IT has been proposed that A-level grades from comprehensive schools in socially-deprived areas should carry more weight than those from public schools.

This is a poor substitute for the upgrading of all schools to an acceptable standard.

Furthermore, it can leave the inner city pupil feeling patronised and inferior when taking up a university place, especially in the snob-ridden atmosphere of Oxbridge.

Secondary education is as unequal as it ever was. The most recent international survey shows progress in British secondary education to be falling behind other developed countries. South Korea was the highest.

Where Britain scores very high is in the amount of private debt accumulated by consumer spending. It puts government borrowing in the shade. It also makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

If consumer spending were taxed to fund secondary education, it would restore the imbalance between spending on schools and spending on consumer junk and eliminate the need for positive discrimination.

The debate the politicians would like us to have (no doubt to help us forget the Iraq war) is about public services. "New" Labour and Tory ideas like lowering A-level university entrance standards for the poor and privatising everything in sight, are just cheap substitutes that duck the real issue.

These are the proverbial free lunches, and everybody knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If we want high standards in education and equal opportunities for all, we have to change our priorities.

Unfortunately, the politicians with the guts to say so are in very short supply.

PETER NIELSEN,

Worcester.