In many countries, governments pay for children's education in part or in full, acknowledging the expensive costs of this level of education. I believe that this policy brings about more advantages than disadvantages.

It is true that funding children's schooling is not an easy task for a number of reasons. First, doing so will add burdens on the state budget as it would need several years of continuous funding before a child gets to another level of study. More importantly, in populous countries, the number of children getting into the school age only keeps rising and adds pressures on government's budgets. Second, corruption can be a concern in countries where transparency barely exists. For example, in Vietnam, if the government is to subsidise children's education, chances are that corrupt local authorities will manipulate numbers to steal tax-payers' money. Despite above considerations, I am convinced that supporting families in paying for their children' education offers more good than bad. First, this will promote the education-for-all agenda and improve equality among school children. To explain, since many families cannot afford to pay for their children's schooling, their children may not be able to go to school without government's financial support. This leads to an inequality in access to basic education that children have to experience from an early age. Furthermore, governments' subsidies for children's education herald their far-sighted vision when they invest in future generations. Since many talents can come from a poor background, missing the opportunity to get them to school equals a missed opportunity to nurture a talent which can make a great contribution to the country later on. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that free (or partly free) schooling should be provided for children for the above-mentioned reasons. More importantly, doing so will put words into actions and shows that governments are taking children's education seriously.