LNAT handbook

In this essay I will argue that private schools should be banned. The intrinsic appeal of this policy is that it achieves equality of opportunity in education at a foundational stage. Instrumentally, this policy would invoke better marks and promote a spirit of national closeness.

To define private schools: this policy is a ban on fully fee-paying secondary education; some government schools are partially fee-paying, and these would not be banned. A ban is legislation that makes it an offence to start a private school; note, homeschooling is not private education because no fee is charged.

First, 8 would achieve greater equality of opportunity. In the status quo there is a significant disparity between private and state schools. The former has a greater ability to hire top teachers—since it can attract them from other careers with a higher salary than state schools and subsidise superior classrooms. Thus, it is not an undue assumption that those who go to private schools are at an advantage in educational attainment—and this is shown in the significantly higher percentage of private school students attending top universities. Private school students have done nothing to deserve this advantage. By banning private education such a differential would be annulled because all would be in a similar classroom—and, therefore, meritocratic qualities like intelligence could dictate educational attainment. Furthermore, such a policy could be a substitute for policies like university affirmative action: by by correcting for a major inquality at a foundational stage there would be much less of a justificiation—and therefore less backlash—for potentially unfair policies later.

One may say this policy would set a dangerous precedent. There are many other beneficial things people get that they don’t deserve, e.g. a large inhertance; it would be too invasive to ban and untenable to ban all such endowments. However, secondary educational attainment is perhaps more fundamental: not only does it dictate university admissions, but plays a major role in development of children’s self-esteem and capacity to contribute to society.

Second, it is very likely marks would be improved by this policy; this point works as rebuttal to the contention that banning private schools would overwhelm educational resources, and would thus be pareto inefficient. This fails to consider that under this policy there is now much less choice for teachers—no matter their quality—about where they work. Since all state schools would pay roughly the same salary, their choice would be to work as a teacher at the going wage or not at all. This process would self-select the teachers who were truly passionate, and increase competition—since those who would have taught at private schools can’t have money as justification. Furthermore, if forced to go to government schools many wealthier parents would donate to them (because it is now in their kid’s interest). The benefit of this money is it now more difficused. Because of diminishing marginal returns it is likely that more good to the mean education level can be done via donations to a state school then can vast fees to a private one—much of which go to non-academic amenities like sports fields.

Finally, this ban would engender social closeness. Take a highly unequal country: though nominally everyone enjoys the same right to education, wealthy families can buy access to top private schools while poorer pupils are left in under-resourced state schoos. Under this policy there would be more overlaps between the wealthy and the poor; this attainment is more than rhetorically useful. More mixing of children removes stigmatisation of those who are different, and promotes cross-class conversation. It also allows potential voters to get a broader sense of those who live in their country and an early, and influencable, age—which could impart a more balanced political ideology. One may say that this is ‘forced closeness’—an unjustified, and extreme, use of state power to curtail freedom of association. First, under my policy if people were really repelled by the idea of a lack of choice while associating with others they would still be free to form a free-school themselves, or else be homeschooled. Second, the state curtails freedom frequently to achieve social cohesion like when it enforced patriotic singing in government schools—if the prior benefits I mentioned were present, less autonomy seems a fair price to pay.

Banning private schools would engender improved schooling, a closer country, and the ideal of equal opportunity. Thus, it can be justified.