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 - what about separating children from parents at birth and re-allocating by lottery, too, to negate the inequality caused by both, nature and nurture...

Better not even mention this.

Newrule, what structural changes would you make to the education system to give children more equality of opportunity?

Also - my suggestions aren't ridiculous, so why are you ridiculing them?

In fact, some universities already 'control' for type of secondary schooling when making offers, and some grammar schools are adjusting selection procedures to take more children on FSM.

Do you have school age children? What sort of school do they go to?

Root, let's say the problem is one of lack of equality of opportunity; to get at what structural changes are best, then we first need to agree what this lack of equal opportunity refers to and how does penalising private education help?

"then we first need to agree what this lack of equal opportunity refers to and how does penalising private education help?"

In relation to formal education, inequality of opportunity means this:

Some children have twice as much spent on their education as others, and that when it comes to able bodied and neurotypical children, the resources are allocated in inverse relation to need. The higher achieving a child is and the more input they have from home, the more that tends to be spent on their education. The less input a child has at home the less that is spent on their education.

The more privileged and bright the child and more independent in relation to learning, the more effort is put into separating them from those children whose behaviour is disruptive. The less independent, poorer and lower achieving the child, the more they are likely to end up learning alongside disruptive pupils.

Protect and promote the interests of the strongest at a cost to the weakest.

That's the way the system works at present and I'd like to see anyone justify to a child without dying of shame.

If private education was abolished then a lot of jobs would be lost and many parents would send their dcs abroad for schooling. I want my dcs in small classes with no disruptive kids and am paying for that. I don't complain that other people have large flashy new cars or very large houses or exotic holidays so why do other people resent what I spend money on. I earn it and have a right to spend it as I choose as long as I do no harm. Having my dcs in private education disadvantages nobody

Root You do know that state schools in deprived areas get more per capita than those in posh ones, right? It already happens! I have a feeling you really want the scale to topple over.

There is a plateau with everyone. If you are not naturally inclined to certain things, chances are you're never going to be as good at it as someone who is. We accept this with sport, and yet, people become defensive when it comes to education.

We need to educate those who may have the ability to push our society forward through science, etc. That would benefit everyone.

Snowbell - I don't understand.

Are you suggesting the reason the fields of law, politics, medicine, sports, journalism are disproportionately peopled by those whose parents are rich enough to afford to pay school fees, is because having rich parents automatically means you have more innate talent and potential?

And even if you include the pupil premium the average spend per head on state school pupils is still on average about half that spent on a child in private education.

The only children in the state sector who have large amounts of money spent on them are the small number in special schools where they're in tiny classes with large numbers of highly trained staff.

mmm - if you are paying to have your children up at the sunny end of life's uneven playing field then you ARE disadvantaging all the other children at the shitty end of the field who have to compete for the same university places and jobs as your children. An unfair advantage is an unfair advantage. Your children don't deserve their educational leg up any more than anyone else's.

In any case, NOBODY is suggesting abolishing private schools. I'm just suggesting ways the system can be changed to reduce unfairness in relation to access to university and grammar school places.

Root, do you also object to larger houses , cars , holidays etc and better extra curricular experiences. Do you want everyone to move down to the lowest so it's all fair

Actually what is spent on kids differs.London kids get stack loads more spent on them than say kids in Notts or Devon.

Isn't that just because London schools have to spend a lot more on staff costs? Doesn't necessarily mean that there are more staff and facilities.

Root I am only talking about state schools. Schools in deprived areas get more money than those in posh ones. Fact.

Private schools are paid for by parents who already pay for state schools their kids don't even attend. If you wish, you can also pay to send your child to such a school. But why do you think your child should be entitled to things others make sacrifices for without seemingly wanting to pay yourself? I hope you don't expect others to pay for their Christmas presents, toys, clothes, etc. You chose to have a child knowing the world isn't fair. You seem to think it's not right that mmm wants to give her kids an advantage. Well, it's only natural to do that - watch any wildlife documentary, and you'll see that animal mothers with no clue about private schooling will do that.

I am blessed by being fluent in several languages and a very international outlook that helped me get into the uni of my choice, as well as in my career. This wasn't through private schooling, but my parents paid for opportunities for me to spend time abroad when I was young. It gave me an advantage others didn't have. So what do you think should be done about it?

You keep on proposing what is effectively affirmative action for uni admission. It already happens. On threads like this one, people keep on talking about the 7% that go to private school and that they are over-represented at uni. But at Sixth Form, the amount of people going private jumps up to 20%. As far as I know, you need A-levels to get to uni.

A multi-millionaire's child will have more opportunities than my own. Guess what? I can live with it. I don't expect to get a free ride. I will pay for private schooling if I have to. I will bring up my child to the best of my abilities, and who knows? Maybe he/she will learn something along the way that the multi-millionaire's child won't...

Root, do you think it's fair that rich parents can move to the area of a much sought after outstanding school full of equally rich kids? They are state schools? Probably less disruption than other schools! Still haven't responded about the cars etc???

And of course I want the best for my dcs - I'm a normL parent

"Root, do you think it's fair that rich parents can move to the area of a much sought after outstanding school full of equally rich kids? They are state schools?"

No, not fair.

I argued down thread about ways this could be tackled.

Re: travel - the school my dc has applied for has a lottery system and sends out free buses to collect children from outside the local area. This means poor children applying from further afield get support with travel.

"And of course I want the best for my dcs - I'm a normL parent"

I want my children to compete on similar terms to the majority and earn their rewards in life through hard work and talent.

Root, as I understand it, state schools (particularly those in deprived areas) have a higher spend per capita.

You say that the "the higher achieving a child, the more input that tends to be spent on their education" and the "less input a child has at home, the less that is spent on their education". Assuming your stats are correct, what does that mean? In the case of the first, are you referring to state schools? Does that mean in state schools the high achievers are given more attention? Would this then mean that within state schools there should be a policy change - how resources are distributed across educational attaintment? With regards to the second, this is about the ambitions and choices of parents. So what do you suggest? Make some parents spend less time with their kids at home or I would hope you are suggesting the solution would be that the parents who are lagging behind should do more? The big question though, is how does penalising private education help with these two problems?

You also say that the effort is focused on separating out the high achievers from the those that are disruptive. Do I take it then that you would rather they not be separated and that the disruptive students are allowed to hold back those who would like to move forward? In other words, what would be preferrable is to stop any crabs from climbing out of the barrel?

Education in the UK is free. So the equal opportunity you are referring to is not about access to education but rather equality in quality. I see no reason why that should be the case. If you want better quality than the minimum standard set by the government, be it in education, health, and the less essential services, you need to pay a premium above the free offerings. There is nothing unfair about that. If the problem is about the quality of education in state schools, then the solution cannot be to undermine the quality offered by private schools. Rather, it is a policy matter with respect to state schools. Arguably the quality of education in state schools have declined. This has nothing to do with private schools and everything to do with the ever changing policies.

Root, and when your children earn their rewards through hard work and talent, presumably you would want to know that they will be free to spend those rewards as they see fit. If they choose to invest in higher quality education for their kids, will you be opposed to that? Of course, they may choose to invest their hard earn rewards otherwise but should they then get vexed because someone else chooses to invest in education?

You say that paying for one's child to live at the sunny end of life ... that this is unfair because other kids are being disadvantaged. I would say that telling me how to spend my hard earn rewards is unfair and tyrannical. What next, I should not be a good parent because it disadvantages those who have the misfortune to not have good parents? So it is the fault of good parents and they must be penalised for making good choices? Choices that benefit society? I should not pay for my child to get better health care if I deem this to be the best decision for my child? Oh no! What a swine I am. Utterly shameful that I should want the best for my child and pay (with my hard earn money) to get that best if I so choose. Do I not know that by moving forward I am leaving someone behind? No, it is better if we all stay behind. No sunny side of life for any. Let's huddle together at the end of grey and at least all will be fair BUT fair to whom? What does fairness mean and is it only the disadvantaged that are derseving of fairness? Those who succeed must be punished?

We have a redistributive tax system. Those who 'succeed' pay tax to help the disadvantaged. They are then told that they are well and truly out of place to spend the remainder on bettering themselves or their children. We live in a society where we are always looking to blame someone else for the things that are not working well for us. We hate the idea of being responsible for the outcomes of our decisions. Private education is an easy target. It is blamed for the failings of state education and the outcomes of poor parenting.

Root, why not strive to ensure that state education is so good that I no longer wish to spend my hard earned money on private schools which would be inferior. I might spend my after tax income on music lessons, outings, tutoring, swimming lessons. Would that be wrong?
Instead of complaining that people spend their money as they choose sort out the state system and private schools will no longer be an issue.
But tell me why my dcs should be a large classes with disruptive children. Will that make it fairer for your dcs ?

Newrule Wow. Very good arguments.

Root I think the problem is that you're internalizing these issues. You yourself benefitted from private school, but your children are in the state sector, and at least one of them has a behavioural problem. And no matter how much you do, nothing seems to help. You then see parents being able to pay for schools that offer more support. That obviously feels unfair - but many of these parents made choices in life that led to them earning the sort of money that allows for private schooling to happen. Some may not want to make such decisions.

You also talk about grammar schools having to accept a wider group of children. It was because of such thinking that most of them got banned. Grammar schools were designed to take in the naturally more able children. What's the point of grammar school, if you cant allocate by merrit? There were many of them around back in the days, and private schools were also much, much cheaper relative to now. So middle class parents could choose to send DCs private easily, and a lot of grammar school spaces went to the able but poor kids. You wouldn't have seen many MC parents pay for tutoring. My FiL came from a very poor family, and grammar school is what allowed him to go to Oxbridge and rise from poverty. His own father had the ability - won a scholarship - but was not allowed by his parents to take it up (very working class thinking back then). Without grammar school, FiL would have had a very different life, but it is due to people wanting "equality of quality" as Newrule says that social mobility has gone down. They thought it was unfair that a few able kids were given opportunities others didn't get. Better not to give that opportunity to anyone at all. The end result is that you now have to pay for that opportunity instead.

That's an oversimplification, actually. Grammar schools were abolished because it was recognised that children who didn't pass the 11+ were getting a raw deal which meant that many of them never reached their potential. Late developers, children who couldn't do as well on the 11+ because of cultural biases in the test, children from less effective primary schools... the list goes on. Also, the children who would never have passed the 11+ were capable of far more than most secondary moderns were expecting or equipped to deliver.

The main force behind getting the 11+ abolished was the middle class outrage of parents whose children didn't pass. The comprehensives were supposed to level up, not down. Sadly, that isn't how it turned out in many cases.

mimsy you are absolutely right. The tragedy was that they decided to address the perceived inequality of opportunity by destroying the sector that was incredibly successful (every Prime Minister between 1969 and 1997 was state educated!), instead of improving the sector that wasn't working.

So many articulate and perceptive responses. I am really enjoying reading this thread.