The Rights And Wrongs Of Private Education

It has been an eventful summer politically, with scarcely a day going by without a new ‘constitutional crisis' or ‘unprecedented move'.

However, one issue which has bubbled along quietly but steadily in tandem with Brexit has been the rights and wrongs of private education. The appointment of Eton’s 20th Prime Minister has coincided with the emergence of a Labour Against Private Schools movement conveniently titled “Abolish Eton” (though I should point out that the person who appears to be the de facto Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, was educated at a much humbler institution).

Whilst I don’t agree with the conclusion, the movement does raise some relevant questions. Can it really be right that so many prime ministers, not to mention judges, diplomats and other holders of high office, should have been educated at such a small number of schools? The Sutton Trust, an organisation committed to increasing social mobility, is on hand to point out that 64% of Boris Johnson’s new cabinet attended an independent school; furthermore, even in relatively less “establishment” roles such as CEOs of tech startups, the numbers educated privately way exceeds the 7% national average (a figure which in itself is misleading – the proportion of youngsters who have ever been privately educated is closer to 16%).

These figures are usually presented as a damning indictment of the UK as a supposedly meritocratic society. Indeed the Sutton Trust report highlighting the issue is called Elitist Britain. However, the conclusion often drawn – that private schools are part of the problem, entrenching privilege at every turn – is wide of the mark.

The first, and most obvious, point to make is that the figures above are a reflection of society as it was in the 70s and 80s, when many of those holding cabinet positions were at school. It is hard to refute that many private schools were more socially exclusive than they are now. Attending schools such as Eton or Harrow was a first step on the career ladder which encompassed Oxbridge colleges, exclusive city firms and ultimately those senior office positions. However, independent schools have changed hugely in their makeup since Boris’s time at Eton. Many are more ethnically diverse than state school equivalents, with some schools having more than half their pupils coming from a BAME background. They are also much more socially diverse than previously; according to figures from the Independent Schools Council, one in four pupils at an independent school receive help with their fees, with more than half of those paying less than half of the fee. Bursaries and other remissions for pupils are an investment by schools of over one billion pounds. These programmes offer a life-changing opportunity for pupils from less-privileged backgrounds to access places at top universities and those careers mentioned above.

There is a more fundamental problem with the Abolish Eton campaign, though, and that is this. Schools are only a small part of the picture in a society which wants to conquer the challenge of social mobility. The Education Policy Institute recently reported that underprivileged pupils were as much as 1.5 years behind their peers when they reached their GCSE exams, and the reasons are not to do with private schools. Starting even at birth, underprivileged kids enjoy fewer of the societal benefits that more affluent children see: they have poorer health care in pregnancy and infancy, poorer housing and diet, a weaker or disrupted learning environment and, importantly, a lack of role model demonstrating the importance of a successful education. All of these factors are deeply rooted and will take years of hard work and, almost certainly, lots of money to resolve. Closing one school is unlikely to help.