In a democratic society, people have freedom to choose only in so far as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. The moment one student is granted his choice to attend a particular school, he automatically denies another student the right to attend that school. It follows that the right to choose must necessarily be limited and the question then becomes as to what is the best criteria to use in limiting the choice students have.

In most developed democracies the choices students have in publicly funded systems is determined by where they live in relation to the schools. If this is indeed what the ministry is attempting to do, then the move is long overdue.

The idea that your place in a high school is some kind of reward for hard work and effort can only be justified if that particular school offers some sort of accelerated programme not available at other schools. A number of high achievers now attend a wide range of schools across the country where they have been allowed to move ahead of the rest and do more than the usual eight subjects while other students in the same school do the normal course of study.

The truth is that the desire of so many people to send their children to certain schools is just part of the 'bling bling mentality' which plagues us.

Scholarships

I have just heard that five students from a particular prep school in Mandeville have been placed at Campion College in Kingston. This is being done in the same year when the top CXC student in the country came from Manchester High in Mandeville and another student at that school who topped the Caribbean in CAPE physics was second in applied math and ended up winning scholarships to MIT, University Of Chicago and Yale. What would be so wrong in insisting that the students in Mandeville attend one of the schools there as these two students did?

I am, etc.,

R. HOWARD THOMPSON

roi_anne@hotmail.com

Munro College