every Provincial Government and District Development Authority to help their schools, and especially parents who may struggle to pay their
38% component of the fees. 

Eight provinces (East New Britain, East Sepik, Eastern Highlands, Enga, Milne Bay, Morobe, New Ireland and Northern have signed MOAs with the National Government to manage national government school fee grants/subsidies. We will honour our commitment and enhance further collaboration and partnership.


Self-reliance is a standing policy of the department. However, the current take-up of self-reliance projects by schools is low. Schools have become too dependent on fees and subsidies in the recent past. 

Hence per the NEB recommendation at its last meeting, I direct every school to generate 10% of its school’ budget through self-reliance projects. Schools will comply with this direction in 2021.


The State is committed to education and pays the bulk of the cost of education for each child through teacher salaries, teacher training, standards assurance, curriculum and examinations, infrastructure, and grants, apart from the GTFS policy funding.

The Government’s Tuition Fee Subsidy Policy that advocates sharing the cost of education will continue in our endeavour to provide a sustainable education system for our children.

I thank all parents and stakeholders for your continued partnership in sharing the responsibility in the education of our children.

Any further explanation of the policy can be obtained from the Department of Education Website: or by sending an email to or calling phones: 328 888 00/73350746/32 888 661/72668181.

Authorized by:
(4th January 2021)

- Re-published - 

Subsidised Education Policy Vs Tuition Fee Free Education Policy

Reports have indicated that there is going to be a change in the Free Education policy in PNG. The free education policy (Tuition Fee Free, TFF) was first hinted to have been implemented in 2011 and rolled out nationwide in 2012 by the PNC government. The TFF policy has its fair share of implementation dilemmas. Read about it here

The new education policy follows a fee subsidy model. The policy, we shall call the Subsidised Education Policy, is a user-pay policy. But not in its entirety. The government may have resolved/planned to pay 50% and parents pay 50% of the school fee component.

The problems are that it is not clear at the moment whether the government will also subsidise the school development projects (captured in the School Learning and Improvement Plans, SLIPs); and materials and infrastructure components. 

The TFF funds have struggled to capture those 3 components in the past 8 years. In what is known as the 30:30:40 components (READ MORE HERE):

1. School Learning Materials - 30% of TFF Grant
2. MPs PSIP and DSIP - 30% of TFF grant
3. Cash Grant for schools - 40% of TFF allocation

It would be interesting so watch this space for more detail. Or check out this link for more information on the TFF policy since 2012. 

In fact, it is going to be interesting. So parents, plan well for next year - get the school fees ready. Time to take some responsibilities. 

Meanwhile, below are two re-posts in relation to the change in TFF policy to a subsided education policy now in motion.  

PARENTS TO PAY SCHOOL FEES: Parents and guardians will pay half of their children’s school fees following a 50 percent cut in the Tuition Fee Free funding.

Department of Treasury Secretary Dairi Vele says the government will instead introduce and fund the Higher Education Loan Program for tertiary students.
"What we are doing is to ensure government and parents share the burden, kairm pikinini lukautim pikinini," said Vele.
Mr. Vele says these students will repay the loan after they graduate and find employment. 
He was speaking during the 2020 Budget Press Lockup at the State Function Room at the Parliament precinct yesterday. 

NBC News- Grace Tiden

OPPOSITION SAY SCRAPPING TFF WILL BE DISASTER: The (Papua New Guinea) Opposition is predicting a spike in social problems with the government's announcement to scrap the Tuition Fee Free or free education policy.

Presenting the 2020 National Budget in Parliament yesterday, Treasurer, Ian Ling-Stuckey, revealed that parents and guardians will start paying their children's fees from elementary level up to grade 12 starting next year.

The TFF will only be reserved for students who make it to tertiary level education, under what would be known as a Higher Education Loan Program.

But Opposition Leader Belden Namah, told NBC News, scrapping the TFF would be a disaster for the country.

"We want to make our country align with the United Nations Charter on universal education, so this is an injustice to our people.'
"Now that the TFF is gone, people are going to flood to their members and ask for school fees and if you cant give them they will vote you out.
"Instead of doing away with TFF completely, the government should meed 60-percent and parents meet 40-percent.
"I can tell you a lot of parents won't pay for school fees and we will have a lot of young people just sitting around doing nothing at all and we will have more law and order problems in this country," Said Beldon Namah.

NBC News- Kelvin Kasper

30:30:40 TFF Funds Allocation Needed Clarity from 3 Key Stakeholders

This post revisits the joint ministerial statement by the, then, Education Minister and Education Secretary in 2016 regarding the Tuition Fee Free policy statement. The statement clearly showed the 30:30:40 breakdown of TFF grants. This post also highlights the key stakeholders of the policy.

Here is the 2016 joint press release and summerised in diagram below..

TFF funds allocation 2018

First, the Top 6 schools in the country that received the highest funds in 2018 as published by the NDoE in January 2019 are:


You can see how much money your school or province receive here. The list was originally published by National Department of Education  (NDoE) on itswebsite in pdf form. 

PNG Insight rearranges the list of TFF-receiving schools in tabular form. This makes it easier to identify a particular school. Or, you can group school into a province, and identify how much  money each school is receiving in 2018.

Perhaps it is important to note that TFF grants given to schools in 2012 - 2017 are not available in the public domain, except the 2018 shown here.

School Learning Materials - 30% of TFF Grant

The Students' Supplies component of 30% is, also, an area needing clarity. The financial reports for the last 7 years for this component was not clearly reported on, or made available to public.

A private company has been allocated the money to procure and supply students learning materials. In fact, a dual secretarial and ministerial media statement in 2016 indicated that 30% of the TFF grant was allocated to Procurement and Supplies yearly. That is 30% of >K600 million every year in the hands of the private company.

So, has the procurement and distribution company delivered quality learning materials to schools? 

This year over K79 million was released to the private company to deliver materials for 2019. It is nearly half a year, but many schools have been waiting to receive the learning materials, unfortunately.

MPs PSIP and DSIP - 30% of TFF grant 

All schools in every district - elementary, primary and secondary - must receive help from their local MPs through the District Service Improvement Program funds released to the MPs. 

School infrastructure developments plans done by the school board, and captured in the school development plans or SLIPs, must be funded by the district grants.

Additionally, provincial governments through the provincial treasury must actively fund the development of school infrastructure in the country.

Why is there little-to-nothing to show for in the elementary, primary, high and secondary schools in the country?

Questions should be raised as to where the MPs have put the DSIP/PSIP grants meant for education and school infrastructure development, had the funds not reached the districts, schools and people.

Cash Grant for schools - 40% of TFF allocation

As mentioned earlier, 60% of TFF grants are in the hands of this private company and MPs - a lot of money. The NDoE deals with the 40% cash grant into school accounts, directly.

All in all, the ministerial statement 2016 clearly gave the break-down of the TFF grant into 30:30:40 components. Money meant for TFF policy are managed by the private  co, MPs and NDoE.

What is completely missing is transparency shown by the key stakeholders ( private company, NDoE and MPs) in the delivery of TFF policy.

The stakeholders will admit that there were obvious problems with TFF policy. Since 2012, TFF funds marked in the budgetary allocations have been more than the actual figures released. TFF grants were released to schools late.

The 3 key stakeholders have problems getting TFF monies on time.

But, regardless of the late disbursements monies and school supplies, in many cases,  the people MUST know over K600 million of TFF money have been disbursed to schools, the private company and MPs yearly.

Therefore, every stakeholder must demand that financial and transaction reports are produced promptly.

It is common knowledge that there is a complete lack on transparency on reporting, or the accounts do not balance out, IF no financial balance sheet is published to date.

This surmounts to a failure in the way the policy is implemented. Furthermore, when the books do not balance, there is something seriously wrong. And needed fixing.

There are whispers in the education corridors that the 30:30:40 components had been readjusted in 2018. However, there is no media statement or published document from the NDoE to confirm that the adjustment.

If that happened, it is canny that stakeholders did *not* know about the recent TFF component adjustment.

And, what is the new break-down?

Read more about the recommendations of a TFF policy research here.
  • The private company releases the financial report of procurement and supply of students learning materials,
  • The MPs have clearly identified how much they spent on school infrastructure development in their districts, and
  • The NDoE publishes the TFF grant yearly report for 2012 - 2017. Note that the 2018 TFF report was published early this year, 2019.
Finally, the TFF policy is a cornerstone policy for the PNG goverment and for the country. The policy needs fine-tuning. 

PNG is better placed, at present, to deliver a better tuition fee (EDUCATION FEE) policy given its experiences in the last 8 years.

TFF Component of School Materials Awarded to a Private Company - K69 Million


How will the National Government meet the cost?

The discussion in base on the above report from PNG Legend FM news online. In fact, since the inception of Tuition Fee Free Education policy, procurement of supplies and distribution of school/student's materials are done by Borneo Pharmaceutical's subsidiary HM Supplies Limited. 

The private company has tried its best to deliver the much-needed supplies to school. Whether its attempts have been successful is not a matter of this discussion. 

The opinion shared here is to find a better way - sustainable way - to coordinate the procurement and distribution of school materials. My work on TFF policy has shown that the best way to coordinate the Learning and Teaching grant is through the education department.

The government should avoid using the intermediaries or subsidiaries to do what the department can do. Fund schools directly. 

Let the education department create strong accountability measures around the use of the grant and police them. The department has the manpower and network capability to do it. Do not underestimate the department.

Perhaps it is important to KNOW that the Education Department has an intricate network of national and provincial officers/divisions/branches/TFF secretariat that it (education department) can use supply school materials effectively.

No need to underestimate the education department network

Using the education department to procure and distribute school supplies is not a new concept. School materials, in the past, was the sole responsibility of the education department.

There is NO need for a private company to oversee the procurement and supply of teachers and students' learning materials. 

TFF 40% Cash Grants Facilitated by Education Department

Every year the National Government budgeted over K600,000,000 to fund the TFF policy.

From 2012 to 2016, an average of K6 million had been allocated annually. Of this 60% is not controlled by the education department. The department only oversees the use of 40% cash admin component. 
Bugetary Allocation based on National Budget Documents

The 40% cash grant is the most talked about the component on mainstream and social medium. Most often, schools do not receive the grant on time.

In the last 8 years, the 4th quarter does not reach the schools until the beginning of the next year. So, there are many questions surrounding the release of the 40% School Admin component/Grant: 
  • Are schools really getting the 4 (quarterly) instalments each year? 
  • Is the budget allocation realistic?
  • What is the actual amount released to schools?
  • What is/are the transparency measure/s to monitor the distribution (at the Education Department) and use of the TFF 40% cash grant (by schools)
  • Are the data provided by schools reliable?

To make it clear, the education department has done a fantastic job publishing the financial reports of the 40% cash grants. Visit the education department website or make an appointment with the TFF secretariat to get more information.


TFF 30% Infrastructure Development Grant facilitated by MPs and Provincial Treasuries 

Secondly, the infrastructure grant has lots of grey areas as far as accountability is concerned. Understandably, this was a joint-grant initiative of the government where the local Member of Parliament and provincial treasury work with the school board and school administration to improve school infrastructure. 

MPs are obliged to use taxpayers money which they receive through their DSIP/PSIP to lead infrastructure development projects initiated by schools. 

MPs part in realising the TFF policy's dream of school infrastructural development can be hard to track. The main reason is that there is no presence of centralised data/evidence to show the USE of the 30% infrastructure grant under to control of the MPs and provincial treasuries in the country. 

As mentioned, it remains a grey area unless a mandatory investigative review is conducted to ascertain the use of the 30% grant.

TFF 30% Teaching and Learning (T&L) Support Component - Facilitated by a private company

Thirdly, the T&L support grant is awarded to an expatriate private business - Borneo Pacific  Pharmaceuticals - through its subsidiary MH Supplies Limited.

The company tried its best to procure and deliver students and teachers  (learning and teaching) supplies to schools in the last 8 years. 

However, there also many unanswered questions.
  • Is the company procuring and delivering the right materials to schools? 
  • Are the schools receiving the much-needed supplies on time?
  • What is the cost per head?
  • How much is the company receiving and spending?
  • Are the schools happy with what they are receiving?
  • Can the education department do the procuring and distributing of materials?
  • Why is the government not using the well-established network of the education department as the distribution channel?
The EMTV news reported how the company delivers the school supplies, screenshot.
EMTV REPORT 25 April 2019

Opinions - Social Media

Here are comments on this particular news article on social media:
Wow! Wow! Wow! Last year (2018) schools received their supplies of education materials for 2014. We can only guess that the supplies that were distributed this year to schools were meant for 2015.
This has to be clarified to the nation otherwise some bucks for supplies meant for 2016, 2017 and 2018 are missing. School's basic materials component is probably disappearing from the TFF into thin air this way.
Clarifications needed. Schools through out PNG have received three lots of basic TFF materials. 2013, 2018 and 2019. What happened in between is any body's guess. Ben Berom, PNG Teachers on Facebook, 29/04/2019
Finally, what we know is that the department of education has a reporting mechanism in place where it reports on the 40% Cash Admin grants, titled Administration and Financial report.

The missing data taxpayers must know

The TFF Policy MAY HAVE failed in several ways. One is that there is no evidence of report of the 30% Infrastructure Development grants available in the public domain.

Another financial report that is not available to the public is the administration and financial report for the 30% School Learning and Improvement grant.

So, who are the main players in this TFF policy? It is not the education department. 

The country needs to know, after 8 years, how 60% of the TFF money is spent! We cannot be complacent and hope that all is okay.

When it is about the use of the education Grants, it is every body's business to demand that quality is there and every toea spent on procurement and distribution is accounted. And importantly, the school supplies and infrastructure are delivered.

Furthermore, there is transparency and accountability. Is it too much to ask?

If I have missed something here, I would be glad to be pointed in the right direction. Show me the Administration and Financial Reports of the Infrastructure Development (30%) and the School Learning and Improvement (30%) Grants.

If not, it would only be proper to reiterate the intention of the Minister for Education to conduct an investigative review into the use (and abuse if any) of the TFF funds since 2012. 

This is the right thing to do.


The cost of purchase and supply of school materials for the [four regions in PNG is funded at a tune of K68,954,261.65, nearly K69 million]

  • Momase region is K19,109,330.53, 
  • Southern region – K14,053,335.92,
  • Highlands region – K21,712,86*.74 and
  • Islands region – K14,078,734.46.
[*Digit not indicated from the source, assume it is 0]
    [The cost] will be wholly funded by the National Government.
    The contract was awarded to MH Supplies Limited which was previously engaged by the Department of Education to purchase and supply school materials throughout the country.

    MH Supplies Limited representatives Kelvin Tan and Leslie Tagal signed the contract at Government House this morning witnessed by Department of Education Secretary Dr Uke Kombra.

    Source: April 27, 2019, PNGFM News

    Sustaining Tuition Fee Free Education Policy in PNG

    The paper discusses the long term and short term plans of the National Department of Education (NDoE) and gives insights to the importance of sustainability of the Tuition Fee Free Education (TFFE) policy in Papua New Guinea. It further asks is a national review of the policy a better way to strengthen the implementation of the tuition fee-free education policy in PNG? 
    UPDATED 04 December 2018

    key point on Tuition Fee Free Education Policy
    Tuition Fee Free Education Policy in PNG (PDF download)
    1.1. Background

    In 1981 the Chan government first introduced a free education policy. It was then reintroduced in 1993 by Wingti government and later in 2002 by the Morauta government. Each government saw this policy as an important driver for economic change and for achieving universal basic education in PNG.  

    All three governments had three issues in common; the policy was short-lived, confusion emerged about ‘free’ and ‘subsidised’ education and each time the policy was introduced before national general elections. 

    In 2012, the O’Neill government reintroduced a free education policy. The issue of longevity faced by the previous governments was effectively addressed by the O’Neill government.

    The second issue was not addressed; there is still confusion among parents, schools and the National Department of Education regarding how the policy is practised. The third issue regarding implementation just before the national election is true, but there needs to be a careful analysis to confirm why.

    1.2. Explanation of Tuition Fee-Free Education Policy

    Free education policy is the government’s policy on subsidised tuition fees and this policy is known as the Tuition Fee-Free Education (TFFE) policy. The policy does not cover the project fee, agency fee or other discretionary fees each school may set and pass on for parents to pay. 

    In fact, free education is not ‘free’ in its entirety. It is technically reasonable to refer to the policy as ‘subsidised’ education policy. This paper uses TFFE with an emphasis on ‘Free’. Furthermore, a student is the key stakeholder of TFFE policy. Though the national government is the main benefactor (sponsor) and students remain the main beneficiaries (recipients), students’ interest must be the top priority for every government.


    It is important to note that compulsory and affordable education is a cornerstone of the department’s directional statements. For example, the Vision 2050 aims for free education and schooling for all is indicated in the following words: ‘Free and Universal Basic Education for all school-age children from Elementary 1 to Grade 12 PNG Vision 2050, p. 5) and embedded in the department’s vision, mission, objectives and goals. 

    2.1. Vision and Mission

    The education department vision states: 

    Our vision is integral human development achieved through an affordable education system that appreciates Christian and traditional values and prepares literate, skilled and healthy citizens by concentrating on the growth and development of each individual’s personal viability and formation while ensuring all can contribute to the peace and prosperity of the nation.

    The mission statements for the education department are to; 

    • facilitate and promote the integral development of every individual,
    • develop and encourage an education system which satisfies the requirements of PNG and its people,
    • establish, preserve and improve standards of education throughout PNG, 
    • make the benefits of such education available as widely as possible to all the people, and
    • make education accessible to the poor and physically, mentally and socially handicapped as well as to those who are educationally disadvantaged (Sinebare, 2014).

    2.2. Objectives and Goals

    The education department three objectives are:
    • To develop an education system to meet the needs of Papua New Guinea and its people, which will provide appropriately for the return of children to the village community, for formal employment, or for continuation to further education and training,
    • To provide basic schooling for all children as this becomes feasible, and
    • To help people understand the changes that are occurring in contemporary society through the provision of non-formal education and literacy programs.

    According to the Tuition Fee-Free Policy Management Manual, the TFFE policy aims to support compulsory and affordable education by achieving five key goals:

    • Access is improved for all children, especially girls;
    • Retention is enhanced where more children complete 9 years of primary education; 
    • Quality of education is improved for all grade of elementary to primary levels;
    • Education management is strengthened across all administrative levels;
    • Equity is enhanced to ensure quality education is available for all children in all communities across the country.

    2.3. TFFE Policy Governance and Management Structure

    The ability of governments to maintain investment in education is important to achieving universal education. Citing a UN report on political commitment, Walton (2016) in his article ‘The importance of national and local politics for improving educational quality’  stated that ‘political will’ is key to achieving education goals (para 1). 

    It is reassuring to know that TFFE funding was consistent during the O’Neill government (Figure 4 and Figure 5). But, instances of fund mismanagement (EMTV, 2015) and manipulation of project fees by schools (Robinson, 2014) are relevant issues which needed addressing at both the department and district levels. 

    tff policy management flow
    Policy Governance and Management Structure
    One way to address policy issues is to create strong governance, management structure and reporting system. The diagram shows the governance structure of TFFE funds, with the arrows indicating the flow of data and school management reports. TFF Policy Management Manual (2014), and ministerial and successive department secretaries’ statements (Kuman, 2014; Kuman & Kombra, 2016), describe the structure and reporting channels in principle. 

    However, no attempt was made to clearly define a structural framework like the one shown in Figure 2. The figure is an attempt to give a clear picture of the systems and processes concerned with the implementation of the TFFE policy.

    Kuman and Kombra (2016) described the different stages of monitoring and reporting. Both education leaders further outlined stakeholders’ participation as the key. These are indicated below.
    • District Administration: Local communities, school headteachers and boards submit data collected through every School Census and School Learning Improvement Plans (SLIP) and other development plans to DEIC.
    • Provincial Education Division: DEIC in each district approves SLIP, ensures proper use of TFF funds and verifies school and enrolment data. The membership consists of a church representative, CEO of District Development Authority, community representatives and the District Education Administrator and District Standard Officers/Inspectors.
    • NDoE: Establishment of TFF Secretariat within the DoE adds capacity. It provides administrative support to the Secretary for Education and assists the work of the Inter Departmental TFF Steering Committee. Provincial Coordinators are appointed to assist the Secretariat to implement the policy. 
    • Ministerial-level: The Inter-Departmental TFF Steering Committee (IDSC) will report to the Minister for Education, who reports to NEC and parliament. All other stakeholders’ responsibilities are covered in this TFF Implementation Guide.

    stakeholders report on TFF
    Mandatory Reports - Honest Participation from Provincial and National Levels


    The literature review attempts to discuss the introduction of the TFFE policy in 1981, 1993, 2002 and 2012 (including 2017) by the People’s Progress Party (PPP), People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) party and People’s National Congress (PNC) party, respectively. 

    One way to understand the implications of the free education policy implemented by both the past and present governments is to analyse the time when the free education policy was announced; the duration of the policy; and the overall planning (or lack of it) at the time of and following the announcement.

    A research paper, based on a survey by the Australian National University (ANU), titled Financing and the Tuition Fee-Free Policy (ANU, 2012), described the impacts of TFFE policy on the education system. 

    The research paper used the term ‘big bang’ to describe the huge increase in TFFE funding. For example, the research stated that ‘a big bang approach can cause “access shock”, whereby a sudden rise in student numbers puts pressure on educational quality (p. 5). The research revealed that there was strong growth in enrollment at an average of 15 per cent in the first year, 2012. It concluded that 
    ‘the increase in enrolments between 2011 and 2012 is a clear indication that the policy has substantially increased access to schooling for children across the country’ (p.14)
    However, the survey by ANU researchers was done in select provinces and concentrated on the cost of education per child. Furthermore, though the research discussed the political history of TFFE policy, it focused on the impacts of the policy rather than the ‘political will’, which was lacking in the past. Therefore, the literature review in this paper adds to the two issues discussed in brief by the ANU researchers: the overall spending on TFFE and the political changes.

    3.1. Short-Lived Free Education Attempts 1981, 1993 and 2002

    In 1981, free education was received with mixed feelings in many provinces. Bray (2002) mentioned three reasons many provinces were sceptical about the policy (Walton & Swan, 2014). Walton and Swan argued that provincial governments feared the national government was aiming to take control of their financial and functional powers. 

    As a result, five provinces did not implement the policy. Others raised concerns that the policy was unplanned and that it was unsustainable. But, fifteen other provinces implemented the free education policy.  When Sir Julius Chan PPP led government was ousted in late July 1982, its free education policy was scrapped. The policy lasted less than 12 months.

    In 1993, Paias Wingti PDM party-led government reintroduced the free education policy after a successful election in July 1992. Confusion arose among parents and schools. Many thought ‘free’ education was free in its entirety according to Walton and Swan (2014). 

    The discussion arose when the project fee was passed on to parents to pay. The Wingti government’s attempt to introduce free education lasted 18 months, from January 1993 to August 1994.

    In 2002, PDM party under Morauta made a significant commitment to subsidise school fees. The budgetary allocation of K150 million was, then, the biggest to implement this policy. Again confusion emerged over the difference between free and subsidised education. 

    The Morauta government thought the free education policy was an important driver for development. But, some people saw the timing as an attempt to skew parents’ opinion at the polls. For example, Marshall (2002) reported that 

    ‘In a blatant pitch for votes in the approaching June [2002] election, Papua New Guinea (PNG) Prime Minister Mekere Morauta claimed late last year that his government would grant free education for primary and secondary school children if it gained another term’ (para. 1)

    In terms of time, Morauta became prime minister in July 1999 and made this significant commitment to free education late in 2001 only seven months before 2002 general elections. Given the unpreparedness and lack of proper coordination, as well as the complexity of the issue, the policy proved unpopular during the national election. 

    The Somare National Alliance (NA) party went to elections on anti-free education policy (Nalu, 2010) and successfully formed a new government in August 2002. The new government reduced 2002 tuition fee budgetary allocation from K150 to K60 million and reintroduced school fees.

    3.2. Tuition Fee-Free Education Policy 2012 to 2016

    The O’Neill government TFFE policy achieved better results than previous attempts. Initiated in 2011, it was fully implemented in 2012, seven months before national elections and gained popularity. The government allocated K602 million (Walton & Swan, 2014). 

    Four times more than the Morauta government in 2002 and six times more than the Somare government in 2007. The Education funding averaged K474.4 million per year for the years 2002, 2007 and 2012 to 2016. The average shows that funding allocations in the last five years were, in fact, better than the earlier allocations. 

    Comparision tff funds 2002-2012
    Funds Committed to TFF Policy 2002 - 2016 
    It is important to know that sustaining the policy for more than five years was the most important achievement for the O’Neill government. However, there is a gradual downward trend in fund allocation between 2012 and 2016, from a high of K657 million (2013) to K602 million (2016) and this has led to implementation problems. 

    An ANU survey report on Education Financing and the Tuition Fee-Free Policy (ANU, 2012) in the country also indicated that government allocation ‘is expected to increase at around 3.5 per cent per annum to 782 million [K]ina in 2017 ( p.1 para. 1).  Furthermore, at the rate of 3.5 per cent, 2016 funding would be K755 million but instead, the funding was K602 million. The year-on-year 3.5 per cent increment had not been realised. 

    The literature review highlights the fact various governments have seen ‘education for all’ as the main driver for free education policy (Walton, 2016). The policy resulted in a surge in a number of students going to school mentioned by Walton and Swan (2014). This review also shows that funding from the O’Neill government was better compared to past governments. However, the introduction of free education by governments just before national elections raises a question about the sustainability of the policy. Even with the O’Neill government’s relatively strong financial commitment to implementing the TFFE policy, questions have been asked about the timing of the implementation. 

    3.3. Method of Research

    This research uses a diverse range of online articles and published documents to investigate and discuss the issue of sustainability of TFFE policy. The paper’s main sources are the Development Policy Centre, National Research Institute, Institute of National Affairs, Treasury Department website, NDoE website and ministerial statements on TFF policy. The paper uses raw data from budget documents in discussions relating to TFFE funding. 


    4.1. Project Fee Confusion 

    Many schools, fearing financial difficulty before the start of 2016 school year, decided to impose project fee on parents and sponsors. For example, Robinson (2016) stated that schools in the Eastern Highlands Province had not heeded the education secretary’s circular on project fee abolishment. For clarity, the article was based on the secretary’s first directive on project fee abolishment. 

    Kukari (2015) also mentioned the abolishment of the project fee in 2015, stating that the education secretary’s directive addressed the department’s goal of ‘free and universal’ education (p. 2). The secretary rescinded his directive.  A joint statement released by the minister and secretary (Kuman & Kombra, 2016) clarified that project fee had not been abolished. Both men iterated that the department set a maximum fee limit for all elementary to secondary schools to follow. The announcement effectively clarified the misunderstandings. 

    4.2. Effects of Changing Education Secretaries

    Dr Sinebare (the secretary between November 2011 and September 2012) and his team responded quickly to the O’Neill government TFFE policy announcement in 2011 and formulated a policy document called Tuition Fee-Free Policy Management Manual. 

    The document, widely circulated for implementation in 2012, emphasised that free education was the cornerstone for achieving Universal Basic Education (UBE) Plan 2010 – 2019. The message to stakeholders was that free education was, in fact, free in its entirety. 

    School heads, parents and communities had to take ownership of the policy and ensured its success (Sinebare, 2012). Dr Sinebare served for only ten months in his position. Dr Tapo (September 2012 – May 2014) who took over from Dr Sinebare had served for twenty months as the education secretary. He was sacked due to the department’s failure to distribute TFFE fund to schools on time, and replaced by Dr Kombra (May 2014 – present). All the while, there seems to be little effect in understanding the implementation of the policy.

    4.3. Missing TFF Funds and Lack of Monitoring and Reporting 

    In 2015, eight per cent (K50 million) of TFFE funds disappeared without a trace. Identifying the reason for this missing money is important so strategies can be implemented so this does not reoccur. 

    The PNG Teachers Association (PNGTA) and the leader of PNG’s Opposition raised concerns about the missing money (EMTV, 2015) and this received no result. Stipulated in the TFF Policy Management Manual, and recently in ministerial statements, are details of processes for releasing TFFE fund to schools. For example, in order for the fund to be released directly into schools’ bank accounts, the schools must produce students’ data and acquittals of expenditures. 

    The disappearance of the money placed doubt on the department’s capacity to handle TFFE funds. In January 2016, the department intended to create additional capacity (TFFS and DEIC) and TFFE fund management system; and establish monitoring and reporting structures (highlighted in Figure 2 and Figure 3). From the education department’s standpoint, the extra capacity through the establishment of TFFS will ‘provide administrative support to the Secretary for Education and will assist the work of the Inter-Departmental TFF Steering Committee’ (NDoE, 2016).
    Given these sectorial challenges, there have been positive strides in the last five years to address free and universal education goals. More importantly, the government’s commitment to fund the TFFE policy was above average as compared to past governments’ attempts. Given these points, the main challenge is to ensure effective operations of the new Governance and Management Structure, and Reporting channels.


    Previous sections discussed the history and challenges of the TFFE policy. This section attempts to put into perspective the long term and short term plans relating to the education sector. Perhaps, this is an important part of the paper because it provides answers to the question at hand: Strategic Planning of Your Organisation as it Aligns With Your Country Vision’.

    5.1. Vision 2050 - Subsidised or Free Education 

    The Vision 2050 was a 40-year strategic plan established in 2010 by the Somare movement. Of the five National Goals enshrined in the Constitution and Seven Pillars of Vision 2050, education is number one. Documented in Vision 2050 is the emphasis on free education and UBE: ‘Free and Universal Basic Education for all school-age children from Elementary 1 to Grade 12’ (Vision 2050, p.20) 

    Somare’s government subsidy ranged between 100 million and 147 million Kina (Figure 5) – also a major contribution to education since Independence. However, his government saw education as a partnership venture between sponsors (parents) and the government and not entirely free across all levels of education. Conversely, the O’Neill government’s first commitment to education was free education from elementary 1 to grade 10. 

    However, this changed in 2013 when grades 11 and 12 tuitions were covered under the TFFE policy (ANU, 2012). As previously discussed, confusions emerged regarding payment of tuition fees and whether the education was either free or subsidised. In fact, between 2012 and 2014 parents had paid project fee and agency fee under the TFFE policy. This changed in 2015 when the project fee was abolished (Robinson, 2015; Kukari 2015). Education was free. Parents and sponsors paid nothing. In 2016, the project fee was reintroduced to schools (Kuman & Kombra, 2016). 

    Among confusions, the department set project fee limit for schools to follow and passed onto parent to pay. The debate on whether education is free or subsidised is, possibly, inconclusive. But, it is important to know that the government funding commitment to UBE for all boys and girls increased sharply since 2007 – significant investments in education.

    5.2. Sectorial Plans – Short Term and Long Term Education Plans 

    Several long term and short term plans (Secretary, 2010; TISER, 2013; NDoE 2015) have been put in place to achieve the education department vision and mission. Though this paper does not intend to address each plan in detail, it briefly explains their intentions. In brief, the five directional plans include:

    Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2010-2030 – A long term plan for the education department. It identifies the strategies needed addressing in order to align NDoE vision and mission, and objectives and goals with the Vision 2050. It also provides a guide for the department in a 20 year period, ending 2030;

    Universal Basic Education (UBE) Plan 2010-2019 - A 20-year plan covering both the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 2000 – 2015, especially MDG  2 which relates to education for all. The plan contains a situation analysis of national targets (indicators) such as students’ access and enrolment, teacher-student ratio, infrastructure development, management and capacity development and other educational issues concerned with achieving compulsory, free and quality education for both boys and girls of primary school-aged children;

    National Education Plan (NEP) 2005-2014 - This plan served as a roadmap for a 10 year period. Its objective was to achieve ‘basic education for all’ and provided further opportunity for students dropping out in the first 9 years of education (Prep to Grade 8). The department launched a 5-year medium-term development plan, NEP 2015 – 2019, to ensure that its review coincided with PNG Vision review 2050 in 2020;

    Provincial Education Plans (PEP) 2007-2016 – A 10-year mandatory plan specific to each province. The aim of the plan is the address each province’s educational needs whilst taking into consideration NDoE vision and mission and education targets contained in the national plans. PEP also stipulated provincial administration structure and roles of stakeholders at provincial and district levels; and

    School Learning Improvement Plan (SLIP) – This plan was school based and mandatory. It provided a basis for improving learning outcomes and management of funds and resource allocation in schools. SLIP provides an overview of money spent on school administration, teaching and learning resources, and infrastructural development. This important plan is reviewed both internally (by school head, boards, parents representatives and communities) and externally (by standard officers). 

    The five documents were evidence of strategy planning and operational planning within the education system. The national plans must be translated into provincial and school plans and also effectively implemented at each level. 

    Even more, these plans together with the Management and Governance Structure (Figure 2) and Reporting system (Figure 3) have the potential to achieve the objectives and goals of the department.


    This section aims to respond to the need to develop a strategic plan to incorporate the issues relating to the sustainability of TFFE policy. Using SWOT analysis, the section identifies some strengths and weaknesses (internal factors) and opportunities and threats (external factors) of TFFE policy in the last five years, 2012 to 2016. 

    Furthermore, the section uses the factors to set priorities and ensure that all stakeholders work toward not only sustaining TFFE policy but also improve on the failures in the past.

    SWOT analysis TFF
    Advantages and disadvantages of TFF Policy in PNG

    The literature review (sections 3 and 5) and the data analysis (figures 4 and 5) show that the government commitment to TFFE policy is better than other governments in the past. The five weaknesses are all capacity/system issues within the NDoE. In fact, the establishment of TFFS – a new branch within NDoE to assist the secretary on TFFE policy matters (Figure 2) - is an example of building capacity. However, this may be too late. 

    The policy is in its fifth year of implementation, the national general election is in July 2016 and uncertainty abounds. Nevertheless, it is vital that a strong process for monitoring, recording and reporting dispersal of education funds is established and implemented with immediate effect.

    The four threats are political, economic and technological in nature. The O’Neill government has made an outstanding commitment to the free education policy. For example, in five years the government allocated over 3 billion Kina in TFFE funding, an average of 614.2 million Kina per year. The Somare government (2007 – 2011) total school fee subsidy in five years was 634.3 million Kina, averaging 126.86 million Kina per year. 

    Literally, the O’Neill government average funding in one year was almost equal to what the Somare government spent on education in five years (Figure 6). Having said that, the unpredictability of PNG elections is not good for the policy’s stability. Another threat is the lack of inter-department data storage and retrieval mechanism. 

    Currently, national government departments have standalone websites that are not linked together. This makes producing reports difficult. For example, data from several departments will have to be manually entered or searched and collated to track progress and provide reports. A realistic solution to this problem is having one website connecting all the government departments and offices. 


    In conclusion, the PNG government's free education policy was an attempt to achieve integral human development stipulated in the vision and mission of the education department. The attempts to implement the free education policy in 1981, 1993 and 2002 were short-lived. 

    The attempt in 2012 by the O’Neill government lasted two parliamentary terms and its funding was consistent. Capacity to manage the TFFE funds and report on it was lacking in the department of education. The establishment of the TFF Secretariat, the Governance and Management Structure and the Reporting System to monitor the use of TFFE funds needed implementing urgently. It is important that all the stakeholders of the TFFE policy must ensure that the interest of the key stakeholders – the students – is paramount now and in the future. 


    At this juncture, the paper recommends the following actions to be taken at the national level.

    • A complete review of the TFF policy is carried out immediately by a committee - a team similar to the 2015 National Examination Review Committee - to strengthen the policy and further guide its implementation.
    • The national government creates a centralised website and makes it mandatory for NDoE to collect updated school data in real-time.
    • The education department strengthens the Governance and Management Structure and carefully and thoroughly monitors school census and data supplied by schools heads; and
    • The education department creates additional capacity to work with school inspectors and district administrators to monitor the School Learning and Implementation Plan (SLIP) relating to the spending of TFF funds.

    You can download the Tuition Fee Free Education Policy in PNG PDF here (⇒ PDF download)

    Declaimer: All attempts have been made to ascertain the factuality of information presented in this academic paper. Please, let the writer know if there is anything you wish to point out in the comment section. You can use the Contact Form or Twitter ().



    Latest on Vote of No Confidence in Papua New Guinea 2024

    Latest on Vote of No Confidence in Papua New Guinea 2024