A society where private schools exist is a society where inequality exists. The private school system is the epitome of societal dysfunction, someone can have a ‘head start’ in life due to their wealth, rather than their intelligence, talents and abilities. It seems cruelly unjust that one child is given a supposed better standard of education than another purely because they were born into a family that are able to afford it. In the UK, some of the top private schools such as Eton and Harrow demand a fee of over £30,000 per year, per child. This is extremely divisive for society as it creates more separation and tension between the differing classes. It is a fundamentally unfair system that advantages the rich whilst leaving the ones who cannot afford the system trailing behind. It should also be reminded that a free, state funded education does not equate to a bad education. Many of the teachers at state schools are well educated and make excellent leaders to teach the next generation of workers (I myself attended a state school and a few of my teachers had been Oxbridge educated). Attending a state school also allows one to meet people from all different walks of life and background. This can help improve social skills and cultural understanding by meeting a variety of people. Whereas, in private schools typically the same group of pupils from the same background attend these establishments. Thus, possibly resulting in them being ‘less in touch’ with the real world as they only interact with people who are similar to them. Private schools also encourage the outdated ‘old school ties’ system. It is a lot more accessible for someone to make crucial networks into an industry than it is for someone who attends a state school. It has been proven that privately educated pupils earn more than those who have identical grades / marks but were state school educated. Pupils who attend the top private schools are also 1000 times more likely to be accepted into the Oxbridge universities. Laura Rivera explains in 'Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs' that the contact and networks people make determine which graduates get jobs in the most prestigious firms and therefore ‘firms define talent in a manner that excludes high-performing students from less privileged backgrounds.’ Just imagine all the students that would have grown up to be amazing politicians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, yet they were unable to as they were not provided with the networks and opportunity that are given at private school. Success in a career should be solely based on intelligence and talent, not your wealth or who you know. Every child deserves to have the same education and start in life. It is the only way to make society and the jobs market fairer. For one child to have easier access to better universities and jobs just because their family can afford private school is fundamentally wrong and unjust. This is why private schools need to be abolished. WORKS CITED Ashford James, ‘Should private schools be banned? The pros and cons’ (30 September 2019), https://www.theweek.co.uk/103536/should-private-schools-be-banned-the-pros-and-cons Roberts Saffron, ‘Private schools should be abolished’ (2019), https://thebroadonline.com/private-schools-should-be-abolished/ Wigmore Tim, ‘The power of the old school tie lives on’ (6 August 2015), https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/power-old-school-tie-lives

Private schools create division and privilege among those who go there. Minorities historically have not been able to pay the mounting fees, thus their children do not get what society deems good education. It’s the same problem with college, if you can’t afford it, you’re SOL. It’s a sheltered education that doesn’t prepare its students for the real world. Drugs exist. Sexism and racism exist. Homosexuality and homophobia exist.

Private boarding school kid here, and I only say mixed because I know I’m very fortunate to be in one and should feel grateful enough to support somewhat. I’m on essentially full financial aid (partially need-based, partially merit-based), so personally, private school gave me a number of opportunities that I wouldn’t have had - my aid helped not only with getting an education, but having access to health services, nutritious food, and extracurricular opportunities that I can carry through higher education and a career. Though I’m glad to be there, it also feels wrong that my friends that I went to (public) middle school with don’t have the same opportunities, when they were smart too. My passions (math, physics, computer science…) just happen to coincide enough with what capitalism, hence the school, wants of me, and I like a wide enough variety of things (art and dance) and am considered ‘diverse enough’ (I’m queer and trans) to look good. There’s also a lot of issues within administration as well - numerous sexual assaults and mental health crises and lord knows how many other things covered up for the sake of maintaining the school’s name. I’m appalled by the amount of wealth I’m surrounded by, and how frivolously it can be used, by students or administration. On one hand, private schools can provide resources and opportunities to students who can benefit, but overall they are a product of a capitalist system, and are designed to perpetuate it, which is wrong.

Ultimately, I am for the abolition of private education. However, I will attempt to argue both sides in order to provide more convincing evidence for my conclusion. Private schools gives children an unfair advantage from the outset. This advantage is through no contribution that they have made, merely the income of the family that they were born into. This advantage doesn't merely stop at college, the pursuit of higher education is also easier for those who had the privilege of private education. At Oxford, 40% of students are privately educated. This figure is disproportionately high when you consider that on 7% of the general population are privately educated. It then follows that is these children are predisposed to get higher income jobs and ultimately be able to afford to send their children to private school. As you can see, the private school advantage is often cyclical and similarly the disadvantages faced by the less privileged can last generations. This is not to say that this effect is definite as scholarships and bursaries aim to rectify this issue of social mobility. There are more students with some type of financial aid today than there ever has been before. It is sometimes said that if you work hard enough, you can do whatever you put your mind to. Although this is true to an extent, it is narrow minded and doesn't account for all sorts of social barriers. Telling a student from a low income background that they can get the same level of education as one from a wealthier household if they work twice as hard (and secure a scholarship) is not only clearly unjust, but it is superficial in it's considerations. Other barriers excluding talent or grades could be that that student has to get a to support their family or perhaps they don't have access to the same facilities to study. In fact, one of the biggest influences when prediction future income of a child, is the income of their parents. This is simply because of the environment you're surrounded by (Eg. households with lots of books have better prospects for their children). In this sense you could question whether disparities in higher education are directly caused by private schooling and not just the income of children's parents. After all, the most important years for academic development are from the ages 3-7, and you cannot send your child to private school before they are 8. In fact, when you control other factors there is only a 0.6% difference in GCSE grades due to private education. This being said, social mobility is precisely the issue. There are benefits to private schools. Notably, they create institutions of excellence where some of the brightest students are concentrated in an environment that stimulates innovation. Students that are lucky enough to attend have access to more and better quality facilities, perhaps better teachers and unfair networking opportunities. As a wealthy parent, it is rational to want these advantages for your child. Some may argue that as it is their money, it should be up to them to have this option available. However, you cannot confuse this agreement for an argument for freedom of choice. This is freedom of spending as for most of the population, the choice simply isn't there. Practically, there are issues with abolishing private schools. Primarily, the nationalization of schools would be extremely expensive. The claim that the long term profits make it worth the commitment is not backed by evidence. Finland is used as an example where schooling was nationalized and the immediate befits showed that it was successful in improving social mobility. What we saw with Finland is that after a while wealthy parents monopolized the better schools because the could afford to move into catchment zones. Although this is a real issue, surely it is better than the alternative system that we currently have? Regulations could be put in place. The environment that a private school creates is damaging the child's social awareness. Generally people assent that private school creates a 'bubble' where students are sheltered from realities such inequality, violence ect. It would be beneficial to all if children of all social statuses were assimilated. Having said this, there are excepts to this. For example, a student with a severe disability may only be adequately catered for in a private institution. Another example could be vocational students that rely on private schools to get the best training. It would be nirvana is the state could provide these facilities but realistically they require the extra funding that they receive from benefactors. Whereas the nationalization of schooling would redistribute advantages that are currently concentrated, there are some cases where the student would need more than their equal share of resources in order ton have the same opportunities. With exception to the above examples, the abolition of private schools is only just. People who oppose this view are mostly privately educated and are scared of a world without their privilege. This proves that it is not a meritocratic system as they know that their talents or hard work aren't the only factors that got them to their position of higher status.

It is a contract deal between student parent and organization. A business shouldn’t be banned for being a business because it is teaching. It is not being immoral or unethical.

I went to a public school and lemme tell you it is awful. As a student who enjoyed science and engineering i always found myself in a position where the uneducated hooligans had vandalised all the equipment. I believe private schools are fair for this reason, people pay a lot of money for good equipment for learning and will be charged for damages made by their children. A public school where children only attend due to obligation with parents who are indifferent to their behavior is always going to have worst equipment and funding due to the overwhelming amount of effort that must go into discipline and time wasted by people disrupting and most significantly vandalism. The existance of private schools isnt the problem, the negligence of parents is, i think parents should be fined for their children interupting lessons. Maybe then their children will start behaving.

Here's an idea. Make public/state schools as good as private schools, thus making private schools redundant. Instead of worrying about who's better off, try thinking about elevating those who are struggling. Elevate, don't cut people down. It's also worth noting that any student stuck in a classroom with bad apples will often be worse off anyway. Address classroom discipline. A number of people that I grew up with ended up leaving school with bad grades as a result of teachers not being able to do their jobs because of bad apples ruining everyone elses chances.