Telling off

Rory O’Kelly’s assertion (Letters, Aug/ Sept) that the purpose of independent schools is “to make [pupils] look exceptional” must not go unchallenged.

Independent schools in the UK are extraordinarily diverse. Many make no effort to “polish” their pupils and care little for Oxbridge entry; some, indeed, proudly support academically challenged children.

What all independent schools have in common is the purpose of educating children in a way that is directly accountable to parents and not directed by the state. Those who work in them or send their children to them share, implicitly, the belief that the state does not necessarily know best about education, should not have the monopoly of it, and that it should be possible to choose an alternative. The vast majority, happily, also believe that choice should be extended to those who cannot afford to pay the fees themselves.

This is not “investment,” still less “social engineering.” It is freedom of choice.

Chris Ramsey, headmaster, Whitgift School

In his Diary musings (Aug/Sept), Eton headmaster Simon Henderson reflects that “Our national education system is critical to the future of our society” and waffles about the “wisdom of youth” and the “need to balance the old and the new.”

No mention of his school’s 40 football fields and 19 cricket pitches, or of the £46,000 annual parental outlay.

Private education, especially boarding school education, is a legacy of British colonialism that compounds inequality and is demonstrably harmful to many children’s mental wellbeing. Countries like Finland that ban school fees have better educational performance and social mobility outcomes.

The government trumpets its “levelling-up” agenda, but Britain will never level up and never harness the talents of all our young people if opportunity has to be paid for in private school fees. Places like Eton have never been less relevant.

Mary Verdult, Malvern