Letter of the week: Class dismissed

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

Francis Green and David Kynaston purport to lay the ills of British society at the door of independent schools (Cover Story, 31 January). However, like Labour’s VAT policy, they miss their target. They portray all independent schools as bastions of privilege based on a handful of well-known schools, but fail to acknowledge the diversity within the independent sector.

My experience is of a sector not only of the schools that Green and Kynaston love to hate, but also of SEN schools, performing arts schools, bilingual schools and many others. They also imply a party-political motivation to opposition to the policy from the sector rather than a genuine concern as to its consequences for the schools and the pupils in their care. The policy is adversely affecting many of the 690 schools represented by the organisation I head.

Green and Kynaston’s support for a policy that is disproportionately penalising smaller and financially fragile independent schools is not going to solve the UK’s education problems. Rather, the result of the policy will be a slightly smaller but more expensive independent sector that is more like the very thing they criticise.
Rudolf Eliott Lockhart, CEO, the Independent Schools Association

Schools of thought

Francis Green and David Kynaston’s review of the issues around private education was wide-ranging and thoughtful. I am not at all surprised at the strong resistance from these schools and some of their alumni to the end of the VAT exemption. These schools say they need to put up fees by 10 per cent. They don’t.

I taught in comprehensive schools for more than 30 years and I can tell you what they did when faced with rising costs and no budget increases: they increased class sizes; reduced the number of teaching and non-teaching staff; cut their expenditure on books, redecoration and furniture; and, if they had any they could spare, they sold off a parcel of land.

Class sizes in private schools are roughly half those in state schools. They are much more generously staffed. And many have extensive grounds. There is no need for the private sector to put up its fees; it could easily cut its costs.
John Boaler, Calne, Wiltshire

I spent a very happy and fulfilling career teaching English in a number of successful and forward-thinking independent schools. Like many of my colleagues I was aware of, and at times troubled by, the inequality of opportunity created by these schools.

I agree with much of what Francis Green and David Kynaston wrote. Conspicuously missing was acknowledgement of the superb work done by many of these schools. The image that many critics have of independent schools does not tally with my experience: in the schools where I have worked, there is often greater freedom of thought and progressive thinking than in some local state schools.

However, the levels of inequality are inexcusable. So I was pleased to find that Green and Kynaston offered a solution in which these unique schools could play an equitable role in state education.

A truly progressive government would acknowledge the value of our independent schools. Many teachers in these schools are ready and waiting to contribute to the improvement of education for everyone.
John James, Crewkerne

Having endured bullying as the son of a housemaster at a public school, I can vouch that private education is not always a gilded path. Taunting dented my confidence, which has affected much of my adult life. However, I do acknowledge the disproportionate advantage private schools can give to students in their careers.

Labour is seeking to reduce this advantage through putting VAT on fees and encouraging pupils back into the state sector. This chimes with much of the electorate. But implementing the change in the middle of an academic year was harsh.

The article also correctly cited how fees have gone up in real terms over the past 40 years. For the record, this is partly due to much improved pay (in real terms) for teachers and for ancillary staff such as cooks, porters and gardeners.
David Rimmer, Hertford Heath, Herts

It is somewhat simplistic to see curtailing the activities of public schools as a panacea for inequality and other social evils. During the war, in my Merseyside state school, much was achieved with the most meagre of resources. This was due to a small group of teachers who had a love of learning and a determination that none of us would fail. As a result, two or three of our class of just under 40 proceeded to Oxbridge, and another who started as a clerk, having left school early, ended up as one of the three Law Lords of Appeal.

Our teachers were fortunate that, unlike the many excellent staff in schools today, they were not considered responsible for dealing with concerns over children’s mental health, the distractions of phones and social media, or poverty. Teachers should teach and not have to deal with a multitude of social problems that are really the responsibility of government. If one truly wishes to move towards a more equal society, these should be dealt with first. A policy of spite and resentment against public schools will achieve little socially or, relatively speaking, financially.
Geoff Brown, Walton-on-Thames

As a former HM inspector with knowledge and experience of state and private schools, I want to challenge an assumption that may underlie the statement that “the task facing Labour is not only to address… the share of pupils who attend private school – it is to forge a better education for the remaining 93 per cent” (Leader, 31 January). It assumes that the 7 per cent in private schools already have a better education. In my experience both sectors have large numbers of good schools but a number of unsatisfactory ones. What is needed is good education for 100 per cent of pupils.
Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria

Few would disagree that a public-school education is able to provide a wider education. However I suggest it rarely provides a rounder personality type.
Sally Litherland, Salisbury

Calling to attention

As far as I can tell, Elon Musk’s gesture was not a Hitler salute: he doesn’t know how to do it. As someone who was taught to do it at my primary school near Cologne in the early 1940s, I know that his free-wheeling thumb was incorrect. It had to be pressed tightly against the palm. Congratulations to your cartoonist Becky Barnicoat for getting it right (Outside the Box, 31 January).

Andrew Marr (Politics, 31 January) thinks it should have been stiffer. Why? The Hitler salute was mandatory for civilians. It had taken over the function of hello, goodbye, etc. You did it when you entered the doctor’s, the greengrocer’s or the bank. It could be perfunctory when done in a hurry. It was stiff on Nazi parades or in front of any kind of leader or person in authority.
Harry Schneider, London NW7

I agree with Andrew Marr that Elon Musk’s “salute” is a distraction from the reality of Trump’s government and those who choose to imitate it. Where Trump seems to have the most in common with fascists is the manipulation of the truth. Countering this is key to defending democracy, rather than concerns about Nazi symbolism.
Mark Thorp, Manchester

Organic growth

Why does the mantra that we need growth go unquestioned? The benefits of growth seem to go to those who are more than rich enough. “We need growth,” Katy Shaw stated in her Diary (31 January). The next paragraph bemoaned the rise in price of chocolate. Isn’t it time to join the dots?

Growth means more stuff. More stuff means more greenhouse gases. The high price of chocolate is largely due to poor weather in the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which together produce around two-thirds of the world’s cocoa beans. This not only affects the price Easter eggs but livelihoods. One day the beans’ growers might arrive on our shores as “economic migrants”.
Marilyn Spurr, Exeter

Legacy title

Chris Power’s piece on WG Sebald (The Critics, 31 January) ends with speculation about how Sebald’s writing might have developed had he not died in a car crash. I had good reason to wonder the same thing: a week before his death, Sebald sent me a stage play he had written early in his career about the last days of Kant. We were thinking of updating it as a film. On the title page was a note: “Dear David – Here’s the thing… might not make much sense now… Do with it what you will. Best, Max”
David Perry, Cambridge

Lady danger

I’m sorry Michael Prodger reviewed The Enlightenment’s Most Dangerous Woman (The Critics, 24 January) without challenging its assertion that Émilie du Châtelet merits the title. Madame de Staël surely trumps her as a threat to the established order. Napoleon went so far as to ban her from territories that he occupied.
William Wallace, Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters