Sir, – In your coverage of the Minister of Education’s decision to audit how private schools spend their fees (Home News, January 3rd) the table provided was incomplete and misleading. It did not, for example, differentiate between boarding schools and day schools in all instances. Consequently, those unfamiliar with these schools might be led to believe that like was being compared to like when, in fact, one is a boarding school while another is a day school and this explains the stark difference in fees charged.
Fees for some schools only listed those for day pupils but not for boarders (for example, Rathdown, St Columba’s and The King’s Hospital).
Peter McGuire’s accompanying article contained inaccuracies. The table states, for example, that Clongowes charges the highest fees but McGuire states that Glenstal Abbey charges “the highest school fees in the State”. And Sutton Park School is a multi-denominational school in Sutton and not a Protestant school in Howth.
The audit should lead to greater transparency in the education sector. The “analysis” provided by Education Editor Seán Flynn, however, chose not to focus on the pros and cons of such a proposed action. Instead it carried criticisms of private education. Little consideration was given to the many, and varied, reasons why parents continue to send children to such schools. Some do it for prestige, status and/or to give their children a perceived better start in life (sometimes by making great sacrifices). Some do it in the belief that smaller class size affords children who are lower in grades to have more targeted tuition. Some parents working abroad send their children to be educated in Ireland to have a grounding for later life and a sense of place. And there are many parents who, as members of minority religions, must pay for secondary education if their children are to educated in their own religious ethos and not that of the dominant faith. Secondary school options in the non-fee-paying sector for minority religions are very limited, especially in rural areas, and children commute many hours or board to attend appropriate schools which often must be paid for by their parents.
An examination of projects receiving “capital funding” should have been included. This would have provided balance to the TUI president’s ill-informed, and dangerous, allegation of “educational apartheid”. And contrary to her assertions, I know of few instances of fee-paying schools building “swimming schools and golf courses” nor could I see permission being given to pay for such projects from capital funding.
I ask that coverage of what can be an emotive issue is more balanced and statistically accurate in future. Articles should not have the potential to fuel bias against those who choose, or have to educate their children in fee-paying schools. – Yours, etc,