We’ve got problems with our privates

On Monday 11th November, the Daily Telegraph released an edited transcript of ex-Tory PM John Major’s speech delivered to South Norfolk Conservative Association the Friday before.  In this speech, Major points out the problems with our current education system. He highlights how “In every single sphere of British influence, the upper echelons of power in 2013 are held overwhelmingly by the privately educated or the affluent middle class”. This is progress; recognition is the first step towards change and there’s sure as hell a lot that needs changing.

BBC News reported in their coverage of the speech that “more than half the current cabinet were educated at private schools.” With around just 7% of students from the UK being privately educated, this is hardly a fair representation of our educational and cultural make up as a nation.

To set out my position on this debate from the start: yes, I do recognise that there are a lot of state educated members in parliament; yes, I did attend a state school, and no, I am not trying to demonize those who do attend private schools. This being said, I cannot help but feel that once certain types of pupils have been educated, graduated from Oxbridge and jumped through various other ‘hoops’ – including smashing up restaurants in the name of a glorified ‘club’ – they feel they have the right to claim a top job in the ‘upper echelons of power’.

Some people might be as quick to point out that it is actually us, the public, who vote in the Eton educated, Oxbridge types and if we want something to change, then we should start voting in other people. My point is exactly this; the pool of politicians to choose from in the first place is remarkably homogeneous, and it is homogeneous for a reason. Private schools undoubtedly equip their students in a certain way as to produce the very person that John Major is talking about.

I’m all in favour of people attending the ‘best’ educational institutes that they can. However what, in this context, qualifies as ‘best’? I would argue that going to a state school where there was a range of wealth, ability and social standings equipped me far better for life than any private school ever could. I left my secondary education with relatively good grades and, as a result, was able to get into my choice university; however, I’m very aware that many young people do not have this opportunity. Many of my peers and friends got lost in the state education system and never made it out again, so in this sense schools funded by the government are also failing society.

As Russell Brand said, a certain type of person will walk into the House of Commons feeling very much at ease with the décor, the company and the social basis on which the Commons operates. In the same vein, another type of person will walk into the same room and feel exactly the opposite, and this is not the way it should be. People should never feel to be embarrassed about where they come from. We need parliamentarians from a cross section of different backgrounds in order to create a good social balance, especially in politics. Politicians who are claiming to represent the interests and the people of a country must share at least a little bit of life experience with those people.

Surely, as a consequence, in these elitist schools there should be more of an emphasis on life education, rather than a coaching session for how to gain entry to the
coveted Oxbridge. I think what this indicates is that there is not so much a problem with the existence of private schools as such, but rather it’s the culture of contemporary politics which is the real problem and that needs to change for the good of us all.