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.'

MuswellHillDad

My dd's school has 39% of the children classed as 'high achievers'. Their average grade for high achievers is a B.

However - 10 girls at this school got 10 A's and A*'s at GCSE this summer, showing that the teaching and support at the school is sufficient to allow a hard working and well-motivated child to succeed at a very high level.

I would go back and look at the school you mention again. Are there children there who achieve very, very highly? If this is the case, what would stop your dd doing the same? She is bright. She has your support. If it is possible for other children at the school you mention to do well then why should your dd not do the same?

"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"

They only allow poor children if they're exceptionally bright, well behaved, and well supported at home.

Private schools have no interest whatsoever in supporting those children who most desperately need individual attention at school and wrap around support, that smaller classes and more ££££'s per student allow at private schools - ie the children who end up leaving state schools with no, or very, very poor qualifications.

Bright, hard working children with supportive and involved parents do very well WHERE EVER they are schooled. There is a mass of evidence to prove this.

Agree with Minifingers. I see a bunch of bright, hardworking supported kids at my DD1's school who are clearly going to be in that A-A* group, without being poached elsewhere.

...oh, and to add to that I see a culture of learning within the school and its students. I see young women encouraging each other to do well. Ones who're heading in early for 8.30 Latin classes and staying late for German. Girls who're really striving, within the school environment - not sneaking their books under the desk, or creeping about feeling embarrassed for being a bit geeky. This is a big comp (yes, it's single-sex - the breadth of choice round here isn't that enormous!) which does, I think, fully reflect the local demographic of south-east London.

It simply isn't accurate to generalise that any literate child in a comp is ashamed of learning.

minifingers

Last year they managed 4 (of c.180) with 10 As. Previous year I think was 1 and most years prior none.

I love evidence and my gut feeling is the same as yours. What evidence do you refer to that would give me the confidence that even a school near us that has one of the poorest track records in the UK and where, for example, the high attainers average is C would be able to get the best from my kids?

Is there a study I should be looking at? At the moment, I can only look at the evidence from my local schools and, perhaps, that's all that matters to me personally.

MuswellHillDad in the performance tables are you looking at average grades or average point score (best 8) per pupil? It's under 'KS4 Exam Results' but a numerical score is given instead of a grade.

Schools vary so much in terms of curriculum. And in some subjects it's really difficult to get A/A and just as hard for those getting A at Maths and Englsh - Design Technology, PE, Art, Drama, etc. I've also seen schools with a large top set restrict entries to triple science so that they still get As for Core Science GCSE. Statistics can be so hard to unpick.

ok back to the the orginial thread...

What can private school do to help the state sector..

In my opinion very little. The clientele is quite different. Therefore the type of teacher needed is also different. Does that mean state sector teaching is rubbish. Certainly not..I think it is just silly to compare the two.

The only difference between the two has nothing to do with teaching. So when people talk badly about Bursaries I disagee. It allows the child to make contacts that will help him in the future. So it is wrong to say that it is just creaming of the top.

Therefore I purpose that each private student should be paired with a non private student to improve the contact circles.

It is not uncommon that a not to bright private student is given a job over a very bright state student. If we can change this then that would be an achievement. Its better than bickering over a few hundred pounds over charitable donation..

I took the number of students getting straight As directly from the school.

Why is the clientele 'quite different'? Have you actually taken a look round a few of your local state secondaries? They aren't just feral holding-pens for teenage delinquents, you know. Plenty of bright hard-working kids, see my post above.

And the thing about contacts that will help you in the future is, sadly, true but it is also - self-evidently - precisely the thing that we do not like about having a segregated education system. I don't think colluding in something that is wrong makes it OK.

They sound like they are being honest. Check 2012 league tables here. But I've been thinking about this after doing a number of school visits and feel that children can be just as stretched and learn valuable lessons when they are asked to leave their comfort zone even if it means slipping a grade. A child might get 2-3 As (e.g. English Lang & Lit, Maths) plus a few Bs or even Csin subjects they found harder but enjoyed - triple science, Product Design, Spanish, Performing Arts. A different child good at essay writing may get more As in English Lit, RE and History, but avoids triple science because she doesn't think she would get an A* in Physics, doesn't see the attraction of Computing, looks down on those doing Textiles and is not confident speaking in public. I wouldn't like to compare those children's skills merely on the basis of number of As.

I'm all for a rounded education and life learning, but universities, the wide adult world and employers are fixated on empirical results. Enjoying the challenge of a subject that you get less than an A in will not, sadly, be taken into account in a world where we are unceasingly weighed and measured.

Parental paranoia sets in or is it actually a rationale fear?

The difference does not lie in the how smart the children are. Its the contacts they make at school that is the difference. I see that so many people are so intent to the argue who teaches better or which student is better. At the end of the day in this very unfair society of ours. It boils down to who you know. You can get a first at Oxford but if your not in that circle you will not get the prime jobs. I know I have been there done that (I'm state educated). Until a friend's father helped me get into the clique. Its unfair but being on the outside now inside. I acknowledge this problem does exist.

The point being we have acknowledge the problem and need to think of ways to reduce the impact of it. There is no point being argumentative against the system that exist. The other only true way forward is to make changes that both sides of the rails can live with. That is progress. Not hatred to one set against another.

rabbitstew you make an interesting point regarding private schools being "better enough" to justify the cost in all instances". We have/have had plenty of friends and acquaintances with more money coming in every month than us who don't feel that what we are paying it is better enough they are happy with cheaper often pretty run of the mill private schools believing that there will be better behaved nicer children there and that is enough and they choose to spend their money on a house (we rent), a flash car usually a range rover skiing at least once a year and an expensive summer holiday and granite work tops. They frankly think we're out of our minds. I have never wanted a flash car; too embarrassing, my own house would be nice but we rent a nice house which we or they in fact could never afford to buy and I don't fall over well so wouldn't be seen dead skiing! Maybe it is a "self indulgent and unnecessary expense in your view although I suggest no less than an £80 000 pile of metal but it my view it's is worth every hard earned penny.

I don't believer in the contacts you make at school that get you jobs it's the contacts you parents have outside school that get you jobs. We've got influential "contacts" not one sends their DC to my DS's school.

Middleclass....that's a shame it will help...but sometimes your child's friend will have a friend of the family that can help..I mentor a lot of friends children. Some being friends of friends.

Kenlee my DS is at one of the most famous schools in the UK many parents are exceedingly well connected but frankly I'm not and I don't believe he's hoping for or looking for future contacts.

Well I all I can say is I hope he makes a lot of friendships..

My DH now middle aged fat and grey also went to another very famous school he's never wanted or used contacts. We've been in the past through rough financial periods but he and I have always used his ability in our occupations to get ourselves out of the shit.

Ditto for personal experience.

Went to school with many influential people but not once has it lead to access to something.

My first job was got through tenacity and persuasion. No contacts at all.

That said, I have a gut feeling it still counts for some jobs. This all fades to grey as time goes on as it becomes more about how well you connect professionally not who your parents or school friends are.

middleclassonabursary - if and when you and your friends are starving in old age and relying on the NHS for your hip replacement (if you're lucky enough for it still to exist, otherwise just hobbling around in agony/wheelchair bound wishing you hadn't run out of cash before everything was privatised and became too expensive for you to afford the private cover for), and your children are wishing you had some money spare to help them post-education, perhaps all of you will wonder why you didn't spend a bit less on cars, holidays, houses (whether rented or bought) and your children's education. Who knows? And if I don't opt for secondary private education for my children (I haven't decided, yet), I might look back at the end of my life and wonder what would have happened if I'd taken a different course, spent a bit more and saved a bit less.

Every single person has a different view on what makes a good life, in what ways their children are best supported, on what the purpose of our existence on earth is in the first place. And frankly, when it comes down to it, we all make calculated risks, because no choice and no life is risk free, and nobody knows which of us will find our risks paid off and which of us will find they bombed out until the end of our lives. I do think we should all at least question ourselves, however, on whether society could be made more fair, somehow - in other words, could be made to continue developing and moving forward and becoming more civilised, rather than becoming less civilised and more corrupt as we become more and more overcrowded.

Of course society should be more fair but under the current government it's not going to be nor under any other government for that matter. I may regret my education choices but then again maybe I won't; I'll take a chance on that one. Our parents made similar choices and now very elderly I doubt they regret it. Anyway if I go skiing instead I would be testing the quality of the NHS well before reaching my old age and I'm not convinced ann£80 000 pile of metal that uses the same road as I do in my little car is a better investment than a top quality education.

I'll agree with you that an investment in an £80,000 pile of metal and a skiing holiday is not as good as an investment in a top quality education, but those aren't really the only choices, are they?!

The dilemma I have is that I look at friends of my parents, including some who did penury themselves to send their children to public school, and I don't see any advantages in terms of life outcome for those children who had this done for them and those who didn't. I also don't look at the children who were sent to public school and think they are any nicer or less nice, or more interesting, or really particularly different, given that they come from similar family backgrounds (ie generally quite middle class in their interests and passtimes). Then I look at myself (state educated) and my husband (public school (boarding) on scholarships and bursaries) and I likewise don't see any huge differences between us. We have both ended up happy and reasonably well adjusted, happy to mix with all sorts, although my parents are considerably more financially secure than his. He had some kindly and inspiring teachers and clearly received an excellent education. I had some kindly and inspiring teachers and was extremely happy at school. I will acknowledge that I was always very self-motivated and had no learning difficulties or other obstacles to making the most out of what was offered to me, and was not ever teased or bullied at school for being "too clever" (although I was teased for being posh - not much different from dh being teased at his school for reverse reasons). If I had suffered from any particular issues, my parents would have been more than willing to pay if necessary to avoid the state options that were making me miserable, but actually in our family, it turned out that my privately educated siblings suffered more from that than I did. So obviously, based on my personal experiences, I have a hard time seeing what the true advantages are to spending £60,000 a year on educating two children at public school. Particularly if such schools have now become so selective that actually, if I had a child who was not adequately supported by their state school, they wouldn't be willing to support him or her, either!

I'm making strenuous efforts to make sure my children don't have the same experience I did, by not building a time machine and sending them to school in 1994.

Just wanted to be the 400th reply

I'll reserve that sort of post for the 666 spot...