Every issue related to education is bound to unleash dormant emotions. The latest ones - the opening of a fee-paying catholic college and compulsory schooling up to sixteen - are no exception to the rule. Both projects raise the question of every child?s right to ?quality? education as a ?passport for life?. They are well-meaning and target 12-year olds.

The new school involves a minority (90 students) whose parents can afford the Rs 25,000 deposit and monthly fees of Rs 3,800. It is the result of a parent lobby after the Privy Council verdict on admission criteria for State-funded catholic schools. The seats being offered in priority to ?feeder schools? students, how many will be left for those who want this ?quality? education? Does it not pave the way to more frustation from those who can... or cannot pay? Is it not a replica of the ?drawing of lots? first proposed? Does it imply that other schools don?t offer ?quality? education?

Furthermore, is the need for this school so urgent that it can?t wait? This initiative is not wrong per se but, once more, it sends the wrong signal to the many who are waiting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The huge investment in finance and pedagogical resources is indeed a slap in the face of the idealists who think the ?preferential option for the poor? should inspire Catholic education.

The right of these ninety children to ?quality? education is undeniable. Yet, most have already had a good start in a ?feeder school?. Gaining admission to a private fee-paying school or a State-funded school should hardly be a problem for them.

But what about those 40% who fail the CPE? What is being done to fight the system that condemns them to stagnate in illiteracy and innumeracy? This is where the question of compulsory schooling up to sixteen arises. No normal child, who is happy at school, wants to drop out before sixteen. With free education, no parent in his right mind would keep his/her child out of school after the latter has passed the CPE. Once again, the problem is being seen from the wrong end.

When the minister presented his project, he elaborated on the number of new schools he now has. But can he force parents to send their 12-year olds to these schools? How prepared is he, within five months, to set up the infrastructure to accommodate teenagers for whom school means failure? Can he count on the commitment of teachers? unions, who have called his reform ?wishful thinking??

Buildings alone do not make education. Primary schools are the place where a child discovers the world and learns to live in it. The wiping out of poverty ? material or mental - is through education. The most deprived are the ones that need most attention and care.

But how will this happen if classes from Standard I ? both in State and RCA primary schools - still accommodate forty or even fifty pupils, if automatic promotion is still on the agenda, if private tuition is still condoned and if teachers are convinced that their job is badly-paid drudgery.

This is where both scenarios meet. What has been done to cure the disease that plagues the primary sector? How can two agencies that have vouched to give ?quality? education to all the children of the Republic advocate piecemeal solutions and fail to see the wider picture? Can the welfare of a few be sponsored with disregard for the many? who have the same legitimate aspirations?