a response to Janet Murray's article,
the latest in the seemingly never-ending stream of upper middle class angst
over sending their children to private school.
There'll be hand-wringing throughout London's sleekly gentrified districts, with all the familiar arguments concerning private education being once again trotted out. Never mind the fact that fees, ranging from £3,000 to £10,000 a term, are well beyond the means of the majority of families, again, a story about one family's difficult slide into hypocrisy, has been deemed newsworthy.
Smaller classes, 'child-centred learning', better resources, and a fast-pass to a Russell Group university all flash through the troubled parents' minds, long gone their desire to improve education provisions more generally. They are buying into a dream, but the reality of private education is somewhat different. Intense pressure from a young age, teaching to the test, all a result of schools desperate to build or maintain their reputations, either for 11+ leavers or sixth form leavers heading off to the 'top universities'.
Wealthy parents wrestle with this decision, a choice denied to the vast majority, unaware that as, generally, well-educated and eloquent people they have the ability and political clout to campaign for better local schools. Instead, they pump private educational institutions full of cash, leaving few voices to defend the comprehensive system. If £30,000 a year seems a bit too much, our angst-ridden parent can always consider moving into the catchment area of the local school with the 'best reputation', or even faking religion to secure a place. The desperation of their scramble for school places knows no bounds; even rising to faking addresses.
That this, the zenith of middle class angst, is even being discussed is insulting. When studies have shown that parental income dictates educational attainment, and that brighter poor kids are being overtaken by richer less clever ones within a few months at primary school, how dare the chattering class sigh and deliberate over a decision available to a mere 7% of children. When this government can strip successful programmes like Sure Start down to their bare bones, and all 'education journalist' Janet Murray has to worry about is other parents looking down on her daughter's private school uniform, how can such parents feel it is acceptable to voice these concerns. Yes, comprehensives can be far from perfect, but by avoiding them, those with the political nous and clout do nothing to help this situation.
It's also troubling that this debate is often framed in an 'honour'/'motherly duty' framework, where parents must do the best for their precious children who could never survive in a normal school. Not only is this patronising to their own children, but insulting to the teachers who work far harder than those in the cushty private sector. That parental duty is somehow protecting children from and reality, shutting them off from the majority of society and the logic that more expensive and free of poor people means better, is an incredibly twisted line of thought.
Ultimately, this debate, riddled with hypocrisy and upper middle class angst, is completely irrelevant. The vast majority will never access private education, which can cost far more than the average wage. Why newspapers still entertain this stupidity says much about the distance between the imagined world of broadsheet Sunday supplements and the realities of daily life in Cameron's Britain.
There'll be hand-wringing throughout London's sleekly gentrified districts, with all the familiar arguments concerning private education being once again trotted out. Never mind the fact that fees, ranging from £3,000 to £10,000 a term, are well beyond the means of the majority of families, again, a story about one family's difficult slide into hypocrisy, has been deemed newsworthy.
Smaller classes, 'child-centred learning', better resources, and a fast-pass to a Russell Group university all flash through the troubled parents' minds, long gone their desire to improve education provisions more generally. They are buying into a dream, but the reality of private education is somewhat different. Intense pressure from a young age, teaching to the test, all a result of schools desperate to build or maintain their reputations, either for 11+ leavers or sixth form leavers heading off to the 'top universities'.
Wealthy parents wrestle with this decision, a choice denied to the vast majority, unaware that as, generally, well-educated and eloquent people they have the ability and political clout to campaign for better local schools. Instead, they pump private educational institutions full of cash, leaving few voices to defend the comprehensive system. If £30,000 a year seems a bit too much, our angst-ridden parent can always consider moving into the catchment area of the local school with the 'best reputation', or even faking religion to secure a place. The desperation of their scramble for school places knows no bounds; even rising to faking addresses.
That this, the zenith of middle class angst, is even being discussed is insulting. When studies have shown that parental income dictates educational attainment, and that brighter poor kids are being overtaken by richer less clever ones within a few months at primary school, how dare the chattering class sigh and deliberate over a decision available to a mere 7% of children. When this government can strip successful programmes like Sure Start down to their bare bones, and all 'education journalist' Janet Murray has to worry about is other parents looking down on her daughter's private school uniform, how can such parents feel it is acceptable to voice these concerns. Yes, comprehensives can be far from perfect, but by avoiding them, those with the political nous and clout do nothing to help this situation.
It's also troubling that this debate is often framed in an 'honour'/'motherly duty' framework, where parents must do the best for their precious children who could never survive in a normal school. Not only is this patronising to their own children, but insulting to the teachers who work far harder than those in the cushty private sector. That parental duty is somehow protecting children from and reality, shutting them off from the majority of society and the logic that more expensive and free of poor people means better, is an incredibly twisted line of thought.
Ultimately, this debate, riddled with hypocrisy and upper middle class angst, is completely irrelevant. The vast majority will never access private education, which can cost far more than the average wage. Why newspapers still entertain this stupidity says much about the distance between the imagined world of broadsheet Sunday supplements and the realities of daily life in Cameron's Britain.
No comments:
Post a Comment