Private education is the very antithesis of the moral arguments that can be traced back through time. The US Declaration of Independence, based largely on the writings of John Locke, states that we may treat basic moral and political equality as a fundamental moral truth that is self-evident. Kant argues that it is the human being’s rational nature unconditionally that leads to his famous dictum that human beings, all human beings, are ends in themselves.
Let’s see how these high ideals of human intent square with UK society today. Consider the cost of private education. The average cost per child is now £6,944 a term for day pupils, and £12,344 a term for boarders. This is far more than expenditure per pupil in public education. Remember also that those who send their children to private education are making a statement, a statement that requires funding. Fees are rising at an average of 4% to 7%, and there’s the appearance that one wants to portray in a materialistic maelstrom that is private education. Everything from top of the range computing equipment to running shoes, the whole paraphernalia of privilege, will be desired by both pupils and parents to advertise conspicuous consumption. Of course all this ostentatious display is completely against the dictum of Kant ( and the dictum of reasonableness )that all human beings are ends in themselves. This ostentation becomes deeply embedded in those practising it. It is reflected in houses, cars etc, all the things that defines the materialistic way of life. And of course all of this embeds this materialism as the holy grail, and links ‘success’ with ‘hard work’. A recent report (Unequal Britain:Attitudes to inequalities after Covid-19) says “general belief among the British public that our own efforts are key to getting ahead in life”, with 76% viewing hard work as essential or very important in determining success. Even more striking, the public were more likely to say those that have lost their job during the pandemic were not unlucky. They deserved it. These attitudes reflect the deluge from the popular media that insists that ‘hard work’ and ‘long hours’ are the way to riches. Of course such sentiments come with the corollary that those not so successful are in some way lacking and warrant a less ‘deserving’ lifestyle through their own short comings.
The private sector accounts for approximately 5% of the school population in the UK. The Farquharson, McNally and Tahir 2022 Report featured in the IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities shows that one of the key components of inequality in the UK is educational achievement. The socio-economic status of school pupils is a key driver in their educational achievement. The school system itself reflects and enhances these inequalities. The small size of the private system has already been alluded to, yet they account for 15% of resources devoted to schools. Some 18% of England’s sixth formers are in private education, and they occupy a disproportionate presence at key universities.
All this is magnified by the way that key sectors of society pander to these institutions. 65% of Sunak’s top Ministers were privately educated, with Sunak himself a product of the £45,936-a-year Winchester College. To their credit only one Labour Cabinet member was educated outside the state sector for 11 to 16 education. Now one would think that the vast majority would be up in arms at the Tory discrepancy in educational opportunities. Some are, but the vast majority accept the status quo.
Sentiments that centre on ‘hard work’ etc as the driving force of meritocrats are legion, they trot off the tongue as if they are immutable, they go largely unchallenged. Any challenge is seen as envy, a sort of nihilism which has nothing to say except rejection of all worthwhile activity. It is reminiscent of the way that critics of the UK monarchy were treated many years ago. The system proclaimed that it was perfect, and if a system is perfect then anybody who disagrees with perfection must be crackers. The right wing press had a field day. Willie Hamilton, one of the few to raise objections to the Monarchy, was ridiculed by the system as a lunatic consumed with jealousy. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Then of course there is the trite assumption that it is well off parents, and they alone, that were responsible for their riches. Not true, many people contributed to good fortune. Some parents receive a good education, were sustained by an NHS who’s values they sometimes do not share, and by a social security system and welfare state that served them in many ways, Society as a whole, with its built in assumptions regarding materialism also plays its part in the rise of the so called meritocracy. But the vast majority of people, even though they don’t benefit directly from such a system, support it to the hilt.
There’s a name for this, status quo bias. Many tend to shy away from changing established patterns, these decisions could go wrong. The status quo is safe. Also many feel affection for paternalistic institutions, the status quo becomes deified. But, for opportunities for all, change we must. LibDems ought to be actively seeking an integration position. This should be thoughtful and take account of those who passionately believe in choice, but nevertheless progressives must surely acknowledge that both the statistical evidence and the moral case for change cannot be ignored.
* Leslie Jones is a retired educational professional having been Head of Department and Senior Examiner for GCSE and A level. He has been a Liberal Democrat for many years and been Parliamentary Candidate on a number of occasions.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
34 Comments
A good education ,a job you are happy with, money to make you comfortable in retirement are what people need. To be happy in life. To push yourself because that is what you think ‘society’ wants from you can lead to breakdown. Continuous push for riches can lead to unhappiness, stress ,a constant striving to succeed ,a shorter life.
Lots of issues mixed up in this article but I agree that private education has too much influence on our society and brings together materialism and meritocracy in a rather illiberal way. Private education is largely about the connections to those of wealth, power and influence, though admissions selection based on testing brings (in an unfair way) an element of academic merit and hard work. It is also about exclusiveness, where parents don’t want their children mixing with those from ‘lesser’ home backgrounds. There are a few who get financial help to a private school because they have particular needs that the local comprehensive would not provide, but that is sometimes based on perception rather than fact though it can of course show the inadequacies of the local community school that needs correcting.
Having had grandchildren in both educational sectors and been brought up myself through the State system the main difference I see, other than the obvious exam results, is not opulence or ostentatiousness, but the self confidence that average privately educated children have other their state brethren, in particular when speaking and conversing with adults, thereby gaining a distinct advantage for the respective futures.
Thank you for a most relevant article!
Although somewhat old, might the attached article have some value as well as possible interest?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/25/britains-top-jobs-still-in-hands-of-private-school-elite-study-finds#:
Might the L.D. party inform and campaign for a required connection between the prices of private school education and the funding of state education?
what a very odd article. i wonder if the author has even actually met any parents who send their children to indepenent schools.
What on earth does this mean : “Remember also that those who send their children to private education are making a statement, a statement that requires funding. ”
What statemenet , apart from wanting the best for their children ?
or this : “there’s the appearance that one wants to portray in a materialistic maelstrom that is private education. Everything from top of the range computing equipment to running shoes, the whole paraphernalia of privilege, will be desired by both pupils and parents to advertise conspicuous consumption” again what does it mean ?
or this : “Some parents receive a good education, were sustained by an NHS who’s values they sometimes do not share” what has that to do with independent education ?
There’s a regional and geographical dimension to all this, too. 45% of children in Richmond are estimated to be in private education; 25% in Wandsworth and several other London boroughs. In the North of England the percentage is 2-3% – and the costs for those who pay are lower. Levelling up means investing more in public education outside the south-east!
The logical extension of this argument is let the state control everything. What’s the difference someone choosing between paying for education and paying for higher quality and more expensive food for their children.
Meanwhile, and rightly in my view, Lib Dem MPs vote against Labour’s proposed imposition of VAT on private school fees: https://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2024/10/lib-dem-mps-voted-against-labours-plan.html
While JS Mill accepted government should pay for education, he resisted the idea of government providing (dictating) it. I agree. Perhaps we should revive the idea of government handing out the money to parents to spend on education as they choose (from 1990s/2000s if I recall correctly. And adding 1p on income tax as well…..
@tristan ward – “ Perhaps we should revive the idea of government handing out the money to parents to spend on education as they choose”
I suspect the idea actually originates from “Deschooling Society” by Ivan Illich (1971).
It is an interesting idea, however, we do need to remember politicians do like to bring in politics and fundamentally have over many decades underfunded state education.
A rough estimate would be the state system should be able to provide an equivalent service to the private sector at circa 70% of the cost. Hence that indicates we really need to increase funding from £7460 Pa per pupil to circa £14,000 ….
“Meanwhile, …, Lib Dem MPs vote against Labour’s proposed imposition of VAT on private school fees”
On another thread I have praised the performance of our MPs. But I am disappointed by this decision unless (and apparently that was not their reason) it was because they had worked out that, counter-intuitively, the proposal would actually deliver a windfall to some independent schools.
It’s not ‘running shoes’ or ‘conspicuous consumption’ that’s the difference between private/state education. You don’t need top-of-the-range equipment to do well in English, or maths, or many other subjects.
It’s the motivation of the children to learn.
It’s the difference between children who will never be encouraged at home to learn or do well at school. And those whose parents value education and encourage them.
Although going to school hungry and homelessness are, terribly, other factors in these times.
A quick check of local state comprehensives finds at best: ‘Attitudes to learning: Adequate and needs improvement’.
The local independent school: ‘Attitudes to learning: Excellent.’ (From which follows: ‘outstanding outcomes in public examinations’).
How you tackle that, I don’t know. But if loving parents choose to spend their money to give their children the best start in life, is that really ‘immoral’?
Politicians of all creeds should learn to consider the prospective repercussions of their policies/dogma.
Think about it. What do you think would happen if private education were squeezed out of existence?
One obvious consequence is that parents who could afford it would employ private tutors to give their off-spring a better chance. Is it being suggested that somehow this is fairer than private education? What are you going to do? Ban private tutors (who probably won’t earn enough to warrant being VAT registered!)
I found this article seriously disappointing.
In any discussion about the high level of inequality in society, many will excuse this by saying that whilst they don’t support the concept of absolute equality for all they do support the principle of equality of opportunity.
Those same people, however, will inevitably also argue in favour of maintaining the status quo with our educational system which clearly doesn’t allow for equality of opportunity.
Go figure!
@Cassie – You seem to be saying that 95% of the children in the UK go to schools where learning is not encouraged and probably come from homes where education is not valued. That is clearly wrong in most cases (obviously there are the exceptions). But it is that myth that drives some people to spend money unnecessarily on private schooling.
I am reminded of something that was said to me when I was a teenager – “If parents cared they would find the money to send their children to a private school”. At that point my parents were agonising over how they could afford to buy me new shoes to attend the local state school – my father was a clergyman. I can’t tell you how painful that comment was.
Mary, I was brought up in a very poor area of London after the war. Life was hard but my parents and others from my class struggled to finance us through Grammar School, the odd School trips etc. It was the same principle that propels parents to sacrifice expenditure to enable their children to attend private school, where whatever anyone may say or wish the standard of education, sport academic and personal achievement is higher.
That is life, there should be no envy, instead the State sector should invest by paying Private Schools to accept their pupils and the extra services that are available, thereby relieving them of some of the strains they currently carry.
@ Roland
““Meanwhile, …, Lib Dem MPs vote against Labour’s proposed imposition of VAT on private school fees”
On another thread I have praised the performance of our MPs. But I am disappointed by this decision”
The MPs were honouring the Party’s manifesto commitment.
@ Tristan Ward I believe you owe Roland an apology.
I was not aware that it was a manifesto commitment (in common with most of the electorate, I did not see a copy thereof) and I am disappointed to learn that it was. It was certainly not mentioned in any of the literature which I read or delivered.
@ Tristan Ward. In the fifth chapter of “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill set out his thoughts on how education should be provided. He forsaw near universal private education, with State Aid for the fees restricted to those unable to bear the expense. Responsibility would rest with the parents with the children subject to state examinations (JS Mill backed SATS !?). The kicker was that if the children did not make satisfactory progress then the parents were to be fined and the state would then take over responsibility for their education. I think the prospect of any UK party adopting this policy is slight although with Kemi you never know.
My daughter and son in law cannot afford the impact of VAT on Private Schools,
There are no suitable state sector vacancies so at the present time she will be out of school after Xmas, the consequence of a stupid policy which because of the need to locate the at 45,000 kids coming to the State sector
Is going to cost the Government a lot of money, extra classes, teachers etc.
@Nick Collins
I think you are right – I can’t see mention of opposition to the VAT rise in the manifesto, so apologies for that.
But – before the election Ed Davey clearly stated opposition to VAT on private school fees: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/05/lib-democrats-oppose-labour-private-school-vat-hike-why/
See also: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/liberal-democrats-oppose-labour-vat-plan-private-schools-dividing-line-parties-2646926?srsltid=AfmBOor8_95YvnviYlFhuIhGeEWeeeaCrYrt_jyT7krmz78GLmT8RGOd
The British schooling system is probably amongst the most complex in the world. I think it’s worth recalling two things.
Until 1973 compulsory schooling at 15. At that time roughly 60% left with no more than 3 ‘O’ Levels. It didn’t cause much comment. There were many jobs where formal education was largely irrelevant. If you were 15 in 1973 you’re 66 now. These people are still very much with us, but their schooling is almost totally unrecognisable to us today.
The current unhealthy obsession with performance and rival schools is largely a product of the 1990s introduction of league tables and OFSTED. We’ve turned education into a combination of fate and competition in a way that previous generations would be astonished by. Education is welcome but it’s not destiny. We’ve freighted it with too much significance, stressing children, teachers and parents out. The worst of is that education, understood as a series of exam results leading to a more privileged life, is largely positional. For you to ‘win’ someone else has to ‘lose’.
@Mary. Where did you get ‘95% of children’ from? Not me.
I’m talking about areas like here, the South Wales Valleys, where the state schools typically record: ‘Around 45% of pupils live in the 20% most deprived areas in Wales.’
Those kids will be given the same chance at school as children from ‘better’ parts of the catchment area. But in my experience, and from other people I know who work in the sector, few will take it. And some will disrupt lessons and make it hard for other children to learn.
Recent stats for GCSEs*: across Wales (including ‘good’ state schools in ‘leafier’ areas):
19.2% of pupils received A* or A grades
62.2% got A* to C.
So more than a third got below C.
For one, non-selective independent school:
52% A* – A
92% A*-C
That’s why parents who can do so opt for private education.
*It’s still A-G here.
From age 8 I attended a public school. My state primary school first class had 45 pupils in it and subsequent classes were at least 30+. At the public school classes were 20 or less. My father paid fees for 3 years (around £100 per year) but in 1961 I was awarded a state scholarship for my entire secondary education. This is no longer an option because direct funding of pupils in non-state schools has been scrapped. My old school, coeducational now for 30 years, has a bursary scheme for pupils who pass the entrance exam but can’t afford some or all of the fees.
I have taught in both primary and secondary state schools and in one private school in some of the most underprivileged areas in Yorkshire and Lancashire and wild horses would not have persuaded me too go back to a similar state school with their many problems. The private school was a haven of well behaved pupils and motivated teachers and I was sorry that my year on supply could not be converted into more permanent job.
We will see if the imposition of VAT stops lots of parents sending their children into private education, but frankly, I doubt it.
As a party we must recognise that many schools in the state sector are in need of serious attention in order to give their pupils the start they need in life and that’s not a job for the hopeless OFSTED system, which I have experienced first hand and I can tell you it’s not fit for purpose.
@ Tristam Ward
Thank you for that. But when I suggested that you owed Roland an apology, I meant for attributing my comment to him. I’m sorry I did not make that clear.
Sorry: Tristan
@Cassie – 95% of children attend state schools.
Clearly serious work needs to be done to improve the schools you refer to. And it’s not impossible. 30 years ago London has similar issues especially in inner city boroughs like Tower Hamlets – some of the worst schools in the UK were to be found in the capital. The London Challenge was launched in 2002.
“A report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2014 concluded that during the period of the London Challenge, secondary school performance in London saw a dramatic improvement, and local authorities in inner London went from the worst performing to the best performing nationally.”
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Challenge
So something can be done to offer high quality education to children in deprived areas.
@Mary. Yes, 95% attend state schools. But you thought I was saying ‘that 95% of the children in the UK go to schools where learning is not encouraged’. Ie that ALL state schools discourage learning.
Which I was most certainly not.
And to be clear: ‘attitudes to learning’ from the Estyn reports refers to the pupils’ attitudes. Not the schools’.
It would be fantastic if serious work did turn things around here. But until such time as it happens, motivated parents will continue to pay school fees; or, where good state schools do exist, move home to be within their catchment area.
@theakes – “My daughter and son in law cannot afford the impact of VAT on Private Schools”
and ?
Ie. is there any specific reason why they need private education for their child/children.
Is there any specific reason why private school fees, rather than any other service that we pay for, should be exempt from VAT?
@Nick – It is a good point, in light of the clarifications HMRC issued earlier in the year to charities.
Basically, if a funder is expecting the charity to deliver specified services and or deliverables eg. Provision of n hours of tuition per week, then it’s a service contract and thus liable for VAT.
Hence the better founders (Local authorities and health trusts) are adding VAT and issuing contracts rather than straight grants. Likewise the charity, can on these contracts recover VAT paid out on their delivery. HMRC have sweetened it slightly by recognising some of the grey as charities also deliver non-VAT services and so permit them to recover some VAT incurred on these projects, althoug once your VAT reclaim exceeds £7500 Pa, things get complex…
Thank you for that elucidation, Roland. I’ve never understood why private schools were regarded as charities; can you explain that? And is there a difference between making them liable for VAT and removing their charitable status?
@Nick Not all private schools are charities. It is possible to run one as a business and distribute profits to shareholders. Many of the older institutions were set up to broaden access to education at a time before the state provided universal education. At the time, that was certainly a charitable endeavour.
VAT is a different matter entirely. It is Education as an activity that is exempt so schools can (and do) register for VAT if they make other non-educational supplies.
@Theakes. If your daughter and son-in-law can’t afford the increased cost of VAT on school fees then they could – though I’m not saying they should – have cheaper holidays, get an evening job in hospitality, give up their car, move to a cheaper house etc just like many other parents who have sent their children to private schools.
If those parents who do send their children to private schools instead put pressure on state schools, local government and government to improve, then maybe there would be no need for private schools. Both my children and all my grandchildren attended or are attending state schools or colleges and I kept a close eye on their education and intervened when I thought things were going wrong.
My experience in secondary education as a teacher was that many parents took their children’s side regardless in any disagreement even when it was blindingly obvious that the child not the teacher was at fault. (I was threatened at least once by an angry parent because I had dared to rebuke her child). Failure to recognise the very real problems, in particularly secondary school classrooms, prevents some children benefitting from education due to both anti education culture, especially amongst boys, and disruptive behaviour that isn’t tackled. And please don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about because I put up with it for some 16 years before leaving and pursuing if not more worthwhile jobs, certainly less stressful ones.
@ Mick,
I’m sure you do know what you are talking about if you’ve taught for 16 years but I don’t see what this has to do with the question of VAT on private school fees.
Are children in the private sector better behaved because their parents are paying fees or because their teachers have fewer children in their classes? This will mean they are less stressed, and teacher turnover will be lower. The children will feel less alienated if they can get more help when the need it.
As a Liberal you’ll probably feel that parental rights trumps the desirability to have at least an equality of opportunity in society; but, as a socialist I don’t 🙂