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.

Newrule just for starters our governments have spent at least 34 billion on two pointless wars in Afganistan and Iraq, I'm no historian but even I know the former history both this century and the last tells us we couldn't win, we spent 1.25 billion in Libia just deposing Colonol Gadafi.
That's a lots of classical education.

Other countries actually can do all this "classical education" in the state sector - but it comes with the chains of selective education (so not everyone can have it), and without much of the palatial grounds the big public schools offer...

... but there will be people who hate any form of selection, whether paid for or not... So it's never fair.

morethan, At my DDs' state primary, it would not have been possible. They do try to add a bit of art and culture, but I have the impression that they are very pressured to meet maths and literacy targets and this can push out some of the "nice to haves." We live in outer London and have lots of opportunities. So for us, it's really not a problem. There are plenty of fun, free, world class activities on our doorstep.

Frankly Snow I'm not paying for "palatial grounds" or Olympic swimming pools, or golf courses nice as it is to have them, well maybe not the latter, Golf is just beyond me, for me they are just not essential. They did not influence my choice in any shape or form.

Toomany

I see the kids in our area, the culture the general environment and tell dd how lucky she is.
This isn't a judgement of parents btw, they are mostly supportive and do their best with what's available.

If there were a “like” button, I would have used it for HG’s post on a “Renaissance Education” - or, as we Americans call it, a liberal arts education.

I don’t know how old TiP is, but I would imagine she cannot be older than me, and her experience at a single sex private school is far removed from my own - I did have a renaissance education in a single sex private school in the 80s in a middle sized city in America. Not only was academic excellence expected of us (I had no idea girls were supposed to be bad at maths and science until I saw the research at Uni) as well as history of art, the various branches of art (photography, painting, pottery/sculpture), music history, voice lessons, dance, drama, speech, comparative politics, all the sciences, maths up to 2nd year calculus, and a very wide range of literature. Far from being irrelevant, I do find that the subjects outside the fields which I eventually went on to specialise in (medicine) enrich my life, and are certainly more in use in my daily life than the calculus and organic chemistry I had to study.

One of my DSs is at a school very much like HGs school (other one is too young, but I’d choose a similar one for him too) and I chose it for many reasons, one being the very well rounded education he would be receiving. I find it truly sad to read that many posters who vociferously are for fairness in state education think that there is no place for music, art, and drama in state education and even go so far as saying that it is the role of the parents to give this sort of education to their children. I am a firm believer that cultural capital is very much a part of social mobility, and this cultural capital is not limited to core subject knowledge (sort of obvious in the name), and that saying that those from uneducated families will not have exposure to the things which those who do. I do understand with limited finds, state education needs to focus on basics over what is seen as frivolous. However, is art/drama/music frivolous? Learning an instrument enhances learning maths (something many Asian/Oriental tiger parents know), and the discipline learned in establishing a practice is a fantastic life lesson. Why are the musicians and actors of the UK today disproportionately coming from private schools? Is this something to be concerned about - I think it is, but then I do think that the arts and a very broad based education are essential to a well lived life.

These subjects are not frivolous. Far from it but how can the state provide it freely on a wide scale in addition to all the other basics (as defined by the state).

It is desirable but whether it is achievable is another story. I dare say there would be huge opposition from taxpayers, parents who prefer the money is spent on different state funded activities, etc.

I think the state cannot provide the sort of broad education that some of us want.

The cost would be prohibitive and I'm not convinced we even have the necessary expertise in the UK to roll it out on a national level.

So those of us who can afford it and want it, pay for it. I don't mind, it's only money.

But then some are saying we shouldn't be able to pay for it. That we should some how force the state to provide what we want. Surely that's a completely unworkable idea?

Word I know the state doesn't provide the sort of education that some of us want but why can't can't it?
As most of you know DS1 went to an "outstanding" "high achieving" academy, "palatial grounds" by the way snow and a bigger pool that DS2's school. When I challenged the head on the lack of cultural unexamined cultural education he simply said that there was insufficient space in the busy time table and that it was hard to organise after school clubs as over 80% went home by school buses.
But the children were doing a minimum of 11 GCSE's most did 12 in contrast DS2 only does 9. At DS2's school they don't do IGCSE history or English Lit, they study both subjects but in a much more rounded and IMO most importantly it's non examined. So for example whilst studying 17th century history they saw a Don Giovani, when reading Wilfred Owen they also looked at WW1 artists and propaganda. The dons are free to go in any direction. In the 6th they are free to study what they want, the rudiments of another language, literature, architecture, current affairs, anything, unsurprisingly the boys love it. Of course this kind of teaching is much harder and requires teachers to also have a much broader knowledge base which many teachers may not have but they can acquire the knowledge. But it doesn't have to cost any more, you don't have to actually go to the opera, I know it's the best way to see it but you can watch it on a video, obviously it's better to see painting in the flesh so to speak but it's not essential.
I genuinely think part of the problem is that we have become obsessed with exams I hear people proudly saying my DC go 12 A*s at GCSE, my DH employed at boy with 9 plus a couple of B's his parents were so proud of him but he was as cultured as a bolder, he'd somehow managed to never read a book in his life, couldn't identify Mozart from Shostakovich, and ionic column from a Norman arch, he wasn't an unpleasant boy but basically an unimaginative turgid lump who was devoid of any interest in the world. He had no interest in the world around him and therefore no interest in his job, which requires a high degree of creativity and imagination. Schools talk about "value added" when I first heard the term I thought they meant adding in learning things just because they are there that really is value added but I should have guessed it's all about improving exam results and academic outcomes.
I cannot help but wonder if you can improve academic outcomes by offering a broader curriculum. I frequently find this is the case, nothing is in isolation when I acquire knowledge in one area i find it crops up in other unrelated areas. Learn about one thing and it triggers an interest other, DS2 is a Dali fan, he's not my favourite artists but a few years ago I bought him a book about the surrealists and discovered Magritte, we went to the completely inaccessible Miro exhibition, and then felt I needed to know more about the Spanish civil war, Magritte sparked an interest in both of us about illusionist painters. We recently watched a film Tim's Vermeer which was very interesting and one opened my eye to a period of art I'm not that interested in but also Delft itself and I revisited in more depth Hockney. The film Cave of Dreams (definitely worth seeing) causes endless debates in our house, why no people, trees, sun, moon water? The more you see the more interested we become in what's around us. As a society we need to be interested in our world.

"The great advantage of a classical education is that it enables you in later life to despise the riches which it prevents you from attaining!"

That's according to my late and very erudite FiL.

Love that, I will remember itt grovel!

A fabulous education is not necessarily a paid for education.

A free education can be a fabulous education.

Brilliant Grovel.

"he wasn't an unpleasant boy but basically an unimaginative turgid lump who was devoid of any interest in the world"

Just checking- this is because he was state educated, yes?

A fabulous education doesn't have to be a formal education, sitting in a classroom it can also be one you attain off your own back in your spare time.
Perhaps grovel there are other "riches" gained from a classical education. I watched my mother angry and frightened by dementia calmed by Beethovens 7th symphony no drugs or expensive care could do that.

Hak sorry to disappoint you but actually he wasn't state school educated. State ed is not alone in it's inability to provide our children with a classical or liberal arts education. The head at DS1 school when I asked him why so many GSCE's reply "this is what the parents want". Independent ed is also under pressure to give parents what they want. Quite a few friends have been surprised that DS2 only did 9 IGCSE's "I thought they'd do lots at Winchester".

That's a relief. I did think "Surely not even on Mumsnet....."

I agree that parents can do a lot in terms of enhancing education.
They can take children to Art galleries, museums, places of interest and tourist attractions.
If you have a library you can encourage further reading, or projects of interest via the internet.
You can broaden horizons with interesting documentaries.
You can encourage a love of music through radio and again the internet.
It is amazing what interests your children have if you encourage them to open their eyes and ears to what lies beyond the curriculum.
Some people do this by affording a private education others by parental input,
or some such as HG with both of these.

Happy, if parents are paying, what should the services provided be driven by what they want? Equally, whether state or private, parents should have a say in the selection of courses on offer.

Many may not be interested in certain subjects but that's democracy for you. Give the people what the majority wants.

Bread and circuses.

Can anyone show me anywhere that needs children need 12 GCSE's?
Parents think they do, many like it if they get 12 GCSE's but is it actually necessary? Not as far as I'm aware. Surely it's the job of those in the know i.e. those who work in education to point out that they don't. Would parent riot if their DC's did less GCSE's but this made time in the already over packed timetable for a classical education? Or for more music lessons, or how about developing a better understanding of economics for example so that we could challenge governments and the opposition parties on their economic policies. Ah I nearly forgot; bread and circuses.

If that is what they want then yes but as far as I can see, the masses tend to make reasonable choices even if you and I chose differently.

If not democracy, then what? We already have a tough battle keeping government s in check when the seek to impose unpopular decisions. Not sure we would enjoy a more repressive system.

The masses want to bring back capital punishment but that's not a reason for doing it.

A state school can also open eyes and ears to what lies beyond the curriculum, you don't have to pay for that or for it all to be parental input!

Do we really know what the people want?
A man on radio 4 the other day was saying how surprised the art world is at the extraordinary success and popularity of the current wonderful
Rembrandt exhibition, the general consensus had been that only the Impressionists pulled in that number of people.