Profoundly disturbing leader on education

Your leading article of September 19 is profoundly dis turbing, accepting as it ap parently does without the slightest thought what has for years seemed to me blatant political cant. Apparently in your opinion to seek to send one's child to the most appropriate school is "to promote divisiveness in society," while to question "the comprehensive principle" is wrong in Christian principle. Apparently, therefore, practically all the education found ed and lovingly provided, for the most part by the Church, from King Alfred to the 19th century was in your opinion wrong in Christian principle, and aimed at promoting divisiveness in society. No doubt you heartily applaud Henry VIII's attempt to prevent this by confiscating the endowments of all the schools.
The comprehensive principle to which you arc_. so attached is
the theory that the omnipotent secular State shall decree what form of education all children shall receive; most advocates assume that most children are or should be much the same and should receive substantially the same education, or at any rate that if they are different the differences, particularly in attainment, should be limited.
A good example of just how far this lunacy can go was given in a speech delivered with the authority of the Danish Ministry of Education at the recent conference about gifted children.
The speaker announced with all solemnity both that it was now an established principle that nothing should be taught in any class which was beyond the capacity of the slowest member of the class to grasp, and that they were seeking methods of introducing mentally retarded children into ordinary school classes.
The principle is not of course applied to fodtball, where these who are most apt receive a training apt for their ability; but then no one would suggest that ordinary education is remotely as important as football.
There used to be one very strong educational bridge between the classes in the form of the grammar schools, where all classes mixed with complete equality and success. I fear that
I have now been driven to the point of cynicism where I have
little doubt that that is the principal reason why the "reformers" have made their destruction their first target.
In so doing, they further their two main aims the hatred of excellence, and the fomenting of class hatred. No doubt this will seem td you a surprising statement, but I suggest that you pay somewhat closer attention to the public statements of the principal advocates of "the comprehensive principle." If you can believe that their aim is to reduce, rather than to promote class warfare, then I fear you 'can believe anything. However, perhaps for you the clinching argument is this. If your theories are sound, then there is no justification whatever in Christian principle for the retention of Christian schools, whether Catholic or otherwise.
I have no doubt at all that this is fully appreciated by many of the reformers. However, the class enemy is their first target; for that they can attract many would-be progressives like yourself, and in the process they should get well and truly entrenched the idea that the comprehensive principle is something other than the promotion of envy.
Obviously how things go will depend on the electoral future, but I should not be surprised if their ambition were to see the end of most Christian schools by about 1984.
I regret that this is probably too long for publication, but I really do not think any of it could be left out.
John Denza Lee House, London Wall, London, EC2.
It is many years since I last saw a copy of the Catholic Herald. At that time a young man called Franco was fighting evil Communism. He was, if memory serves rne, something of a hero to the Catholic Herald. However, I suppose he is bad news today.
Your editorial -of September 19 lauding compulsory comprehensive education I found particularly nauseating.
Did we not learn a story of the Servants being given various numbers of talents and later having to justify their use of them?
By all means let all children run in the race, but do not maim the faster ones to ensure that all are winners.
There would be no Victor Ludorum, and all the joint and equal prizes would not be worth a sheet of your newspaper.
K. M. Andrew 105 Gaynes Park Road, Upminster, Essex.
Can one really shift one's views on education to face the challenges presented by the Pope if one's defences are faulty even in the midst of recriminations?
Your leader of September 26 was sheer gobbledegook. One is used to a certain responsible attitude in the leader, and if this sort of nonsense continues then I must refrain fron purchasing your paper.
V. R. Palmer 21 Burcott Road,
Purley, Surrey.
We welcome the widening of the debate on this important subject. and note that misunderstanding exists about the nature of the Comprehensive principle. It is misleading to say that the Comprehensive theory "is the theory that the omnipotent state shall decree what form of education all children shall receive." The main objective of the principle in question is to enable every child to attain his or her optimum educational potential and to ensure then none should be penalised. Editor.