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.

Thanks Snowbells.

The education attainment of places like China and some of the developing world is now much higher than that of the UK. The natural response is to improve our system. It would be ludicrous if we were to complain that this inequality is unfair and then endeavour to undermine their system and bring them down to our level.

The approach suggested by root will almost always lead to lower attainment across the board.

I see this thread has moved on quite a bit since my last post. In any case in the exact same direction I was thinking at my initial post. Newrule captures this ongoing argument in its entirety. When all'so been said and done, the problem is with the quality of state education.

If the quality were better, many private school parents would leave in droves. Out of about 15 couples I know very well, none of us started out in the private sector. None ever planned to go private. All left state one by one at different stages as the quality/choice of education for dc children looked more and more dire. Most of these kids are now in public schools. It is clear that with myself and these particular parents that if the quality of the local education were better we would all still be in the state sector. I gave an example of a visit to a local school recently and what the advise was. Poor aspirations, teachers overworked, teachers being forced to do more and more admin, too many stifling rules and regulations inhibiting learning opportunitiesa and a better schooling experience, silly/meaningless targets, not enough schools in the first place for the ever burgeoning population (bit like NHS healthcare really!) and ever changing new government initiatives as, standards constantly slipping in every area.

Education authorities must be rubbing their hands in glee that people seem to think the problem with state education is private education. Rather than their poor provision, the focus is off them and firmly is private schooling. Parents fighting parents, whilst they send their own children to the best state schools in the country.

missy Of course, it's an oversimplification. Everything is in a short post, but it remains that it's due to people wanting equality of quality that in the end, the system was taken down. Why they wanted that, I didn't even contemplate. And social mobility did go down in the end. There are just not many options for poor but able kids these days.

It's very difficult to raise standards across everything (whether it be school or other things). Much easier to dumb everything down. History shows that 80% of the time, humans go for the simpler solution. I guess that those who have elected to ban grammar schools never thought of that.

On the subject of grammar schools [i do not have any direct experience of them] I do not think that it's a good system whereby some go to the grammar and its assumed from there onwards that the rest will never follow an academic route so provision for them is much less robust.

Some children will pass at 11, some won't, but it doesn't mean all those who don't pass are not bright enough to follow the university route. Is there any reason why we can't have grammar schools AND comprehensives alongside eachother instead of the secondary modern which sound below par from what I've read on MN.

Mmm - state education will never be considered suitable for many people whose children are currently at privately educated, because most state schools can't be and shouldn't be selective.

Would you be happy for your children to be in a school where many children wouldn't achieve highly, even if they were well taught?

There are many FANTASTIC state schools, but even in areas with outstanding schools there will be those who will choose private because they want their children at selective schools. And people who can pay to advantage their children above the rest of the herd will always want to do this.

It's depressing that so many people on this thread seem to believe that non selective state schools are fundamentally unable to deliver an education suitable for extremely bright children.

So allow state schools to be selective.

Roots, I struggle to understand from your last two posts what exactly you are taking issue with.

Some people will choose to educate their kids in the private system. Some will choose not to do so. Is there something wrong with that? This is not the only area in which choice is so freely exercised.

You asked whether people would be happy to have their kids educated in a school where some kids, no matter how well they are taught, would not achieve highly. To that I would ask; if the reason for their lack of achievement is not the quality of education (given that they are taught well) then there must be something else at play. What do you suppose is the underlying cause? Parental input? Whatever you conceive it to be, why is it the fault of private education?

and a lot of grammar school spaces went to the able but poor kids.

Some grammar school places went to able but poor kids, but the majority didn't.

There are two ways of looking at this, very broadly speaking and oversimplifying - obviously - but I think there's some truth in this point.

1. Some children get a better education than others. This is wrong. No one must be allowed to buy/finesse their way into a position where their children get a head start, so private schools should be abolished and so should state grammar schools. If that brings down the average standard of education, so be it. At least they won't be doing better than my child.

1. Some children get a better education than others. This is good news for them and for society as a whole. What can we do to make sure that the other children get a good education too, so that we increase the total supply of well educated people, which is essential for the economy, mental/emotional wellbeing and social stability of the UK? How can we move to a position more like Finland (or for that matter, more like most parts of Scotland outside Glasgow/Edinburgh) where everyone goes to the local state school and most children do really well?

I'm in the second camp.

LaVolcan

From what my FIL says (who was one of the able but poor kids), many 'poor' kids who were actually offered places could not attend because their parents didn't want them to (the overwhelming reason seems to be that the parents didn't want their kids to rise beyond them). Unfortunately, the government didn't make them send their kids. Britain and it's typical caste system struck again. Yes, really, it's a caste rather than class system.

Actual attendance therefore didn't reflect the actual spaces offered.

Agree my incredibly bright grandmother wanted to go but she was put into service at 14. Although very poor she then made sure my dad went a year early even though he had to cycle miles in the dark to get there.

Dh had the same,his parents left school at 13/14. One with poor literacy skills and the other although bright without a single qualification.They didn't see the point in the 11+ so he was sent to the worst secondary modern in the county.He still went on to get 2 degrees from red brick unis though.He got pushed by his girl friend's mother who was pushing her.Kind of proves the view that all the pontificating re what school kids go to counts for very little,it's parental support that counts.

SnowBells - I am of that generation, and although there were certainly some whose parents wouldn't let them attend, the majority didn't pass the 11+ in the first place, so it was an irrelevance.

For those who were poor and did pass, it wasn't just the idea of getting above ones station - it was also things like the cost of uniform - if like mine stupid, and stupidly expensive. E.g. tunics made of green serge costing £40 a yard in today's prices, in a style which could only be bought from one shop, or made up from the material. So if your parent was a factory hand on £8.00 a week, the cost was steep if not prohibitive. Even with two parents working, that would still be a stretch.

You could always tell which children were from poorer families - they started off with a tunic far too big - by the end of the 5th year it was threadbare and too small. If there was a choice of summer dress, which my school had, the wealthier ones had one of each style, the poorer ones not. We were allowed to wear tennis whites or ordinary PE kit in the summer - no prizes for guessing which children didn't have the tennis whites. And so on.

I don't agree that to educate according to ability is fair.

I'm guessing you don't agree with setting then.

I don't agree that to educate according to income is ok but there you go.

Life isn't fair.You do the best with what you've got.Don't feel we should have our hands tied when others reap the advantages of being able to afford private.

I'm guessing continually squeezing public services and lowering tax rates is not the way to improve state provision in the long run.

No country has ever successfully abolished private schools - some think they have but actually the kids of the rich and powerful often those who made the decision in fact go to schools abroad.

No country has an education system that works to the satisfaction of its middle class.

Countries that ban religion in schools end up with huge numbers of home educated religious nut jobs yes land of my fathers USA I mean you

Countries that ban home education just export the problem rather than addressing it a German specialty in fact

There was a brief and highly unusual period of equality across Europe and North America in the three decades after WW2
many of the current commentators benefited from it and pulled the drawbridge up behind them.

We are now back in a land of Edwardian style inequality, with Old Etonians running the country and their chums offshoring lots of cash out of the system they might as well burn the money for all the good it will do the world

Name me a country that doesn't have religious nut jobs.

There was a brief period after WW2 when people realised that huge inequalities and divisions breed hatred and violence. Unfortunately, we are all a bunch of selfish twats with short memories.

"I'm guessing you don't agree with setting then."

Was that to me?

Your underlying assumption is that I want education to be fair.

Perhaps I don't? Perhaps I don't think that fairness is possible?

I'm not sure any two people would entirely agree on exactly what "fairness" looks like, tbh. Wouldn't life be simple if everyone agreed on what is "fair."

TiP: you are terribly misinformed -religious schools are not banned in the US, unless the Catholic school I went to for the first six years was a figment of my imagination. Religious schools are very much permitted, just not under the guise of state education.

Mominatrix
my typo - I meant state schools in the US - its one of the huge arguments in favour of RE in State schools in the UK : it creates atheists far more effectively than the American system.

Bonsoir Bonsoir! Can you lend your expertise to the woman who wants help with (and has a huge number of requirements of) bilingual primaries in Paris over in Living Overseas.

TiP - perhaps. However religious nutters tend to be regional (i.e., they tend to be scarce in large cosmopolitan area and clustered quite heavily in the large swathes of red states in the middle and many parts of the south). Also, church has a different role in the States than here - more as a centre of community activity (my parents go to a Korean catholic church for the social community) rather than necessarily for faith.

My parents made me have an interesting version of RE: Jewish nursery school, Baptist kindergarten, Catholic school, then non-denominational private. They are Buddhist. Not sure what their aim was!