Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Private schools
Section F. Culture, education and sport
Private schools are those that receive no funding from the state and are instead usually financed through parental fees. They are sometimes called ’independent schools’ and, confusingly, in the UK they are often referred to as ’public schools’, whereas most of the world would use that term to describe state schools. Opponents of private schools usually point to the inequality that they believe the schools perpetuate in society, whereas supporters argue that parents should be able to spend their money how they wish.
Pros
[1] Freedom of choice is a fundamental principle of our democratic, capitalist society. If parents can afford to send their child to a private school, and wish to do so, why should any restrictions be put on that choice? We are, after all, allowed to buy the best car or the best stereo equipment if we have the money.
[2] A good education costs money. It is the government’s responsibility to provide proper funding for state sector schools, but there is no doubt that private schools, with better funding raised from tuition fees, consistently achieve better academic results for their pupils — far better than any school could do if private schools were abolished. At present, parents who opt for private education pay twice — once through their taxes and once through their fees. If you abolished private schools, you would flood the state system with extra pupils without giving it any extra money, so the standards would fall.
[3] Many private schools offer facilities that are considered extremely worthwhile and are not found in most state schools. Many are still predominantly boarding schools, providing a secure community feeling which builds confidence in their students. Extra-curricular activities are strongly encouraged to complete a well-rounded and enjoyable education, instructing pupils in many skills useful for adult life. Some private schools exist in old manor houses in the countryside, where pupils have wider opportunities for sports. A large proportion of the schools are single-sex with all of the benefits that such a system brings.
[4] Following a national or a local school board curriculum results in two damaging side-effects for the student. First, teachers become enslaved to the curriculum and lose their freedom for imaginative, unorthodox teaching techniques suited to their particular pupils. Second, the standards required to pass public examinations continue to fall and become meaningless for the most academic students. Teachers at private schools have far more leeway in how and what to teach. For example, they can choose to offer the International Baccalaureate instead of the A-level if they believe it would challenge their brightest students more effectively.
[5] Private schools have more freedom to specialise within an open market. The government may only be obsessed with inspecting state schools on their academic performance, but parents may choose to support a private school because of its strong artistic tradition, its child-led pastoral approach, its language of instruction or its extra support for children with dyslexia.
Cons
[1] In a moral society, freedom of choice is right because it is available to everyone. If a choice is available only to the few who can afford it, then it upholds the class- ridden, elitist society we are struggling to overthrow. Education is necessary for everyone and should be freely available — it is far more important than a car or a stereo and any comparison between them is fatuous.
[2] The wealth of private schools, no matter how good an education they provide, causes more problems than it solves. As long as these institutions exist, they will attract the best teachers, eager for high salaries, and the best resources. This means that schools in the state sector, which cater to the vast majority of students, receive disproportionately poor resources. Only when private schools are abolished will it be possible for staff and facilities to be distributed equitably. Standards will not fall because if the children of the elite are in these schools, then those parents will demand the highest standards.
[3] Most of these facilities are not as welcome in a modern world. Boarding schools offer sheltered existences where outdated traditions and prejudice flourish, leaving their alumni entirely inadequately prepared for adulthood. Coeducational schools provide a better education for all sorts of reasons. Extra-curricular activities should be encouraged in the state sector; where they do not exist, it is through lack of resources which are taken by the private schools.
[4] The whole point of standardised public examinations is that we can ensure that all students are given equal opportunity of education; private schools opting out of this simply worsens the ’old school network’ of academic elitism that already exists. Pupils should be judged by how successfully they passed the exams, not by which exams they were privileged to take. In terms of curriculum, movements within the state sector such as charter schools in the USA or free schools in the UK have given individual schools more freedom to set their own curriculum, and there is no reason why this should not be more widespread within the state sector.
[5] If children have special needs or special talents, then the state sector can accommodate these either in programmes within mainstream schools or in special schools. In general, however, the principle of choice is dangerous within the education market as the more privileged will always find a way to play the system to choose the ’best’ schools for their offspring. Allocation by the state of all children to a local school, preferably through a lottery, is the only way to address inequality in education.
Possible motions
This House would pay for its education.
This House believes that private schools are not in the public interest.
Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
Marxism
Privatisation
Welfare state