The Editor, Sir:

An outcome of the Bill Johnson Poll published in the Daily Gleaner of September 1 was headlined: 'Parents say education cost a burden.' The headline did not in fact tally with the results of the poll as the percentages reported were:

Able to send children to school in the coming year: 65 per cent;

Not able to send children to school in the coming year: 20 per cent;

Those that answered that they didn't know: 14 per cent.

The results are interesting and in fact surprising, for they suggest that the majority of parents and guardians are committed to the education of their children and are prepared to make the sacrifice of paying fees to see their children in school. However, the percentage stating that they would not be able to send their children to school is quite significant, and we do know of many cases where parents are in real trouble to find the fees.

THE HEAT IS ON

The debate has heated up with JLP spokesmen promising that if the party is elected, they will abandon school fees at the secondary level. The PNP has responded through its Minister of Education, replying that someone has to pay.

The question of school fees now euphemistically rebaptised as 'cost-sharing' is an important issue and the society is clearly confused and divided on the issue. There is a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the terms 'free education' and 'free tuition.' They are in no way the same, but a large percentage of the population seems to think so.

The elimination of school tuition fees does not eliminate the cost of education and does not in fact make education free. In other words, the perception seems to be that, by the elimination of school fees, the advent of so-called 'free education' then becomes the magical answer to the problem from the parents' point of view. This may well be so, but does not deal with the fundamental problem of the funding of education for the schools. In other words, it has to be appreciated that the Government puts huge sums into the funding of each educational institution's budget.

Removal of the fees simply puts additional requirements on the government and shifts the burden from the individual to the state. The fundamental question remains: should school fees be abolished and the Government take up the additional burden of funding the schools?

I am, etc.,

A. W. Sangster