Sir, – Can I draw attention to two large elephants in this particular room? The first is religion. A significant number of fee-paying schools claim their rationale as rooted in the need to serve the Protestant community. Many tout their ethos in those terms. However, many of these schools have long since been colonised by those of all faiths and none, to the extent that it is questionable how many still have a plurality of students (and teachers) that can be said to be “Protestant”. And thus the second pachyderm – class. The real purpose of these fee-paying schools is to provide an environment where parents can be reasonably sure that their offspring will be mixing with “people like us”; and that the networks and friendships established in these early years will accrue to the material and social advantage of their children in later ones. But neither religion nor class should be the determinants of taxpayer support for educational establishments. – Yours, etc,
IAN d’ALTON,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – When I did the higher diploma in education (H Dip) course in the 1970s, one lecturer startled us with his opening sentence. “I am a fraud,” he said. “I am being paid to lecture on something that doesn’t exist: the Irish education system. There is no such thing. There is instead a motley collection of ad hoc arrangements masquerading as a system.” True then. Still true now. – Yours, etc,
PAT McLAUGHLIN,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – Often described as a postcode lottery, there are significant geographical variations in health outcomes within populations and countries. This is widely recognised and forms the basis of considerable research. Men living in parts of London live 10 years longer than those in Glasgow, for example, and this so-called "Glasgow effect" has lead to intense research, with its own dedicated centre, on how to address the gap. To my knowledge, nobody has advocated doing so by reducing the life expectancy of the London elites. This comes to mind reading the comments of various correspondents on private schooling and the fees paid by parents (Letters, December 31st).
One would assume that anyone looking at a country’s educational outcomes, and indeed the whole process of raising children, would seek to identify the factors that lead to the best results and, insofar as possible, offer them to all. However, Sheila Maher feels that parents investing in their child’s education “makes a mockery of a republic of equals” as it may “benefit them disproportionately”. David Doran suggests that private schools should receive no public funding because “public schools are egalitarian. Fee-paying schools are not”.
If we wish to achieve full equality we would prevent parents teaching their children at home, providing them with dedicated quiet spaces to study, arranging for grinds and so on, on the basis that some others cannot or will not do so. We would thus reduce our overall standard of education somewhat, assuming these measures work at all. Clearly though, in education, we operate in a global market of intense rivalry. Reducing our standards is an incomprehensible strategy, and would be to all of our detriment. If significant benefits can be accrued by children through their parents contributing financially to their education, or any other way, then we should examine how those resources are allocated and offer the same to others, and ideally to all. This is self-evident in the case of healthcare in the UK, as I mentioned.
Sports clubs and players also know it, as rivals seek to replicate the approach of the elites, rather than the opposite. I wonder why it isn’t deemed obvious in our schools, therefore. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.