![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More on the private school problem.
Oct. 27th, 2019 08:23 amI’ve been writing and thinking about this for some time; because I have children who are in the private school system.
The problem is that there is no level playing field in education and never will be. Pupils who have had better opportunities do better. Parents who opt for state schools and additional private tutoring effectively game the system of Oxbridge entries.
Speaking to one academic I mentioned that 50 years ago a slender majority of Oxbridge admissions went to Grammar School pupils and now the majority are from private education; and I got the reply that the admissions are from the same strata of society as previously, it's just the professional classes tend to opt even more for private education nowadays, not having the contextual aspects of the post-war all-in-this-together solidarity of five decades ago. How true this is I don't know, but I suspect the whole question is vastly more complicated than any single simple Oxbridge admissions policy systemic update could manage.
It is not a surprise that pupils, having gone through an education system that puts them on average 12 months ahead in learning by the age of 11 in the the private system, should, by age 18, dominate and monopolise places at the most academically demanding and prestigious universities in the country. But you can't fix this by rationing the education of the wealthy or those who are so extremely clever that they achieve scholarships.
Another thing about private education is that a number of non-wealthy folk care enough about their kids' education that they make extreme sacrifices to enable their kids to attend such places. As a society we do not prioritise everything in the same way as we do as individuals or families when we have budgets. For folk paying their taxes and school fees on top they are contributing without taking.
(Doesn't stop the little blighters getting sacked from school though, which renders the investment somewhat bizarre - excepting the answer to that question being: "And which school would you like little Johnny to be expelled from?")
A private education is no guarantee of academic success despite the selective nature of the schools involved. At Winchester and Westminster they have 120 pupils a year each who are academically able enough to pass the entrance requirements - yet approximately half of their respective intakes fail to go on to Oxbridge. And Winchester and Westminster (along with St Paul’s) are about the most academically inclined boys schools in the country and are to some extent educational sausage factories attempting to get their pupils into Oxbridge. So even the best schools in the country fail half of their pupils in one sense. Good enough to get into the best selective academic schools with centuries of scholarship... and yet... that didn't develop into a natural progression to the best universities - this is a question which even the best schools can't answer because it is down to the individual pupil, but the environment certainly helps.
Education is trying to get knowledge and understanding into youngsters who would often rather be doing something else. Almost any success is a triumph.
(And some kids have other talents; e-gamers make a living in a way unimaginable to my father.)
Of course I'm rather of the opinion that all of our education systems fail our children, some just fail a lot worse. Thus far the private school system fails less badly than the other options. If anyone can come up with a better idea that doesn’t actually gamble with the kids education for ideological reasons, I’m up for examining it. But social experiments and dumbing down or saving tax dollars appear to be all that matters.
I suppose it’s only when folk like me actually start becoming inflexible extremists that others will even move halfway to even looking at our concerns. So, in the spirit of satire, I’m going start advocating the doubling of our taxes and compulsory education until 30. In my new system no-one will be allowed to marry or procreate without first having earned a PhD, the voting age to be raised and people’s social privileges dependent upon qualification, with tax-breaks for additional qualifications. I will turn us into an educational Gilead, because, obviously, that’s the sort of educational empire the knuckle-draggers really fear.
I can just imagine the Anglo-Saxon nations taking that manifesto to their hearts, but only when using vast amounts of hallucinogenics.
Alternatively we could fund our state education system properly, and not overwork our teachers. And maybe employ more of them too. Orwell said about Eton: “It also has one great virtue and that is a tolerant and civilized atmosphere which gives each boy a fair chance of developing his own individuality. The reason is perhaps that, being a very rich school, it can afford a large staff, which means that the masters are not overworked.”
The problem is that there is no level playing field in education and never will be. Pupils who have had better opportunities do better. Parents who opt for state schools and additional private tutoring effectively game the system of Oxbridge entries.
Speaking to one academic I mentioned that 50 years ago a slender majority of Oxbridge admissions went to Grammar School pupils and now the majority are from private education; and I got the reply that the admissions are from the same strata of society as previously, it's just the professional classes tend to opt even more for private education nowadays, not having the contextual aspects of the post-war all-in-this-together solidarity of five decades ago. How true this is I don't know, but I suspect the whole question is vastly more complicated than any single simple Oxbridge admissions policy systemic update could manage.
It is not a surprise that pupils, having gone through an education system that puts them on average 12 months ahead in learning by the age of 11 in the the private system, should, by age 18, dominate and monopolise places at the most academically demanding and prestigious universities in the country. But you can't fix this by rationing the education of the wealthy or those who are so extremely clever that they achieve scholarships.
Another thing about private education is that a number of non-wealthy folk care enough about their kids' education that they make extreme sacrifices to enable their kids to attend such places. As a society we do not prioritise everything in the same way as we do as individuals or families when we have budgets. For folk paying their taxes and school fees on top they are contributing without taking.
(Doesn't stop the little blighters getting sacked from school though, which renders the investment somewhat bizarre - excepting the answer to that question being: "And which school would you like little Johnny to be expelled from?")
A private education is no guarantee of academic success despite the selective nature of the schools involved. At Winchester and Westminster they have 120 pupils a year each who are academically able enough to pass the entrance requirements - yet approximately half of their respective intakes fail to go on to Oxbridge. And Winchester and Westminster (along with St Paul’s) are about the most academically inclined boys schools in the country and are to some extent educational sausage factories attempting to get their pupils into Oxbridge. So even the best schools in the country fail half of their pupils in one sense. Good enough to get into the best selective academic schools with centuries of scholarship... and yet... that didn't develop into a natural progression to the best universities - this is a question which even the best schools can't answer because it is down to the individual pupil, but the environment certainly helps.
Education is trying to get knowledge and understanding into youngsters who would often rather be doing something else. Almost any success is a triumph.
(And some kids have other talents; e-gamers make a living in a way unimaginable to my father.)
Of course I'm rather of the opinion that all of our education systems fail our children, some just fail a lot worse. Thus far the private school system fails less badly than the other options. If anyone can come up with a better idea that doesn’t actually gamble with the kids education for ideological reasons, I’m up for examining it. But social experiments and dumbing down or saving tax dollars appear to be all that matters.
I suppose it’s only when folk like me actually start becoming inflexible extremists that others will even move halfway to even looking at our concerns. So, in the spirit of satire, I’m going start advocating the doubling of our taxes and compulsory education until 30. In my new system no-one will be allowed to marry or procreate without first having earned a PhD, the voting age to be raised and people’s social privileges dependent upon qualification, with tax-breaks for additional qualifications. I will turn us into an educational Gilead, because, obviously, that’s the sort of educational empire the knuckle-draggers really fear.
I can just imagine the Anglo-Saxon nations taking that manifesto to their hearts, but only when using vast amounts of hallucinogenics.
Alternatively we could fund our state education system properly, and not overwork our teachers. And maybe employ more of them too. Orwell said about Eton: “It also has one great virtue and that is a tolerant and civilized atmosphere which gives each boy a fair chance of developing his own individuality. The reason is perhaps that, being a very rich school, it can afford a large staff, which means that the masters are not overworked.”
