There is no need to emphasize the importance of quality education. With our current political climate, the role of education cannot be understated. And yet, education in the United States has a thorn in its side, linked to race, class and a host of other inequalities. That problem is the proliferation of private schools.

Only nine percent of American children attend private school. The reason why these students and their families choose private school over public vary. Maybe they have a chance at receiving a better quality of education there. Perhaps it’s because they believe it will aid an application to their dream college. Some students may even be following in the footsteps of their parents and grandparents.

Whatever the reason may be, isn’t it time we started asking ourselves why? Why do private schools exist? What purpose do they serve? And what factors—seen and unseen—are at play within people’s reasons for attending?

Some would argue that the U.S. public school system is in crisis– and they’d be right. The average American student is struggling to stay on par with the rest of the world, particularly in math and science. Contributing factors range from underpaid teachers to a lack of resources, along with a host of other issues. When compared to private schools with state of the art facilities and extensive class and extracurricular offerings, it’s easy to understand how parents might discern that their children will receive a more well-rounded, intensive educational experience if they left public school altogether.

However, the very premise of a private school creates inequality by commodifying education. So, when middle and working-class parents cannot afford to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for something their children usually receive for free, private schools become a tool of class stratification. That may not be the intention of those involved with private schools, yet the effect remains the same.

The debate over how much the government should provide for their citizens has seemingly existed since the conception of the U.S. Interestingly, the idea that primary and secondary education should be provided to children free of charge is relatively innocuous, regardless of political stance. On the basis of admitting or rejecting students, private schools turn a public good into something exclusionary. This exclusionary basis has not only been accepted, but weaponized.

During the 20th century, private schools were used as a means of segregation. When public schools were required to integrate, private school enrollment increased. In fact, many communities in the South pushed to create voucher programs that would use public money as a tool to fund private school tuition for families that could not afford the costs, all to keep white children from learning alongside children of color.

Voucher programs still exist in 29 states currently. Under the previous Donald Trump administration, the then Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss favored expanding federal funding for vouchers. Why not reallocate that money into the public school system itself? Why should taxpayers fund the education of some children, and not others? Fewer than half of the current voucher programs contain statutes protecting students from racial discrimination. Even fewer contain language for the protection of students from discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation. Parents have significantly fewer resources available to seek redress, much less any kind of justice.

Private schools are a business; they can bar anyone from returning at their own discretion. The effect is that private schools create their own exclusive clubs, a quid pro quo kind of situation. And this carries their students, the ones invited into the club, past their campuses and onto new ones. While not even 10 percent of America’s children attend private schools, their alums represent one third to half of the freshman class at the nation’s most prestigious colleges. Forty percent of Harvard’s Class of 2018 went to a private high school, vastly outnumbering those who were recruited for athletics or could be considered “legacies.” If the purpose of private schools is to set up their students to lead wealthy lives, it’s hard to argue against that.

I would argue that they don’t achieve that through teaching their students science or history. They achieve it by imparting a sense of cultural capital on their students. They teach their students how to speak, act and present themselves within the most exclusive echelons of society. They help their students network and get their foot in the door of institutions known for slamming it in people’s faces. And therein lies the true purpose of private schools: it is a tool of social mobility, but not in the way it’s traditionally perceived. It is an invite into the “old boys club,” and a means of weeding out those who do not belong. It is an echo of the institutions that guide our country. It is where oligarchies are built.

Fiona McFarland can be reached at [email protected]