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.

Of course even the superrich have to think carefully about the education decision. The child's time and effort is far more valuable than the money. They will never get these years of their lives back. There is no second chance at secondary school. Everyone lives through it once for good or for ill.

lavolcan your impression is pretty narrow I think.

I know lots and lots of parents who use private schools and whilst they may indeed like the extra sport I have never heard anyone say that was the sole reason.

I wouldn't have paid £4k a term for good sporting facilities, but we were expecting a wide range of good quality extra-curricular activities with a high take-up. My son went to a school with very strong music, drama, debating and all sorts of other things as well as sport and I think it made a big difference to the atmosphere of the school.

To state the blindingly obvious, many state schools can offer this too but in our area (back then - I'm going back 11 years) very few could, and certainly not the ones that could have offered our son a place. I remember reading in the Ofsted report for our local school that staff were trying hard to set up clubs but hardly any of the pupils were interested in attending.

Of course my impression is narrow: it is limited to what local private schools offer and the major difference seems to be sport or the case of one girls school, music. Since that wasn't particularly what my children wanted and one is a boy anyway, it wasn't, for me, worth paying for. Personally, I wasn't able to convince myself that the academics were £12K p. a. better. If I had had sporty or very musical kids it would have been a different issue.

The idea that what is on offer academically is very similar between state and private schools ignores the fact that not all state schools are the same. For example, ours does not set except for maths, even at GCSE. This makes a big difference in the level of expectation and the level at which the teaching is pitched. And according to information from Ofsted from 5 years ago, roughly 30% of secondary lessons in maths, science and English were not set, in schools they inspected, so our school is not an isolated phenomenon.

There are also plenty of people who live outside of London where school choice is very limited, and where in cities in particular the local state schools are all very poor. The idea that everyone can choose to send their children to a good state school is simply wrong.

TheWordFactory - the French generally subscribe quite strongly to the idea of all DC receiving the same education and the fact that class sizes and curriculum are very, very similar in every single school is definitely seen as a good thing.

French education is still quite demanding for many DC - certainly the collège curriculum (junior high school - first four years of secondary) is an awful lot more demanding in many areas than the education quite a lot of British DC receive within the NC. And all French DC are taught it.

Nevertheless, it regularly fails to reach DC at both ends of the bell curve. Only last week did DP talk to yet another friend whose son, with an IQ of 160+, is only going to scrape through his bac by the skin of his teeth. This is in a fully functioning family with no performance issues for any of the other three DC.

Snowbells - your Independent review of Peter Gumbel's book is so true! Only this morning I was at a press conference/presentation for a new strategy book written by two professors at HEC (one of whom is a former colleague of mine and a very good friend). It was embarrassingly, toe-curlingly bad! This sums it up:

"Secondly, he points out, the traditional system of selection and training in the Grandes Écoles is ludicrously rigid and narrow, favouring abstraction or deep analysis rather than creativity or imagination."

It's ridiculous to say people pay 4k or even 11.5km for the sport on offer. People pay for multiple reasons I very much doubt any stump up large sums of money for a single reason especially sport.

Rabbitstew, just because your arguments are rejected does not mean people are not in favour of fairness. By the way, the "who" said it is not important to the discussion.

I think fairness is about people getting what is due them. If they want more, then they can always pay for it. If the government wants to improve the quality of the dues given to all, then it should implement more robust policies. Of course, this will be partly funded by those who choose to buy more than what is allocated to them (ie, those who go the private route).

Aruably, the redistributive tax system is not really about fairness. For, it can be argued that it is not fair for one person to fund someone else's life or even in many cases leisure. Indeed, on what basis is it fair to take away one person's hard earn money and hand it over to another? In my view, we have a redistributive tax system because in a civilised and wealthy society, it is our duty to look after the vulnerable and less fortunate. It is the just thing to to. However, there is also a selfish element to it - we want a safety net in place should we need it. This is the whole point of John Rawles' "veil of ignorance".

Fair enough, Newrule. I was in ranty mode last night and the comments about life not being fair, so people should just accept this, irritated me, as I think it is a trite excuse for inaction. Btw - if you look up synonyms for "fair" you will find "just" in there, so I guess that means that you do believe that the redistributive tax system is really about fairness? - or only when the tax is redistributed to those you consider to be weaker than you (which would or wouldn't include all children, regardless of their feckless parents?...)?

Happy

I think you forgot about me in your last post not the huge amount of money though.

There's nothing wrong with private schools, that's coming from a hypocrite, reformed reversed snob, of long ago.

However, until it is fairer for all, people will continue to shout about how unfair it is.
My little girl has a dream, far beyond the culture of our community can comprehend or relate to. She is a fish out of water atm, but very well supported.
The chances she hopes to gain should be the same for all children whatever parent's income.

Have just looked up "veil of ignorance."

I see just and fair as two different things. Something can be the just thing to do but not necessarily conform to one's idea of fair.

However, until it is fairer for all, people will continue to shout about how unfair it is well, yeah!

I love how you cite the fact that you changed your mind when it suited you as proof that you're more objectively correct than if you'd been consistent!

TOSN

I don't know what you mean, but yes I did change my mind after meeting children and parents from private schools at activities my dc attended.

Until then I had no experience of dc from private schools as we haven't had them in areas I have lived. I had preconceived ideas which were totally wrong on meeting the people I did.

I'm not sure about being objectively correct, its a case of preference and what fits your child, surely.

Newrule - I see "fair" and "just" as synonyms. That is, presumably, why we appear to disagree.

"There's nothing wrong with private schools, that's coming from a hypocrite, reformed reversed snob, of long ago."

Do you think you could explain to two children, one from a poor household and one from a rich one, in terms they could understand, why it's 'fair' and 'ok' and 'acceptable' that one will get twice as much spent on their education than the other, and will probably get better exam results, get into a better university, and earn more over their lifetime because of this? Not because of anything they've done or not done, but because of an accident of birth.

Seriously - how would you explain it to a child?

What would you say to my child who has said he'd like to attend the same school as his cousin but has been told he can't because we can't pay fees? My ds is a talented musician and knows that the school his cousin attends has amazing music provision. None of the state secondary schools on our doorstep offer anything remotely like this. What would you say to my son to convince him that this is fair and just?

It's not fair mini but would it be for the best to close the private school? When I was young I believed that would be the right thing to do, I don't any more.

I made the most of my dire (and occasionally scary) school and would not criticise anyone who tried to find an alternative for their child.

My local school now is OK to good for state ed, and most people are satisfied with it. I'd like us all to pay more tax and give a more rounded and rigorous education and more differentiation but most of the local population don't agree with me! If I had unlimited funds I'd have sent my kids private even though I think they'd have got quite similar grades. (I would hope I would have had to push less though!)

rabbitstew the validity of a synonym depends on context. There are many words that are synonyms but depending on context they would not fit.

Social justice is not solely about fairness but very much about what is the 'right' thing to do. In that context, I see just as being akin to what is 'right', even what is morally right. I think it is right that we help others who are disadvantaged. However, it may not be fair for my hard earn money to fund the leisure or general livelihood of another. Especially if I have little say in the matter.

mini I would explain to my child that the state provides everyone in the UK with access to education.

That whilst this is a wonderful thing that many DC around the world would give their left leg for, it doesn't cover everything that every child might want.

That some of those things have to be paid for individually. Basic economics, innit?

If private schools weren't siphoning off the majority of children (and their parents) who are gifted in music and there would be much, much more political and parental pressure to provide good provision in state schools.

My Ds is the only child at his state primary who is learning an instrument at grade 5. There is no orchestra or school band because there is no pressure or interest from parents. When I've raised the issue people ask me why I don't just try to get him into a private school.

It's shit.

It's not fair.

I don't think they are sifting off the majority of children with musical talent. Though, I know some DC do get music scholarships. Any offered in your area?

I know many children in the same boat as your DS. Their parents are looking for opportunities for them to play in a group outside of school, because the local comp doesn't offer the opportunity. My friends are finding that their time is better spent searching for opportunities for their DC rather than moaning at the school that cannot or will not do anything.

Yes yes yes to minifingers !!

So often things like music provision beyond the curriculum, i.e. orchestras, choirs, seem to be because of the dedication of one or two music teachers. When they move on, these activities tend to collapse.

I don't blame the teachers - they get precious little support for going beyond the call of duty. I do blame successive governments who have a very utilitarian view of the curriculum.

LaVolcan and that utilitarian view is shared by much of the tax paying public tbh.