Letter: Chinese puzzle

Michael Kelly (Comment, 24 September) writes: "In education, the rights of many to insist on equal opportunities easily outweigh the narrow rights of those who want to buy their children a better chance."

He never presents a shred of evidence for any of this. Why does research published by James Tooley, professor of education policy at the University of Newcastle in the November 2000 Unesco Courier ("Private education - the poor's best chance") show the exact opposite?

Why did Hanban - a non-governmental and non-profit institution affiliated with the Chinese ministry of education - recently fund a Confucius hub to teach Chinese language and culture in a private girls' school in Edinburgh? A joint event was then held between St George's girls' school and Liberton High - a local state school.

Let's look at some more facts: in the 30 years since 1979, Scottish GDP grew 65 per cent. Chinese GDP grew more than 8,000 per cent in the same period. Education is critical to the future of the national economy; China obviously understands this and so, of course, does Labour.

Changes to educational policy should be based on firm evidence of what actually works. Chinese, anyone?

(Dr) John Bremner

Kilmaurs Terrace

Edinburgh

Michael Kelly's quite amazing article fails to address certain key points. He correctly states that 25 per cent of Edinburgh children are privately educated. Where would the money for new schools, teachers and resources come from if they were forced into the state sector?

What would he do about private tuition? In the name of social justice, would this be made illegal? If so, would this force the maths and English teachers of Scotland underground?

What would he do about the educated middle classes who help their children with homework? Would children be questioned by the state to determine if they had been helped or encouraged?

Stephen Simpson

Hawk Crescent

Dalkeith, Midlothian