THE EDITOR, Sir:
WHAT IS all this hullabaloo about free education? With election in the air, and this being made a campaign issue, it is not being presented in a manner to inform and educate the public so that they can make a reasoned decision. Rather, as is usually the case, the issue is being confused and muddied by the respective parties.
It is being debated on the simplistic topics: PRO: Free education is a priority, and, if elected, we will be giving you free education! AGAINST: Jamaica cannot afford free education!
What are the facts?
1. Free education to secondary schools was introduced for a limited number of children in the late 1950's. These children were selected each year based on the results of the Common Entrance examinations.
2. Free education was extended to the Tertiary level in the 1970's.
3. In the 1980s the concept of fully free education was abandoned, and students at the secondary and tertiary levels were required to pay approximately 15% of the full cost of their tuition, while the taxpayers (Government) pays the other 85% to the school.
4. Up to the late 1990s only approx. 10,000 of the approx. 50,000 children who sat the CEE were able to get placed in secondary schools.
5. In the late 1990's the CEE was replaced by the GSAT. Now ALL students who took the GSAT were awarded places in the secondary school system. This was obviously at tremendous cost to the taxpayers, since the Government had to pay the 85% for all these additional students, plus teachers salaries and the additional cost of constructing, equipping, and maintaining, additional schools.
6. Cost-sharing was introduced. Any parent who could not afford any, or all, of their 15% could apply to the government for assistance. In other words, for all parents who could not afford their 15% of the cost of tuition, the Government would provide full free education.
Now I don't know if anyone will disagree, that in a country financially weak as ours, parents who can afford it, should pay at least 15% towards their children education.
The issue is not one of affordability. If the parent's contribution is abolished, the Government will only have to pay the 15% that the parents, who can afford to do so, now pays. This can be covered by additional taxes, or by cutting some other programme.
The issue is should the overburdened taxpayer be asked to cover the marginal fee for parents with palatial homes and the latest SUV? Or should we cut the already very limited social services to finance this.
I am, etc.,
PATRICK K. JOHNSON
patrick_keith@hotmail.com
Kingston 19
Via Go-Jamaica
