Education, Education, Education

I've been going through some of my draft posts and rediscovered this:
I wrote an essay about education in twentieth century Britain a while ago, got quite angry and ending up writing some more things.This deals with a topic that is far more serious than the majority of my other posts, and doesn't even mention rowing or food.

The following is based on a couple of assumptions:

• The quality of education offered at a private school is generally of a higher standard than that of a state school.
• The better education a child receives, the more likely they are to progress in the career of their choice.
• Education is a right, not a commodity.
• Minimalisation of class based inequality of opportunity is a desirable goal for any developed society.

The premise is simple:

In a society striving for national equality of opportunity, private education is indefensible. 

Say to yourself, All parents have the right to choose how their children are educated. There's nothing wrong with that. It seems like a good argument.

Now try saying, Every child has the right to equal educational opportunities, unless their parents are rich, and see how that makes you feel.

Alternatively, I understand that private education is not financially feasible for the majority of parents in the UK, therefore when I emphasise parental choice, what I really mean is that wealthy parents should be able to choose to have their children educated separately from the majority of children in Britain. 

That's kind of restrictive to social mobility, isn't it?

Wait a moment though, Intelligent children from poor backgrounds can apply for scholarships. That makes everything seem a bit better.

Okay. Next one. The highest quality of education for children should only be available to a small minority already demonstrating high aptitude for academic study or the wealthy. All of a sudden those scholarships aren't really doing a great deal for society. Grammar schools have been shown to exacerbate social inequality, since segregating children by their performance in dubious examinations (such as the eleven-plus) benefits a minority to the disadvantage of the vast majority.

Yes, but let's be realistic here, There would be inequality even without private education because of housing prices, familial advantages, private tuition... private schools merely add to the problem.

Imagine you go into hospital after a skiing accident, and the doctor says, You've got a broken leg, two broken arms, mild concussion and a pole impaled into your foot. We've run out of plaster to reset your broken limbs, so we might as well not bother about treating anything else. (let's ignore how far fetched this analogy is for a moment....)

Or, to be less vague, Rich people are going to have an advantage when it comes to their child's education anyway. Let's segregate them and give them an even bigger advantage! Somehow, I don't feel that this is morally defensible standpoint.  

I'm afraid that I can't really provide a workable solution to national educational inequality. However, I can point out that private education is morally indefensible when examining it in the context of equality of opportunity. This isn't to say that you shouldn't send your children to private school if you really want to. From an individualistic perspective, it's becomes a lot easier to justify, especially if you think that there's 'no such thing as society'.

However, I'd personally suggest that there is such a thing as society, and what with me being young and idealistic, private schools are unjustifiable in such a context.

PS I really really don't want to hear any heart rendering 'my parents worked their arses off to get me to my private school so actually it's fair/ I managed to get a bursary, why can't the other hundred thousand kids my age' kind of story because these are exceptions, not rules. Exceptions highlight the norm, and the norm is that most people do not have the chance to attend private schools, so argument from singular personal experience just won't cut it. Also why do we expect exceptional behaviour from the socially disadvantaged? 

PPS I'm coming to the realisation that Oxbridge an extension of the same problem, having a crisis of social conscience and might quit uni to join the revolution. I need to think about it a bit more. 

Dear Freshers

Before I get started, I'm not trying to say that everyone should be a rower. Many people won't want to, some people can't, and others should probably cox instead.  I'm not trying to convince the unwilling that they ought to regularly wake before sunrise to blister their hands and weary their legs. I just want to suggest, in a reasonably polite manner, that those who can should try it once.

Non-rowers and some ex-rowers will eagerly divulge horror stories of waking up at 6am, never having time for studying, becoming a social recluse who can only communicate in boatie chat, and enforced wearing of stash.Admittedly, there's always the odd person who seems to live up to the stereotype, but that's not what you're signing up for when you write your crsID on the novice mailing list at your college fresher's fair. 

Rowing once is not going to be a painful experience. You won't have to wake up in the dark or wear outlandishly coloured lycra. You'll probably sit in a boat and move a big stick through the water a little bit. I can almost guarantee that you won't capsize. You'll learn that rowing boats have seats on wheels (this completely blew my mind as a fresher) and that a rowing stroke is made up of a sequence of 'legs, backs, arms, arms, backs, legs' rather than just tugging your arms back and forth. The part where the oar goes in the water is called the 'catch' and where it comes out the water is called the 'finish'. If you didn't know this before, then your one trip to the boathouse will have been an educational experience. You came to Cambridge to learn, right?

You'll probably see a group of older rowers and realise that this isn't just a sport for the tall, athletic and muscular, although these qualities might help should you wish to pursue rowing to a higher level. Instead, college rowers come in all shapes, sizes and personalities. If you speak to some of these people, you could learn that many were never the 'sporty' type at school. They used to dread PE lessons, yet, as young adults, willingly turn up to training every single day for a sport they only took up for the promise of a free T-shirt.

After all this, you might understand that what you have seen on one day barely scrapes the surface of what rowing at Cambridge can really be. You might go back again, and again. You could work harder than you've ever worked before, and laugh harder too. You'd understand what it means to truly push yourself, to be part of a team, and to know the thrill of rowing in a boat that is more than the sum of its parts. Or you might decide that it's not worth it, ignore the emails, never again return to the river, and have a pleasant, blister free university experience. It's your choice.

But if you go once, at least you'll get a free barbecue out of it.