Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

Upon my return to the UK after four months in France, this programme was one of the first to meet my eager eye on iPlayer.
It is a subject which depresses as much as it interests me, and so naturally I felt compelled to watch.
The programme showed some predictable scenes, including A level students from Westminster School, sitting all prim and proper in their uniforms and typically confident and self-assuredly giving their opinions on the matter in their undeniably posh voices, juxtaposed with those from a Scottish comprehensive. But it also included interviews with school teachers, headmasters and MPs, including Lib Dem Sarah Teather, who gave a variety of different opinions on the subject. While some pretended, or maybe genuinely believed, there wasn't a problem with the fact that 3/ 4 of the current cabinet are millionaires, that 6 of them went to the same fee-paying public school (Eton, whose fees of nearly £30,ooo a year are more than the average income), and that 66% of the coalition government were privately educated relative to the 7% of the population who are, others admitted that there was a problem with the fact that it seems these days it is Daddy's pockets which dictate the place you'll end up in society, as opposed to ambition and intelligence.
While I by no means would like to see a return to the awful, socially devisive, and bluntly discriminitative two-tier 11+ grammar school system, I agree with Andrew Neil that something is very ill-at-ease within Britain's education system and we need to change it if humble state school students are to stand any chance competing for university places against those from schools such as Eton, Harrow, Westminster and the many others in Britain's NEW two-tier system. Few can reasonably deny that getting rid of the grammar school system has pushed many of those who would otherwise have been selected according to ability and ambition into expensive private schools, where 90% of pupils get 3As at A level, compared with just 8% at comprehensives. There is something deeply unjust about this, and it needs to be set straight.
But a return to the old grammar school system is not the answer. In my eyes it might make sense to abolish private schools, but until the state system is better, it seems that this would only be shooting yourself in the foot. It is important that we have available the best quality standards of education, but at the moment often this is unfortunately only available to a fraction of the population. The comprehensive school system needs a serious rethink and shake-up.
Grammar schools do still exist in certain counties of England (not Scotland) of course, and although the 11+ is no longer compulsory in these areas, the local vibe can often apply a lot of pressure so that in effect it might as well be. But I do not think getting rid of the remaining grammar schools is necessarily the answer either. For in theory, we can learn from them. While I am against education by selection - whether income OR intelligence, effort and attainment are at least linked to learning and education, whereas money really is not. So I propose as an alternative to the two-tier system: a co-educational school for all, but which is streamlined according to attainment. The teachers teaching the students in higher sets should be trained completely differently to those teaching the students in lower sets. After all, they will often require highly different skills in order to carry out their job effectively. I feel sure that this would make a difference to academic performance in state schools.
With university fees just about to be raised, this will no doubt mean that even fewer students from less privileged backgrounds will be going to university. David Willetts reassures us that there will be a boost in new apprenticeships, and that universities are, by virtue, competitive. But tens of thousands of students not being able to go to university, let alone study the subject they want to, due to cuts and higher fees? It might as well be a return to a two-tier system, with rejects being forced onto apprenticeships. And of course not everybody will be suited to or want to go to university, but my point is that they should at least have that option. And pricing people out WILL reduce perfectly able students' incentive to apply, particularly those with financial worries. Do we really want to make an even bigger ruse in the class system, perpetuating already disgustingly visible differences between rich and poor? And do we really devalue art, literature, music and humanities so much that we don't think the government should fund them very much at all? Culture keeps Britain going in times of crisis such as economic instability. Which is why I find it highly ironic that politicians don't seem to see the need for Arts degrees.
Finally, I had a conversation with a friend recently; she a former science student, me doing arts. She struggled as so many do seeing the importance and need for Arts and Humanities degrees, dismissing them as irrelevant and unhelpful to society. What I tried to express to her was that I really think they are of use, but just in such a different way to Science degrees. In fact, sometimes it seems that Sciences and Arts students are almost living in different worlds, on different planets. I really think it might be beneficial to divide universities into Science and Arts-based universities, because the disciplines are so different, and that way things can be more specialised. At the end of the day, science can save us and helps others in a very practical way. But the way I see it, with art, music and literature... what would there really be that was really so worth living for anyway?