#AbolishEton: Why we should eliminate the Berkshire boarding school from one of its very own boarding school brats
The simple, four-lettered word “Eton” inevitably conjures a plethora of images. Yes, you may immediately think of the tweed-toting (or the Schöffel gilet if you are privy to private school culture), Range Rover-piloting gentlemen who attend this ostentatious Berkshire boarding school. Or, maybe you think of the “Eton Mess”, a sickly-sweet mélange of meringue and fruit which has more recently morphed into a term used to describe the failure of David Cameron’s governance in 2013. Perhaps the music fanatics among us think of the slightly awkward posh Gangnam style parody that became a YouTube sensation. There is also the culmination of all these associations, perhaps the most significant Eton eternal; a new ruling class of the rich and academic that thrives upon social immobility, poised to reach the upper echelons of government and industry.
These establishments for the educational elite (otherwise known as high schools) have become incubators for the ultra-rich across the English countryside, allowing them to reach the apex of both social and intellectual hierarchies. That is to say, the private school offspring are not only socially affable and well-connected, but also have the opportunity to attend the most academically elite institutions. The guild of the ‘Old Tie’ network now dominates public life in the UK, with the recently incumbered Boris Johnson being the 20th Old Etonian in office (Moss). Arguably, this dominance has created a self-perpetuating cycle for the power and wealth of the most fortunate, and one of social immobility for the less fortunate. So, when the Labour party proposed to solve this issue with the motion to abolish private schools, many a beige-suited individual threw a hissy fit — “that wouldn’t improve the quality of state education! Plus, we’ve earned the right to send our kids to private school! Radical liberals you’re just jealous!” (Please note I went to one of these elite private schools, so I am not jealous- maybe slightly liberal though). But what would the transition to a state-only system mean for the likes of the influencer-filled Harvard Westlake in America, the oligarch-filled Le Rosey in Switzerland and the slightly unoriginal Harrow in Hong Kong? How could we abolish these private schools that have existed, for quite literally, centuries? Instead, does the greater issue lie in improving the global standards of state education?
Arguably, the entire purpose of education is to ensure equal opportunities for all. Thus, the current private school system contradicts this aim, because they close doors on the basis of parental income alone. Essentially, by paying the extortionate fee of $40,00 per year, you can gain access to the best teachers, best resources and best networks around. The genius economist Alan Krueger conceptualised this by plotting the relationship between income inequality and intergenerational mobility. This appropriately named Great Gatsby Curve revealed that a 1% increase in the father’s income means you are 50x more likely to advance socially (qtd in Hoff). This is because with a greater income, you are able to afford a better quality of education — and therefore access to the better teachers, resources and networks — and will be more likely to climb the social ladder. Even though some may argue that private schools offer bursaries (otherwise known as full financial aid) to avoid discriminating on the basis of wealth, the reality is that only 74 out of the 1,500 Eton boys are on full scholarships — evidently, wealth remains a factor in attaining education (Cook). In my opinion, your future success depends on a good education, for which financial wealth is now a prerequisite. However, would eliminating private schools really ensure a good education for all?
The first tweed-induced tantrum argues that abolishing Eton wouldn’t magically improve your local comprehensive, because there would be no increase in the government’s budget. In other words, eliminating private schools would create equal opportunities, but poor, equal opportunities. As further explained by Kevin Carey for the Centre on Reinventing Public Education, current “private school parents pay for the state education through taxes, and then pay for private schools on top of that with fees”; they are paying twice. Getting rid of private schools would not increase the budget for state schools. In fact, it would add to the burden as the public system has to accommodate more students, and worsen educational opportunities for all (4–12). Though a fair argument (guess I can no longer call it a tantrum), it misses one important point. Instead of outright abolishing these boarding schools, we could make these Eton-duplicates pay taxes (which they currently don’t because of their charitable status). This would result in the government receiving some revenue to improve the standards of state education while allowing century-old private schools to keep their doors open. Yet, this again assumes there is some form of adequate state education — what about the countries who simply don’t have a functioning public education system?
Some argue that these supposed bastions of prosperity exist out of necessity in developing countries, because government-provided education is non-existent or of very low quality. In many of the world’s poorest countries, free education is minimal in existence, and terrible in quality. In fact, this issue is so acute that last April, the State of Punjab in India literally stopped building new public schools because they can no longer afford it (The Human Journey). This means that if we were to eliminate private schools (that are often much cheaper and more accessible there), we would be plunging everyone into a failing education system. This has even greater implications on the home nation- would this create a brain drain, where the smart students from India leave to get a better private education elsewhere? In a way, this is already occurring as the students flock to boarding schools such as Eton- there is evidently a deeper flaw in government-provided education. However, I think there is potential for these Range-Rover-turned-Subaru parents to provide relief in the form of redirected funds. They may feel incentivised to improve the local schools because their child is now going there, investing the money normally spent on fees on the state system. Of course, there is the possibility the funds are funneled away by corrupt officials, and lead to regional clusters of better-quality schools- perhaps a rather utopian dream. Ultimately, getting rid of the private school system in places with inadequate state schools may undermine the nation’s intellectual prowess, because the smartest students may be prevented from accessing the best education.
Indeed, this idea that we need private schools because they are the best places to educate future leaders is shared among privately-educated pawns worldwide. The argument follows the notion that private schools equip leaders with the best skill sets, from classes on negotiation tactics to multicultural exposure with international students. After having spoken to a current student at Eton, he explained that “banning Eton is not really a solution to people trapped in actual poverty. It addresses inequality of opportunity for the very best of jobs”. In other words, private schools only lead to immobility in the top tiers of industry. What he doesn’t consider, however, is the implications of only having privately educated politicians. Though they are perhaps more skilled (which is contestable in itself — Warren Buffet, Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher all went to state schools), they will inevitably push for policies that focus on the top 1%, because those are the issues they were surrounded with growing up. In making a case for this prioritisation of pro-rich policy, I am not suggesting that there is a lack of diversity of wealth and culture in private schools. In fact, they are often some of the most international schools in the world, with 33% of students being passport-holders of another country (Retner et al. 5). However, when this multiculturalism is limited to the Rolexed Russian, the Chinese containership tycoon and the Austrian aristocracy, are you really being exposed to different global perspectives? And, if this private school pandit is going to be the next inhabitant of the White House, will they really be able to create policy that benefits the poor? In reality, banning Eton does implicate global social immobility — it will help build a network of politicians who will prioritize every person, irrespective of income.
On the other hand, many argue that abolishing an excellent service solely on the basis that people cannot afford it is fundamentally against the Western meritocratic ideal, because it compromises freedom of choice. This is what George Packer argued in his opinion piece justifying New York private schools; “[the all-American ideal is that] individual achievement should be the basis for rewards, and that, unlike in an inherited aristocracy, those rewards must be earned again by each new generation”. In other words, if we work hard to earn more, we should be allowed to spend more on better services — it is our choice. Yet, I shudder at this perverse interpretation of meritocracy. The idea is that YOU benefit from the service you have worked hard to afford, not your family members. And this doesn’t even touch upon those who didn’t work hard to get where they are, who simply inherited their family’s trust fund. Meritocracy assumes a level playing field for everyone to begin with; private schools disturb this base, contradicting the roots of the ideal itself. In fact, our world resembles more of an aristocracy- that also perpetuates this intergenerational wealth transfer- than any form of the American dream.
But if we care so much about being free to choose, why don’t we just pick grammar schools, because they supposedly create the same intellectual environment as a private school AND are free? In the British state-school system, you have comprehensive (open to all) and grammar (need to pass an exam and get selected) schools. As Robert James explains in the Financial Times, grammar schools are “purely academic and without the costs connected to private schools”. Theoretically, they foster the same intellectual environment associated with private education, yet entry is not based on financial advantage. However, I believe the issue currently lies in the quality of grammar schools. In another frustrating feedback loop, the smartest students are leaving grammar schools to go to private schools on bursaries, to the detriment of many of these excellent free establishments. The quality of these schools is becoming increasingly less intellectual, so even less appealing to the best pupils. And thus, the grammar school is becoming less of an option for the true academic elite. That is, until we find a way to improve these standards.
So, isn’t it fascinating that the best education system in the world has no private schools at all? Finland is the miraculous poster child for education reform. Coming out of Post-Soviet Russia’s dark and bureaucratic shadow, this nation now ranks at the top of both the OECD and PISA rankings for education. How? Well, it has no private schools. In the 1970s, the government banned private funding of education. Instead of leaving the teachers and resources to rot, the government slowly took over the private schools once they ran out of funds, culminating in the entire system transitioning to being publicly funded in the early 2000s. Then, the state created a giant pool of university-trained educators, who are evenly distributed to institutions across the nation.. The result is that every Finnish child will receive an excellent education, no matter whether they live in a rural village in Northern Lapland or in the center of the university city of Helsinki (Abraham 3–6). Essentially, there is no elite education, just elite students. Though many will argue that it is the lack of standardized testing that makes Finland’s system known worldwide, the lack of private schools cannot solely be a coincidence. In my opinion, this absence enabled all the children of Finland, no matter their race, income or social class, to have access to the best possible resources- and thus be able to progress regardless of their familial background. Interesting model to consider, right?
As for my little island in the North Atlantic, there is already an offer on the table. The recent model proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto aims to strip private schools of their charitable status, that currently entitles them to generous tax breaks. As outlined by Yasmeen Serhan in the Atlantic, these schools often “resemble small city-states more than a high school campus, boasting hundreds of buildings, half a dozen museums and acres of woodlands”. Obviously, they cost a hell of an amount to run. Add the tax amount (around $1 million annually per school), and keeping these institutions open seems simply unfathomable; it would be the demise of the private school education system. Yet, this proposal leaves much unanswered. What would happen to these city states? The government sure can’t afford to take them over, they can hardly run the state system as it is. In addition, the proposal holds little political viability. This is because it focuses on lowering private school standards with no plan to improve the quality of public schools, which will inevitably annoy the aristocracy — and as they are those in power, it would just never get through parliament. Essentially, we need a Finnish-style model that negates the need for private high schools by raising the quality of public education, rather than lowering that of private schools.
Thus, I believe we should create a proposal that brings up the state school system to match that of the private school system, that pacifies both the privately-educated politicians and those struck by the social immobility scourge. I argue this should be done by levying a tax against these establishments, albeit not as crippling as that suggested by Labour, so the government can gather enough funding to improve the quality of grammar and state schools. At this point, intellectual students would no longer need to incur the costs of private schools (much to the gratitude of their parents) to attain the best education. They would select the grammar school alternative, because it would provide the same educational standards at no price. Slowly, private schools would run out of funds, and eventually cease to exist all together. Hopefully then the government could adopt the private schools under their wing, as they would now have the tax revenue to sustain the properties. It is important to note that when the tax runs out (because the private schools cease existing), the government will need to increase the budget for education, reallocating resources away from areas such as defense (which is currently 15% of the US budget despite the army not being involved in any active war). Then perhaps, the most widely considered pretentious and classist country in the world may just switch from an apartheid education to a progressive one. Now, how legendary a model would that be?
Here, some may argue that the “Old Tie” network is the real reason why students are sent to private schools, so improving the quality of state schools wouldn’t necessarily negate the need for private establishments. The “Old Tie” network is the British term for the alumni connections of a certain school — though this issue certainly pertains to other nations too- and was coined when families started sending every member to the same institution out of tradition. In her novel “Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs”, Lauren Rivera points to how the Old Etonian network is often a more significant determinant for enrollment than the actual education itself. Following her line of argument, even if we were to improve state school standards to match that of private schools, parents would still choose Eton because they know their children will benefit from the network in the future (123–180). However, I believe that if state schools are successful in creating the same intellectual environment as private schools, they should foster just as strong alumni networks. Eventually, the “Old Tie” network should transfer to state schools — as long as state schools improve. So, how could the government tackle improving the quality of public education?
Interestingly, researchers worldwide tend to agree that teacher quality is the downfall of the state education system, because private institutions can afford to pay higher salaries, and thus ‘steal’ the best educators. The Economic Policy Institute researched the effects of ‘good’ teaching on students, and found that instructors with more degrees tend to result in 30% more students graduating high school. What the EPI attempts to explain is that private schools receive more funding, so can pay teachers higher wages and offer smaller classes, and thus siphon the better teachers away from the state system. Therefore, the tax revenue should be reinvested in teachers. Specifically, the EPI suggests that we must increase teacher pay, to incentivize educators to remain in state schools (King Rice 3–7). Although I agree with this statement, I think it is also important to increase the budget for resources at state schools. Often, wage is not the only factor for teachers- they pick private schools because they offer benefits such as gym access and freedom to design the curriculum. Furthermore, putting money in resources would result in double the benefits; it would attract more teachers, as well as create a better quality of education for students. Hence, I believe that the tax revenue must be invested in state schools holistically (just like Finland did), reinvigorating both teacher and resource quality. Otherwise, state schools will just never reach the level of their private sisters.
In a world struck by increasing inequality, the future isn’t exactly looking too rosy. The titans of civilization are educated at perverse parodies of Eton all around the world. They will create a dichotomous universe, where the state schools are decrepit pits of doom that literally teach their students that they have no chance in having a better life. Our nation’s most needy will stew in anxiety and anger, feverish with revolutionary ideas, isolated at the bottom of the ladder with no way up. This is a future where the tribalization of wealth is not just preached by a questionable toupeed Cheeto (who was privately educated by the way), it is an undeniable reality in every corner of the globe. It is time to shift this “radical liberal idea” to the mainstream.
So, let’s give a voice to the bottom of the ladder. Let’s instead build a harmonious world, where state schools are rich in resources and intellectual curiosity. This is a reality where the masters of the universe come from every avenue of life, where education fulfills its true purpose in opening doors for everyone.. Creating an egalitarian future for our children starts by creating an equal education system: We must give the underworld access to our world.
Works Cited
Abraham, Sparky. “The Problem of Private Schools.” The Current Affairs Journal (2019): 3–6.
Carey, Kevin. “School Funding’s Tragic Flaw.” Center on Reinventing Public Education (2008): 4–16.
Cook, Lindsay. “How to get a cut-price private school education”. The Financial Times. 13 September 2019. Accessed: November 9 2020.
Hoff, Madison. “The Great Gatsby Curve”. Business Insider. 23 February 2020. Accessed: 3 November 2020.
James, Robert. “Grammar Schools: elite rich rid institutions”. University of Cambridge Tab. 10 August 2016. Accessed: 7 November 2020.
King Rice, Jennifer. “Teacher Quality. Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes”. Economic Policy Institute (2003): 3–7.
Moss, Paul. “Why has Eton produced so many prime ministers?”. BBC News. 12 May 2010. Accessed: 7 November 2020.
Packer, George. “New York City Public Schools Have Embraced the New Left”. The Atlantic.October 2019. Accessed: 3 November 2020.
Retner, Diane; Jennings, Jack; Kober, Nancy. “Public Schools: A Place Where Children Can Learn to Get Along with Others in a Diverse Society”. Center on Education Policy (1998): 4–5.
Rivera, Lauren, “Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs”. Princeton University Press (2015): 123–180
Serhan, Yasmeen. “Should Britain Abolish Private Schools?” The Atlantic 1 November 2019. Accessed: 7 November 2020.
The Human Journey. “Education in the developing world”. 8 May 2020. Accessed: 3 November 2020.
Wood, James. Personal Interview.7 November 2020.
