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.'

Children who go to private school on the whole come out very highly educated and the majority go to university from where they become highly skilled workers. The tax break that Private schools get through their charitable status is chicken feed in comparison to their effect on the labour market.

There are massive generalisations being made on this thread. Statistics suggest that the home has a much greater influence on achievement than the school. The majority of students in state school also come out very highly educated, though some have battled against the odds, with skilled support from the school, to do so.

'our own personal experiences have a huge effect on us' - you have nailed it rabbitstew

'YES to assisted places for less able, less well supported poor students' yyy

hear hear muminlondon

Private schools are a red herring in the debate.

I'm a private school teacher (::ducks the rotten tomatoes::). I jumped ship from a state school. It has nothing to do with demographics or not wanting to teach students with diverse needs (I actually hold a masters in an aspect of special education and am now doing my PhD). Our school has approximately 50% of students on some sort of financial support, and we have a huge number of students from non english speaking backgrounds or with special needs.

So why did I jump ship?

Instead of being treated like a lackey, I am treated as a professional member of a team whose opinion and experience is valued. If I talk to a parent, the general response is "ok, how do we fix it" as opposed to "that's not my fucking problem".

Expense account. I no longer have to pay for my own pens, tissues for the classroom, sunscreen, materials, even paper and I don't have to beg the school secretary for a key if I dare to want to access the photocopier. In fact, our school secretaries will actually do the photocopying for us, so we can get on with the job of actually teaching.

My students with special needs actually get what they need. If I need special equipment, aide time or anything else, then I get it. No arguments, having to write pages of reports, or eventually giving up and paying for it out of my own money just so my students can enjoy the same educational opportunities as their peers.

My school supports my own ongoing professional development, provides me with support and time I need for it to occur, and encourages our staff to do so. Which is why almost the entire staff has at least a masters or PhD or is working towards their PhD.

Oh, and it had nothing to do with pay. My pay is not very different from a teacher in the public school system.

You want the best of the best teachers at your public schools? Treat them properly! Stop treating them like absolute dirt, or like slave labour. Stop with all the constant justifying and box ticking and let them actually do their job as teachers and educate the students in their classrooms. Teaching should be a career for people to aspire to, not one that people do because they can't think of anything else to do. Make it worthwhile for teachers to want to further their own careers and develop their skills.

It's not the only thing that needs to be fixed, but it would be a damned good start.

Midnite ...I really do wish all teachers are like you...

My English teacher at state was brilliant... She actually came to the takeaway to give me tution so that I didnt miss out on the two weeks that I was expelled for.

So is it that state has no good teachers...I disagree I echo Midnite .....let the teachers teach...leave the bureaucracy for those who created it.

Pay the bureaucract less pay the teacher more...

Mistressiggi I know there are fewer discipline issues teaching more able, better motivated students as I (like most teachers) have taught "top" sets as well as others.

I was the top achieving student at my state school, I got the best results the school had managed in years. I was also one of the most disengaged and badly behaved students in my year group. I spent my days sitting in school being taught at the level required to get a maximum of a C grade in my GCSEs because that was the schools aspirations for their top set. I also spent my days sleeping with my head on the desks, standing in the corridors for being disruptive, being in isolation for getting into fights. I wasn't unmotivated, just bored stiff of useless teaching and uninteresting teaching. I spent my evenings working from library books at home, studying at a level that I was capable of (we didn't have the internet back then). I was always getting into trouble for not doing my homework; I didn't do my homework because I was busy studying my own more suitable level material. I got good grades because I taught myself, because I knew I was capable of more than the school were aspiring towards. I didn't have parents who could help me (single illiterate parent) and neither could my parent afford to pay for any tuition or study materials.
The exception for me was English, I had a fantastic English teacher who taught everybody well and had no discipline issues in his classes. A good teacher makes a world of difference. I wasn't the only able and badly behaves student at my school and I'm sure other schools have similar issues. It's too easy to say that a lack of ability equates to poor behaviour and isn't looking at other relevant factors.

So the argument that able and more motivated students have fewer discipline issues isn't always the case. Sometimes the discipline issues that are present in a classroom are due to the deficiencies of the teacher. Bored children often make a complete nuisance of themselves whether they are able or not.
You might be a fantastic teacher, but there are some pretty dire teachers out there too.

Poverty alone is not an indicator of performance or behaviour and I think people often use it in favour of some of the more unpleasant words often used to describe those who are having problems. , It is a question of priorities which come from family attitudes. As others are saying here x said and I said pages and pages ago, it is family that has the greatest influence on children approach to school and schools, again and again are blamed for societal problems. Schools and teachers can provide a way out as they have for many people but they cannot fix everyone.

I can empathise with Norudeshit because I also spent a lot of time working from library books etc. I didn't feel I had many classmates to talk to about aspirations for the future, literature, politics, etc. because they preferred to talk about Duran Duran and hair gel. But I had more than one good teacher and didn't behave badly. Although I didn't realise it at the time, they arranged enrichment activities and even extra coaching at A-level. And working independently was a great preparation for university. So I had a positive experience of school within the limits of what it could offer, but the social experience wasn't fantastic. I am firmly against selection or assisted places at private schools because those not selected can feel nore isolated. Of course it helps to have peers on the same wavelength.

Absolutely true that teachers should be respected as professionals but Gove is trying to demonise anyone who disagrees with him (mostly women) as 'enemies of promise' - it's a bullying, patronising approach that will drive more out of the state sector.

+1 vote for letting teachers get on with teaching and less management and administering. Also getting teachers to decide on policy that the DoE ratify rather than invent.

But teachers play into Gove's hands - professionals do not go on strike - happens in no other profession - only in jobs where the workforce have no other power than the threat to withdraw their labour. Teachers can't have it both ways - being televised at conferences reading newspapers while being addressed by a government minister does them no favours either.

didnt the fire brigade go on strike once ?

Fire brigade is not a profession. Obviously a very worthy calling, but not a profession.

GPs went on strike last tear - would you not consider that a profession either?

Last year, not 'tear'

This thread has brought it home to me just how hard it must be to be Education Secretary of any political hue.

'only in jobs where the workforce have no other power than the threat to withdraw their labour'

Err... I'm sure they'd rather settle this by negotiation and consutation. But Gove is not big on listening or consultation. And the DfE spin machine is not exactly transparent.

I do like Mary Bousted of the ATL though. They were prepared to strike over pensions which has resulted in a better deal for their members in independent schools who are on the same pension as state school teachers. So that has helped independent schools retain their staff.

It's not true that professionals do not go on strike. They also have unions (although their unions tend to like to call themselves "assocations" or "societies" - eg BALPA, BMA, NAHT) and they have been known on rare occasions to strike. Barristers and solicitors, and GPs have all recently gone on strike. The difference is, the powers that be tend to have a better relationship with the "professionals'" unions (particularly since MPs are more likely to be members of those professions, themselves...) and be more willing to negotiate before the game-playing, silly one-upmanship begins, of which the government is just as guilty as any union. The DfE is particularly childish in its antics, imo - so childish it has even managed to upset the headteachers' main union (which, predictably, does not have the word "union" in its title...).

Lecturers go on strike...

I am sure that the dedicated, highly intelligent, principled Head of a challenging school I happen to know would LOVE advice and support from someone from the private sector who faces the same issue as he does ... ah, no, that's a problem, there isn't anyone in private schools who faces the same issues, and so there is no expertise to share.

The only possible 'support' offered would be the removal of the very few children who arrive as more able (a fraction of 1% according to the DfE stats on the school - 70+% are in the low attaining group), thus making it even less likely that the school can continue to [just, through superhuman effort] keep itself above the government floor targets..

A poor school anyway, you say, because it struggles to reach the loor targets? Over 40% with 5+ GCSEs at A* to C represents absolutely exceptional progress for a school where a large majority of children arrive at Level 3 rather than the 'expected' level of Level 4...

Oh, and aforesaid high attainers? 'Abandoned in this poor school with such low attaining kids and such low ambitions?' Would 10 As + A*s at GCSE seem OK for those children, because that is what this school enabled them to achieve...

To be fair, when heads of private schools respond to he media about support, they usually point out that they don't have the expertise needed for the kind if school you describe teacher. And having worked in one which sounds similar I agree. But there are resources which may be shared and in some cases are shared quietly and effectively. In some descriptions I have read, there can be reciprocal support from the less well resourced school. Schools containing teachers with the very broad range if skills needed to teach children from chaotic backgrounds together with children from organised homes and children who will be doing well to turn up to sit their exams together those who will achieve several a/a* at A level are pretty good and have plenty to offer. My experience is not recent but I have been involved in joint training initiatives and the help, despite what the media suggests, is not all one way.

Teacher with 2 kids

I would be delighted if out local comp could take any of its pupils and get them straight As, but it does this maybe once every couple if years, i.e. One in every 360 pupils, despite having 10% high attainers to work with and, at least the possibility that any of the others might mature in the 5 years before GCSEs.

The fact that I, and others, can cite evidence of sub-standard state school conditions and outcomes means there is room for change and improvement.

What I don't hear enough of is what teachers would like to do differently, given the limited resources, that would improve outcomes for all.

I've heard enough from parents and politicians for a lifetime

Kenlee - you obviously believe in a meritocracy.

How then do you justify a situation when the thing which gives a child the biggest leg-up in career terms - a private school education - is not something they can earn, or achieve on the basis of their own talent, but is something entirely down to being born in the right family (ie, either monied or poor, smart and determined enough to work the bursary system).

It's absolutely simple: fee paying schools perpetuate inequality. Those who benefit from this inequality will always seek to justify it.

And it infuriates me that people try to justify their existence by flagging up how many bright children from disadvantaged families benefit from private school bursaries. These children overwhelmingly come from families where the adults are highly intelligent and fiercely supportive. These children do well in any half decent state school. The ones who NEED the charity of private schools are the ones who don't have anyone at home supporting their education. They need the small classes, wrap around education and the homework support a private school provides. And will they get it? No. Because private schools aren't infested in average kids - the majority of kids - unless they're flush with cash. That's wrong and an absolute shame.

Mini far from it

I live in the real world unfortunately there is inequality wherever you look. Therefore I have sent my DD to a posh private school. She loves it. Her friends are nice and they all work hard to try to get results. Hopefully she will. I make no excuses for doing so. I can afford to send her private so I did.

Now the pretext to your personal attack is that I beleive in mediocrity.

You seem to want to attack the fundamental reason why parents go private. In as far as I can see being highly intellectual people they want the best for their children. The school provides this service and the parents pay.

As for children who are smart and are poor. I do believe thats why the UK have grammar schools...Although some middle class families seem to use them as free private schools. Which in my eyes is far worse than going private. I do hope busaries will continue for the less well off. I wish I had the know how to get one when I was a kid. …

Again the onus is on the child and the parent to want to succeed. You seem to want to place the blame on the private school because they provide a service. Which parents take up? Its not about the school. The onus is on you...and you alone...with your child or children.

Again the children who have no support at home. Whos fault is that? I can only see two guilty parties...one being the parents. Two the government. I cant see the connection to private schooling.

Maybe I am just dumb. I am not here to win brownie points nor am I here to pretend I am for social justice.

I dont like to attack people on a personal level as I do feel its very unbecoming. Although, I do accept in some cultures it is the norm.

I like to make it clear Im not against the disadvantaged children getting into private school. Nor am I saying private schools do not give an advantage to their students. If they didn't why would we pay....

O and a remainder Communism is dead. It doesn't work. The leader of China was educated in a private UK school. Even the North Korean leader was educated in a private Swiss school. I think the Ho Chi Ming the founder of modern vietnam was educated in a private french school.

So no I sent my daughter to private school because I don't believe in mediocrity.