It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.
Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction.
I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems.
You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue.
Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money?
Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc.
I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.
It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother?
Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.
Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse.
For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech.
You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?