Rushmore (1998) presents a fictional private school, dubbed, ‘one of the best in the country’, an elite academy of opportunity and privilege. The film follows a young boy, Max Fisher, as he tirelessly tries to find his place amongst his peers. Before I begin, I should say that I was also privately educated, and I am consciously aware of the irony surrounding this article. Nevertheless, I am thankful my parents gave me the opportunity, admittedly one I didn’t fully grasp, as like most teenagers I didn't really care for education. However, my analysis will be on education reform, and whether it is possible to move past the archaic system of exclusion and entrenched classism we currently have in the UK. 

The film, although American, provides a good visual representation of some of the existing issues within British society. The film translates well to our education system, because both exist within, what I would call, the capitalist mode of education. Due to our shared history, a lot of the old world was exported to the new world, schooling was one of those exports. Private schools were used very much in the same way they are used back in England, for educating the next generation of aristocracy. Therefore, the similarities in schooling attitudes and behaviours between the two nations are very apparent.

Effects of educational prejudice are evident in the film with Max and his inability to fit into the private school he attends on a scholarship. Throughout the film there are multiple examples of this unspoken hierarchy maintained through the rich and poor school divide. The best example of this is how Max conceals his background and fathers lower class profession. Exhibited through a cute ‘Wes-ean’ pun Max describes his father as a neurosurgeon, when truly he is a barber, both cut around the head, but in different ways. Furthermore, his acceptance of his fathers job isn’t presented as a happy or progressive decision, rather it comes during a moment of hopelessness, he’s given up on love, and has been kicked out of Rushmore. He dismisses his previous desires of governmental or diplomatic careers as “pipe dreams”, and has learnt his place as a “barber’s son”. This shows that there is a deeper issue than simply getting more underprivileged kids into private education; the actual culture of private schools and wealth divides the students even if they are at the same institution. Moreover, It continues into higher education as well, a common theme I found whilst researching was an aversion non-privately educated students had to Oxbridge, because of this rich ingroup. Even placed within the same environment, this subliminal divide is felt; outnumbered by wealthy peers and later excluded from accessing the same networks of nepotistic opportunity, some decided that these institutions were not worth the prejudice they would inevitably endure. 

It’s not only this hidden division of rich/poor however, there is the very tangible separation in education quality. Aesthetically displayed in the film by the contrast of Max’s extracurricular activities at Rushmore, in the opening montage, and Grover Cleveland, the state school he later attends. Grover Cleveland’s inadequacy is further displayed by a comment Max makes indicating his need for a “tutor”, after spending his first day there. Due to untaxed fees and charity status, private schools have the ability to fund and build better facilities, whilst state school educators are forced to turn to amazon wish lists and crowdfunding for teaching materials. The rich enjoy an abundance of top facilities, extensive extra curriculars, as well as a network of similarly rich peers and wealthy alumni that will support them into top jobs. The result being, what can be described as a ‘private school pipeline’, in which only 7% of the UK population who attend private schools go on to be over-represented in Oxbridge attendees, and then the highest paid senior positions, “71% of our top judges” for example. “Simply attending a private school enhances prospects for entry to top universities and jobs, regardless of innate ability”. 

Another aspect of our education system is the focus on competition, which is also acknowledged in Rushmore. Bill Murray gives a speech in the film's opening, telling an audience of parents and students, “...for some of you, it doesn’t matter. You were born rich and you will stay rich. But here’s my advice for the rest of you. Take dead aim on the rich boys.” Now, as great as this sentiment is, it taps into the same neoliberal outlook that, in the past 40 odd years of its implementation, has done little in terms of equalising education. It is an idea of simply working harder than the rich; of individual effort triumphing over all societal biases and injustices, and competition always leading to the best outcome. Under Thatcher, her education policy brought in league tables and school inspectors (that would become Ofsted under John Major). In terms of improving schools this approach does little to help, and in terms of equalising education it does nothing. But, what it does do is bring the competitive spirit of capitalism to the playground. We now have schools competing against one another in the name of ‘education’. Through their students, schools battle against one another with standardised testing of rote learning; becoming ‘exam factories’ focused on vacuous rankings rather than progressive and genuine education. 

So, if we want to move towards a more egalitarian society, something needs to change. But, is abolition the solution to the injustice we face? Well we have already seen lengths the rich are willing to go to protect these institutions of inequality. Threatening “legal trench warfare” at Labours 2019 proposal of bringing the private schools under public ownership. Some have even gone as far to suggest that banning private schools would breach human rights. An ungrounded response, but there might be a simpler get around, that would, and has, effectively led to a more equitable system for our children.  

After the war, the Finnish government implemented some modest reforms in an attempt to equalise the playground for future generations. They saw education as their road to economic recovery following the most destructive 6 year period in history. They also decided that the very best education was not an exclusive club for the wealthy, but a right to be enjoyed by all of their population. They made it illegal to charge school fees, thus, there are still a handful of private institutions, but they are only able to use state funding. This way every school gets an equal footing in the means that they can provide for their students. Unlike the system we have, in Finland there is no divide in funding according to socio-economic background, therefore, although education styles may vary from school to school, they cannot buy superiority. 

Moreover, a second reform Finland made was to place teachers on the same level as ‘higher’ professions like doctors or lawyers. They did this by making a master's degree a requirement, as well as training at one of eight state universities (at state expense). Therefore, teachers are chosen from a select pool of candidates that all have the same or similar qualifications, ensuring the standard of education is more or less equal at every school. From this, more autonomy is also entrusted to teachers, which led to applications “flooding teaching programs”, the respect given to the job simply made it more attractive. With this freedom, Finland’s education moved away from the ineffectual rote learning we still rely on in the UK, and by which British teachers are scrutinised with external investigators. Finnish teachers are invited to find creative ways of enhancing their students' learning, also teaching them for the entirety of their time at the school. This means educators can properly model a unique style for each unique child. Students and teachers build a lasting relationship, in which the children are seen as more than simply a grade, restoring the ‘human aspect’ of education that is lost in our current exam factories. 

Lastly, there are no standardised tests, schools and students are not pitted against one another, as found in the capitalist mode of education. Rather, schools, teachers and students are encouraged to co-operate as education in Finland focuses on play, health and the overall well-being of students, in stark contrast to the high intensity pressurised environments we find across the UK. It’s not about ‘taking dead aim at the rich kids’, education is about life-long learning. As well as the subjects we are taught, schooling is for socialisation. Societies generally function better with well-adjusted individuals, therefore, it's no surprise Finland’s society is one of the happiest in the world.

Nonetheless, there are a number of other things that Finland does that just make sense, too many to list right now. But overall, what their education system provides is some impressive answers to the problems facing the UK in terms of equality. Although the UK has a very comprehensive education system, it produces vastly unequal results; that spill into wider society. Britain currently has an incredible level of inequality, laid bare during the pandemic; being one of the worst countries in terms of social mobility out of the leading European economies, and it begins with our children. However, Inequality in education isn’t uniquely British, hence, even in Rushmore, a film with class as a theme but not the focus, we can find the unconscious but also very real advantages given to private school attendees. Yet, after equalising the quality of education for all, Finland discovered that the classism displayed in the playgrounds of other countries was not found in theirs. Therefore, through some simple reforms we could at least reduce some of the effects of the wealth divide. Although equality of education will not completely fix all injustice, it is another progressive step in the direction of a better society for all.  

By Henry Kidney