Private Vs State schools. Should we aim for equality?
Some stream of consciousness writing on equality of education provision:
I don’t think it’s easy or at all possible to say whether inequality in whatever form is ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. As things stand, there exists a gap in the quality of services provided by state and private schools. On average, private schools allow pupils to achieve academic results far above average as well as allowing personal growth through extracurricular activities.
Why does such a gap exist? Private schools have access to better teachers (though higher salaries) and more resources in the form of technology and learning materials. Private schools have smaller class sizes and there is an inherent culture of excellence; an environment which places great emphasis on achievement. Finally, such schools have selection criteria which (arguably) filter out those likely to perform below average.
How can this quality differential be resolved?
Firstly, we could abolish private schools all together, or introduce legislation which makes their financial state untenable e.g. by preventing such institutions from claiming charity status and receiving tax breaks. Demand for these schools exists as there is a deficiency in provision elsewhere. Their abolition is a gross manipulation of the market for education and would do nothing to raise the quality of existing schools. Quality will remain low at best and the system will need to absorb a huge number of new students.
Secondly, we could bring about convergence by simply improving state schools. If there were an easy solution to the problems faced, we would have seen its implementation years ago. Despite endless initiatives and growth in funding the quality gap persists. It’s said that bad policy breeds bad policy. Perhaps state provision places limits on how good the system can be, and efforts to improve it in its current state will be wholly ineffective. I reckon it’s impossible for the state to match services provided by schools relying on academic results for survival. The state system can provide below par services with no fear of demise in funding or demand. There are no real pressures to move towards greater efficiency and quality.
Finally, we could explore alternatives to state provision of education. I’m wary of saying we should leave the whole process to market forces as education is key if there is to be any social mobility whatsoever. Education is one of those things I’d hate to see people do without. I don’t think the current quality differential is so large that those within the system will be denied opportunities available to others in the long run.
Even if it’s possible to match the private sector, given the blatant diminishing returns to capital, the process of raising funds would simply create more serious problems elsewhere. Greater funding though tax inevitably creates negative incentives at the limit, and reduces the country’s economic competitiveness. That’s without considering the non-existent political will to inflict further tax increases on the population and the numerous other institutions which face fiscal problems such as the NHS. Monetary constraints therefore prevent progress beyond a certain point.
To summarise, the possibilities available for creating ‘equality of opportunity’ are severely flawed. We must accept that inequality is here to say even if it’s not ideal. We should not consider equality as a goal to be worked towards. There is a clear trade off between equality and overall quality, market responsiveness and competitiveness. Earnest efforts to create a state system equal to that of the private sector will prove ineffective and will create problems elsewhere. I have no faith whatsoever in the government’s ability to consciously design a system which works as well as one motivated by market forces. The government should be happy with an 'adequate' system. If it wants real quality, it's going about things the wrong way.
16 Mar 2005 17:59
| 
Tags: Learning
| 
Comments (23)
| 
Report a problem
Loading…
23 comments by 1 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]Peter J Thomas
You musn't forget the existance of state grammer schools which also have competitive entrance exams and academic elitism by creaming off the most intelligent. The state system is considered let down by the over-emphasis on academic value with no equally valued attitude towards practical and technical profficiency (which is bound to be higher in the comprehensive sytem due to socio-economic factors)
It is most definately incorrect to suggest that working for a private school neccessitates receiving a higher salary.
In a free democracy you are free to rise up the social ladder if you work hard enough but if you don't you'll sink. I think the abstract ideal of 'equality' with reference to education is not applicable because you will never have equality so long as a public school system exists sepearate from the state. Period.
16 Mar 2005, 21:46
That some level of selection bias exists goes without saying. Variance in ability within selective schools is lower, and the average capability higher which improves results in and of itself as well as making the task of teaching slightly easier. Is the prevalence of schools with entrance requirements large enough to account for the huge differences in pass rates between schools though?
Wages within the private sector are generally higher than those provided by the government. Nothing odd about that.
16 Mar 2005, 22:58
Emma Woodcock
I very strongly disagree with your comment that "private schools have access to better teachers (through higher salaries)". In terms of disciplining children, I feel that the challenges that state school teachers face on a day to day basis are far more difficult than one would face as a private school teacher. Teaching is a job which demands a great deal of skill, but teachers at a state school face a greater challenge because they are required to relate to pupils from extremely diverse backgrounds and with very different academic abilities. I would argue that this requires a higher level of skill than teaching at a private school, in which every pupil is from a family who obviously values education very highly if they are willing to pay such expensive fees. No one can deny that the home environment is a central factor in academic success, and if parents have socialised their children into valuing education, this makes teaching them a lot easier. Of course I would not argue that parents of children who go to state schools value education less, but pupils from private schools are predominately from advantaged middle class backgrounds, whereas pupils at state schools are from a wide range of backgrounds -some of which value education, some do not. Perhaps some of the best state school teachers can be tempted to private schools by the higher salaries, but I think the best teachers of all are the ones who aim for equal opportunities, and work to give a better future to those children from the most disadvantages backgrounds. Such teachers cannot be found in the private sector.
09 Aug 2005, 12:42
E.W
p.s. the goal of equality in the education system is idealistic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards achieving it.
09 Aug 2005, 14:15
State School Trainee Teacher
Emma is certainly right when she says that it is certainly untrue to claim that there are better teachers in private schools. Firstly, I would dispute that most private schools have higher salaries than most state schools. But maybe I am wrong.
More importantly, no one goes into teaching because they want a high salary. They go into teaching because they get job satisfaction out of working with children and helping to maximise their potential. I think most teachers would tell you that they get higher job satisfaction in a state school, for all the reasons Emma explained.
09 Aug 2005, 16:56
Vienna Cannon
Everyone is equal. But sending Children to private schools is like the parents are saying we are better than everyone else. Bringing up a child to think like that is morally wrong , and will also confuse them when they leave education for work.
It also makes them believe that money can buy them everything in life and so on. so therefore all schools should be available to everyone.
24 Nov 2005, 11:41
Olivia
A key difference is that public schools already have a good reputation whereas state schools are constantly under strain to achieve the puboic school image. With unmotivated students, more learning difficulties and unnecessary burdens of SMART targets etc, which the public schools can avoid, the teachers are under more strain.
This strain distracts the actual aim and objective of school which is to teach. When the constant flurry of "theories of behaviour problems..ie good uniform equals good student" attacks these comprehensive students rarely are able to achieve their full potential. In my opinion I think this is a major benefactor in the modern day gap.
Equality is unlikely…the two schools are different. Yet the government needs to acknowlegde the real faults in the system, which are usually their own!
05 Jan 2006, 21:34
Simon Cleary
Private schooling is a systematic way of keeping the rich rich. Although you said that abolishing private schools would not increase the quality of state schools, and this is true, it would help in the search for equality. Students from state schools can achieve equal, if not higher, academic results than those from private schools, therefore the opportunity to succed is still there.If all students went to state schools then their results would have less to do with their parents financial situation and more to do with their own academic ability.
Which is the idea behind the examination system.
25 May 2006, 11:44
David Lowerish
Vienna Cannon simply asserts the highly debatable "Everyone is equal." slogan which is so vague as to be meaningless (but nonetheless highly emotive). Private education has not made me believe everything can be brought in life. I do not view myself as "better" than others. Though I may be better educated than many, that is the limit of it.
Striving for equality is also a dubious aim. While large inequalities coupled with deprivation causes problems, the idea that everybody deserves equal pay etc is absurd. Salaries are determined by how valuable to other people someone's work is; otherwise those people would not spend their money on that service. I have never encountered fairer way of deciding, where someone gets the value of their work as decided by the mass of ordinary people who benefit from their labour.
I would say that, in a free society, people have the right to spend their money on what they like (excluding drugs, weapons etc) – my parents decided, due to the low quality of local State schools, to send me to a private school. They are fairly rich and chose to work harder in order to to pay the fees so they are a) paying more in taxes thus helping state schools; b) taking someone out of the state system, relieving some burden from it and saving it money. So their decision has in fact benefited the state–school system and myself – who has lost out??
27 Jul 2006, 00:42
Trevor Critchley
As a teacher in the private sector, I can confirm two of the above points: one, that teachers in the private sector are not better than those in the state sector. I am under no illusions that I am a better teacher than my former colleagues in a local inner city comprehensive. Neither do I consider myself a better teacher than the teachers I had when I was at school, despite the government’s repeated claim that teaching standards have been constantly improving over the years.
Secondly, I am not paid more than my colleagues in the state sector. My salary was matched, not increased when I made the move. And the move I made was for job satisfaction reasons. One of the replies mentions that there is a great deal of job satisfaction to be gained in a state school. Whilst I would not disagree with this statement, I would assert that there is a great deal of job satisfaction in my present position. As a scientist, I find the ability to get on and teach my subject to an attentive audience, who allow me to explore new ideas in teaching and learning methodology very exciting. I was unable to do this in my former position, because every day was a battle. My job satisfaction comes as a result of being able to teach my subject well. It was, for me, very unrewarding to have to put the majority of my energies into classroom management. If being a social worker is your thing, then an inner city comprehensive is bound to be a stimulating place to work. But it is not for everyone. I was definitely not lured into the private sector by the offer of more money, but rather was persuaded not to leave teaching altogether by the opening that presented itself.
I should just add that despite selection being in place, I do not see a classroom full of exceptionally gifted students in front of me each lesson. They are comparable in innate ability to those I used to teach. The major difference is in their aspirations and the culture of high achievement that is present in the school. If only this atmosphere could be cultivated in all state schools. Sadly, there has been too much tinkering over the years (bad policy following bad policy) and the state education sector is now in a very bad way.
07 Dec 2006, 13:24
june parkinson
trevor critchley, i’d like you to contact me, will comment if you do
04 Jan 2007, 20:14
Frankie
Being a private school student i find some of the things that have been said slightly offensive, not being a particually smart student i find that the encouragement i get from my teachers effective which in turn makes me work harder and acheive better grades.
I do not think of myself to be at all better than anyone else, but think that my environment has made my life a more comfortable place to be. Despite this i find it highly exciting to try new things that will make me appricate my life further, and to make me go out into the world with only my education to guid me, and teach me new life skills, so i may create a better life for my children and family in the future. Although i know not everyone has this attitude i know others that do not want money to effect their lives in a big way.
Money has given me oppotunities that others may not have had and i am extreemly thankyful for that but, on a whole, i disagree with the effect it has on some people, and the way people base their lives around it. In contradtion to this, i do base my life on being sucesful, but hope that it will not be consumed with money, and i will be happy with whatever life throws at me.
15 year old student
(p.s sorry for all the spelling errors)
04 Feb 2007, 15:19
Private School Girl - 15
If your parents can afford for you to go to a private school why shouldn’t they? They want to give you the best opportunity in life don’t they?
It doesn’t make you a bad person if you go to a private school, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have more money, it is merely about the choice of the individual. The social stigma some of the privately educated students get of being renowned as “snobby” or “posh” is an unfair judgement to make. Our parents however still have to pay tax on state schools. Everyone has equal chances whether they’re in a private school or not, you can fail exams just as easily in both; if the individual applies themselves in the right way they will get the grades they deserve.
If you pay between £3,000 and £10,000 a term you should receive a better standard education then someone who is going for free. No disrespect to the parents who send their children to state schools, but private school parents have to work very hard to earn this amount.
“Private schooling is a systematic way of keeping the rich rich.” a quote from Simon Cleary. Not everyone who goes to a private school is rich. Have you ever considered that in some cases parents give up everything to send their children to a private school? Maybe they won’t get that new car or go on a family holiday.
If you abolish private schools you are taking away people’s freedom of choice.
Raising the point of ‘equality of opportunity’ EVERYONE in either state or private schools can make the best out of every opportunity given to them by listening to the teachers and working hard then they will achieve their potential or the grades that reflect the input of the individual.
I believe everyone has equality of opportunity and that this campaign is pointless, the two different types of schools have been around for centuries and the only reason that this starting to appear because on average public schools do better then state schools. State schools have more students then private schools do; therefore there would be a bigger range in potential of academic success.
Perhaps if private schools had the same amount of students as state schools do, the results from academic achievment would be the same.
25 Feb 2007, 00:03
Anomalous
As a student at a private school I find Trevor Critchley’s comments very interesting and similar to my own. It is apparent to me that most of the teachers at my school enjoy their jobs because they are teaching to classes of students who want to learn. Several teachers have stayed for many years because they find it satisfiying passing on their knowledge and seeing the progression of their students. The teachers waste less time trying to control the classes, leaving more time for the teaching. Good relationships form between the teachers and students where they work together and make learning interesting rather than a hardship for both sides. My experiences in the state sector have been the opposite
10 Mar 2007, 23:42
Anomalous
Trevor Critchley, how do you find, in general, the year 11 students at your current school compared to the state school you previously taught at?
In my experience teenagers in this year group are stereotyped as being hard to teach due to their unwillingness to stay attentive throughout lessons, lack of interest in school and lack of respect for teachers.
Do you find that this notorious year group also have ‘aspirations and the culture of high achievement’ in the private sector?
11 Mar 2007, 14:39
Anomalous
Trevor Critchley, how do you find, in general, the year 11 students at your current school compared to the state school you previously taught at?
In my experience teenagers in this year group are stereotyped as being hard to teach due to their unwillingness to stay attentive throughout lessons, lack of interest in school and lack of respect for teachers.
Do you find that this notorious year group also have ‘aspirations and the culture of high achievement’ in the private sector?
11 Mar 2007, 14:39
Timon Henze
At first, let me introduce myself. I am from germany (lower saxony) and about to write my A-level exam in English. Since education in Britain in general and especially private vs. state education is one major topic of this exam I was happy to find your discussion on this. Thus I mainly want to refer to the initial statement.
I do not agree that there is a ‘clear trade off between equality and overall quality’. In germany there exist two contradictory ideals concerning education: that of a tripartite system (which luckily is abolished in Great Britain) to provide the rewarding of merit and that of a comprehensive system to achieve equality of opportunity. In the course of the international PISA study (how do you call it in English? :)) many independent specialists doubted the efficiency of the still common tripartite system due to the bad overall performance of german pupils. In contrast to that, the compulsory education in the countries with the best performances is based on comprehensive schools. Hence the idea of equality versus overall quality is proven wrong – how else could these countries achieve both more equality and better performances?
Besides the ‘two class education’ clearly contradicts the values of a modern society. As mentioned before, private education links the chances of pupils to their social background, or rather to the financial situation of their parents. The ‘upper class education’ (namely the private schools) and therefore the higher education standards (which I take as a fact) are not available for a child with parents who cannot afford it, regardless of the child’s intelligence and ambition. (By the way, this makes my first thesis self explanatory: Refusing a child its appropriate education clearly reduces the overall quality of education!) As a result society is no longer based on the so important equality of opportunity but endorses the division into classes and the predetermination of its members.
Last but not least let me suggest a solution to the financial problem. That the raising of education quality in state schools is simply prevented by lack of money goes without saying. Provided that private schools are abolished there are – as might be expected – a large number of rich parents saving their money which they otherwise had spent for the fees at a private school. It’s obvious that this money can flow into the state education by raised taxes – whitout spoiling the other institutions of the welfare system. All in all there remain few arguments that justify private education.
26 Mar 2007, 19:35
INNOCENT NZUMI
all systemsare just the same and has some differences all on its on on my view all sectors are just as good as the other only depends on the way take and make many advantages on the respective sector
25 May 2007, 15:40
Thomas Wyatt
Sir, I strongly disagree with your statement:-
” I don’t think the current quality differential is so large that those within the system will be denied opportunities available to others in the long run. ”
One only has to observe the current composition of the Tory shadow-cabinet to realise that public schools provide a plethora of nepotististic opportunity that is riddled with cronyism. There are numerous differences between the two systems which contribute to the obvious inequality that riddles our society.
As for your statement that “We should not consider equality as a goal to be worked towards. There is a clear trade off between equality and overall quality, market responsiveness and competitiveness.” This is a frankly lazy and hopelessly Conservative view. If the government did not give the private system £100 million’s worth of tax relief, because they are ‘charities’ ( an idea which has not been updated since Medievel times), Perhaps there would be more money available for the state system!
26 May 2007, 21:53
Silurian
Thomas, you say the government gives tax-breaks of £100 million by bestowing charitable status. Since these schools with a charitable status are non-profit organisations, providing education, wha else would they be called. Also, the bursaries and scholarships they provide total some £500 million, rather more than they are spared in tax breaks. Also, as funding fro state education is raised through general taxation, by removing some children from the state system the overall burden on the state system is reduced, and so more money is available per student in the state system. you can argue many things about the status quo, but i don’t believe, because of the observations above, that you can argue private education removes financial resources from other schools
30 Jul 2007, 17:35
Michael Grasso
I attended private school in elementary school, switched to public for middle, then back to private for my first two years, followed by switching back to public for the last two years. I’ve seen the differences. I’ve heard the nasty comments that people associated with private school make about public schools. I’ve witnessed the propaganda that priv. school teachers shove down their pupils throat, telling the students the public school system is inferior. Priv. schools act like they are superior and they are.
After my experience with both systems over the past twelve years of my life, I believe private schools should be abolished.
Firstly, you must come to accept that the education at a public school just cannot match up in any way, shape, or form to a private schools. I’m sick of hearing people skirt around the issue. “Oh, it’s based on the student.” No it isn’t. It’s based on the school; after all, there is a reason people attend private school. What’s the reason? We all know it. The public schools sucks.
My argument is that the public schools suck only because the private schools are around. All the truly talented, gifted, and intelligent people go to private school, they’d laugh at the public school students. They’re inferior. Only the rejects go to public school. Well, if private school was abolished, everyone would go to public school.
This means the ever-watching, ever-worrying husband and wife that care oh-so-much about Little Johnny’s education will now be involved. With their forced involvement, the public school system will only grow. Diversity within the schools might finally actually happen. Equality at last.
Plus such a diverse school only makes for a more well-rounded person. Seriously, get with the 21st century. Score a goal for the country and abolish private school.
10 Aug 2007, 06:08
Grace Stewart
I am planning to send my son to a Private school in Sept 2008…I have read with interest all the comments posted!Despite assumptions made by others I am not rich, I don`t have rich relatives!! Why Private? Simple, until a goverment is prepared to invest the money & time it will take to allow all children the opportunity to reach their full potential then I`m not prepared to take the risk! I am a single parent of a black son and I read regularly of the expected outcomes for a child like him! How will I pay for it? Going without, living in a smaller house….whatever it takes, but it`s not illegal and ultimately it`s my choice.
14 Aug 2007, 20:55
Alexandra
Should we aim for equality? NO
Why? Because people simply have the choice.
What good is it to abolish private schools and raise the taxes, all that means is that the people that work long hard hours will just have to end up paying more in taxes and get nothing better in their childrens education.
Not worth getting up in the morning to go to work then, is it?
05 Oct 2007, 22:25
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.