Education Should Be Free to All People and Paid and Managed by The Government - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Sample Essay

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

The idea that governments should fully fund and control education at every level, from primary school to university, is often presented as a guarantee of equality. While I strongly support free access to basic education, I disagree with the notion that all education should be entirely free and solely managed by the state. This essay argues that unlimited public funding is economically unsustainable and that government monopoly can weaken quality, innovation, and responsiveness in higher education.

The first reason for opposing this view is the immense financial burden it would place on public resources, particularly in developing and middle-income countries. Providing free education beyond secondary level requires continuous investment in infrastructure, research facilities, academic salaries, and student services. When governments attempt to fund everything, other essential sectors such as healthcare, social welfare, and public transport often suffer. Moreover, making higher education completely free can encourage inefficiency, as students may enrol without commitment, increasing dropout rates and wasting public funds. A cost-sharing model, where the government subsidizes education while students contribute according to their ability, is more sustainable and ensures that limited resources are directed towards motivated learners and high-impact fields.

The second argument concerns quality and institutional effectiveness. When education is managed exclusively by the government, it can become rigid, bureaucratic, and slow to adapt to labour-market demands. Private and semi-autonomous institutions often introduce innovation, specialised programmes, and industry-linked curricula that public systems struggle to implement quickly. For example, many globally respected universities operate independently but offer scholarships and grants to ensure access for disadvantaged students. This balance promotes both excellence and fairness. A diverse education ecosystem, regulated by the state but not monopolised by it, encourages competition, accountability, and continuous improvement in teaching and research.

In conclusion, although free, government-funded primary and secondary education is essential for social equity, extending this model unconditionally to all levels is neither practical nor desirable. A balanced approach that combines public support with shared responsibility and institutional autonomy is far more effective in ensuring both access and quality in education.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

The view that education at every stage should be provided free of charge and administered by the government is rooted in the principle of social justice. I fully agree with this position, as education is not a commercial product but a public good essential to national progress. This essay argues that universal, state-funded education ensures genuine equality of opportunity and that centralized public management is necessary to maintain consistent standards, long-term planning, and social cohesion.

The most compelling reason to support fully free education is that it removes structural inequality and transforms education into a true merit-based system. When tuition fees exist, access to quality education is inevitably shaped by family income rather than ability, no matter how many scholarships are offered. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds often self-censor their ambitions, avoiding higher education due to fear of debt or long-term financial risk. In contrast, a fully funded system allows talent to emerge from all social classes, strengthening human capital across society. Countries that treat education as a universal right tend to enjoy higher social mobility and a more skilled workforce. By investing collectively in education, governments convert potential dependency into productivity, ensuring that no capable individual is excluded due to economic circumstances.

Equally important, government management of education enables coherence, accountability, and strategic national development. Unlike market-driven institutions, public systems can align curricula with long-term societal goals rather than short-term profitability. For example, governments can prioritise teacher training, rural education, and research in critical areas such as public health or renewable energy, even when these sectors are not immediately lucrative. Central oversight also reduces disparities in educational quality by enforcing uniform standards, regulating teacher qualifications, and ensuring equitable resource distribution. Without strong public control, education risks becoming fragmented and unequal, with elite institutions thriving while others deteriorate. A state-managed framework, therefore, protects education from commercial exploitation and ensures that national priorities guide academic development.

In conclusion, fully free and government-managed education promotes fairness, unlocks human potential, and supports coordinated national growth. By eliminating financial barriers and maintaining public oversight, societies can build inclusive, high-quality education systems that serve both individuals and the wider public interest.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 3

The proposition that governments should make all levels of education free and centrally administered is often defended as socially progressive. However, I disagree with this view. Although public involvement is vital, full state control and universal free provision undermine personal responsibility and expose education to political distortion. This essay argues that such a model weakens student motivation and misallocates public resources, while also threatening academic freedom and institutional independence.

The first major problem with fully free, government-run education is that it erodes individual accountability and distorts educational demand. When students bear no financial or personal cost, education risks being treated as an entitlement rather than a serious commitment. This frequently results in overcrowded institutions, prolonged study periods, and graduates with mismatched or unused qualifications. For example, in systems where university education is entirely free, it is common to find students enrolling repeatedly in low-demand disciplines with little concern for employability or societal need. This creates a moral hazard: individuals pursue education without weighing opportunity costs, while taxpayers fund degrees that deliver minimal public return. A system that requires some level of personal investment encourages deliberate choices, higher motivation, and a clearer alignment between education, skills, and economic reality.

A second and more critical concern is that complete government management risks politicising education and constraining intellectual diversity. When the state controls funding, curricula, and institutional leadership, education can become vulnerable to ideological agendas rather than academic merit. History shows that governments may prioritise politically convenient narratives, suppress critical inquiry, or underfund disciplines that challenge authority. By contrast, autonomous universities—while regulated—can protect academic freedom, attract private research funding, and respond dynamically to global knowledge trends. For instance, many breakthroughs in science and technology have emerged from institutions operating independently of direct state control. A pluralistic system, where public, private, and non-profit institutions coexist, better safeguards innovation, debate, and long-term educational excellence.

In conclusion, making all education free and fully state-managed is neither intellectually nor structurally sound. While governments should ensure access and fairness, excessive control weakens responsibility, efficiency, and academic independence. A balanced framework that combines public oversight with personal contribution and institutional autonomy is far better suited to sustaining a high-quality education system.