Debate: Save Our Private Schools! | Intelligence Squared

I think the intelligence of our mp's shows that private education does not produce intelligent people

Video starts at 40:20

That moderator really likes the sound of his own voice. Very private school.

I spent almost 40 years as a teacher, retiring as a senior manager in a state school. I started working at a social priority school in the east end of London and in my career also worked at a top flight boarding school. The issue in the debate really is about separating those with money (7%) and those with less (93%). The two private schools I worked in were awash with money (really, they were) and all of the state schools I worked in were compromised on every level; constant lack of funding, inability to recruit, poor resources, decrepit buildings: I guess many of you know the rest. The opportunities private school children enjoyed hugely eclipsed those in the state sector. The bottom line is all about a lack of funding to the state sector, and those in government who keep it that way. Changes in VAT as this debate explores will have little impact: its about overall funding. I'll leave you with this thought: one of the private schools I worked in decorated the ceiling in a large room with one millions pounds worth of gold leaf - really!

As I understand it, Finland has little private education but their education system is regarded as world-class. In Germany the private sector is not regarded as particuarily significant.

Well said Ash

I think the education system, as a whole, needs a radical redesign. I also think that while public schools exist as an option to send posh kids to, there won't be enough pressure to improve state schools, as much as they desperately need.

The first speakers claims about collaboration between state and private sector is, in my experience, talking a load of bollocks. I’ve not seen anything in my career as a teacher of private schools collaborating with the state sector, but neither would I wish it. I wouldn’t want lessons from private school teachers on how to teach. I likely have been challenged far more by my work in the state sector and come out of that a better teacher for it. This idea that the state sector should be learning from private schools is just nonsense. They get good results because they have students coming in who come from wealthy backgrounds, have the resources to teach in very small groups and can throw good money at failing students with tuition (plus kick them out if they’re not performing well - every county seems to have the private school that accepts the academic rejects from the other ones). It’s a clear expression of money being able to buy advantages. As much as I’d like independent schools not to exist, I view it as illiberal for the government to ban them, but there is no need to treat them like a charitable organisation and subsidise their operation through not taxing them. And as to any charitable work they might take up… why should they get to decide where this subsidy money is spent? The government, the (in principle) democratic representatives of the people should decide how that money is utilised to the benefit of the people… oh that’s called taxing them appropriately and then giving the money to the state sector rather than allowing the private schools to donate 0.1% of their income, dodge tax and then feel all warm and fuzzy about how nice they’re being to the poor kids down the road.

3 impassionate speakers and a paywall to find the result. Shocking.

Ash Sarkar! Absolutely kills it. Brought tears to my eyes, I can only hope that someone in the labour leadership sees this

I love Ash Sarkar, and her comments here are compelling and inarguable, and I follow and agree with almost everything she says. But on this issue, I'm conflicted. Not on the topic of the debate - that seems trivially obvious: of course it's immoral and obscene that the wealthy should be hiding behind charity status to avoid paying taxes for the unearned and undeserved privilege they bestow on the education of their offspring. However, Ash's comments implicitly rightly spoke right past this, and more directly at what should have been the topic of debate: should private schools exist at all. As a proud child of a blacklisted trade union leader, I was intimately familiar with poverty, and only through the transformative effect of education, did I get to experience Oxbridge, as did my children after me. Not because of wealth, but because of education were my circumstances transformed. However, my children's education was different: they were able to benefit from private schools, because my education allowed me to achieve escape velocity. As both a parent, and now, through a career change into teaching in the state education system, I have seen the stark difference between private and state-funded education. The state system, thanks to years of neglect, is on its knees - something I now witness on a daily basis. I would love to agree with Ash's sentiment, that the diversity in state schools engenders resilience and more creative, broad-minded thinking, but I lament the fact that my experience tells me otherwise. The education my children received during the years they attended private education far surpassed that which they received during the years they attended state school. I would love to romanticise that socioeconomic challenge led to insights denied the students in indepedent schools, but sadly, that just isn't true. So, the question is, if that isn't available for all, should it be available for one? Here is where I then bring in my experience as state school teacher: I see the apathy of students, typically directly traceable to that of their parents. I see the wasteful disdain students have for learning, and have to wonder whether simply equating access of the whole system would lead to the equating of opportunity and engagement, and I frankly doubt it. Society is too complex for quick fixes. I think independent schools have their place, and their access should be offset to enable a much broader proportion of society to experience and benefit from this. But it also seems that we value what we pay for, and when it is free, we treat it as if it's value is the same as what we paid for it. The complacency with which education is discarded in first world countries, compared to third-world countries where the likelihood of receiving education for girls in some countries is dependent on how far they have to walk for water, is shamefully wasteful. Having worked in a grammar school, I think this offers the best middle ground: work hard to gain entry, and then value your place, that was earned based on ability, and not (at least directly) on wealth. Until education is valued by all, I can't see a way of avoiding some way of separating those who value, and those who don't value education.

Ash completely nailed it! Well said.

Fraser Nelson? Was a waitrose parsnip not available?

Where can I watch the whole debate?

So the audience was mostly privately educated or the other way around?

Having been to both private and state education I think private should be abolished it’s a privilege factory and that’s all

Charity should not be used as an excuse to give some students a better education than the majority. Charity should be used to pay for education where there is nothing available!!!

Ash was absolutely brilliant. Thank you.

The british state school system has an unhealthy obsession with discipline and standardisation. While this may work alright for some kids, it is absolutely catastrophic for others. Independent schools exist to cater to alternative needs - kids are not all stamped from the same stuff! Is it really logical to smash up the entire independent schools sector in order to score one over Eaton and a dozen other 'old boy' rich schools in a populist class war? If a policy results in no change to the attendance of Eaton but major changes in the schools scraping by as a labour of love to provide education to SEN and other children failed by the state system, then this is objectively bad policy.

Only came to listen to Ash Sarkar