My son Joe is 17 and plays the electric guitar. He can play the other sort as well but it’s the world of rock music that beckons, as it has done since he was 13. His is not an unusual ambition for the land is frequented by young people - and some very grisled older people - wanting to make it in the rock world.
Who knows whether Joe’s talent and ambition will bear fruit, but in the meantime he needs the opportunity, as all young people do, to develop his talent and work towards his ambition.
The first step, when he’d finished his GCSEs, was to find where he could study. He did not want a performing arts course where the music was part of a range of performance activities. He wanted to study the guitar full-time. After much searching it became apparent that the Guitar Institute in London was the most suitable place, in fact, just about the only place. But here his troubles and his parents’ troubles, began.
Hereford and Worcester, our local education authority, declined to pay his fees or anything towards his living or travelling expenses for his year’s study in London. The reason was quite simple: the county would not pay for a student to attend a private institution (albeit Department for Education recognised) and even though there is no local provision for Joe to follow the course of his choice.
So much for equal opportunities for 16 to 19-year- olds. Had Joe wanted to be plumber, a computer operator, a decorator, he would have found the course at or near his local college, had his fees and travelling expenses paid and been able to live at home.
But the fact that he wanted to study the rock guitar placed him outside existing provision, leaving the entire financial burden on his parents.
We were lucky (he was lucky ) that we were able to borrow the Pounds 3, 000 for his fees and to make provision for him to live in London. But, as with most parents, we recognise that our children should have the chances we had, or in some cases didn’t have.
But is this how it should be? Should there be a range of courses which, because they are offered by private institutions, are then denied to all but the children of the rich or the creditworthy?
Even more galling is the knowledge that with a Government which has elevated private enterprise to the status of religion, Leas are not allowed to use public funds to pay for private further education - even when they offer the only available course. How does this equate with the assisted places scheme, or with public funds used to sweeten the sale of nationalised industries?
Could someone explain the difference between using public funds to send selected children to private schools or to bolster parts of industry and not allowing the same funds to be used for the study of music or drama. It would be awful to think that the only criteria for such discrepancies might be value judgments over what is worthwhile.
