But the findings of the JCTR report point to issues that must be addressed before acclaiming that education in primary schools is truly free and is accomplishing the greatly desired steps toward development.

These issues definitely affect the availability of education for children from poorer families.

Although the report focused mainly on primary schools in Lusaka, it presents insights that point to a prevailing situation across the nation, across all types and levels of schools.

Any woman or man campaigning for the office of President, member of parliament or local councilor could get a sense of what the JCTR report concludes by simply walking around the compounds of Lusaka or other major cities or into rural areas.

Just talk with parents, teachers, and headmasters about the cost, accessibility and quality of education in Zambia, as did the two JCTR researchers, Chris Petrauskis and Sheila Nkunika.

I would venture to say that if these candidates come up with different findings, they must be interviewing on a different planet! When we talk about costs of education, we must distinguish direct costs and indirect costs.

Direct costs are those administered by the schools, such as user fees, PTA charges or project fees. Indirect costs include school uniforms and shoes, books and supplies, transportation, private tuition, packed lunches, etc.

The JCTR report finds that the government policy of free education has led to the removal of nearly all direct fees for grades 1 to 7. But it is true that some schools continue, contrary to guidelines from the Ministry of Education, to administer modest (K10,000 to K30,000/year) PTA charges or project fees.

But it is indirect costs (mostly uniforms and shoes, books and supplies) that can add up to an average annual amount of K440,000 for one child.

What that can mean for poorer households of four to six children is, obviously, prohibitive of access to ìfree education. And to speak of extending free education up through Grade 12 without seriously addressing this problem is neither economically realistic nor politically responsible.