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.