Why is private education so taboo now?

[DoMyBest]

When I was younger I was privately educated as were most of my friends. Now we all have children and almost all of them have decided to send their children to state schools. Whilst for most of them it was a question of money, for others it really wasn't: they believe that every child should have the same educational opportunities and if parents like them start giving their kids exclusive treatment then the system won't work. Some of these parents chose local 'outstanding' state schools, but one couple with enough money to buy every private school in town admirably chose their worst local state school and work hard to improve it.

I listen to these stories with interest, sometimes admiration but mostly respect for their choices & views.

So it's with some alarm, now we have chosen a private school for our son, do discover the hatred this decision engenders. Private education has, it would seem, become taboo.

So here's my question: is it morally right for people to get angry with parents who privately educate their children?

"I don't believe we have a moral right to get angry that some can afford to privately educate and others can't"

It depends. I don't think we have a moral right to be angry that some people are richer than others, I agree. But I think we not only have a moral right but a moral obligation to be angry that we have a system which perpetuates privilege to the extent that there are more people from Eton than from state schools in the Cabinet. If we believe that private education is inherently better, then surely we have an obligation to be angry that it is only accessible to 7% of the population?

I suppose what I am saying is that it depends what you mean by private education. If you're talking about little local private schools that people send their children to because they like the hats and the cricket teas, and which are actually as far removed from Eton and Harrow as Bash St Comprehensive is, then, while the social divisiveness is teeth itching, it arguably doesn't actually impact on society much. The big problem is the stranglehold that the "top" public schools have over the "mover and shaker" stratum of society. And there is class within class even there- even if any one of us sent our child to Eton they still would probably not be a member of that "set". Those people who send their nice middle class child to private school to "make contacts" are sometimes sadly disappointed! There's a really good bit in a Dorothy L Sayers about this- I'll see if I can find it.

An extract from Murder Must Advertise, for your edification and enjoyment.
"“I like to be agreeable with everybody,” said Mr. Smayle, “but reelly, when it comes to shoving your way past a person into the lift as if one wasn't there and then telling you to keep your hands off as if a person was dirt, a man may be excused for taking offence. I suppose Tallboy thinks I'm not worth speaking to, just because he's been to a public school and I haven't.”

“Public school,” said Mr. Bredon, “first I've heard of it. What public school?”

“He was at Dumbleton,” said Mr. Smayle, “but what I say is, I went to a Council School and I'm not ashamed of it.”

“Where's Dumbleton?” demanded Ingleby. “I shouldn't worry, Smayle. Dumbleton isn't a public school, within the meaning of the act.”

“Isn't it?” said Mr. Smayle, hopefully. “Well, you and Mr. Bredon have had college educations, so you know all about it. What schools do you call public schools?”

“Eton,” said Mr. Bredon, promptly, “—and Harrow,” he added, magnanimously, for he was an Eton man.

“Rugby,” suggested Mr. Ingleby.

“No, no,” protested Bredon, “that's a railway junction.”

Ingleby delivered a brisk left-hander to Bredon's jaw, which the latter parried neatly.

“And I've heard,” Bredon went on, “that there's a decentish sort of place at Winchester, if you're not too particular.”

“I once met a man who'd been to Marlborough,” suggested Ingleby.

“I'm sorry to hear that,” said Bredon. “They get a terrible set of hearty roughs down there. You can't be too careful of your associates, Ingleby.”

Brabra intelligent people have always attempted to secure the best resources(as they see it) for their DC.

Be that food, shelter, education, healthcare, safety, cutural enrichement etc...

But people seem to be rather choosy about which resources they wish to insist on equal provision. Education is a yes, shelter is a no. Healthcare is a yes, food is a no.

To my mind parents have the responsibility to provide these things for our DC and the state has a duty to ensure that all DC have reasonable access. However, at no point should the state dertermine how we provide these things for our DC or limit us.

Sorry martorana but you are showing your age if you think Sayers is any longer a good reflection .

The world is a global economy. The top schools are a reflection of that. What used to be important cahet has changed.

I only posted it for entertainment, Word! And to illustrate the point that many seem to miss- that there are private schools and private schools.......

Remind me- how many old Etonians in the Cabinet in this changed world of which you speak?

As ever, I would say it's because other things aren't provided equally that a level playing field in education would be a bloody good thing.

But Word, you're presumably not saying that people who are against private schooling are in favour of, or cool with, or uncaring about, inequalities in all the other areas you list? Your phrasing seems to impute a kind of irrational fetishization of education over anything else to those of us who are against private education, as though we're absolutely fine with some children being less loved, less culturally enriched, less healthy than others.... but of course nobody is taking that position, are they?

We cannot legislate for all children to be equally loved, or all houses to be the same size, or all parents to be equally effective. What we could do is not segregate children for the 11 years of their education by how wealthy their parents are. It's not rocket science!

Well I think that is the case nit.

None of us expect equal provision of basic resources. I don't think many of us would say equal provision would be a good thing. Most of us don't want the state to either decide upon the provision or to dole it out.

We want to make our own decisions for our DC.

I just can't see why education stands alone here.

Provided that the state ensures every child receives a decent amount of each resource (food, a home, an edcuation, accesss to healthcare) I think most of us would not wish to have those resources imposed on us.

The op says that most of her friends can't afford private education for their children and so I suspect that jealousy is the motivation for some, especially if their siblings can afford it. Others might give the impression of being able to afford it, but with two or three children, a nice house, cars and holidays, maybe not. Others might send their children to good/outstanding state schools and think that the cost of private education isn't worth it, but I don't know why they would be openly hostile towards you. I don't think anyone on this thread has actually said that they can afford private education but have chosen not to for political reasons;everyone who is anti private school adds that they couldn't afford it anyway.

If the op's friends can't afford private education then they haven't had the luxury/dilemma of choosing. It's easy to say you wouldn't move your happy child from their state school if you won the lottery/inherited money, but if you had the funds from the outset? Not such an easy choice.

What are the ages of the children involved? It's easy to influence your child's educational experience and choice of school friends at a state primary school; will the op's friends choose differently for senior school?

What other educational/lifestyle choices do the op's friends make? Did they join an NCT group to meet nice mummy/baby friends and send their children to an expensive Montessori nursery? Do their children have private music lessons or ballet lessons? Do they have swimming and tennis lessons at the David Lloyd Club rather than the local sports centre? Will they pay for private tutors if necessary? Do they go to church/polish silver? Do they go on picnics at National Trust properties during the holidays instead of the local park? (The NT properties near me are more socially exclusive - white, professional classes - than any of the private schools will ever be!) Will they choose private healthcare for their children? If the op's friends are paying for any/all of these opportunities then I don't think they're morally better than the op; they're just paying for the privileges they can afford rather than the ones they can't.

Indeed, I often read on these threads that posters choose state education for their children and "top-up" where necessary, but if the "topping-up" costs several thousand pounds each year per child, where's the moral justification in that? Also, should state schools ban all educational trips abroad (geography trip to Iceland, Latin trip to Rome for example) or the skiing trip to France because some dc can't afford it? Should they provide free music lessons for everyone - not just for one year but for five/seven years?

I've just remembered one example of a wealthy celebrity who chose comprehensive education for his children - Paul McCartney. His daughter Stella famously called him "tight" for doing so, but when she wanted to appear hip and trendy she said it was the best thing he could have done; she's chosen private education for her own children though.

martorana you don't honestly believ that if there were no Eton, David Cameron would be stacking shelves in Tescos and the PM would have gone to a comp in Doncaster? Eton is only a reflection of the types of families that send their DC there and the ambitions they hold. Eton doesn't create these people.

Actually, I think education should stand alone. Or stand with health care. Because a country's society and progress depends on the education and health of its citizens.
If we think about health care, generally people go private for convenience and extras. The basic health care is the same whether you are NHS or Private- often even provided by the same people. Private gives you convenience, nicer sheets, better food, a view and no hoi polloi. In many cases, private education is the same- the National Curriculum with a boater and ponies. But if we think that some children get a significantly better actual education based on their parent's wealth, that can't be right, surely?

I would say that housing and food have a far greater impact on a child's outcomes than their school. But you don't want your choices curtailed there, I'm sure. You don't want the state to decide foe you.

In all seriousness, and again with no sarcasm intended, if so many of you think that the UK should legislate against disparity (educational, income/bonuses, unused land, etc) why don't more brits vote communist? The educational system in China is egalitarian (if you ignore the elites who are packed off to be educated abroad), and the former USSR system was amazing. If the 'haves' really are an elite minority, the 'have nots' stand a better chance of winning the most seats in Parliament. I suppose what I'm saying is, if you want to change the system, don't take it out on those of us you think have more than you; just use your vote and watch the majority win! We in the 'elite' minority would loose out (and probably move abroad) and the majority would be happy.

"I would say that housing and food have a far greater impact on a child's outcomes than their school. But you don't want your choices curtailed there, I'm sure. You don't want the state to decide foe you."

I don't think I understand that.......

Wordfactory - I disagree with you to a certain extent. I think boarding schools do have a bigger impact on people than day schools - lots of young boys shoved in together with very little privacy during their adolescence... It's like an Eton survivors group running the country.

The state is regularly making decisions on food policy.

"suppose what I'm saying is, if you want to change the system, don't take it out on those of us you think have more than you"

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that the only people who question the role of private education are those that can't afford it?

Oh, and "elite minority" - reallly?I think I am beginning to see why you have had so much hostility in your social circle....."

I think that only makes sense if you think of sending a child to state school as the equivalent of forcing you to move out of your house into a small and unpleasant one owned by the state.

It's that old argument that if you dislike private education or thing it's in any way morally problematic, you're basically a communist, isn't it?

Its not about it being pleasant or not. It's about having a choice versus having the state provision imposed on you. None of us want that in respect of other basic resources. But you want to cherry pick eduction. Its not logical is all I'm saying.

wordfactory - I see very little logic in most human beliefs, values and behaviour.

Are you a computer? Why this obsession with logic?

Well I would think making educational policy based on emtional reaction aint gonna do much good.

I would think making educational policy based on logic aint gonna be possible. You can't just teach logic in school.

Martorana, stop it!
I used the word 'elite' in a negative way, as in that's how we're perceived - distant, elitist, unfair, etc. It's the language often used by those who are against private schools.
Now address my point: if abolishing private schools is so important to you, do you at least vote for a party which promises to do that?

Logically speaking, leaving irrational, emotional people free to make their own choices is illogical.

Agreed Rabbitstew: if parents want to wipe out inequality, it seems odd to limit it to just education.

Yes indeed, better to force the people to be free.