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.'

Kenlee - can we take the aspirations of adults and parents out of the equation for a second, and consider this issue from the viewpoint of children, who surely, in strictly humanitarian terms, are all equal, and all deserve an equal chance in life? You are very fixated on the rights and freedom of adults to spend their money how they chose, to raise their children above others. How would you explain the justice of this to my 8 year old, who is currently being educated in a class of 31 children, with two children on school action plus, but with no statements, hence no additional support? From a child's viewpoint there is no justice. There is not a single way you could explain this to my children and children like them and not want to shrivel up in shame at the unfairness of it all.

"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"

Me neither - as long as these private are not given charitable status. If they have charitable status then they ought to do more for the most disadvantaged children in their communities, and the most disadvantaged children are those with special needs and those who have little educational support at home.

By the way - there are countries in Europe where children in state education do hugely well, and where far fewer parents send their children private. These countries tend to be those with vastly less social inequality than the UK and the US. Social inequality, like it or not, breeds unfairness and low standards in the public sector. You don't need to be a paid up member of the communist party to recognise the truth of this.

Would like to ask, if you couldn't buy your daughter an education which will probably thrust her ahead of children who are equally deserving, intelligent and hard working, how would your 'not tolerating mediocrity' express itself in relation to her learning? Would you spend more time working with her? Would you get involved in supporting her state school to try to improve their provision? I'm sure you would. Maybe choosing private education is just as much about the needs of adults to hand over as much responsibility for their children's education to another person as it is for the benefit of the child. And not to engage with ordinary families in their communities through their involvement with state schools.

Bravo, Kenlee!

Ok...that was a little long winded and I will try to disect in to smaller manageable bites.

lets concentrate first on common ground. We do now agree that public school does not affect the standards of what happens in the state sector. Agreeing that charitable status should not be given. The only contention is that you what it withheld because you feel private schools should not be given that status because of equality. I want it withheld because I want the government to have no say in the running of such schools. Its nice to agree.

Well I can afford it...So I did..yes it will give her an advantage in life. Thats why I spent the money on private edcation. If I couldn't afford it..hmm Then I would send her to grammar its free...If not I would send her to a good faith school...If not I would send her to a good comprehensive school. If not then I will send her to a not so good comprehensive which will set rather than stream.

I would not interfere with the school running nor try to run it along my ideas. I have full faith in teachers and their goals of wanting to educate the children..Although getting rid of the bureaucracy may help.

I still maintain that if you go private or state the onus of responsibility is on the child and.their parents. I have always maintained if a child in private does not want to work and the parents indulge that...They will not pass despite their expensive education. whereas a bright child who wants to learn and works hard...Then he will pass...The books are the same at the end of the day..The information is the same...

Private education works becuase if your child is disruptive they can be shown the door...

I remember my state days...where the D set and R set where placed in a different part of the building.. So as not to disturb the rest

Minifinger, you are understandably venting your frustration at a suboptimal education for your daughter and it sounds as though it will be an uphill battle but at least she has you, an articulate person who has aspirations for education on her side.

I think Minifinger you are aspiring to more middle class parents involving themselves in their state school to improve what you see as poorly organised, equipped schools or poor teaching. Only disadvantaged children who can be educated would benefit from that.

I don't want to sound defeatist but surely the most major contributing factor to the uphill battle some state schools face is that the children cannot breakout out of the state of complete disregard for the value of education and basic behaviour due to the social injustice of their family background. A primary school with a dedicated teacher saw very few breakout over many years of teaching. Her own DCs attending that same school did very well. Many of their classmates ended up dead from drugs or in prison. Already at that stage of their early years education, these classmates, even if bright, seemed condemned to perpetuate the ongoing cycle of social inequality. They had parents who were at best unsupportive, at worse violent towards the teachers who tried their upmost to enforce the discipline required to create a learning structure. This was n't a minority and those sort of problems are n't going to be dealt with by well meaning parents involving themselves by sending their children to the same school.
Classes of 30 plus, even very poorly equipped, can result in an excellent education, one can see that in some developing countries where both the parents and children have aspirations and respect for the authority of the teacher.

developing countries where both the parents and children have aspirations and respect for the authority of the teacher.* summerends you have absolutely hit the nail on the head. Dh travels to India a lot - his colleagues there (after long hours in regular jobs)volunteer in the evenings in schools to help those children who otherwise would get no education. Their parents are poor, vastly poorer than any family in the UK, illiterate themselves, but desperate for their children to get an education - they value education, and instil that in their children.

In the UK 100% of children have the option of free education, and 90% take that option. 90% of the population are not poor, by any definition.
Even if you accept that those children who are in poverty or are SN should be expected to behave badly which I don't that still leaves the vast majority for who the teachers have no excuse to play the 'poverty' card.

MuswellHillDad if you live in the borough your name suggests, there are only three out of 11 schools which are below national average point score best 8 GCSEs for high attainers. Those schools have 50-70% disadvantaged children. I can understand if your local school is one of these that you are anxious.

Without criticising your particular decisions or motivation, I read lots of journalists and commentators justifying their decision to go private by attacking state schools in general rather than the particular choice available to them and it makes me annoyed. But if they'd said 'I know I'm lucky to afford this but I'd rather have a school with more social advantage and more resources', I'd prefer that to generally knocking the state sector and/or a particular school full of disadvantaged children.

Poverty or SN don't = poor behaviour but it is unrealistic to say that good teaching or marvellous facilities can inevitably help a child with an ingrained family background of disregard for the value of education.

A separate issue is that like all public service professions, there are poor and good performers and a bureaucratic culture that for teaching does n't enable those who want simply want to teach to the best of their ability. That hurdle can be overcome as can be seen in the best private and state schools but only when the first issue does n't interfere.

Private schools don't by their fee-paying nature have a record with disadvantaged children so we can't compare. But the international PISA comparison study para 53 did conclude that:

once the socio-economic background of students and schools is accounted for, public schools come out with a slight advantage of 7 score points, on average across OECD countries (in the United Kingdom public schools outscore privately managed schools by 20 score points once the socio-economic background is accounted for )

Why does anyone have to justify to choosing to spend their hard earned money on something as worthwhile as education? Surely, we all want this to remain a free country?

Creating equality by forcing everyone to have the same mediocre education is pretty self defeating. It's more aspirational for the children, and better for the whole country if we raise the lower end rather than squashing down the top end.

"A private education is not something they can achieve or achieve on the basis of their own talent"
"Poor, smart"
muminlondon surely your contradicting yourself. My DS has been in receipt of a substantial bursary since he was 7 years old firstly to one of the countries most up market and expensive preps and currently one of the countries most famous and expensive senior boarding schools. When he first received one we were on tax credits driving a £300 car and couldn't afford the uniform. He was offered this bursary on the basis of his own talent: he's super bright. Now we're pretty comfortably off but we are still not able to afford £33 000 + a year school fee bill so again he was offered a substantial bursary on the basis of his own talent. I'm not sure how "determined" you have to be to register your DS for his school take him to the interview and fill in a bursary application form which I can tell you from experience is significantly easier than filling in a tax credit form.
I accept the system is unfair and that all children should have the same opportunities but they don't and I doubt they ever will and we were given by just sheer luck a once in a life time opportunity and unsurprisingly we took it. I suspect most parents would do the same.

The problem, as muminlondon has pointed out, missinglalaland, is people like you apparently claiming that all state education is "mediocre." Perhaps you would like to rephrase your post, or do you really think all state education is mediocre?

Apart from that, I agree we should focus on raising the lower end - but not by criticising the whole shebang.

rabbitstew Trying to follow this thread the goalposts seem to keep changing.

Is state education good or not? If, by and large it is good, and something to be proud of, then why is anyone concerned with the private schools at all?

missinglalaland they are concerned about private ed. because at the end of the day at the very top end they know it's better, I writing as someone with extensive experience of the poor, mediocre and outstanding in both sectors. Lets face it all research shows us that children from the private sector get better academic results, a higher % going to Oxbridge, RG universities and of course the Ivy League, better achievements in sport etc etc and it only natural that a parent wouldn't want someone's else's child to receive something better than their child receives.
Whilst those who support state ed. so vociferously continue doing so it will remain in the vast majority of cases at the very best 2nd rate to the likes of Westminster Eton etc and at the very worst 5 th rate and consistently letting our children down.

middleclassonabursary 'A private education is not something they can achieve or achieve on the basis of their own talent' - I didn't write this so I'm not sure why are are addressing this point to me, or what the original poster who wrote this meant.

But the debate here is not whether private schools are 'better' than state schools, it's how private schools, particularly those founded on charitable objectives of helping the poor, are fulfilling their duty to wider society. Being 'Disadvantaged' as the official term suggests, throws up barriers and makes it harder for children to attain. A disproportionate amount leave primary on L3.

Michael Wilshaw is suggesting private schools sponsor academies. He isn't suggesting more bursaries which may cream off the top sets in schools which already have more than their fair share of low attainers. At the moment private schools do not cream off any more than grammar schools (but it does depend on area) so I don't particularly care about them. But if they did more to help the disadvantaged and lower attaining, especially where such pupils are concentrated together as they often are in sponsored academies, they would be doing a great public service.

muminlondon Your getting dangerously close to outsourcing the running of state schools to the private sector, a la the trains or bits of the NHS.

I am OK with that.

My DS's school had sponsor what was a poor achieving school for the last 5 yrs now viewed as outstanding and celebrating its best results ever this yr. Teachers from his school go there nearly all have at the very least a MSc in their subject most of the younger ones a Phd, children come to his school for extra help especially those identified as very able but under performing although I don't think they share classes etc. But I'm slightly cynical actually would this have happened without their input? I can't answer that as I genuinely don't know enough about turning round failing schools.

getting dangerously close to outsourcing the running of state schools to the private sector, a la the trains or bits of the NHS

MCOAB - I never said I agreed with academies as the way forward - the London Challenge achieved big improvements for London without that, and Michael Wilshaw has already acknowledged it. Perhaps if they extended that to primary schools in the east of England without forced academisation we would see results.

But most 'private' schools are historically charities rather than primarily founded on profit. So perhaps Wilshaw is saying keep the profit hungry - Serco, Capita, GEMS, Swedish or US venture capital backed firms - out of education, and at least use the expertise of the charitable education sector. And it does seem the lesser of two evils. Except I don't think either is a magic bullet and there are other proven ways of improving schools.

middleclassonabursary - I do think private education is better for many of those who use it, I just don't know whether it's "better enough" to justify the cost in all instances and whether at the top end in particular it is verging on the self-indulgent and unnecessarily expensive.

What concern me most are the comments frequently made in the press implying that the state sector as a whole is just "not good enough." That is what is destructive, because it makes people turn towards the alternatives and get angry at them for being the only ones who have it "good enough," and confuse unnecessary expense with necessary expense, given that the top public schools do indulge in a lot of what I would consider unnecessary expense when it comes to giving an excellent education.

As all but 1 of the private schools in my town achieve worse results than the comprehensives (technically secondary moderns), and the residual grammar school acheieves far better results even than the best of the private schools, would Wilshaw propose that in this case the state schools should go into the private schools and show them how to improve attainment??

muminlondon
(Don't read too much into my name)

I looked at all the secondary state schools in my borough on the DoE website. If I exclude church schools and single sex schools and focus on the true co-ed comps there are 4 choices.

• 30% girls (one as low as 18%)
• 65% "Disadvantaged"
• About 15% "high attainers"
• B minus average GCSE grade for high attainers

All of that said, my most local comp does a great job with it's intake and the teachers are great. If my kids were low/mid attainers leaving primary school then I'd be happy as it is a school that focuses on them. But they're not.

Even the teachers acknowledge (perhaps only when befriended and questioned) that the high attainers get a rough deal, that makes it really hard to accept it as the best choice my "high attaining" kids. (trying not to sound smug about my kids ....)

That means that I am looking at the next door boroughs for better schools, grammar schools which are quite a long way away (but no further than I used to commute) and private schools. Given every private school I have looked at has 100% bursaries available on means testing, I think everyone, regardless of background, with high attaining kids could look at exactly the same schools as I am.

If I had confidence in the local state school providing a very good environment and education for my kids then I'd send them there.

MuswellHillDad faith schools, selective schools and inconsistent admissions policies between LAS can end up worsening the divide between schools in terms of proportion of low attainers etc. I don't judge parents, but I do judge political decision-makers (e.g.Nick Clegg) who use the justification 'only doing what's best for my child' but don't use their influence to stop or improve legislation like the Academies Act, and journalists who make crass sweeping judgments.

I do keep pointing out that the reason private schools get better results appears to be principally that they buy in the bright kids. Which rather suggests they are not, in themselves, capable of pushing the rich-but-dimmish kids to achieve that well....and, obviously, that they're kicking out the kids who are definitely not going to make it into A*-C bracket.

muminlondon

You must be proud of how your thread has grown up.

I refer you all the way back to my first post, indeed the first reply to your topic.

I think you and I are almost entirely in agreement ..... well, OK, I'm papering over some crack here and there.

I like consensus