SIR,—Mr. Angus Maude condemns the destruction of the public and
preparatory sehools—" something of great value which could never be .replaced "—as an act of folly; yet he appears to regard their demise, through. economic causes, with composure since, in such circumstances, he "would not fight to preserve them." But if they are of great value should they not be preserved, even at public expense if necessary ? The Labour argument, he states, "amounts to no more than the proposition that nobody should be allowed to buy education above the average standards . . " But is not this another way of saying that education above the average standards Should be the privilege of those children Only who are most likely to benefit from it ? If so, is there anything to be said against such a proposition ? Surely the most sensible policy would be to preserve the grammar, public and preparatory schools, but to subsidise the education in these schools of those children, most likely to benefit from higher standards of education and training, whose pareats are too poor to pay the fees ? Would not such subsidies be far more justifiable than the present food subsidies, since they would ensure that no talent, "whose development is essential to the nation's economic survival," is wasted; whereas food subsidies merely mask the real cost of food and encourage waste of money on non-essentials? Is not reform rather than destruction needed; and should not the aim of reform be the gradual replacement of the present system, under which the best education is available to those children whose parents can afford to pay for it, by a system under which it would be available to the most gifted children, irrespective of their parents'
Previous page
