Private schools, state schools and inequality

In one of my recent seminars the question being discussed was 'Does a commitment to meritocracy require the abolition of private schools?' and I found it a very difficult question to respond to. Although, as a social democrat, I feel like the commitment to equality of opportunity lays the very foundations of a just society, private schools do have their merits. At the heart of the question lays a conflict between dogma and pragmatism, and a conflict between heart and head. In this post, I will outline the merits and demerits of scrapping private schooling and what I believe needs to be done to promote equality in the educational system.

Everybody 'loves' equality

In a lecture of around 100 people, we were asked to put up our hands if we agreed with the concept of equality of opportunity and astoundingly all but one in the lecture theatre raised their hands, with the maverick stating that she agreed with the idea of equality of outcome (crazy commie). Although in a liberal democracy you'd expect a high percentage of people to at least say they agree with the idea of meritocracy, my only qualm with the massive show of support is the fact that I attend a university disproportionately consisting of 40% private school intake (outdone only by Oxbridge, Durham and Imperial). I felt a certain sense of irony seeing such large support for meritocracy from young adults who had obviously benefited from a 'leg up' in their early life, but was I being too cynical?

The case against private schools

We live in one of the most economically unequal developed countries in the world - an inequality perpetuated by our current two-tier system of education. Can we honestly we say we live in a meritocracy when privately-educated individuals compose over half of our government's cabinet? Scraping the private education system would mean parents can not buy their children social and economic advantage and one could reasonably conclude that this would result in a more just and equal society. If this was a realistic policy, I would wholeheartedly support it - sadly, this isn't the case. I believe that although inherently unfair, private schools have their place the educational 'market'. I will explain why.

The 'socially-exclusive' Bullingdon Club at Oxford. Can you spot The Prime Minister and The Mayor of London?

In defence of private schooling

We live in an economy largely dominated by the free market, where 'freedom' - for better of for worse - is expressed by exchanging capital for advantage. The defence of private schooling, in my eyes, is a purely pragmatic argument. 30% of private school students attain at least three As at A-level, compared to less than 10% of comprehensive students. Although this illustrates the vast inequality between the two systems, the parents of private school children, in practice, pay twice for their child's education. There is no way of avoiding paying for the state system through taxation and the parents of privately educated children are still contributing to state system and 'topping up' the Department for Education's resources. This may seem like a weak, fatalistic argument, but these parents are also more likely to be paying the upper rate of income tax - disproportionately contributing fiscally.

Conclusion - the problem with state schooling

I believe that the problem with inequality in schooling does not primarily stem from the existence of private schools, but the decline of grammar schools since the late 1970s. The previous tripartite system was inherently elitist but, paradoxically, promoted a form of rough meritocracy. Grammar schools gave children from less advantaged backgrounds the opportunity to study in a more intellectually challenging environment and consequently go on to university. My interpretation of events was that secondary modern schools were failing and the Labour government of the time responded by closing down grammar schools, hoping there would be a 'levelling out' of educational outcomes. Since the decline of grammar schools, educational inequality has grown and, although testing a 12-year-old's intellectual ability and streaming them accordingly seems harsh, growing inequality will be an inevitable outcome of the failings of our current state system.