My responses below in bold…
You could get rid of private schools tomorrow. Some people will always be wealthier than others and the privileges this entails will just manifest in other ways. This is obvious.
I find this a defeatist, even nihilistic view. Yes, some people will be wealthier and have privilege. But the particular type of privilege conferred by private education would be degraded. I’m not suggesting it is a cure-all. There needs to be a number of other key structural and redistributive initiatives to get Britain on the same tracks as more successful European nations with a lower Gini coefficient.
The fact is, state education in the U.K. is a postcode lottery. Those with the means, can move into the prestigious catchment areas - often the cost of property / stamp duty costs more than school fees.
It might be now, but it doesn’t have to be in the future with the right practices and policies in place. There is much we can learn from other nations in this respect.
Grammar schools are also a postcode lottery.
The small number of remaining grammar schools should be closed.
Who is more 'privileged?' A child who achieves top grades in a state school in a safe area in the Home Counties with two university-educated parents. Or a child from inner London whose parents decided to pay for school to avoid their local comp due to stabbings?
Yes, privilege needs to be understood through an intersectional lens. But, this doesn’t stand in the way of the need to do away with private education. The vast majority of the privately educated accrue net unearned privilege over their peers.
Parental education carries more weight and 'social capital' than school sector. You see it all the time on the Oxbridge chats - posters making a point of saying their DC got in from an 'ordinary comp', only to later drop in that they themselves are Oxbridge educated!
If true, this doesn’t negate the benefits of doing away with private schools. And Oxbridge needs to continue practices designed to broaden intake.
I assume you are not from London @GodessOfThunder because, if you were, you would know that the majority in the very top London independents are from immigrant / non-white British backgrounds. Who is more 'privileged' in societal terms - a non-white child at a London private school, or a white child from an expensive part of Surrey or similar, ie. the catchment for a school with a catchment of pupils very similar to her?
See above. The % of BAME pupils in private education is similar to that in state education as an average across the country. London can’t wag the national dog.
Not all comprehensives are diverse. In white, middle class areas they will reflect that. It totally depends on location and catchment.
I never suggested otherwise.
As for boarding schools, I would argue the privilege of these is debatable. They may suit a certain type of child. But I'm sure the majority of children, if asked, would be terrified at the prospect of living away from home at the age of 13, 11 or even 7. I'm sure you've heard of the emotional trauma reported by people who describe themselves as 'boarding school survivors.' Is this a privilege? Don't most kids just want to go home at 4pm to their own space and family? These children may come across as more 'confident' because they have had to be! No choice.
Yes, boarding school syndrome - a damaging phenomenon. But as the current Tory administration shows,those who attend elite boarding schools (many likely emotionally damaged) still often end up with hugely disproportionate power in society. This they have used to wrought great damage on the country.
Anyway, once they graduate who cares where they went to school?
Clearly plenty do - their contacts, networks and sycophants who ensure the privately schooled continue to be over represented in many areas of public and professional life.