Say you’ve just bought something expensive;  an extravagance.   If so, the odds are you’ll be proud of your purchase, and want to show it off.

But not if it’s education.   Some parents spend a lot of money sending their kids to private schools.   But they rarely boast about it.   ‘Cos if they do, society will slap them down.

And that’s unfortunate.   At least according to the Independent Schools Council Chairman, Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, quoted by the BBC.

“Parents have a right to choose the education for their children . . . [and] should not have to fear the imposition of discrimination, or be made to feel guilty” she argues.

Andrew Grant, chairman of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses Conference, rather agrees.

Some wealthy families, he grumbles, you know, the kind who live in £3m houses, wear Rolex watches, drive a BMW seven series, and take three or four holidays a year, take a perverse pride in not spending money on education.   They’d rather send their kids to the local comprehensive.

Of course, their local comprehensive will reflect the affluence, and mores, of its catchment area.   So it’s no real sacrifice.   Not like little Thomasina has to be bused to some inner city school to mix it with kids from the local Council estate.

But why are they so reluctant to buy education?

Because education is not that important?   I doubt it.   Most middle class mums, whatever their faults, want the best for their kids.

Meanness, perhaps?   But, then, they wouldn’t buy the bling, or the hols in Bermuda either.

No, it’s more than meanness.   It’s something to do with a widespread prejudice against the private sector in education, and real moral pressure “not to use your disposable income for the education of your children”.

You can flaunt your wealth on designer clothes, posh cars, weekends in Gran Canaria and the like.   But not, it seems, on education.

And that’s a shame.   Because the private sector is actually quite good at education.   It gets good results.   It generates successful people.   It has, in reality, a lot to be proud of.

And much of this excellence comes from its flexiblility.  It can respond to individuals as individuals, freed from the dead hand of state control.

And, says Dame Judith, quoted in TES, it must stay that way.   It’s not just new labour that tries to stifle education with excessive controls.   She’s bothered about Tory plans to try to persuade private schools to join the state sector.

She hopes, and believes, that only a very few will actually take up the offer.   “Our (private) schools”, she argues, “value their independence and the freedom they get in relation to the curriculum, the ability to include more art, music and sport and they value the fact that they are not over-regulated”.

Only those that are struggling will be tempted, she argues.

Trouble is, as the old saying goes, take the King’s shilling and you’ll end up dancing to the King’s tune.

That may not be so bad for those that likes the tune.   But it’s bad for the rest of us.   If only one tune is allowed, we’ll soon get sick of it.

And ministers know only one tune.   Economic prosperity.   State education is fast becoming  a production line.   The manufacturing model whose aim is to output units of economic generation and consumption as effectively and efficiently as possible, has taken hold.

Society needs real, rounded people, and an education system that will produce such people.  Not drones.

The private sector may not be perfect.   But we can still take a pride in its achievements.

Can’t we?

Sources:  BBC story; TES 12 March, p13