Madam, – Orlaith Carmody (Education Today, September 29th), defends her choice of sending her sons to a fee-paying school, stating that a private education will “teach him about giving back to society”. Rather than segregating her sons with the well-off in a boarding school, I suggest her sons would learn more about giving back to society by making friends in their local school with children of different abilities, nationalities and income levels. Describing the recent increase in the teacher-to-pupil ratio in private school to one teacher per 20 pupils as “harsh medicine” shows a lack of awareness as to class sizes in State schools, where classes frequently have 30 or more pupils.
Ms Carmody states she has a “democratic right to choose” which school to enrol her sons. I would love to have that “democratic choice” for my children, but at €16,000 a year, which she states as the fee for boarding in Clongowes Wood, it is down not to choice but wealth. – Yours, etc,
Madam – Louis O’Flaherty (September 30th) does not do justice to the facts. Free schools receive an annual capitation grant based on pupil numbers, and also receive grants for other expenses: provision of libraries, PE halls, grants for special subjects, secretaries and caretakers. Fee-paying schools have to provide for all such expenses out of their fees.
He states that “often” fee-paying schools refuse access to less academic or physically impaired pupils. This school has a long record of accepting and making provision for pupils at the lower end of the academic scale or with specific disabilities, such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, deafness, impaired sight or ADHD.
The suggestion that fee-paying schools cater exclusively for “those with money and influence” is not, in our experience, justified.
Many parents are like Ms Carmody in finding in this and other fee-paying schools certain educational qualities which they feel are worth sacrifices to attain. Ms Carmody was right to point out that to close fee-paying schools or starve them of teachers would transfer to the State system a large number of children and teachers, that, far from saving public money, would place an additional burden on already strained resources.
One might perhaps draw a parallel with private and public health care. In an ideal situation, all health and educational provision would be subsidised in full by the State, while allowing for different approaches and needs.
Finally, I find it surprising that as a former president of the ASTI Mr O’Flaherty appears not to consider the interests of the very many members of ASTI who serve in fee-paying schools. – Yours, etc,