Sir, – It seems that whenever the sensitive matter of taxpayer subsidies to private secondary schools surface, the formidable middle class and the well-resourced recipient private schools rush to defend what is increasingly seen as the indefensible. The resilience of these private schools to weather the economic downturn is best demonstrated by the recent sharp rise in pupil intake at both day and boarder level accompanied by an increase in student fees (“Private school enrolments are on the rise as economy recovers”, Education, May 29th).
I support educational pluralism, denominational and integrated education and parental choice; however, those who choose private education for their children should be prepared to pay for the privilege, not the taxpayer.
However, it is not just the issue of tax-payers funding private schools which I find objectionable but their admissions policies, which are too restrictive. Such practices makes these school virtually inaccessible to children of immigrants, the Travelling community, children with special needs and those whose parents cannot afford the cost, yet it is this same category of people who by their taxes fund the State’s subvention of private schools. This subvention is then used to provide facilities that State schools cannot afford. There is also evidence that some of this State funding is used to lower the pupil-teacher ratio at these institutions of privilege, which in turn discriminates against children in State schools.
Without question, fee-paying schools are the best resourced in the State. Why should taxpayers, the vast majority of whom could never aspire to such a privileged education for their children, be expected to subsidise exclusive boarding schools for the privileged few?
TOM COOPER,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – It would appear from recent correspondence on private schools that the politics of envy is still with us. – Yours, etc,
MARY KEANE,
Dublin 4.