THE EDITOR, Sir:
Mr. Bruce Golding strikes me as being rational, logical, well informed and not given to making unrealistic promises to get public support. I did not expect, therefore, that I would have to take issue with him on the matter of free education. Last week, he promised free education, if and when he becomes prime minister.
I can remember when free education was first announced. The impression I formed at the time was that no planning or preparation preceded this announcement. Sustained applause can be a powerful intoxicant. This was what was being showered on the then prime minister and I felt then, and events confirmed this in subsequent months, that the idea came to him while he was on his feet and he felt that it would generate more applause.
Watered-down version
So free education was introduced without planning, preparation or money. It is precisely because of this why we have ended up with this tepid, watered-down version of education that is offered, particularly in what is known as the 'new' or 'non-traditional' high schools.
We cannot afford free education. For decades we have been trying to use political solutions to solve economic problems. The result is that debt is choking us to death while corruption is about to accomplish the same thing.
There are thousands of families that have a net income which exceeds $1 million. They can pay for their children's education. If the political will existed to deal with delinquent fathers, this would also reduce the burden on the state.
May I suggest that we take the less spectacular but more practical route of funding those families that are genuinely in need. If Mr. Golding is able to identify more funds, it should be used to improve the physical plant and provide teachers with a decent wage. This would stem the impending exodus of teachers while creating conditions that are conducive to learning.
Free education is a very important addition to a country's résumé, but we just cannot afford it at this time.
I am, etc.,
GLENN TUCKER
Stony Hill
Kingston 9
