Dr. Fred Kyei Asamoah’s concern that distance education programmes are more expensive than regular programmes deserves serious attention. Traditionally, distance learning is designed to make education more accessible and affordable for working adults, professionals, and people who cannot attend full-time classes. In many countries, online and distance programmes cost less because institutions save on classroom space, accommodation, and other operational expenses.
In Ghana, however, the opposite appears to be happening. Some universities charge significantly higher fees for weekend and distance programmes, with some students reportedly paying more than GH¢20,000. This raises legitimate questions about whether institutions are using these programmes primarily as revenue-generating ventures rather than fulfilling their original purpose of widening access to higher education.
GTEC’s Legal Limitation
Professor Ahmed Jinapor’s explanation that GTEC lacks the legal mandate to regulate fees for distance education programmes is an important clarification. Under the current framework, these programmes operate largely on market principles, with universities determining their own pricing.
While GTEC may not have the authority to regulate fees, the discussion suggests there may be a need for Parliament to review existing legislation. If distance education has become an essential pathway for thousands of working Ghanaians, leaving fees entirely to market forces could create inequalities that undermine the government’s goal of expanding access to tertiary education.
The issue therefore becomes a policy question: Should Parliament extend GTEC’s regulatory authority to include fee oversight for distance and weekend programmes, or should universities continue to determine prices independently?
Universities Must Balance Sustainability with Accessibility
Universities also face genuine financial pressures. Maintaining academic staff, digital learning platforms, examination centres, and administrative services requires significant investment. Since many distance programmes are self-financing and receive limited government support, institutions often rely on student fees to sustain them.
However, financial sustainability should not come at the expense of affordability. Excessive fees risk excluding the very working adults and low-income learners that distance education is intended to serve.
Greater transparency in how fees are determined could help build public confidence and demonstrate that charges reflect actual delivery costs rather than profit motives.
Graduate Employability Remains a National Concern
Another important issue raised by Dr. Yaw Osei Adutwum concerns the relevance of university programmes to the labour market.
Graduate unemployment remains a significant challenge in Ghana. Each year, thousands of graduates enter the job market only to struggle in securing meaningful employment. This has intensified public debate over whether universities are producing graduates with skills that match the needs of industry.
Dr. Adutwum’s proposal for programme rankings based on graduate outcomes could encourage universities to improve curriculum relevance and strengthen partnerships with employers. While rankings alone cannot solve unemployment, they could provide prospective students with useful information about programme quality, employability, and industry demand.
Moving Beyond “Cut-and-Paste” Programmes
Professor Jinapor’s observation that some institutions simply replicate foreign programmes without adapting them to Ghana’s economic realities is equally significant.
Universities should design programmes that respond to Ghana’s development priorities, including:
- Agriculture and agribusiness
- Manufacturing
- Artificial intelligence and digital technology
- Renewable energy
- Healthcare
- Technical and vocational education
- Entrepreneurship
- Climate resilience
Curricula developed without considering local labour market needs may leave graduates academically qualified but practically unemployable.
Stronger Collaboration Is Essential
The parliamentary committee’s visit reflects the importance of continuous engagement between lawmakers and regulatory institutions. Parliament provides the legal framework, while GTEC oversees quality assurance.
If concerns about affordability and programme relevance continue to grow, closer collaboration between Parliament, GTEC, universities, employers, and student representatives will be necessary to develop reforms that balance institutional autonomy with public interest.
The Way Forward
Several policy options could emerge from the issues discussed:
- Parliament could review the legal framework governing distance education fees.
- GTEC could publish greater data on programme quality, accreditation status, and graduate outcomes.
- Universities could improve transparency in fee structures.
- Institutions could regularly review curricula in consultation with industry.
- Government and development partners could support independent programme evaluations and rankings.
