In response to the article 'CSEC subsidy cutback a step in the right direction' written by Sean A. Davis, published on October 5, I wish to say I am unconvinced and I totally disagree with most of the arguments put forward by both the writer and the Government.

Both Davis and the Government argue that a lot of money is being wasted (and to an extent, I agree) and that the Government should cut back on unnecessary expenditure. But when does an investment in our children become 'unnecessary expenditure'?

Education Minister Andrew Holness has said approximately 10 per cent of those who have registered for their CSEC exams don't turn up for the exam, but I am humbly asking, what happens to the 90 per cent who sit the exams? Will they suffer for the minority?

Full expenses

The moment the Government thought of 'free education up to the secondary level', they should have thought of bearing the full expenses of CSEC costs. I mean, how can education be 'free' and you are required to pay for exams? That to me and many others is contradictory.

What about the children who are beneficiaries of PATH ? I am sure they were not being thought of while making such a hasty, poorly put-together decision.

The alternatives recommended by Davis will be very difficult to implement. After all, education is 'free', so the Government should pay for every subject offered by CSEC to give the children a chance.

I am, etc.,

WAKEISH BRYAN

wakki_bryan@hotmail.com

Mandeville

Manchester