Ban private schools?

June 12th, 2007 - 12:17 | 10 comments

Philosopher Stephen Law is generating plenty of discussion with his suggestion that private schools be banned. He says the current system is inherently unfair, and reasons as follows: there is a clear bias towards the privately educated in high-status jobs. This is because the wealthy advantage their children by paying for a ‘better’ education. Whether the education is ‘better’ in terms of educational merit or simply the doors it opens is moot - the end result shows a significant advantage to the privately educated, who aren’t actually any different from the non-privately educated in terms of intelligence or potential¹, but who happen to have wealthy parents. This is clearly unfair to those who happen to be born into poorer families, who don’t get the same chances.

Anyway, an obvious solution is to ensure everybody is educated to the same standard. The idea of banning private schools immediately sets right off against left, but needn’t. The same result could be achieved with only private schools, if top-ups weren’t allowed - every child would have exactly the same amount of money spent on them. The usual Libertarian the-state-is-rubbish-at-everything argument doesn’t apply. Here’s Prof. Law’s actual suggestion, posted this morning:

Let’s a have a voucher system with no top ups. A voucher is the only way you can purchase your child an education.

Let both the state and private firms compete for these vouchers by providing schools.

Schools can select by ability if they wish.

Let’s add a further feature to this system - the value of the voucher is not fixed, but is dependent on the socio-economic intake of the school. The more middle class and well-off the parents are, on average, the less the voucher is worth. The more impoverished they are, the more [it's] worth.

Why the variable-value voucher?

This last feature deals with the effect of people moving to the vicinity of highly middle class schools to get their kids in. That school would now receive less funding than the school with working class kids down the road. Take your voucher to that other school, and it’s worth more. And so are the vouchers of the other kids at that school.

The precise difference in voucher value can be fine-tuned over time, to cancel out the effect of the middle-classes gaining an advantage by moving nearer to middle-class dominated schools. (In fact, by increasing the difference, we could ensure that they actually tend to flee from them.)

Incentive to run a good school? Private companies will extract their profit from the vouchers, competing with each other by two means - providing better schools so as to attract more pupils (so they grow) and by efficiency - the more efficient they are at providing quality education, the more of the voucher they can take in profit. But take too much in profit and standards will drop and parents will chose to send their kids elsewhere.

I’m trying to think this through. You’d obviously need a strong regulatory body to ensure private companies weren’t being too ‘efficient’, and there’d still be the usual problems with how to judge school standards. But these issues are hardly unique.

I’m sure there’ll be some comments about parents’ ‘rights’ to pay for their children’s education. But children aren’t property, and should get an equal opportunity regardless of where and to whom they happen to be born. But then I’m a lefty and would think that.

The only real problem I can think of is that wealthy parents might simply pay for private tutors, which would break the system if it happened in high enough numbers. Not sure what you do about that. Would it be practically possible to regulate private tuition, and bring it into the voucher scheme? Hmmm.

Selecting on ability is gnawing at me a little. Wouldn’t the best teachers still head for the schools with the most intelligent children? But then I suppose that’s the point: it’s far fairer for educational standards to be weighted towards intelligence than wealth. And it’s possible separation by intelligence within an individual school, by sets etc., is the only way to ensure everybody reaches their potential (in theory, anyway), so what’s the difference? I don’t like that less-able kids would probably get a lower standard of teacher, but at least it would be as a result of something inherent to the child, rather than his/her parents.

I don’t know whether it’s practical, but it’s an interesting idea and I’m sure Prof. Law’s comment box will soon be overflowing.

His posts all have the same title and it’ll be confusing once they drop off the front page. The Private Education label is currently showing them all.

he assumes an average distribution of talent and native intelligence across the social classes [↩]

-----

10 Responses to “Ban private schools?”

1 Nods Jun 12th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

The gist of this seems to be that success shouldn’t breed success. Society already rewards success in numerous ways, and I often agree (otherwise why bother right?), but applying this to schools is interesting - personally I don’t believe that private schooling is necessary. It draws good teachers away from the public schools, and rewards only the most affluent or back breakingly stupid.

I would question the relevance of Mr Law’s reasoning in today’s society: “the current system is inherently unfair, and reasons as follows: there is a clear bias towards the privately educated in high-status jobs.”

From Mr Law’s post:

70% of barristers in top chambers were privately educated (only 5% went to state comprehensives). More than three quarters of judges were privately educated.
More than half the UK’s leading journalists were privately educated, a percentage that has risen over the last two decades. Only 10% went to state comprehensives (the rest went to grammar schools).
A third of MPs were privately educated.
A third of the leaders of the top 100 FTSE companies were privately educated.

These high-status careers tend to require large amounts of time to be invested. So might this have been a problem which is no longer prevalent in today’s society?

Is this a bias in the education system, or just biased statistics? For example attendees of private schools would socialise in the same circles and gain important connections - negating any element of the actual schooling - leaving just social circles. Forcing people to mix in different schools would certainly allow the average Joe to ‘know someone of wealth’, whether that would help him to get ahead in the world of business is questionable. Perhaps it might re popularize members only social clubs as an alternative to the bonds forged in private schools?

Public schools can vary throughout the country - to get into the better ones, parents often end up buying or renting homes the more expensive areas in the country - therefore giving advantage based on economic wealth. However the education may be dazzling, but that doesn’t mean student grades are also - determination to succeed counts for 110% - at least - I’m a big believer that kids given the opportunity will fight hard to succeed, and that wealth doesn’t need to play a part in that, but in some cases it inevitably will - and if forcibly not within the education system, then outside. Perhaps time should be spent giving all kids advantages rather than removing advantages of wealth?

I’d appreciate your thoughts Andrew
2 Andrew Jun 12th, 2007 at 10:03 pm

I don’t think that success shouldn’t breed success, but paying for an advantageous education is like bribing the referee - the child hasn’t deserved it, and no matter how well meaning and understandable the sentiment (I’d bloody well want my kid to have the best possible education too), it’s detrimental to society as a whole. I’m with you that private education shouldn’t be necessary.

Yep, I think the possibility of it being a social thing was addressed in the post: whether it’s a matter of a superior education or just socialising with the right people, the end result is still the same: an unfair bias towards the privately educated. There’s certainly the possibility (probability, even) that parents would find other ways to give their children advantages, but fit window locks and burglars will look at the doors - every little helps.

I think your point is the same as Prof. Law’s - native intelligence and desire to succeed is evenly distributed and independent of wealth. But it’s not inevitable that it will, and this is an idea designed to prevent this happening (as it’s clearly a major problem, given that stats on high-status jobs). The point is exactly to ensure that every child does have advantages, by according them on the basis of intelligence (and hard work) rather than wealth.
3 Ed Jun 12th, 2007 at 10:11 pm

“70% of barristers in top chambers were privately educated (only 5% went to state comprehensives). More than three quarters of judges were privately educated.”
Remember that it takes a lot of risk to become a barrister. Primarily that it’s difficult to actually get started and the salary isn’t very consistent initially so anyone starting this profession is having to take a significant risk/exposure. (if we assume money => private) there’s more of a cushion if you have more money or safety zone, and so you’re more likely to make it.

Just a few other thoughts:

- Private schools take people out of the state system so reduce the load (smaller classes).

- People move to go to better state schools: so the housing market reflects this and prices increase. (Link to better education from money)

- Would you say that we went to state school? Do you believe that we were biased against during attempting to get high status jobs? I don’t.

- Networking probably does help in the real world.

- Does everyone want to have a high status job? Is a nurse less or more important?

- There has to be some link between a parent’s work ethic (parents encouraging studying as opposed to football stardom say) and their careful monitoring of the education of their child. I’d suggest that there has to be some ve correlation between less educated ( I don’t like to use intelligent, because that’s different) and less well payed. Hence I’d suggest that richer people would invest money into their child’s education provided that they could afford it (and assuming that the state school does not compete adequately) and so there would be a vicious circle which would then indicate that the high-status job system is biased when in fact it just appears that way.

Just a few random thoughts, not really representing my views but interesting points imho anyway.
4 Simon Jun 12th, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Certainly the potential implications of bias towards the privately educated is bad and should be pulled up with existing prejudice legislation, but I see no harm in the existance of private schools themselves. They serve the purpose of educating children. It is right to prevent a parent from negatively impacting their childs wellbeing but I can not bring myself to say that a parent cannot positively impact the childs well being. If you got rid of the private schools that would just mean less money in the (combined) educational pot. Unless you were to massively ramp up tax for the rich to supply high standards to not only their kids but all the others as well. Finally, how much impact does the first 5 years of a childs life have on their education? How do you plan on bringing the advantages of a wealthy home life to the rest of the children? It is the trade off between practicality and ideology and basically means whichever way you slice it somebody will get screwed. If I have worked hard and earned a wedge of cash I am going to damn well use it to make sure that me and mine are not the ones at the bottom of the pile. For most of the world, money is the reward for effort and this seems to be the most practical way of inspiring others and driving forward. Any other method seems to always fail in this regard: if no matter how hard you try everyone always ends up equally well off, why would any bother? People don’t play to win when they know that the only possible result is a draw.
5 Andrew Jun 13th, 2007 at 12:31 am

It’s not an argument against capitalism. There’s no need to ‘play’ with education - there’s no reason anybody should have to lose out in the first place. It doesn’t have to be the case that ’somebody will screwed’. That’s what this is trying to resolve. The idea is to make it fair for all, and while the home life would undoubtedly have an impact, there’s no reason to think a revamped education system couldn’t make a huge difference overall. That there is less money in the pot is secondary to the fairness of the system. A parent positively impacting his/her child’s well-being at the expense of others (unintentional as it may be) is something it’s reasonable to legislate against - nobody’s telling them how best to raise the child, just saying that they don’t get to buy their way to success.
6 Andrew Jun 13th, 2007 at 12:44 am

Ed - that’s possible, but aren’t the education and subsequent opportunities overall likely to have a greater impact than a financial safety net?

- All-state/all-private wouldn’t have any impact on class sizes, would it? There’d still be the same number of schools for the same number of children.

- they do, but the variable voucher scheme would provide an incentive for an even distribution of children (lower socio-economic status of area = higher standard of education, or at least more money going into it). Not sure that allowing selection doesn’t screw this up a bit, mind.

- we were lucky enough to go to a bloody good state school, and most aren’t like that. The evidence seems to show that private education is advantageous in this respect

- yep, but as I said to Nod, the mechanism of private school advantages are irrelevant - it’s the final result that’s important

- of course not, but those who do are discriminated against on the basis of their parents’ wealth - something that’s nothing to do with them. Is that fair?

- there probably is a correlation between less well educated and less well paid, and that’s what should be addressed - if anything, there should be a pay/intelligence link. With an average distribution of innate intelligence and work ethic amongst children, why should some be privileged because of their parents’ wealth?

I’m not necessarily agreeing with all of Prof. Law’s argument, just playing with the consequences.
7 Nods Jun 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Simon and Ed made some points which I was dwelling on when I wrote my comment. If success isn’t rewarded then that’ll result in failure - if you can’t invest money in your child’s education - you should be investing more of your time - which should lead to the same result. Except of course those who can’t afford to invest money in their child’s education might be unable to invest more of their time due to the number of working hours.

Personally I think this should be where efforts need to be focussed - enabling and educating parents to assist in a child’s education. If they themselves weren’t given certain opportunities, would they know where to find them for their child? By educating a parent - both in how to help their kids with their school work, how to involve their kids in opportunities for advancement, and encouraging extra curricular activities which assist in advancement - rather than banning private schools which brings other issues with it we enable parents to find other ways of giving their kids legs up. Isn’t this partly what the D of E awards e.t.c. are for?

( Andrew - “All-state/all-private wouldn’t have any impact on class sizes, would it? There’d still be the same number of schools for the same number of children.” - You assume the private schools could afford to stay open, that the teachers would want/be able to continue to teach on a lower wage… )
8 Andrew Jun 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Success has nothing to do with it, really - we’re not talking about taking away all the benefits of being successful, just that you can’t cheat in educating your child.

I’m not sure investing time at home is equivalent to investing money in a school. This seems to assume that if state-school pupils were given as much time at home, they’d be just as successful, which I don’t think is really supported by evidence. Even if you educate parents into helping with their kids’ education, is this really going to help with the current, unfair, imbalance? When it seems like private schools are such a massive factor in later success? Why not educate parents, but make sure the system filters by intelligence, not wealth?

(yep, but I don’t think there’s any reason private schools couldn’t afford to stay open. Only 7% of children are privately educated, so even if teachers’ wages went down (which wouldn’t necessarily be the case) it’s not going to be by a huge amount)
9 Nods Jun 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Cheat? This life-is-a-game metaphor continues I don’t see the additional money going into education to bolster the state system is a bad thing. The only aspect wrong with the private schools is (a) when they’re considered better than public schools, and (b) when you find out statistics such as we’re discussing.

It may only be 7% of children are educated privately but if the education authorities were only given a 7% budget increase would private schools be able to continue to function on that same percentage?! I doubt it. I prefer the all schools become privatised model over the banning of private schools - although as mentioned previously, fail to see the need for any existing private school.

I’m not just talking about parents just helping kids with their homework, I’m talking about the same work that private kids parents do outside of school to enable the kids to get ahead. We agree - don’t we? - that the kids from state schools can do as well as private schools but simply not get the same high-status jobs due to other connections?

Certainly Ed there’s nothing wrong with lower-status jobs - indeed I’m wondering whether any of us and our friends are currently in, or on the path to these same high-status jobs? I’m doubting it, even if it’s only by chance. I’m happy, my kids will be happy and well educated by the state, and I wouldn’t want them to go to private schools as seen at the moment, even if it means they were primarily excluded from having the connections to get these jobs. If it’s all about who you know not who you are and what you do, then where’s the honour and trust? This is the same struggle that confronts politics.
10 Andrew Jun 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

“We agree - don’t we? - that the kids from state schools can do as well as private schools but simply not get the same high-status jobs due to other connections?” - I don’t think we know. While no individual state school need be better or worse than a private school, it’s entirely possible that on average the higher-paying private schools can attract a higher standard of teacher, so the education could be superior on average. I’m sure there are other elements, but whether they’re as important isn’t known. Whatever, though - it’s still unfair for the kids who don’t happen to be born into money, so why not simply.

Re: our group, I’ve found that very interesting over the past few years. Our group of friends are all bright and lucky enough to go to a good school, but nobody has gone into the classic high-status, well-paying (in the long term) jobs - doctor, lawyer etc.. Is it just that we’re all friends because of a particular shared personality trait that puts us off such jobs? Could it be indicative of a more general trend? Or just chance?

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.