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.

I agree with 9Bluedolphins that private schools can maximise the potential of less academic children (which is why many parents choose private education) but these children are extremely unlikely to end up in a top professional jobs however good the school. If you look at the leavers' destinations for non-selective private schools there are many pupils who leave for art/design/sport/sales and business degrees (which they may be very good at). Why should the comprehensive school get away with putting less academic pupils in a low stream with 'little ambition for them'?

I think its worth bearing in mind how education fits into a wider social context.
At the moment social mobility is low, wealth inequality is increasing and the economy generally is not in a great state.
So- there probably is a shortage of "good jobs" and the desperate scrabble of middle class parents to get their own offspring into those jobs via education (which we see reflected on mumsnet every day!) is understandable.
I agree with toomanychristmaspresents that this is not fixed. If there was greater wage equality I expect we would see less desperate hothousing of children, because the consequences of "failing" would be less severe.

I'm not saying that we should force non-academic rich kids down educationally. I think it's great to give a child a good education - to stretch them, to teach them about all kinds of things, including the appreciation of culture, tolerance of difference, etc etc. But I think that at the moment some people are coming out of school clutching exam certificates that give them access to better future opportunities than they are actually suited for. Not to say that they are completely incapable of doing the jobs, but that there are plenty of others who would do the jobs better if given the opportunity. But they don't get a look-in, because they don't have the right exam results or social contacts.
If everyone received the same level of education, there would still be disadvantage due to home circumstances etc, but to a much greater extent than currently the right people would be in the right jobs, and things would be going better in terms of how things in this country work. The pool of talent is not being fully utilised, if you like.
If the pool of talent were utilised effectively, then less bright rich kids would on average have less prestigious and remunerative jobs. And what's so wrong with that?
At universities people from private schools do less well academically than people from state schools with the same academic qualifications. Because the latter are brighter than the former, who have been pushed more.

So the answer is to improve state schools.

Yes ToomanyChristmasPresents.
But ideally I would abolish private schools as well.
I think it benefits society if as many aspects of civic life as possible are a universal experiance. It is good for social cohesion. Although yes, improving state schools would be my priority.

I still don't see evidence of 'less bright rich kids' getting 'prestigious' jobs - only clever rich kids - which particular jobs are you referring to?

' At universities people from private schools do less well academically than people from state schools with the same academic qualifications.'

Yes and no - this study acknowledged that the very cleverest pupils from independent schools (ie those with A/A* grades at A level and we've no idea how many there were) did in fact do as well as or better at university than pupils from state schools with the same A grades. The study also excluded all those on degree courses of longer than 4 years (all medicine, veterinary, dentistry etc) and appears to have given equal weighting to a 2.1 degree from East London University or wherever as a 2.1 from an RG university.

The non-academic rich kids get good jobs because their parents have contacts. Would not change a bit if they were forced to go to state schools.

Yes, non-academic rich kids do get good jobs through contacts, but what sort of jobs are we talking about - jobs in auction houses, media, marketing, golf pro? Only clever rich kids will become doctors, lawyers, CEOs, prime ministers etc.

My SIL works in a private senior school that runs a debating/public speaking contest for the local state secondary schools. It's been running for years - it's free to enter, suburbs location, large car park, free refreshments, winners featured in the local paper every year. The number of state schools entering has been declining recently and this year only 3 schools showed up. Is this apathy by the pupils or the teachers? The private school debating/public speaking scene is buzzing. The phrase, 'You can lead a horse to water' springs to mind.

We aren't rich, in fact we are very low income family but one of our dc will benefit from a private education.
There are so many different types of school, but I agree with what he says.
Just because he is right doesn't mean its a bad situation, life isn't fair.

I'm tired of the abolish independent schools argument. Why should one part of the population impose it's opinions and views on another? We do not live in a dictatorship those who pay do physical harm to others and I remain sceptical that it actually makes any difference.
The solution is to improve state education because many MC would cheerfully move their children back into state ed if it was consistently any good. But I actually don't think the "abolish independent ed" comments are aimed at MC parents sending their children to independent day schools, they're aimed at those who chose to send their children to a handful of top mainly boarding schools. Of course how ever good state ed could become they will not persuade then to remove their Dc's from their independent school because it all goes with the territory.

Trying to say" those who pay do no physical harm

I don't understand the problem with private schools tbh and especially find it interesting how society has changed.
When I was growing up the privileged who had a private education were just different to us. We had the crap education and we believed they had a better education because they paid for it, which doesn't always figure now.
Why are people so jealous of what others have? It is pure jealousy it has to be, unless others have a different reason.
It is true, they do no harm to others.

"Why are people so jealous of what others have? It is pure jealousy it has to be, unless others have a different reason."

Whatever that sentence means, I think I strongly disagree with it!

I share AB's sentiments about private education and don't feel in the slightest bit jealous of the families who partake in it. Not the tiniest nano morsel of my soul is jealous for one second.

Its surprisingly hard to convince people of that though!

Mintyy

I'm not convinced.

I'm not jealous of people who have lovely expensive jewellery or drive expensive cars, or live in houses that cost millions, or have fantastic careers.
I'm sure this is why I don't go around trying to stop others from having them.
Or indeed shouting about how unfair it is.
What harm do private schools do to you.

Oh, and I'm one who had a diabolical education as did my older 2 dc.
Choice was none existent, we just had to deal with the crap that was deemed for us.

Well I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to convince you!

Mintyy

I just see it this way and have tried to see it so many other ways.
I do admit it isn't fair that some state schools are so crap whereas others are 10 times better.
To me this is what needs to be sorted, state education should be consistently fair to all.

If Mintyy your not jealous which I can accept you not why do you have a problem with some being able and choosing to pay? They are not doing any harm.
If your that bothered channel you energies into sorting out state ed plenty dont want to pay but rightly or wrongly feel they have too.
The elite handful will always be there, they offer an education that the state sector can never offer for a start and these parents will never send their DC's to state schools as I said it's just not on their radar.

"At universities people from private schools do less well academically than people from state schools with the same academic qualifications. Because the latter are brighter than the former, who have been pushed more."

9bluedolphins - surely employees are chosen more on account of their degrees than GCSEs or A levels, so if state educated students get better degrees than their privately educated counterparts, then they will get better jobs?

I'm not convinced that parents really have any influence over what happens in schools - particularly state schools. All you can do is vote with your feet. In the case of private schools that eventually means that the school will close due to lack of pupils. In the case of state schools you get "good" and "bad" schools, depending on the direction of flow of pupils, but the bad schools still exist (or get rebranded and reopened).

As parents we can't change the teachers, the curriculum, the head, the senior management, the behaviour policies, spending priorities, budget or the other pupils. If there's a home/school agreement you just have to sign it.

What exactly is it that the parents of the 7% or so of children being educated privately are supposed to achieve that the other 93% haven't already tried? Closing all private schools would remove the ability to compare the two, but you'd still have varying standards of school.

What if all private schools were closed? Would the wealthier parents start employing tutors to help their children into a higher set than they would have been in due to natural ability? Would they monopolise traditional subjects? Would schools have to start monitoring how many pupils entitled to FSM were in their top ability groups? Would it really benefit existing state schools and their pupils?

Maybe more children would be "home educated" by their governesses.

rabbitstew

Please don't wish H.ed on the masses, government would make us all Ofsted registered, impose lots of policies and procedures and most of our aims would be pointless. Atm, we are such a minority they ain't bothered about us.

Private schools are just one symptom of an unequal, divided society. As inequality becomes more of an issue, so do all the institutions specifically set up to nourish inequality. If the divisions were not so great, it would all go under the radar and everyone would be reasonably happy.

morethanpotatoprints - wish it on the masses?!!!! Since when could the masses afford governesses (or, indeed, a governess)?

I meant H.ed not the governess, although I think they may not be much more expensive than a nanny. Don't the real mc have nannies?
I know nothing of these things though, dh has got me practising doffing our caps.

happygardening
I know you have read a thousand arguments against private schooling on all the very many Mumsnet threads you have been on. I'm not going to start repeating them because you obviously aren't listening if you think it all boils down to parents who pay for private education "not doing any harm"!

Of course I think they are doing harm! If I didn't, I wouldn't give it a moment's thought.