Alan Bennett on private education

[UrbanDad]

A great quote from AlanBennett, in the Guardian today taken from his talk last summer at King’s College Chapel, Cambridge: “We all know that to educate not according to ability butaccording to the social situation of theparents is both wrong and a waste. Private education is not fair. Those who provide it know it. Those who payfor it know it. Those who have to sacrifice in order to purchase it know it. And those who receive it know it, orshould. And if their education ends without it dawning on them, then that education has been wasted.”

I cannot disagree with any of that.

Well, that's what people in this thread are talking about - that people who pay may get a better education and hence, it's unfair to those who can't afford it. It follows that were everyone offered one and the same education only, everything would be deemed more fair.

The problem with offering something to someone who may reject it, when it comes to education, is that it's compulsory to go to school in the UK. So even if you offer a child a stellar education, and they reject it, they would have to go anyway and become disruptive. They then disadvantage the kids who actually WANT to learn.

In France, the education offered to all DC is a lot more similar than the varied offerings in the UK. Does it make it "fairer"? I'm not at all sure. One-size-fits-all has plenty of issues.

It is the one size fits all ethos that has many parents reaching for their wallets and paying, especially those who live in areas with good state education. Many want things the state simply can't offer.

I also don't think we should underestimate the importance of choice. In a few months time there will be umpteen threads on here from parents who failed to get even their 3rd 4th or even 5th choice of state school, many are exceedingly angry and upset, their DC's have been allocated by a faceless bureaucrat a school they consider to be completely unsuitable. Leaving many parents feeling powerless.
Paying gives you a greater choice, enabling you to send your DC to a school that you personally think is a good fit for them.

Snowbells - it's not compulsory to go to school in the UK, but it is compulsory to ensure that your child is educated. Hence home education.

In theory the homogonous education offered by the comprehensive model is the fairest.

However, the reality is that many parents find that the model does not offer their child the education they want.

This is why independents are still full and the applications for selective and faith schools are still staggering. Where parents have meaningful choice they vote with their feet.

Lavolcan indeed.

In fact it is the legal responsibility of parents to ensure the education of their DC. How they do it is (largely) up to them.

One could argue that it is also their legal responsibility then, to choose the resources they use very carefully indeed. School would be one such resource.

LaVolcan You don't have to take everything literally. Of course, I know there's home education. But how often do you see parents who do not value education choose home education?!?

My argument still stands.

I don't agree that everyone on this thread has been arguing that a homogeneous education, where everyone is treated as though they are exactly the same, is fair and desirable. I think there are a whole range of views from different people on what state education is, should and could be capable of, how it could be improved, and what undermines it. I think you can validly think people are being unrealistic, you can disagree with their opinions on how their dreams of a better education system would actually play out, you can disagree on what undermines state education and what doesn't, but it is a misinterpretation to condense all their arguments into the conclusion that they just want everyone to be taught the same subjects in the same way, regardless of ability, background, interests or motivation.

And now I shall go back to being confused as to what is for the best, because I don't have the benefit of other peoples' fixed opinions!

I think a lot of state school parents find that a "homogeneous" education is what they are getting. Hence, the scramble into the private sector if possible.

I think the fact that a lot of parents like the idea of a school not everyone can go to - selective, faith or private - means that there'll always be a market for the private sector. And you obviously can't square that circle by making state schools exclusive, so yes, people will always vote with their feet.

Some parents like to go private because it's a statement that they are doing very nicely thank you, financially. I knew at least one case where the expensive acrimonious divorce put paid to that, and suddenly, the local comprehensive was found to be fine.

Most parents want the best for their children - I think a number are trying to convince themselves that school fees are worthwhile.

[LaVolcan gets shot down in flames - not allowed to make such statements on MN.]

Whether the school fees are worthwhile depend very much on the individual circumstances. What are the child's individual needs? What are the local options available, both state and private?

I don't think the issue with homogenous one-size-fits-all education is that parents don't find it gives the DC what the parents want. Certainly in France that is rarely if ever the case. The big issue with one-size-fits-all education is that it doesn't meet many DCs' needs. The parents, IME, are often the last to realise this.

Every large financial outlay has a great deal of thought attached to it.

Only billionaires or idiots wouldn't question the value of six grand a term .

But value is entirely subjective and changeable depending on circumstances. That someone can no longer prioritise the fees isn't concrete proof of anything other than a waning bank balance.

Bonsoir do you think that people in France buy into the idea of comprehensive education more than in the UK?

Here it seems to be that given any other choice, people will take it.

I agree word even the incredibly wealthy put thought into education. Most people paying fees are regularly asking themselves "am I getting what I want for the money I'm spending month in month out? Would I get the same thing if I didn't pay, what I get more art, music, sport better, pastoral care, higher academic standards, choice of exams if I moved my DC to the independent school where my friends sends their DC, or a boarding school or a day school?
There are a few out there paying to make a statement, some want a school that others can't access but the vast majority are looking for something they believe their local state schools, good or bad, can't offer whether it be more art, sport, art, music, pastoral care, smaller classes high academic standards wrap around care, Mediaeval building or even boarding.

Most parents want the best for their children.

Unfortunately, there are plenty who will choose to say they can't afford music lessons, etc. while spending hundreds of pounds a month in the hairdressers / going out / tanning salon / cigarettes / booze. In their view, everything that has to do with rearing a child has to come from expenses that isn't their own. It really doesn't take long to bump into them - even if your life is completely different. They seem completely normal at first sight, until you dig deeper. This alarms me a little, and makes me believe they are more commonly found than at first thought.

Word from what French colleagues around me say, the French education system, with its grandes ecoles, etc. only subscribes to "egalite" in a very superficial manner. Many of them left the French education system for precisely that reason.

Also, among the bourgeoisie or however the upper classes are called, there's snob factor aplenty (as a friend who isn't French, but married into it had to learn).

Word

^In the name of “meritocracy” and “equality”, France has built a system for selecting and formatting its political, administrative and business leaders which makes “Eton and Oxbridge” or the “Ivy League” look like a utopian experiment in social levelling."

From this article...

"I think the fact that a lot of parents like the idea of a school not everyone can go to - selective, faith or private"

^^ This

I think that lots of parents are fearful their children will 'catch' bad attitudes from their peers, and hence feel it's safest to have them educated in schools where children without a work ethic, and those destined for minimum wage jobs, are absolutely excluded.

The biggest indicator of this is the number of people willing to label a school as 'bad' on the basis of its intake, rather than the way it performs.

"I think a lot of state school parents find that a "homogeneous" education is what they are getting. Hence, the scramble into the private sector if possible."

Most students in most state schools are offered a range of subjects to study at GCSE, and are taught be teachers mostly trained in the same way. They are examined in the same subjects.

I personally have attended both state and private schools and really don't see how the educational provision offered by most private schools is supposed to be so radically different except in relation to the size of classes, the physical environment and the social status of the children.

That's what really marks out private schools. Not that they offer a radically different model of education.

One thing I find annoying is people who label a school bad, without ever going to look round. If they do look round, and don't like what they see then fine. You can't judge a book by its cover, or a school by OFSTED or the word at the school gate.

except in relation to the size of classes, the physical environment and the social status of the children

Well, I think that 'except' is the rub, isn't it?

mini actually one if the main differences between many private schools and their state counterparts is academic selection.

Another is single sex education.

Both these things have a huge impact on what is on offer at a school and how it is offered.

My impression of private education is that a major difference is the amount of sport on offer. Since neither of mine were especially sporty, £4K a term each wasn't something worth paying for. Academically the Comprehensives served them well.