Education brings out the worst…
The worst thing about debates over education is they invariably bring out the worst on people.
This usually takes the form of class hatred, invariably taking the form of attacks on the private education sector for daring to provide a service which people desire.
I have a confession, I am one of those evil socially divisive people who went to a private school. I am glad I did. If I had not I would probably not be sitting here typing this. I would not have had the opportunity to attend the university I did. I would never have met my wife.
What angers me is that if my parents had not taken on large debts, if I had not used my savings to help pay for my last two years and if I’d been a few years older and thus not able to benefit from the assisted place scheme (scrapped by Labour as part of their keeping the poor down policies) I would have not had these opportunities, and even worse there are many many people out there who cannot benefit from the education they deserve because they cannot make the necessary sacrifices.
You should not have to make such sacrifices to get a good education, yet many do and even more are condemned because of where they live and their parent’s income.
My school would have leaped at the chance to have more pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. This was made impossible by the state, not by a money grabbing private sector.
It is the state which denies the private sector the opportunity to compete equally by seeking to control education. Quite rightly private schools refuse to sacrifice their commitment to providing the best education to their pupils which entering the state sector would require.
Yet still, the private sector is blamed for the failings of the state. The private sector is held up as an example of what is wrong when the failings are due to the state.
There is no reason why many more people could not get the level of education I benefited from, except for the collusion between class warriors, equality fanatics and those who seek a rigid hierarchy in society (that is between the socialists and the Tories).
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
First of all Tristan - I have nothing against private schools and feel I will make up for my state education with hard work and a severe fear of failure.
However, you make the classic mistake of thinking the assisted places scheme helped working class kids.
It didn’t.
If you want me to dig up some figures on this please let me know and I will.
Most of the people who took advantage of it were middle-class parents who earnt slightly less than is needed to be able to be comfortable with the fees and a nice lifestyle with it, as is the case with most scholarships.
Again, as it is with anything in life, it’s your classification of being ‘in need’ that is crucial here.
But essentially it was deemed a failure because of this…
January 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Well, extend it, let the state pay all the fees, don’t scrap it.
It helped people get a better education. I don’t care whether they were working class or middle class. It extended opportunity, if it didn’t do it enough then reform it.
It was cut off because the Labour Party has an ideological opposition to the non-state sector (except when it comes to their own children).
Cutting it off did nothing to help the working classes, it was just penalising aspiration.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
No - you’re right cutting it off didn’t do anything to help the working classes - the very existence of private schools do not help the working classes - but is there anything wrong with this?
A few years ago I would have been tearing my hair out with anger at what you say - but now I agree with you - the state paid my tuition fees at university as I was considered bright but my parents couldn’t afford - so why couldn’t this have happened earlier in my education?
The fact was i underperformed - I believe due to my background - I left school with two GCSEs - but then perhaps this has given me my passion for education!!
So if working class kids underperform as lots of studies suggest how are we going to find the evidence that they are bright in order to carry out a fair scheme?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
hello Tristan, by pure coincidence I’ve just read you on Jonathan Calder about Wittgenstein. apologies for… missing the point! (I’m no longer familiar with the education issue in the UK), but I’m rather writing to you because I’ve given a link to your blog as I aim to exchange links with the finest liberal blogs internationally, particularly in the US and the UK, where I had been living for 7 years and was a member of the Lib-Dems. You’ll find my blog mainly written in Italian but there’s roughly 13% of posts in English as well. Come visit me and link me back if you like. Ciao
January 15th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Well, the issues there Tristan is that private school fees cost more. If an assisted places scheme is mostly putting more money into middle class students who are doing well anyway then its more than reasonable to see it an an inefficent use of the education budget.
I’m not against sending people to private schools, but the assisted places scheme was a clear faliure in achieving its goals. A much better system would have to be worked out, its not good enough just saying “extend it!” because the original inefficencies of spending would remain.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I too went to a Public Boarding School. Look it up, it’s the richest Public School in the country and every child is from a poor background. Look it up! Christ’s Hospital.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
There is a simple reaons why privately educated children get better results.
1) Parental expectations “I’m not sending you to private school for you to fail”, as opposed to the small % of parents who care little for getting their kids to school in the first place in the public sector.
2) Class sizes, which aare much smaller in private schools, which makes a hell of a differene to what a teacher can do.
Simple as that.
I heard a headteacher of a private school this morning on the radio bemoaning that parents who struggle to send their children to private school “have to pay taxes so that middel class children can go to grammar schools !”
Well excuse me Mr Headmaster, but I think the children who go to grammar schools might end up cutting the grass at his school or turn up to put the fires out at his school, so I do tire of the “porr hard done by” attitude of some people who “choose” to send their kids to private schools.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Tinter:
Well, I’d say extend it fully, give every child the money to choose their own school.
Today, the cost of education in the state sector is on par with the average cost of the private sector, even if a school costed more, scholarship endowments would go far further and far more would be able to afford the extra.
Martin:
My old school seems to have developed a relationship with Christs Hospital - my head master is now head there, and the deputy head has just become the new head of my school…
Nich:
On 1 - that may be a factor, although quite a few still fail.
2 - why can’t this be the case for all children though?
It is unfair that parents who send their children to private school also have to pay taxes for the state sector - imagine how many poorer parents would have the means if they didn’t have to pay their taxes for education…
The fundamental point however is that the system is flawed, not because of the existence of private schools, but because the state sector is inflexible and does not offer opportunities which many require.
This is despite the best efforts of many many teachers, who are hamstringed by the system (in some areas there has been some progress recently, but it still cannot offer what could be offered).
January 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
But with that proposal, the poorest parents- those with children most likely to need further support- would be those least able to choose. I’m not opposed to the idea in principle, but those parents with lower incomes should get a larger voucher. Equally sized vouchers for everyone still leaves us with the two tier system you are advocating against.
I guess I am essentially saying that the pupil premium concept should carry on to vouchers also!
January 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Tinter:
I’m not sure that what you say follows.
Given choice, schools catering for those who need more help would probably arise.
In the case of identifiable problems - disabilities or learning or behavioural problems which do require special attention then I have no problem with extra funding for such pupils, I do think its wrong to link it to poverty though (that sounds too much like saying you’re poor because you’re thick…)
I suppose the problem then is making sure opportunity is there for claiming and that bureaucracy doesn’t inflate costs.
Perhaps given that, a pupil premium may be a better idea.
It certainly would not be a point to make me oppose a scheme (unless it was ridiculous amounts and distorts the market a lot - not something I can imagine the LibDems advocating).
January 16th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Well, by “need further support” I mean those from a poor background are much more likely to end up a NEET with little educational achivement.
If we want to improve the standards of education then its groups like that we need to target. This is especially so since their parents would not be able to “top up” their vouchers, which is seen as one of the advantages of the system. So giving them a larger voucher entitlement means their education is affected more by their parents educated choice on what is best for their children and less on their ability to pay.
It maintains the strengths of a market driving standards while ensuring more equitable access to the market for all children.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Jo,
“So if working class kids underperform as lots of studies suggest how are we going to find the evidence that they are bright in order to carry out a fair scheme?”
Surely, the answer is to give school vouchers to parents whether or not their children are bright. I am sure that it is the less bright kids that will benefit most from being in a stimulating environment, rather than a stultifying one. “Assisted places” should not only be available to the already gifted, but to all those who want or need assistance.
Titner,
The inefficiencies you refer to are deadweight costs, and there is a limit to them equal to the size of the voucher offered times the number of children being privately educated. Also, it is not true that all private schools cost more than state schools, and the market would be far more diverse if everybody were able to participate, rather than at present where only the rich will be able/willing to forego the thousands they are already obliged to pay to the state.
Nick Clegg is talking about giving more money to the poorest kids (”Pupil Premium” he calls it). However, even if the vouchers were equal it would give poor parents choice, and as I have argued elsewhere, even if most parents don’t exercise choice, the competition it injects into the market improves all schools and so benefits even those who do not take advantage of it.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Oops. I didn’t close those italics properly!
January 20th, 2008 at 5:23 am
If you acknowledge they are inefficencies, then why not just not give vouchers to wealthier parents? What is the benefit of doing so? Are we assuming the administration is that expensive, or is it an ideological thing?
I’m not arguing against a market system with money given to parents, I just don’t see the purpose on giving it to those who already have market access.