THE EDITOR, Sir:

EDUCATION HAS been dominating the news and rightly so, in light of its seminal importance to any nation. However, to speak of 'free education' in the context of Jamaica's present financial situation, is to render the expression an oxymoron - a contradiction of terms.

In the sense in which it is used, 'free' really means 'state funded'. But 'state funded' is not sexy and attractive as the term 'free' and, further, 'free' disguises the fact that someone has to pay, in this case the taxpayer.

What is critical and worthy of being sought is quality education. This is more than mere book learning, it is more than science/maths, it is science/maths and all other forms of knowledge put together; itforms the divide between the human race and all forms of life. As Thomas Hobbes observed, in a state of nature, the life of man becomes nasty, brutish and short.

Over the past 45 years of Independence in Jamaica, education on a national scale has not been the critical issue among the majority of our people. Those who can afford it, send their children to the better schools or even overseas; those who cannot are usually satisfied with whatever schools are available regardless of standards. If this were not so, the problems now confronting education would have already been addressed and solved by the politicians, in conjunction with the people of Jamaica.

The present emphasis on 'free education' subtlety shifts attention from the development of knowledge, character, skills, etc., of the individual, to the detail as to who is to pay the school fee, not the parent of the student but the amorphous taxpayer. There are also certain serious dangers involved whereby a 'free education' system could place undue and unchallengeable powers in the hands of Government as a consequence of providing it with a monopoly in regard to funding the operations of the schools, without clear and effective safeguards.

Here in Jamaica, there is no effective local Government to act as a buffer between central Government and the schools; there is no sacrosanct convention to restrain Government from doing what it likes to the schools; there is no strong tradition on the part of the majority to be seen and heard in the matters pertaining to education as such.

Who would determine the funding of individual schools? Would all schools be funded on a single basis - for example, number of students? What would be the fate of traditional schools (Wolmer's, Campion, etc.)? Would they be treated preferentially or equally with the others? What would be the role, responsibilities and powers of the schools, apart from carrying out orders issued from above? These among other things should be already spelled out in detail.

Free education addresses,albeit inadequately, only one aspect of the broad and central issue of education, that aspect being the ability of some parents to meet the costs. However, the education of the nation ought to be viewed comprehensively, systematically and in the light of long-term considerations and likely development in the country and the world at large.

Free education therefore should be presented as part of an internally consistent and well thought out comprehensive package and not considered as an isolated item, without a timeline, without stating and establishing the pre-conditions necessary for success, and without limits placed on the powers of the Government.

Our education should be the responsibility of all of us.

I am etc.,

R. H. ALEXANDER

Kingston 6