If you can't beat 'em...

What do the Mayor of London and the prospective Prime Minister have in common? 10 points for identifying them as being Conservative in their politics, the jackpot for those who point out that they’re Etonians.

Those on the left of British politics have traditionally highlighted such examples as constituting evidence for the existence of entrenched and self-perpetuating cycles of privilege within British society. They point to schools such as Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Westminster as representing a gross barrier to an egalitarian society and a fair start for all, and are dismayed by the concentration of privilege, facilities and high-class teaching behind their exclusionary walls. Don’t get me wrong, it’s clearly absurd that a school such as Eton, one that educates boys until the age of 18, should have a library of national significance and 2 museums. However, the real challenge for those on the left of British politics and those who take an active interest in secondary education is to overcome all ideological outrage and be constructive about the issue.

Private education works. League tables and statistics don’t lie. Private schools consistently outperform their state counterparts in all areas, from A-level and GCSE results to class sizes and net spend on facilities. Private schools are proven to benefit from their semi-autonomous status and freedom to create a positive learning ethos within a secure and supportive environment. Heads are allowed to appoint who they like as opposed to searching the job pool for those who have chosen to become career teachers, ticking the appropriate boxes with regards to qualifications. State schools, conversely, have traditionally struggled with their LEA budgets handed down from above, with class sizes, unmotivated staff and students, and, quite frankly, poor teachers who’ve become difficult to get rid of.

Tony Blair famously stated that his three priorities for government were ‘education, education, education’. These were true Labour values aimed at overcoming economic inequality that some are born into and to set Britain up as a true meritocracy for those who want to pursue their goals; a contrast to previous governments who were unconcerned that the poor could sink into a cycle of underachievement. Schools were supposed to become and are supposed to be beacons of hope within the local community, especially core Labour communities, and if a child's parents had not been to university and understood little about its importance then their teachers could convey that to students, effectively on the parents behalf. If the socialist response is only to swipe jealously at schools that have done well for themselves (even state schools that went grant maintained under the Tories) then what should the true New Labour response be?

If the private system works better than the state system, why not copy it? Imagine for a moment that every school in the United Kingdom had become private, that is free from the purse strings and control of the local LEA. School heads are allowed to appoint top young graduates rather than career teachers, and to dismiss weaker staff because they are effectively employed upon shorter, performance related contracts. Schools are now able to specialize in whatever they chose to, based upon parental and pupil demands in the area, and ‘catchment areas’ had disappeared, broadly speaking, allowing children and parents to apply for the school in their city or region which they thought would suit their aspirations and educational needs best. Schools would still be subject to state inspections and would still be required to follow a national curriculum, but otherwise they were responsible only to parents, pupils and he governing body. Now here’s the tricky part. If all these schools are private, how are they to be funded?

In general, UK citizens all seem to agree that certain institutions exist to serve and further the common good and are subsequently worth paying for. The NHS is the obvious example, but so too is a national police force and army. However, whilst we would all agree, I think, that a universal education is essential to our young there is less agreement on how this should be done. This obviously entails a debate about the curriculum and theories of education, but also the framework, both institutional and financial, in which schools should exist. It is quite clear that in this respect there is little consensus. For example, why is it that those who have earned enough to educate their children privately have to also subsidise the education of the less well off through taxes? Perhaps worse, why is it that a parent from a poorer economic background has to pay taxes towards a bad education for their children in a local, underachieving school? The two-tier system has been in place as long as universal education has been accepted as a desirable, but that doesn’t justify it by any means.

Imagine again that all secondary schools are private schools. Imagine too that tax for educational causes, a large percentage of government expenditure, has been dropped. Instead all parents have to contribute to school fees on a vigorous means tested basis, the richest paying full fees (that are capped nationwide), the least well off paying something or even nothing – the government subsidizing their place in effect. Imagine too that freed from their respective LEA’s, all schools were now able to seek additional funding from the local community, and by that I mean business, charitable organizations and individual donations. Surely such a situation would generate more revenue for schools, leading to better facilities and so on. The principle of universal education has not been abandoned, the Labour ideal of fairness, equality and ‘same starts’ is preserved and all pupils would seem to have a better foundation and ethos instilled into them to make the best of themselves.

Of course, this is only one suggestion among many in the jungle that is educational reform. The underlying point, however, is that the left, rather than begrudging the success of private educational institutions, should instead learn from them and bring their successful ideas and principles to the public sector to truly ‘create for each of us the means to realize our true potential’. Universal education as a core ideology is still a relatively young one, and one can’t help but feel that it’s time for the next stage of its evolution.

This article has been amended since original publication.