Provide option to self-boarding

If you picture a small house built with sun-baked bricks with no lockable doors operating as a hostel for school pupils in some rural area, you understand why government had to ban self-boarding initiatives.

It’s easy to appreciate government’s reasoning because when you think of a 15-year-old girl trying to pursue education in a self-boarding school, it’s mostly the negative aspects of the environment she operates in that flood your mind.

You worry about the safety of the child, their hygiene, diet and their having to grow up without parental guidance.

Men that prey on young girls are a source of worry too. Without parental control, such girls are easily abused by men who dangle carrots in form of money and other freebies that appeal to girls of that age.

In an ideal situation, such a girl should either be operating from home—where she is closely monitored by her parents—or a boarding facility operated by school authorities, with teachers guarding the pupils.

Given a choice, no parent or guardian would want to have their girl child in self-boarding school. These facilities are, indeed, unsafe for both male and female pupils as they expose them to abuse, insecurity and other challenges that a 15-year-old mind is not prepared for.

But the situation in most rural parts of the country is far from ideal. We hear cases of pupils who walk a distance of 10 kilometres to get to school.

By the time they get to school, they are exhausted and struggle to make sense of the lessons in class. When they day ends, they have to walk back that same long trip home, where they also have to help with household chores.

Given such circumstances, there is virtually nothing to inspire children to remain in school; hence, most opt to drop out of school because in all fairness, you cannot expect a pupil who walks a 20-kilometre distance to and from school every day to find education appealing or excel in class.

As a result, parents are left with two choices: to either send the child to an unsafe boarding environment or have them drop out of school. Grudgingly, they opt for self-boarding because they, like any other parent of sound mind, want the child to remain in school.

A government that bans self-boarding clearly cares about the growth and development of pupils, but does it provide an alternative to the parents or the pupil?

What option does that ban provide to the pupils who have, but cannot manage, to trek long distances to attend classes?

A government that cares about the welfare of children should provide better options in form of school-operated boarding facilities or construct schools with reasonable walking distance instead of issuing directives that make little sense and benefit no one.