Layla Moran
I want every child, no matter their background, to have a great education. But private schools hold this ambition back. The problem is in the name. They’re private: closed off to all but a select few.
Unless you’re lucky enough to get a bursary, independent schools are the preserve of the wealthy. The average annual fees for a prep school are roughly half of average household income. They cream off students, staff and resources from state schools, making them less inclusive.
I say that as a former private school pupil. As the daughter of a diplomat, the government paid to send me to boarding school in the UK so I could have a stable education, and only as a last resort after I ended up as the only pupil in my class in a new school we had set up in Jamaica, where I essentially taught myself. Not ideal.
While it was devastating to be apart from my family, I was grateful for the opportunity I had and so I know first-hand the incredible education that many private schools provide. But I have always had this nagging thought: why can’t every child in England have the same opportunities as those lucky enough to attend these well-resourced schools?
We see the foothold that former independent school pupils have in politics, business, law and the media. The Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission estimate that 65% of senior judges, 52% of diplomats and 34% of chairs of FTSE 350 companies went to private school, compared to just 7% of the UK population.
Why is this a problem? I’m not a socialist; I don’t believe that the state always runs things better than the market. My issue is that the playing field is so unequal.
In England, one in 16 pupils go to a private school. Yet one-sixth of spending on schools goes to independent schools.
Money is at the root of this inequality. Most private schools can afford to teach more subjects, have better extra-curricular activities and have more resources to support children with complex needs and to guide pupils through applying to university.
Meanwhile, our state schools are crowdfunding for donations, sacking support staff and, in some cases, closing their doors early on a Friday.
Worst still, the government subsidises this imbalance. Around half of England’s private schools are charities. Parents do not pay VAT on fees whilst the schools are exempt from corporation tax and receive a large business rates discount.
To get charitable status, these schools must claim they have a demonstrable charitable purpose: the advancement of education for the public benefit.
But who, exactly, is the public that benefits? If independent schools generally have better staff, resources, and exam results than the state schools that surround them, how does this help the public?
A charity cannot simply be a club, using its resources purely to benefit its own members, even if it occasionally waives the entry fee.
We need to raise the bar. Many private schools already do brilliant work in their communities but some do the bare minimum. If a private school wants charitable status, it must demonstrate that the whole community, not just a wealthy few, will benefit.
The government has tried this before. Back in 2016, it suggested forcing independent schools to sponsor an academy or offer a certain proportion of fully funded places. But Damian Hinds chickened out. The proposals were heavily watered down.
Now, I’m not sure that sponsoring an academy is the best use of a private school’s time and expertise. But the principle still holds. A private school should demonstrate concretely that serving the community is central to its ethos and structure. If it cannot, its charitable status should be revoked.
But this whole argument is underpinned by a much more fundamental one. Why do so many parents choose not to send their child to a state school?
It’s because they feel they have no other choice. They think state schools are inadequate, fail to meet the needs of their child, or believe they or someone else can do a better job.
We can’t blame parents for wanting the best for their child. They demand better for their children, which is why Liberal Democrats do too. We demand better so that every child can attend a great, local state school.
In the short term, this means campaigning to end school cuts. The new funding announced this week is welcome, but teachers need resources now, not in a year or three. We need an emergency cash injection this year.
It means investing in children with special educational needs or a disability so they have the staff support they need to flourish at school.
And we need to harness the best practice from the many independent schools who reject narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the test. Liberal Democrats are campaigning to abolish SATs and the English Baccalaureate, both of which focus the energy of teachers and pupils on just a handful of subjects.
We would replace Ofsted with a new watchdog similar in culture to the Independent Schools Inspectorate, supporting schools to succeed rather than punishing them for failure. Then we can let teachers get on with the job of helping children to learn.
As a liberal, I want an education system that enables every individual to fulfil their potential. Wanting the best for every single child means levelling the playing field. Reviewing the charitable status of private schools should be part of that strategy.
Layla Moran is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for education. She was elected as the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon in 2017. Formerly she was a maths and physics teacher, and she has a masters degree in comparative education.
