“Free” education?

I am a bit confused about the front page news: “What parents pay for a child’s ‘free’ education: $40,000”. I’d like to know your understanding of the term “free”.

John Velegrinis was right when he said, “There is no such things as a free education.” Would any of the teaching staff work for free to teach somebody else’s children? If not, who pays the staff? As far as I am aware, the country pays for the “free” education of all its children. I thought the school fees were a token towards the resources needed in a class, otherwise without the resources what is the point of being in the classroom? Parents might as well home school their children.

On computers and school trips, it is the parents’ decision whether they want their children acquiring computer skills or otherwise; similarly with school trips — no school will force the children to participate. In both instances, parents can save a few dollars if they say no, hence that is free.

Regarding transport — I thought it was about “free” education, not transport and who should be responsible for that expense when parents decide to send their children to a school not within walking distance? As to uniforms, I thought that apart from second-hand outfits, parents are able to sew their own for their school-going children?

We are getting to be a people that wants everything free, laying the burden for their wellbeing on the Government/country. I can’t really fathom what the purpose of that article is.

Time to wake up, be responsible, share the country’s burdens and not expect everything for free.

Margaret Scott, Pakuranga.