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.'

Slip is right - teachers love to teacher the very bright. And if someone comes from a not expected background that is often even better. Teachers are often than not not necessarily from wealthy backgrounds.

You dont go into teaching to earn huge sums of money.

There are a handful of schools (often seen as the best in the world!) who could fill their schools ten times over with pupils from other countries. There is an unwritten rule that 10-15% is the maximum. Its not written down anywhere but unoffically that's the figure. Otherwise you could have Harrow full of the kids of Russian billionaires!

There is a story going around my DS's boarding school that a Russian billionaire did turn up unannounced to the school demanding to see the Head. Being English we didnt call security! The Head was curious, the chap opened his briefcase and it was stuffed full of money. He asked how much to get his son in. What donation could he make? The Head refused and told him to apply in the normal way.

Even if its not true - it sounds true and I am sure has happened.

We should be celebrating that our English schools are so in demand.

rabbit, there a few hugely wealthy public schools but there are many, many more private schools which are not remotely wealthy.

Eton does do a lot.

It does so from the position of being one of the world's oldest, most famous, and richest schools.

Chipping Sodbury prep school cannot possibly emulate this.

However even Eton's £180m endowment pales next to the likes of Phillips Exeter in the US, which has $1b.

There are several dozen schools in the US with endowments of $100m+.

Eton is far richer than any other UK school.

If what we want is a US culture of giving to ones alma mater, and then fractions of this being doled out, somewhat arbitrarily to nearby academies, or a tiny number of clichéd 'deserving poor' scholarship students, then by all means go for it.

I suspect however that ensuring that the state funds state education itself across the board, without relying on the benevolence of private schools, is a better approach to achieving equality of opportunity (as much as is possible in an unequal world).

Why would 'some wealthy parents' object to anyone coming in that would do well from an education in their children's school.

I think you would be surprised just who is in these schools these days and it all works very well. Its not all the Lords and Ladies children AT ALL

Also, Eton, Harrow, Radley, Charterhouse etc are at the very top of their game. Other private schools are nowhere near in the same position financially as these are

The larger successful independent schools won't turn a hair if they lose their charitable status.

However, some of the smaller schools in the provinces might have to close.

They might become free schools?

I dont think they want to lose their charitable status but not necessarily for money reasons. I think they like the mix of the parents who are wealthy beyond dreams, the ones who have decided to fund their kids education and also the quirky. My DS has a real boffin in his house. The boys embrace him, he is quick with ideas and gives the masters a run for their money in Maths.

However he doesnt always remember to wash and his dress style is most strange. So the boys have helped him on the social side. They invite him out, make sure he has had a shower and show him how to interact with girls as only 16's can do!

He is on a full scholarship but the boys dont give a toss. He makes their lives a bit more interesting

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.

Comprehensive State schools don't take the full spectrum of ability or the full spectrum of behaviour either - that's why we have specialist schools; PMLD schools for those with profound and multiple learning difficulties and PRU's (pupil referral units) for those with very difficult to manage behavioural problems. The idea that the comprehensive state schools take the full range of pupils is a fallacy.

I still think that Ofsted need to focus on the state system working better so that less than 1 in 5 schools are average or below, along with addressing the need and appropriateness of selective entry policies.

Specifically, I want my local comprehensive to do better with the 10% high attainers they receive from primary school that end up just managing 5 GCSEs and a B average. That's a waste of potential and the teachers there know it, but their are drilled to maximise the % getting A-C and the high attainers don't need special attention to achieve that (pretty much verbatim reporting there).

I don't want to spend £15k per year on education but I will, unless the state system can cater for my children in a way I deem fit.

Private schools do well because they have the golden triangle of money, dcs who want to be there and involved parents. Wishaw is blaming the wrong people for the mess in state schools. Things he could really do to improve state schools immediately is to have a zero tolerance approach to behavioural issues and less appeals from parents/pupils when punishments are given out. The government also needs to look at its education provision for the non academic kids rather Than forcing everyone to have an academic education.

Mumzy is right. Zero tolerance for behavioural issues. Offering more trades. When I went to school 5% went to univ (and I wasnt one of them!). Now its 50%. Make the trades really important. Would I trust a CEO of Barclays to cut my hair, no I would trust a fab hairdresser. They have the ability to change your appearance in a flash. Why seen as less important? Of course standard hairdressers are not going to become millionaires. However there are some exceptions, John Frieda, Charles Worthington, Lee Stafford come to mind.

Its all out there for the taking.

MuswellHillDad (my, this thread has moved on - sorry haven't read all the posts in case I've missed the point) did you know that Ofsted has to inspect 1,000 private schools that are not inspected by the ISC?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9033319/Ofsted-warns-over-uninspiring-private-school-teaching.html

'their are drilled to maximise the % getting A-C'

That's down to past priorities in the performance tables. Teachers are just doing what they have been told. But that measure might disappear by 2015. Now schools also have to meet progress targets and are scrutinised in all ability groups. So more grammar schools are getting judged to be inadequate or be merely 'good' or need improvement because they are not getting A/A*s either.

What Wilshaw can learn from private schools:
Smaller schools
Smaller class sizes
Fantastic teaching
Teachers with relevant qualifications in their subjects
Ability to select pupils who would most benefit from the education on offer
Zero tolerance to poor behaviour
Ability to expel pupils without endless appeals
Parents who are on board and supportive
Adequate funding
DCs who want to be there
Little government interference

Not sure how private schools are suppose to support state schools apart from Loaning out teachers. Also to say I have just done some tours of some state schools with ds2 who have been part of the rebuilding schools for the future. The facilities in most of those schools and we live in a deprived borough were amazing and a lot more state of the art than in ds1 independent school. So money and inadequate facilities I think are less of an issue in a lot of state schools now than poor pupil behaviour and low morale amongst teachers

Smaller schools - doesn't work without selection as sets or subject groups would be too small

Smaller class sizes - not economic for the state sector and £5,000 budget per head, and research says that having a good teacher is better value and as a better impact; smaller classes more effective for low attainers and/or those with behaviour issues

Fantastic teaching - great, and it is a feature of the best state schools

Teachers with relevant qualifications in their subjects - great, but there are shortage subjects like languages, maths and sciences, and while the government is subsidising their training (e.g. £20,000 bursary) they often go on to the private sector if they can get paid more

Ability to select pupils who would most benefit from the education on offer - that impacts on other schools, but private schools compete for high ability while knowing the state sector is the ultimate safety net for lower attainers which they are not interested in because it is too challenging

Zero tolerance to poor behaviour - happy with that but those pupils have to go somewhere

Ability to expel pupils without endless appeals - happy with that but those pupils have to go somewhere

Parents who are on board and supportive - no different from many state schools

Adequate funding - yes please

DCs who want to be there - no different from the best state schools

Little government interference - to a point, but we do need assessment and fairness

Mum in London - most of those 1000 schools are very very small (less than 40 pupils ) or are specific faith schools. The headline is very misleading.

Mumzy - well said! I have DC who have been in state and indie schools, and I work in a state school - all that you say is sooooo true.

Mumzy I agree especially on the resources point. My local comp is a recent rebuild as has fantastic facilities. What matters is the teaching.

Ah, so smaller schools are not good then?

Smaller schools

Seeing as most secondaries have an intake of 200 per year, perhaps these larger selective independents have learned from the state sector? These are Y11 numbers from 2012 league tables:

Eton College 257
The Grammar School At Leeds 234
Dulwich College 207
The Manchester Grammar School 207
Wellington College 189
Hampton School 181
St Paul's School 171
Harrow School 170

SD I currently have one in independent and two in state so have experience in both sectors. I can't believe the amount of time teachers in state schools spend managing pupil behaviour issues and also dealing with parents who can't parent.

Muminlondon what I'm trying to point out is what does Wilshaw expect Independent schools to do for state schools if the schools/government don't want selection, zero tolerance to poor behaviour, ability to expel without endless appeals , reasons why the independent sector is so successful. His article is interesting in that he actually doesn't spell out what independent schools are suppose to apart from sponsor the state schools, now what exactly would that entail?

Evidence of this 'fantastic teaching'? What are the pedagogical differences?

It's proved by the results, Nit, stooooopid, those results wot they bought in by giving bright kids freebies. Don't you know anyfink?

Oh yeah, the outliers?

I don't see Dulwich College as having been successful as an academy sponsor but perhaps GDST or others federations. I'd guess input into

• leadership (or perhaps not on the case of Wellington College)
• peer mentoring
• curriculum/lesson planning and evaluation?
• governance, inc project/improvement board
• ongoing enrichment activities

interesting that we still get trotted out this myth that state school teachers are better at behaviour management, and the arrogant assumption that poor people are worse behaved... I have taught in both sectors - poor children are not worse behaved. What happens is that teachers who teach engaging lesson have better behaved classes - in both sectors - rich AND poor children behave better in inspiring lessons.
Inspiring teacher, who have mortgages to pay, are unsurprisingly attracted by better pay and conditions in indie schools. So those teachers in state schools who valiantly struggle with 'poor behaviour' get poor behaviour because they are simply not as good teachers. Don't diss the poor by labelling them as poorly behaved!

I think the expression you're looking for, Nit, is grateful recipients. (You may mention beaten up Volvos and/or more diversity than the local comp for extra points.)