A new survey by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has found that nearly two-thirds of Ghanaians believe the Double-Track System has had a negative impact on the quality of Senior High School (SHS) education.
The August 2026 poll, which surveyed 1,062 people across Ghana’s 16 regions, revealed that “64.7% of Ghanaians believe the Double-Track System has had a negative effect on the quality of SHS education.”
The survey further found that 54.3% of respondents support government borrowing to finance the construction of additional SHS facilities and ultimately end the Double-Track System.
The IEA, however, said the government should carefully assess the fiscal implications of relying on borrowing to finance the expansion of SHS infrastructure.
Support for additional borrowing was particularly strong among respondents who believed the Double-Track System had harmed education quality. Of this group, 60.8% supported borrowing to construct more schools and bring the system to an end.
Meanwhile, 20.2% of respondents said the system had improved the quality of secondary education, while 14.7% believed it had made no difference. Only 0.2% expressed no opinion.
The government introduced the Double-Track System eight years ago as a temporary measure to increase access to secondary education while addressing shortages in SHS infrastructure.
The arrangement enabled more students to enter secondary school, but the latest findings suggest that many Ghanaians remain concerned about its impact on the quality of education.
On government borrowing, 38.4% of respondents opposed the proposal, mainly because of concerns about Ghana’s public debt burden. Another 6.2% did not express an opinion.
Overall, the poll reflects public demand for greater investment in SHS infrastructure to facilitate the eventual removal of the Double-Track System, while underscoring concerns about the cost and sustainability of financing such expansion through borrowing.
Mahama to phase out double track
President John Dramani Mahama has reiterated his administration’s commitment to phase out the Double-Track System in the nation’s senior high schools (SHSs).
He said by the end of 2027, no school in Ghana should still be operating the double-track system, assuring that all students would attend school and vacate at the same time.
The President said this would increase contact hours between teachers and learners and improve educational outcomes.
Mahama made the remarks during a Citizens’ Engagement held in Wa at the climax of his two-day Resetting Ghana Tour of the Upper West Region.
He noted that the Government had secured a 300-million-dollar facility from the World Bank to support efforts to eliminate the double-track system.
GH₵1 billion needed to phase out system
Haruna Iddrisu, the Minister for Education, says the government will spend about one billion Ghana cedis from the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) on expanded infrastructure to address the double-track system.
He said the move was part of the ‘Reset Agenda’ of the Mahama-led government, intended to improve quality education across the country.
Haruna Iddrisu said, “Next year, under the Reset Agenda of President Mahama, the government will spend GH¢1 Billion of GETFund to deal with expanded infrastructure to respond to the double-track system.
“The President has already instructed the Minister for Finance to incorporate this in his 2026 budget,” the Minister, who is the Member of Parliament (MP) for the Tamale South Constituency, said at the Zebilla Senior High Technical School (ZSHTS) in the Bawku West District of the Upper East Region.
Know more about double-track
The Double-Track System was a policy introduced by the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo administration in 2018 as part of the Free Senior High School (Free SHS) initiative to manage overcrowding and accommodate a surge in student enrollment by splitting schools into two alternating sessions: the Green Track and the Gold Track.
Under this system, students attended school for approximately 81 days per semester followed by 41 days of vacation, effectively dividing the student body to utilize existing infrastructure more efficiently. While proponents argued it reduced class sizes and increased contact hours, critics and academic studies cited reduced instructional days (from 180 to 162), lower academic performance, and increased financial burdens on parents for private tuition during the long vacation periods.
