Stephen Law

Tony Blair claimed to want to create a genuinely meritocratic society in which those who rise to the top do so because of talent and ability rather than a privileged background. As Blair put it, “New Labour’s big idea is the development of human potential, the belief that there is talent and ability and caring in each individual that often lies unnurtured or discouraged.” Blair desires a “just and fair society where life’s chances are given to all”. There’s no doubt in my mind that Blair is right about that untapped potential. I used to be a postman, working on the sorting office floor for four years. Then my life chances changed and I ended up an academic teaching and researching at a number of Oxford colleges. I have taught philosophy to Etonians and foreign royals. I’ve run admissions interviews there too, so I know how the system works. I believe the children of the upper middle classes have no more native wit and intelligence than the rest. Most of us left-leaning middle-class peo...

I will pick out just one thing from your comments on my last post suggesting we ban private schools. Here's a point from John (endorsed by potentilla): "I still haven't seen the evidence that private schooling does prevent those who do not attend it from achieving their best - the over representation of privately schooled individuals in positions of power may well reflect parental values and ethos as much as opportunity - analogously, the largest 'contributor of offspring' to the Armed Forces are parents who themselves served in the Armed Forces; are we to believe that they are given an unfair advantage during recruitment and selection due to the background of their parents? Rather I would suggest the overwhelming reason that many serve is to continue the lifestyle to which they are accustomed, because they have been brought up to value the Armed Forces and they consider it a respectable career option. No doubt the values they have inderited from their parents do ...

It's been suggested that I have problem with these two cases: 1. Rich kids get big Xmas presents poor kids won't get. So, by my own reasoning, we must take the rich kids presents away to make things "fair". But that's ridiculous. 2. Some kids are taught to read etc. by their parents. Other parents are unwilling or unable. Therefore, we must prevent parents teaching their kids to read etc. to make things "fair". Actually, I am not committed to doing either of these two things. First, my concern is with what will impact on the opportunities of children to develop their native talents and abilities. Extra toys won't much. So I won't be taking the toys away. Second, I agree that, where there's an unfairness (sufficient to warrant action to remedy it) between what x receives and what y receives, if we can realistically remove the unfairness by bringing whoever has less up to the level of whoever has more, then we should do that, rather than taking...

In response to my suggestion that we ban private schools, Joe said: " the problem I have here with all this discussion is that there seems to be an assumption that it is a reasonable response to unfairness to tell people that they are not allowed to provide something for their own children, if not everybody else can also provide it. " This is, of course, an important point. The freedom to help your children as best you can is important, and not to be trodden on lightly. I am not suggesting that whenever a freedom produces any unfairness or inequality, we should take that freedom away. For example, I am not here arguing that people should not be free to, e.g. teach their own kids to read, on the grounds that this causes an unfairness and inequality - i.e. because other parents are unwilling or unable. But "freedom" doesn't trump all other principles on every occasion. Surely, where there is a very great unfairness caused, and indeed, serious harm being done, by ...

Earlier, I made a case for banning private schools (see "ban private schools" link to the left), and also responded to various objections that you raised. My case for banning was really on two fronts: A practical case - we're wasting enormous amounts of native talent - and perhaps even missing out on that cure for cancer - because second-raters are, in effect, being bought a place at the front of the high-status jobs queue. A moral case - it is unjust that the children of a small minority should so dramatically dominate the high status professions because their parents bought them a "superior" private education. For by buying their own children a leg up in this way, they dramatically restrict the life chances and opportunities available to other, innately more gifted and talented individuals. However, my objection did, in both cases, rest on an assumption - that the children of those 7 percent who dominate the high status professions do not, in fact, have gr...

Perhaps its time to revisit the debate on banning private schools . To get things started, here' s an article by Will Hutton in yesterdays Observer. Hutton cites new research by the Sutton Trust revealing a third of all admission to Oxbridge came from 100 schools, all but two of which are private. In particular, the top private schools did massively better than their exam results should predict. This social stratification is now hardening. Of course, Hutton is not recommending banning private schools. But I am... if you want to know why scroll down banning private schools .

It’s probably worth recapping and summarizing some of my points: I am exploring the suggestion that we ban private schools. You have come up with a great many objections, including these seven: 1. The state cannot deliver quality education. My response. Then let’s have a voucher system in which the state and private schools compete for children. But with NO TOP UPS. And no alternative. This allows private provision and healthy competition. But all schools remain funded by general taxation. And the rich cannot buy their children a better education by "topping up" the voucher's value. 2. The middle classes will still have an unfair advantage by being able to move close to the best schools. My response. We can deal with this by making the value of the voucher dependent on the socio-economic intake of the school. The more wealthy all the parents sending kids to a school are, on average, the less any voucher spent at that school is worth. Adjust the voucher values accordingly...

Here are my responses to some of Georges comments: First Georges says: One argument of yours which I find especially silly is that people who've been educated in private school are in some Masonic conspiracy to see that state schools are as crap as possible. Well, that’s not what I said. You are committing the straw man fallacy , I think, Georges. What I said is that those who are privately educated have a vested interest in state schools being, not as “crap as possible”, but no better than they need to be to get the pleb jobs done. I also said that if the top 7%, who have very considerable – indeed highly disproportionate – influence in government, media, etc. are forced to send their kids to the same schools as the rest of us, then I think we’ll see them battling very hard to see standards raised . I don’t think there’s a secret conspiracy. But I do think that the top, disproportionately powerful and influential, 7% are currently likely to be apathetic about improving state educ...

Two things. First, I said I would give some reasons why we might expect some general improvement in education in non-private schools if we ban private schools. Here are a few: (i) Ideally, I would tax the top 7% more – the equivalent, over their lifetime, of what they would spend on privately educating their kids. And I would spend it on schools. Now I believe state school kids get about £5k per head. Private school fees average £8k I think. So there would be some additional money. However, it would be spread very thinly. So not a major increase in funding for state schools. (ii) However, several of you have said that funding is not the issue. It’s other things, like peer group, etc. that matter. In the system I suggested, there would be much greater mixing of social classes in schools. True, 7% of kids will now lose out on the concentrated peer-effect of private schools, but then the increased social mixing might well benefit other kids, for there will no longer be any entirel...

I'll be turning to the question of why we should expect an improvement in education on the system I suggest in a separate blog. Here I just want to respond to a couple of points made by Jonathan. Here's the first: The per-capita funding to the state comprehensive attended by a good friend of mine was four times that of the state comprehensive school I attended. The schools were of a similar size, though mine was in a (relatively) affluent area, hers next to a sink estate. Guess which one provided the best exam results. Clearly funding is not the key issue. This is anecdotal evidence, somewhat like arguing: my granny smoked forty a day for forty years, and she never got lung cancer, but Auntie Betty, who never smoked, did, so when it comes to lung cancer, smoking "is not the key issue". Funding may not be the only issue, of course, when it comes to education. But then when did I say it was? I am quite sure that peer group, home background etc. all play a very signifi...

Here's a suggestion. Let's a have a voucher system with no top ups . A voucher is the only way you can purchase your child an education. Let both the state and private firms compete for these vouchers by providing schools. Schools can select by ability if they wish. Let's add a further feature to this system - the value of the voucher is not fixed, but is dependent on the socio-economic intake of the school. The more middle class and well-off the parents are, on average, the less the voucher is worth. The more impoverished they are, the more its worth. This last feature deals with the effect of people moving to the vicinity of highly middle class schools to get their kids in. That school would now receive less funding than the school with working class kids down the road. Take your voucher to that other school, and it's worth more. And so are the vouchers of the other kids at that school. The precise difference in voucher value can be fine-tuned over time, to cancel out...

Georges spotted the same Guardian article as I did here . It reports findings that by the age of three, children from poorer homes are already significantly behind in terms of development. This is not directly relevant to the debate we are having here, though it does raise many related questions. In particular, notice that nowhere is it even suggested that the difference in development across social class between children at the age of three might be partly genetic/innate. The assumption made by the paper, and apparently by the researchers, is that native wit and talent is distributed fairly evenly across the social classes. The fact that such differences in development might be even partly down to genetic differences is, for many, simply unthinkable. Certainly unsayable . (personally, I don't think they are genetic, despite Potentilla's earlier comment. but find it interesting the way this possibility is simply airbrushed out of the picture in The Guardian ). Georges, just ...

Thanks for all the comments. Yes, Potentilla and Barefoot Bum, the "taboo" objection I had in mind is that, as a matter of fact, the lower classes are genetically dimmer, less well-motivated, etc. That's the explanation for why the upper middle classes tend to dominate the high-status, high-earning professions. This is a juicy topic I shall return to later. In the meantime let me respond to a few of your other comments. Jeremy - I am talking about native, i.e. innate , wit, intelligence and drive. On the (possibly false) assumption that this is distributed fairly evenly across social classes, then we clearly don't have anything approaching a meritocracy (given "merit" is based on the abilities etc. that the education process starts with, rather than finishes with). This is one of the ambiguities of talk of a "meritocracy". Seems to me it would be odd to describe as a "meritocracy" a system in which native talent etc. is distributed fair...

Some of you think my concern is with elites. It's assumed I am anti-elite. Actually, I'm not. Some of you think I want to ensure no one is educated above a certain threshold. Not so. It is the kind of elite we have that concerns me at the moment. Many today (e.g. Tony Blair) believe we should have a "meritocracy", with those who are most talented, work hardest, etc. rising to the top, rather than, say, those born into the aristocracy, or those who can buy the most influence. A meritocracy involves an elite too, of course. Notice I'm not objecting to a meritocracy . The problem is, private schools are one of the key mechanisms by which a small minority - the upper middle class - are able to pass wealth, power and privilege down from one generation to the next, forcing more able and talented children into more menial work while their own dear little second-raters get to cash-in. While private schools continue so dramatically to distort the way native wit and talent...

Let's get started on examining the case for banning private schools. I was guilty of a little hyperbole, perhaps, when I set the question up. Let's look at some figures. The percentage of children that are privately educated in the U.K. is just 7%. Yet this small minority dominate, or have a strong grip on, many of the traditionally high-status professions. Some examples: 70% of barristers in top chambers were privately educated (only 5% went to state comprehensives). More than three quarters of judges were privately educated. More than half the UK's leading journalists were privately educated, a percentage that has risen over the last two decades. Only 10% went to state comprehensives (the rest went to grammar schools). A third of MPs were privately educated. A third of the leaders of the top 100 FTSE companies were privately educated. These figures are from the Sutton Trust . Other resources here . My guess is that you would find a similar situation in medicine, etc. I...

I want to raise a question that many will consider just silly. Ought we to ban private school education? A while ago, Labour party policy wonks used to talk about "blue-sky" thinking. "Let's be prepared" they said. "to think the unthinkable. Let's put away our political dogmas and ideologies and consider what actually is going to deliver the best and fairest deal for everyone." [Incidentally, "blue-sky thinking" always turned out to involve privatization - of the postal service, of transport, of social services, of health, etc. etc.] Well, I want to try a bit of "blue sky thinking" here. True, the suggestion that private schools should be banned - that all children resident in the UK should have no option but to attend state-funded schools - will strike many as ridiculous. Many will say banning private schools is impossible. There are legal obstacles (such as European human rights legislation), as well as social and political o...