Muggers, pickpockets and other great educationalists

I am always suspicious of the argument that a certain kind of behaviour is "more honest". It usually describes something that is worse but more obvious. For example, I'd rather have my pocket picked than be robbed with violence. I don't prefer a mugger on the grounds that he's more upfront about it, that he holds a blade to my throat, and says what the pickpocket was only thinking. I'll settle for the delayed realisation that my wallet lies empty in a bin, rather than the more immediate sensation of being stabbed.

In general, it is worse to use a private school than to move nearer a particular state school. This is because state education is an essentially good thing and private education is not. I don't think it's unforgivable to go private; I just think it's best not to.

Our rulers today, save for the head boy himself, are not remote public school toffs, but chippy social climbers who have benefited from socialised education and are now busily selling it down the river. Me, I'd rather have Tony Benn.

And although you might not meet many working class kids in private schools, there is better stuff in them.

Not better teachers – the best teachers are to be found in the toughest schools because, in teaching, best means most dedicated – but certainly better equipment, better plumbing, nice playing fields, roofs and, crucially, smaller class sizes. So they've got quite a lot going for them as places to learn, and it's easy to see why anyone would be tempted.

Certainly you should never send children to boarding school, unless for some reason you don't like them. But it might well be that you have sent a child to a state school when they would have been happier in a private one.

Yet there are still compelling reasons not to use private education. One is that people who see education as something to be bought and paid for should not be encouraged. If you buy education for your child, you are implicating them in something essentially corrupt.

You could guarantee your child a place at their chosen university if you put a horse’s head in the vice-chancellor’s bed, but how far are you prepared to go?

Of course there will be benefits for them, but that is not necessarily a justification. You might say your concern is for your child's future, but what about fairness? You could probably guarantee them a place at their chosen university if you put a horse's head in the vice-chancellor's bed, but how far are you prepared to go to clear a path for them and when do you start? They'll be quicker to the top of the slide in the park if you pick off the fat kids with a high-velocity rifle, but don't fat kids also have a right to live and use slides?

Now, you might argue that getting your child into any school means another child misses out. But if a school selects by proximity, which is the only way to run a comprehensive system properly, then moving house is fairer than, say, hiring a tutor to get a kid through a test. Then again, given that most state schools in my neighbourhood are now selective, parents have no choice but to participate in something fundamentally unjust. Your child might do terribly well in a test even without a tutor, but that might mean they get a place at the expense of a kid who lives nearer and needs it more.

State schools are private if children can't get into them. And by moving house, we might be part of pushing up property prices and squeezing lower income people out of an area, which brings us into the whole argument about gentrification.

I am someone who clings tightly to his principles, because I have so few to spare. And one principle to which I hold fast is that education should be free.

So it is better to buy a local school and give it back to the state on condition that your child gets a place, along with all children in the catchment area who are nice to her, than to buy her a place in a private school.