Unspoken agenda of private schools

THE study published by the Jimmy Reid Foundation (“Quality state schools ‘can phase out’ private rivals, April 20) raises once again the question of private versus state education in our society.

The suggestion by the authors that high-quality state sector education ought to be able to replace the private sector has merit, but the response from the Scottish Council of Independent Schools (SCIS) is itself worthy of note, if for no other reason than the lack of depth of argument that that organisation offers.

To declare that their strength lies in their focus on individual learners and extra-curricular activity seems faint self-praise that is entirely open to challenge by comparison with any of the betterperforming state sector establishments.

But then SCIS goes on to claim that access has been widened “through schemes including mandatory, means-tested fee assistance”; the latter added, one suspects, lest they should be justifiably challenged yet again on their charitable status.

Taken together, however, their arguments really add up to very little, and represent a poor advertisement for private sector education. One wonders: Is this all they have to offer?

But of course it is not all they have to offer. We need look no further than the headlines that have held the front pages for some weeks now regarding the David Cameron connection with Greensill for the unspoken agenda of the private-sector education system: the “chumocracy” that reaches its peak at Westminster.

That represents the ultimate goal of the private sector – the foundation of networks that allow like-minded individuals, regardless of their personal abilities or merits, to prosper through simply having access to the right people who are in a position to assist them in their careers and their business ventures.

Gerald Seenan, Skelmorlie.