For private education

The other day I was toiling away when I heard a series of loud bangs. "What idiot is setting off fireworks in the middle of the afternoon?" I wondered. I went out to find out. It was Oakham School's army cadets having shooting practice.
Which set me thinking:  isn't private schooling so good? It's education in the sense of "educere" - drawing out whatever latent talents a student has. If someone doesn't have the aptitude for academe, they are given the chance to excel at something else: the military, or music (Oakham School has a thriving music department) or sport: the school's county-standard facilities has recently helped it produce some fine cricketers.
Contrast this to the Marxian view, which regards (state?) schools as means for moulding people to meet the requirements of capitalism - a view which New Labour, which regards the state as a human resources department, seems to regard not as a criticism but as a policy ideal.
Which raises my question. Might it be that the best private education embodies the liberal-left idea of education better than do centrally-managed state schools? I mean this in three senses:
1. It's child-centred, in the sense of trying to bring out the best in the student, even if this does not lie in a narrow academic curriculum.
2. It encourages the pursuit of excellence rather than effectiveness, to use MacIntyre's distinction. Classcial music, cricket and the army are no way to make great wealth, but they are practices which encourage accomplishment as a goal in itself. By contrast, the philistinic New Labour conception of "education" as mere preparation for making a living looks no higher than money-grubbing.
3. It entrusts professionals to know best how to teach, rather than strangling them in bureaucracy .
So, shouldn't the left, when it thinks about what an ideal education system would look like, take some cues from private schooling?

Comments

[alabastercodify]

Good god - are you feeling alright?

For every sinner that repenteth...

[Jackart]

It's lovely to see you praising my Alma Mater...

And I agree, they will work damned hard to find something you're good at. That's education rather than mere Training...

[Devil's Kitchen]

Yes, Chris; this is precisely what I have always said and, indeed, I have written about precisely these aspects at length (and not in your admirably pithy style).

But I must echo the sentiments of the first commenter: are you feeling alright? Or has the move mellowed you...? ;-)

DK

[MatGB]

"shouldn't the left, when it thinks about what an ideal education system would look like, take some cues from private schooling"

Yes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7183247.stm

And yet this policy idea was criticised in far too many otherwise fairly sane circles as being 'right wing'.

[Planeshift]

Ok, so why don't state schools do the same thing?

Is it because: (1) the state strangles them with targets, bureacracy and only judges success on exam pass rates, (2) state schools lack the resources of private schools to work with each individual and create excellence,or (3) all teachers in state schools are mean and stupid.

We can do something about (1), and ignore (3) as being self evidently absurd and something only believed by Daily Mail editors. However if the reason is (2) then this implies state schools need a lot more resources, and on this blog you've previously questioned whether education spending is worthwhile.

[John Meredith]

Absolutely they should. It used to be common in leftish circles to hear someone or other denounce private schools not just in principle but as examples of educational feebleness. These people would angrily claim that the public school ideal suppressed free thinking (or why would so many public school boys be 'right wing'? Stanstareezon!)and turned out biddable, broken, sexually ambivalent establishment lackeys with no broader understanding of history, politics, culture etc. Forcing yourself to believe this went along with clinging to the idea that the comps were sending out huge numbers of comparatively brilliant and well-informed free thinkers who would intellectually steam-roller the effete, privately educated classes whenever they were allowed to meet them on equal terms. But that idea seems to have slipped away. Do they even study history in comps now, or is it considered too elitist?

So, vouchers all round?

[John Meredith]

MattGB, you missed out a fourth possible: (4) state schools don't have to compete for their intake and so lack the incentive to do the heard things (they get paid anyhow).

Of course, any state school in a 'middle class' area does effectively have to compete with the private sector, but those schools tend to do rather well.

[John Meredith]

Should be 'hard things', of course. Wish I'd been to secretarial school.

[John Meredith]

And that comment should have been directed at Planeshift. I'll get my coat.

[John Meredith]

Should be 'hard things', of course. Wish I'd been to secretarial school.

[John Meredith]

Should be 'hard things', of course. Wish I'd been to secretarial school.

[kinglear]

Bang on Chris. Nearly 50 years ago I was told by a school master at one of the great Grammars ( King Edward VI in Birmingham) that the difference between state and private schooling was that the state merely required you to GET the answer.
The private sector wanted you to understand HOW you got the answer ( and possibly several different ways of getting it too.)

[Planeshift]

"(4) state schools don't have to compete for their intake and so lack the incentive to do the heard things (they get paid anyhow)."

Actually they do, ever since the 1988 education act gave parents the right to choose schools. Thats why you'll find waiting lists for schools with good results, and surplus places in schools with bad results.

And 'memebot'...

[John Meredith]

"Actually they do, ever since the 1988 education act gave parents the right to choose schools"

But in the majority of cases, the 'choice' available to parents is bogus. Ask around a bit and you will see. The 'good' schools in good areas are dominated by those who can afford to live near them. Other parents generally have a 'choice' of two or three more or less identical schools that are mediocre or bad. Those schools need not change because they get paid whatever they do (within bounds). It is called 'producer capture' I think.

The 'memebot' thing is just silly. If you want to talk about state education policy, vouchers are going to come up. I realise why you would prefer they didn't, because you can thereby avoid constructing an argument in contra. But it might do you some good to have a go instead of simply trying to cut the discussion off with mild insults.

[Andrew]

Quasi Cursores....

[Chris Williams]

Once upon a time, I went to Eton, on a course. I was really impressed by the talents of the masters, by the level of the facilities, and by the educational philosophy of the place. On the other hand, being numerate, I was also able to notice that the teachers were getting paid exactly twice what the ones in my comp (a few of whom were in the same league) got, and the level of capitalisation was probably an order of magnitude higher. Even at the time I noted that you'd have to be an idiot to piss away an endowment like that. Of course it was better.

Oakham, with its higher budgets and capitalisation, can afford to give the kids a wide range of extra-curricular activity: that's what the parents pay for. It would be worth commenting if they weren't getting that. They're being socialised into the upper-middle class quite nicely. That's the point. It's also more fun than an exam mill. That's also the point. If you're nice but dim, you don't need the GCSEs. 'Private Means' will provide.

I imagine that many/most teachers in the state sector would rather not be running exam mills (note, for example, the attitude of the teaching unions to SATs), but that's the state for you. As you know.

I also find it interesting that several right-wing commentators on this thread are reading the post as a vindication of private education per se. Marxist analysis is obviously too appealing to resist in this case.

[dearieme]

When a chap undergoes a sudden accession of Good Sense, one wonders whether he has fallen under the influence of a Good Woman.

[John Meredith]

Should be 'hard things', of course. Wish I'd been to secretarial school.

[John Meredith]

Should be 'hard things', of course. Wish I'd been to secretarial school.

[John Meredith]

Apologies for the multiple repeat postings. I have no idea why this is happening. I'll try to stop it happening though. Talk about limited rationality.

[Shuggy]

"Bang on Chris."

Bang off Chris. Here's a couple of reasons why:

"drawing out whatever latent talents a student has."

Really? If a pupil has a talent for rapping/electric guitar/basketball/home economics/lap dancing - do you really think private schools 'nurture' these? Let's keep it real, ok? They nurture those talents that are signalers of belong to the ruling class.

Private schools narrowly prepare their students for the world of work too. It's just that the sorts of jobs they are likely to do are rather different from those who go to school in the east end of Glasgow.

[Dipper]

Yes - Bang on Chris.

In Olden times, The Public schools produced the leaders, the grammar schools produced the professional advisers, and state schools produced the infantry.

I'm reminded of this everytime I hear a New Labour minister speak. Their lack of ambition for state-school pupils for anything beyond the lower reaches of American corporations rings loud and clear.

Fortunately, a lot of state-school teachers seem to think differently.

[Tom]

Forgive me for what I bet many of you may perceive as naivity since I'm only young, but it's all fine and dandy private schools being great and those who are able to afford it taking advantage of it, but, well, what of the poor? Shouldn't we focus on improving comprehensives so everyone gets equal opportunities, or would everyone somehow be able to benefit in an entirely private funded system, not that I'm saying that's what's being proposed.

[Shuggy]

"but it's all fine and dandy private schools being great and those who are able to afford it taking advantage of it, but, well, what of the poor?"

Out of the mouths of babes. Yes, Chris - what about the poor?

[Chris Williams]

Actually, Chris D, if you'd had the bad luck to get a scholarship to Leicester Grammar School when you were a nipper, you would have quickly discovered that the private sector (especially the Thatcherite bits of it) is just as capable as the public of running a boring and monomaniac Gradgrindian exam mill.