Michael Wilshaw tells private schools to do more for the state sector

[muminlondon]

www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/oct/02/ofsted-michael-wilshaw-independent-schools

He's not afraid of being disliked, is he? He gave a speech to the heads of private schools telling them to sponsor academies in deprived areas - only 3% do so.

My favourite quotes are:

'... think less globally and more locally, "less Dubai and more Derby"'

'What might you say to parents who think that noblesse oblige is the latest perfume from Chanel?'

'Your pensions, many of the public may be surprised to learn, are subsidised by the taxpayer. Most of your teaching staff were educated at public expense. The independent sector gains 1,400 teachers from state schools every year.'

So, you would honestly keep a uber bright child at home who has been bullied and had little in the way of real social skills because he felt like an outcast and people laughed at him.

Well, that's really going to help him move on in life!

Most of the previous Labour governments it seems have no issues in spouting off stuff about state education and how important it is and then quietly (I didnt realise Wilson used the private system tbh) used private schools.

You've only just introduced the bullying issue, handcream - you seem to be drip-feeding a bit with this anecdote, which is, after all, pretty subjective in its reportage.

If one of mine was being bullied, and I felt their social skills needed developing, there are any number of options I'd be looking at, and sending them off to prep and thence to Eton would be about 4572nd on the list.

Wilson who, in the previous Labour government?

Anyway, yes, as I've already agreed, Diane Abbott is an idiot. Fiona Millar and Yvette Cooper, however, are not - for example.

nit Eton isn't a particularly good example.

Most super selective schools are day schools or are mixed. The educational experience need not be so very other.

Harold Wilson - a previous leader of the Labour Party for a number of years.

I second Wordfactory's point. State schools deal with the whole spectrum if ability and behaviour. Apart from super selectives, which are not dealing with the whole spectrum, few state schools have the financial resources to support those who are exceptional. Teachers just don't have the space in their timetables and are already stretched before and after school.

I agree that Eton isnt a particularly good example. Its the only one I have. I got into a real ding dong a while back with someone who didnt believe Eton did this and had to provide some links. I think some people on this thread have never set foot in a private school of any sort. They assume all who go to private school are spoilt.

Well, you decide what is good for your children and I'll decide what is good for mine.

To make your idealistic comprehensive truly fair teachers should be distributed across schools by degree results and banded numbers of years experience. So each school can have say 1 Oxbridge graduate, 1 RG arts first, 2 maths teachers with maths degrees and 10-15 yrs experience etc. It's not just the quality of pupils going in that contributes to results.

slip and not just state schools.

My DD attends a private school that takes the spectrum of ability. I love it and my DD is thriving.

But there simply aren't enough pupils at the highest level to make a decent cohort. That's what happens when you don't select.

If one of mine was being bullied, and I felt their social skills needed developing, there are any number of options I'd be looking at, and sending them off to prep and thence to Eton would be about 4572nd on the list.

I appreciate that you wouldn't be sending your child off to a private school (Eton or otherwise) if they were being bullied but for some parents that might be what they feel is the best option. I don't think its right to berate anybody for doing what they feel is best for their child or accuse them of having a negative impact on the state schools or accuse them of having ideas about superiority. People do what they feel is best for their own child.
Instead of accusing people of damaging education for the masses by choosing options that are not open to everybody, why not instead look at why those people feel state schools can't offer the same. Why not consider why Gove thinks private schools need to do more to help state schools.
There isn't anything wrong with having a private school system, the problem lies in the fact that some state schools are barely fit for purpose and some are just muddling along.
Lets not forget that there are some fantastic outstanding state schools and there are also some very poor private schools. Instead of sniping about people choosing an 'elitist' option, concentrate on complaining about the shit nature of some of our schools and what needs to improve. No child should be subjected to the experience of a rubbish school whether it be private or state.

Norrude - here here. You have put it better than I could!

If private schools are rubbish and a waste of money and you dont use them what's the issue? Unless secretly you think they are rather good...

Schools should be able to recruit excellent teachers and pay them very well, full stop. The most difficult school should be able to pay quite a bit more as the job is so much harder and requires special skills. That should ensure greater parity in teaching quality. It doesn't necessarily include an Oxbridge degree though one is handy when dealing with 16-19 year olds. Different teachers are perfect for different schools.

Oxbridge/ US / medicine applications are an area the independent sector can usefully be tapped for support in as some of the more famous have more frequent practice.

Word, with respect, are you really sure it takes the whole spectrum of ability? And it really won't have the while spectrum of behaviour.

I agree that just because you have a Oxbridge degree you wont automatically become a good teacher. I have found some of the best ones are people that have worked in industry. We certainly chose our House Master for my DS's school because he had worked outside of the education system.

For the very special teachers who are teaching in difficult schools -yes of course they should be paid more. But only after careful interviewing. Dont just stick a teacher in there because they were the only applicant and then pay them more.

slip you're right!

There are certain SEN that it simply can't deal with. Not enough resources.

What I meant was it is not remotely selective (as my DS school is), which IMHO results in the vast majority fitting in nicely, but the outliers...well ...outlying.

I doubt not having charitable status would stop dead all bursaries. After all, what better potential cash and/or advertising cow in later life than a hugely grateful recipient of such beneficence? I really don't think the likes of Eton offer bursaries merely because they are forced to as a result of their status as a charity. I can see smaller, struggling private schools would have less to gain from such actions.

Not every is grateful for something that is effectively free tbh.

No, not everyone is - you win some, you lose some.

Rabbit, call me Pollyanna, but I genuinely don't think big name schools give bursaries for future gain. I think teachers love to teach and value greater social diversity. I am pretty confident that they are delighted to have children who are not the offspring if bankers/ wealthy business owners/property investors ...and so on. They have plenty of those.

I meant to put 'love to teach nice children'

I'm sure they love to teach nice children. I'm also sure they like their salaries and would be sad if the school could no longer afford to pay them. When it comes down to it, you don't need to BE a charity to act charitably. To suggest that Eton would cease to act charitably the minute it stopped being a charity is being even more cynical than I am - but it was handcream, I think, who suggested it, not me!

Eton dream of being "income blind". Remember its Headmaster was on a (full fees) scholarship at the school himself. He really believes in giving others the opportunity he had.

So, in conclusion, it is somewhat odd that hugely wealthy public schools should be charities. They should be charitable, yes. But do they need to be charities? Apparently, they don't gain much financially from being charities - if that is to be believed - so why are they charities? I am still a little bit confused on that one. Does it make them feel more honest and above board to the parents who use them? Or does it allow them to go against some wealthy parents' wishes and invite in the odd waif and stray? Or is it just because they are stuck with that status and it's just too much hassle to change it?

I'm confused too. I had no idea they gained so little financially. The extra percentage added to fees for some schools, which is earmarked especially for bursaries, exceeds the amount saved per pupil if those figures are right.