Should Socialists Privately Educate Their Children?
By Emma.
This is a response I have also posted to this piece at Labour Uncut. I promise this blog will become about more that just response to Labour Uncut, but the Localism Bill is taking up most my my waking moments at present!
Socialists are people who believe that an even society is better for everyone. Not just for the poor, but for the rich and middle class too. That being the case, that should be the society we want for our children, and so should not actively perpetuate the status quo by ensuring that there remains an uneven society (however they may work in other ways to make it a bit fairer), but at least our kids get to be at the top of the heap. To give up on the chance of an equal society for your child and the belief that such a society is the best for your family is to give up your Socialist beliefs. Which is ok, but don’t kid yourself it’s anything else.
There seems to be an implied judgement that Socialists with the means to do so who don’t send their children to private school & aren’t “lucky” enough to live in an area with good schools are not doing “what is best for their children”. I think they are doing precisely that. Frankly, I couldn’t afford it in a million years but even if I won the lottery tomorrow, I hope that when and if I do have children, I will love then enough to never even consider stunting their cultural, social and emotional development by sending them to a place of “elites”.
Secondly, most of your answer is to a very different question. It’s not the answer to “Is it ok for socialists to pay for private education and healthcare?” but “Should Socialists tell others that they can’t send their children to private schools and use Private hospitals?”.
My answer to that would be no, we shouldn’t say people can’t send their kids and family privately, but we should work everyday to make that a pointless choice. We should change society so that a tiny percentage don’t get this perceived advantage simply because they can afford it.
One exception I would make to that is that we should demand this of our Labour politicians and those who work for the party. For myself it’s because I want people representing us who still believe in our values and are actively working towards them. According to those espousing the argument that this is ok for Socialists, I can’t see how you can disagree. If – as the article puts it – “If people are forced to choose between fairness for all and what is best for their family: they will choose their family every time” then it is essential that when representing the interests of the vast majority of MPs constituents and preparing the policy that will be implemented by those MPs this conflict is as inevitable as you believe it to be, they simply would be unable to do their jobs properly if their children were privately educated and their kidneys privately removed.
Thursday, January 13th 2011 at 13:52
Emma, nice article, with which I largely agree. But (of course there is always one) your argument on politicians leading by example works for other policy areas, but not for education because it is not the politician who is affected.
So, the real problem with your final para is: children don’t choose their parents, and that includes the children of politicans (I speak as a parent).
If I live in an area with no good state schools (Islington a case in point), and my parents can afford to go private, why should I have to go to a second-rate school, just because my mum or dad’s an MP? Until we can answer that satisfactorily, we have to let politicians be like everyone else on education – even if it seems hypocritical.
Thursday, January 13th 2011 at 13:56
But for all the reasons I outline, the choice is not that black and white.
But if these parents were really willing to sacrifice their political beliefs for the sake of what they (wrongly in my opinion) thing is their children’s best interests, they should be willing to go the whole hog and work in an industry where this wouldn’t compromise their ability to do their jobs.
Thursday, January 13th 2011 at 16:36
Hmm, I see the point you’re trying to make. But the logical implementation is awful. We’re saying an MP should look around for a school, and if they can’t find one or move to an area where they can, resign? I can’t see how that is in the best interests of either the child or the parent. Or alternatively, never start in politics at all, just in case you might have a child in the future – which you may never do – and then be put in a compromising position. I can see why MPs end up doing this.
By the way, I should point out that I have no intention of sending my kids to a private school, unless there were absolutely no alternative. Ideologically, plus I’m from Yorkshire and am too tight.