Private education is not just for oligarchs and aristocrats. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How Labour's hostility towards private education could damage the disadvantaged

The Labour party's attack on fee-paying schools is simplistic and harmful.

Here we go again. Labour is attacking private education for causing a “corrosive divide of privilege.” They want to enforce a “School Partnership Standard” to make these evil fee-paying schools channel more resources towards the greater public good. If they don’t comply, then a Labour government will take away their tax reliefs.

We all want to see more children from less advantaged backgrounds gain greater social mobility, but this kind of visceral proxy class-war needs unpicking.

To be fair to Tristram Hunt, he has identified a problem. All too often, children from poorer backgrounds do not get the education or know-how they need. But while his observations may be correct, his solution is wrong-headed, and panders to pseudo class envy. He knows better than most the benefits of a private education, but his proposals will close the door on children who could access the same advantages he enjoyed.

The savings available to independent schools through tax reliefs are more than recouped through not having to educate their pupils in state schools. Let’s not forget that parents of privately-educated students are, in effect, paying twice for education. First, through their taxes and secondly, through school fees.

Fee-paying schools also provide great help to the wider education landscape. Eton College, in my constituency, provides opportunities for many children from modest backgrounds through summer schools; sponsorship of local colleges; shared access to its world-class facilities and a huge number of full bursaries and scholarships for less well-off children.

Labour’s plans would give bureaucrats licence to criticise schools whose schemes do not fit rigid criteria, and nothing kills a sense of public duty quicker than undeserved criticism. Threatening independent schools with financial punishment for political gain will make the situation worse.

Schools who have their tax reliefs withdrawn will raise their fees or close their doors. Many parents will have no choice but to return their children to the state sector, placing an even greater burden on the education budget.

The "corrosive divide" would be replicated at a higher cost to taxpayers by Labour’s approach, because parents who can afford it will simply pay for private tutors to give their kids the edge. This will further entrench the imperfections that Labour say they want to tackle.

Private education is not just for oligarchs and aristocrats, as some would have us believe. While some parents are indeed wealthy, most make huge personal sacrifices to give their children the chance to attend a fee-paying school. Neither are private schools the preserve of the academically elite. Many specifically cater for children with learning difficulties such as dyslexia, dyscalculia and Asperger’s.

Having grown up in a single-parent household in social housing for much of my childhood, I am determined that we do not allow the circumstances of birth dictate where we end up in life. Blaming fee-paying schools is as simplistic as it is harmful.

I am however optimistic, because there are practical ways in which we can improve social mobility. By allowing the fee-paying sector to grow, we will see a diverse provision of educational services to choose from which will bring down prices. New educational institutions already offer fees close to the current cost of state education, and schools that provide excellent results at affordable prices will continue to attract parents. At the same time we must, of course, continue to push up standards in state schools so that fee-paying schools feel the pressure to deliver even better value-for-money.

And we can open up top-quality education to more youngsters with academic aptitude, regardless of background. Why not significantly increase the number of bursaries and full scholarships for less well-off families?

In the same way that wealthy entrepreneurs have donated large sums of money to academies in areas in which they have a personal connection, philanthropy has a role to play in boosting scholarships and bursaries. The Royal National Children’s Foundation already does excellent work in helping thousands of at-risk children into top boarding schools. This scheme can be expanded further and the criteria widened.

We must remember that education is a public good in its own right. Independent schools must of course continue do their bit to retain charitable status but do we really want institutions that equip children with knowledge and skills to receive no better tax treatment than a commercial firm?

There is much more to do to open up opportunities to disadvantaged children. The expertise of fee-paying schools is a key tool in the fight and it would be disastrous to endanger this progress.

Schools, independent and state-funded, must work together, yet challenge each other, to shape better teaching. We must put prejudice aside and recognise the positive role that fee-paying education can play in creating a rising tide of social mobility that lifts all boats.

Adam Afriyie is Conservative MP for Windsor. He was shadow minister for science and innovation from 2007-10 and now chairs the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology (POST) and the Parliamentary Space Committee

Adam Afriyie is the Conservative MP for Windsor

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.