This House believes that people should have a right to private education

People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz).

There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011)

The state already does restrict our spending by criminalizing the purchase of certain goods. For example we cannot choose to spend our money buying slaves even if we desire to. Just as we shouldn’t be able to buy another human life, we also should not be able to buy an advantage in life. It seems clear throughout this debate that private education does give an advantage over state schools in many areas. This argument of an unfair advantage has also been identified by Ontario’s (Canada) Provincial Ministry of Education where they are going to identify where a credit was earned if outside the student’s high school (Tamsyn 2010). It further seems unfair to say that people should have a right to choose private education, while this choice is not available to everyone. Those who cannot afford the huge expense of private education are often not choosing to put their children into state schools, they just have no other options. The average annual cost of sending a child to private school in the UK is £9,627, which works out at 36% of the average earning; In the USA the cost of a year’s secondary education is $10,549, out of reach of most families. (The Guardian, 2007; capenet.org). Therefore in defending the freedom to choose to send a child to private school, we are merely defending the right of the wealthy to have this choice and restricting the choice of everyone else.

The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, these taxes are spent on a smaller number of schools and there is more money per child in the state sector than there would be if we banned private education. In 2008 there were 569,080 students in independent schools in England,(BBC 2009)  - this would be a very large extra burden for state schools to bear. These students’ parents are therefore not only paying for their own children but also for students to study at state schools as well.

While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways.
 

In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory and learning by rote (time.com). These types of critical skills mean that students from private schools have a better start at university education as they are more used to what will be required of them. Furthermore, students from private schools are more likely to get into a university in the first place (Time, 2007/ BBC, 2010). In the US students are twice as likely to get the grades allowing them to go to university if they have had a private education, and for minority groups in America it is more than double (Capenet.org, 2001). This is likely to be replicated across the world. Private schools in Brazil also provide better education, as there is one teacher per 10 students in comparison to the 45-50 students per class in a government funded school. (Cabra; and Throssell 2010). Therefore by denying private education the effect may be disastrous for these minority groups.

The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com).

The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003). 

People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz).

There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011)

The state already does restrict our spending by criminalizing the purchase of certain goods. For example we cannot choose to spend our money buying slaves even if we desire to. Just as we shouldn’t be able to buy another human life, we also should not be able to buy an advantage in life. It seems clear throughout this debate that private education does give an advantage over state schools in many areas. This argument of an unfair advantage has also been identified by Ontario’s (Canada) Provincial Ministry of Education where they are going to identify where a credit was earned if outside the student’s high school (Tamsyn 2010). It further seems unfair to say that people should have a right to choose private education, while this choice is not available to everyone. Those who cannot afford the huge expense of private education are often not choosing to put their children into state schools, they just have no other options. The average annual cost of sending a child to private school in the UK is £9,627, which works out at 36% of the average earning; In the USA the cost of a year’s secondary education is $10,549, out of reach of most families. (The Guardian, 2007; capenet.org). Therefore in defending the freedom to choose to send a child to private school, we are merely defending the right of the wealthy to have this choice and restricting the choice of everyone else.

The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, these taxes are spent on a smaller number of schools and there is more money per child in the state sector than there would be if we banned private education. In 2008 there were 569,080 students in independent schools in England,(BBC 2009)  - this would be a very large extra burden for state schools to bear. These students’ parents are therefore not only paying for their own children but also for students to study at state schools as well.

While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways.
 

In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory and learning by rote (time.com). These types of critical skills mean that students from private schools have a better start at university education as they are more used to what will be required of them. Furthermore, students from private schools are more likely to get into a university in the first place (Time, 2007/ BBC, 2010). In the US students are twice as likely to get the grades allowing them to go to university if they have had a private education, and for minority groups in America it is more than double (Capenet.org, 2001). This is likely to be replicated across the world. Private schools in Brazil also provide better education, as there is one teacher per 10 students in comparison to the 45-50 students per class in a government funded school. (Cabra; and Throssell 2010). Therefore by denying private education the effect may be disastrous for these minority groups.

The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com).

The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003). 

Private education suggests that a higher level of schooling is a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a right. This encourages a cycle, whereby those who get a good, private education are more likely to get higher paid jobs as private education increases access to higher education (in the UK twice the percentage of students from private school went to university than those from state school), certain sectors of employment, (in the UK only 7% of students go to private schools, yet these people hold 86% top media jobs and 70% of barrister positions, 33% of MPs) (Gibson, 2006) and employer networking. Thus their children are more likely to go to private school and get a better job. This means that by allowing private education we create a society where the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor, with the gulf between the two areas ever increasing. If we were to remove private education the field would be open for people from all walks of life to achieve a range of different things.

Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003). 

Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality.

On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.

A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.

1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)

2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

Similarly the counterargument to this has two distinct principles.

1) That some state schools lack social diversity as much as private schools, particularly in small, rural areas. Therefore we cannot simply criticize private schools, and must recognise that all schools have different levels of diversity. MacKinnon recognises that segregation in the United States schooling system is often defended on the grounds that it ‘represents the community’. Yet this is only the case because housing itself is segregated (Scrapbook). Therefore if we are banning private schools on the grounds of diversity, we should enforce a policy whereby neighbourhoods are forced to be diverse in order to ensure the same thing happens in state schools.

2) That rather than shut down private schools we should encourage the creation of funded places or bursaries. This way people who can afford private school do not have their choices limited, but that there is a greater diversity as people from poorer backgrounds would still be able to attend the schools.

Private education needs funding, be it from a business, individual funders or organisations and private schools rely on this money to run. It seems unlikely then, in this context, that these funders that the school is so reliant on may have an influence (even if unintentional) on various factors of the school life such as curriculum, food or teaching style. In many countries, such as the US, the curriculum in private schools does not need to be standardised (as State education does) and therefore teachers are free to teach what they desire and this might not give an open and full account of certain topics. The bias could be political, charitable or even commercial. We could have a political group like GreenPeace wanting to run a school and heavily emphasising environmental issues, or a company like Shell emphasising our desperate need for oil. Neither of these would present a balanced education which is what our children need. An example of this is that about 50 independent Christian schools in the UK teach creationism as part of biology.(Walker, 2006) In countries such as the Netherlands, South Africa and the republic of Ireland, private schools are set up and run by religious groups, and therefore will have a degree of influence over the curriculum. Education is a powerful tool, especially to impressionable children.  And ultimately it appears that private education is at a much higher risk of being biased in its teaching than state education.

This is what is already happening. It is the government that sets a curriculum for state schools (such as in Great Britain, Singapore, Japan, China, New Zealand and France) and the government want us to vote for them. So in many ways the education system may already be indoctrinating children in state school in the way this argument fears private schools do. Yet there are also private interests in many state schools already. For example in Britain academies are partially funded privately and in return are outside of local authority control so they do not have to follow the national curriculum.(BBC News, 2010)