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.'

Rabbitstew my experience of state ed for my DS's all well regarded state schools was not vey inspiring, the dyslexic one was ignored and allowed to rot sit in the back row and under achieve, the very very bright one constantly held back under the "we can give one something we not offering to all" ethos or "oh no we can't move them up three years even if he is three years ahead of his fellow class mates in the top set but we do want him to stop looking out of the window/doodling/swinging on his chair". I'm not alone in either of these problems I can find plenty of others on MN and in the wider population who've had the same issues.
Also if I listen to my DS's talking about their current educational experiences and what they get on a day to day basis and I'm not talking about swimming pools, beagles and fives courts mine aren't interested in any of those or even smaller classes by the way, then listen to family/friends children, similar age/subjects etc talking about their current educational day to day experiences at their usually very well regarded and high achieving state schools I am quite shocked and actually saddened by the difference in quality, breadth and depth. In my experience private education at it's very best wins hands down and so it should the fees are enormous, the school has 100's of years of tradition of providing an all round broad world class education and let's not forget the expectation of 21st century parents (the majority who are paying significantly more for 1 child than many earn in a year and are used to getting what they want) and the school is also enormous and it has a significant reputation to maintain. We were simply fortunate we were in the right place at the right time, are "connections" at the first school we applied told us about it suggested we gave it a go, bursaries were a relatively new idea and many were keen to demonstrate how charitable they were and we just happened to be knocking on their door asking.
I've never looked for advantages in terms of future life outcome, life is so unpredictable, illness/bad luck etc as well as good luck etc can come along at any stage I just seek at the very least satisfaction and hopefully fulfilment today in education in the broadest sense if the word because it's usually only at this age are we able to devote so much of our energy to education unhindered by so many other things.

I think that private schools are in business and are run like a business, if not, they should run like a business. If they make money, they should pay taxes as all other business do. If they make losses, they should fold up like other businesses. These schools should not have charity status. Neither they should be supposed to do any charitable work at the cost of other tax payers.

I also think that demanding private schools to help state schools is insane. Why with all the money that taxpayer spends, the state school can not improve on its own?

Not all schools are excellent like SPS or Westminster or CLS or Eton. In my view, many of the private schools are no great in teaching than many of the state schools. Private schools may just have better sports or other facilities and parents able to pay fees may be able to provide better facilities for their children. Many of the parents choose private schools to give their children an exclusive club like environment. Contacts etc are made by mingling in the right circle.

I think that private schools should be for kids whose parents can afford to pay the fees and other expenses. I dislike applying ( a.k.a begging) for bursaries.

A bright child from the low income family can do as well in the state school - either grammar or the comprehensive one with proper setting in each subject or one having top forms for bright children. A child may get his/her fee reduced by bursaries at private schools; but a poor child at rich men's club would soon have other problems.

By the way, most of the bursaries do not go fsm children. On another thread a 'poor' mother with four or five kids in private schooling is now looking for bursary for her childr to join Eton as he is 'fixated' on Eton (and admirably, has also got provisional offer). Any where else, he will be 'doomed'.

As far as, what a good state school can do on its own, DAO School (in Herts) has 27 children going to Oxbridge this year. The school is partially selective; majority of intake is all ability local catchment and siblings.

I think that Michael Wilshaw was just making rhetorical political point scoring. His time would be better spent if he make efforts for improving the standards of teaching methods and of teachers in state schools.

Note:
My kids are at State schools. I also campaign for local children to go to local schools. I also favour retaining selective education and settings in comprehensive schools, i.e. in stretching the kids to their maximum ability.

Further to the comments I've made about our nearest secondary (stabbiings etc) I've just seen it's been awarded 'inadequate' status and of the many critisisms in the inspection one that jumped out at me is that year 11 achievement is significantly below average. Not everybody has access to a fabulous comprehensive school on their doorstep.

tiffinboys in my extensive experience and others in the same boat a super bright child educational needs, I'm talking IQ 150+ who's then particularly gifted in one area usually maths and related subjects but is high performing across the board, will not be catered for in the state sector even grammar schools with streaming especially outside of London with smaller populations to draw from. I am also the first to admit they are not catered for in the majority of private schools either money doesn't buy you this level of input. It's only a small handful that can really meet these children's needs.

@middleclass...
Firstly, my best wishes for your child. He is an exception and deserve Scholarship (not means tested bursary) at the appropriate school, which meets his educational needs.

@joni....
At such an appalling school, the management and all the poor performing teachers should be replaced.

Then the question would remain, how to deal with the violent kids. Teachers can't do any thing about it. Their parents will have to take responsibility.

'the school has 100's of years of tradition of providing an all round broad world class education'

Middleclassonabursary if you are also unconcerned about class sizes I think you're talking about one of a very small handful of independent schools that, try as one might, are almost impossible to replicate overnight. You may even agree with rabbitstew about the majority of private schools which don't provide value for money in comparison with an outstanding state school. The independent sector tries to market its reputation in a uniform way when we may be talking about a 100 fairly unique schools, and the mediocre schools ride on their coat tails. But it may also be one of the schools Wilshaw thinks has such an longstanding charitable tradition that it ought to do more for wider society. Perhaps it as already started. It's a risk to them, undoubtedly, to enter into a sponsorship deal and be seen to fail.

middleclassonbursary - well, you gave the school a chance and it let your children down. Sounds fair enough to me to have moved them, and you took advantage of what was on offer to you at the time you moved them.

When I was at school, possibly the academic gap between what was going on at public schools and selective state schools, or top sets in good comprehensives, was not so great, because my family have experience of both sectors and at the time ended up being happier with what was going on in the state sector. I have to say, I haven't been hugely happy with quite a lot of what has been forced on the state sector for the last 20 years, though, largely as a result of excessive governmental interference. I think there is too much teaching to the test, now, and that this has affected the way teaching is approached in many state schools. I resent the fact that league tables and the like, instead of improving standards, actually just appeared to make some schools increasingly economical with the truth and manipulative. I have witnessed first hand how Ofsted requirements have resulted in skewed priorities and ceasing to respond to the genuine needs of a particular school, all in order to make the headteacher look good - needless to say, such pretence is not sustainable forever, but then headteachers don't seem to hang around for long in schools, these days, either - apparently career advancement favours them moving on before it can be found out that the "improvements" they made were not real or sustainable.

Oh, and I suspect that a fair proportion of private schools (not the hugely expensive, top-of-the-sector public schools) teach to the test, too, because they do, after all, have to put their children through tests at 16 and 18, too, and have to "look" good to prospective, fee paying parents, who may be looking for a nice "feel" and lots of sport, but they no doubt also covet good exam results.

Quite agree with what 'rabbitstew' posted above.

One Girls grammar school's HT in nearby borough has been to 3 schools within 5 or 6 years. She comes from industry, to one school and then to second as Deputy Head and is now Head in the third. The times when HT would be the HT for life seems are over. It seems HT now gets yearly contracts and their loyalty is with the amount of monthly pay cheque.

muminlondon i am unconcerned about class size although none of my DS's classes are bigger than 17 and many are 7-12. I can see the advantage of a small class for a MFL or even art but my DS tells me that larger classes are better for maths etc apparently they need each other to spark ideas.
His school is probably one of those 100 you mention or even 1 of those 10 we all know of. It has as I've already said above sponsored a failing academy for 5 years with great success and is very committed to a needs blind bursary policy which it hopes to keep extending to more year on year.
I also agree there are many crap private schools out there and I don't need swimming pools and beagles. We decided we would only pay for two in the whole of the UK and I was unconvinced that on closer examination and despite their ambitious claims that all the other were not going to provide much more than the state sector. We are now comfortably off but not loaded but previously we've struggled for many years if I was going to part with my hard earned cash it was going to have to be bloody good.

I hAve the same attitude towards private schools that middleclassobursary does - there are only a very small handful which I think are really worth the fees beings asked for, and the majority really are quite mediocre. I have a suspicion that these very schools are the "luxury" schools Bonsoir wants to ban (funny, as I seem to recall her saying that she is trying to replicate what these schools offer by outsourcing things as these schools are not available where she is). My son is at one of these schools, which does sponsor and academy and also provides math extension classes at primary and senior levels to bright local state students - fine and dandy, I suppose.

What is of concern to me is that this argument seems to be oblivious to the fact that these very top schools are no longer available to the middle classes which traditionally populated them, and are increasingly being filled by the internationally wealthy. It is not Tarquins as Jacostas, but Sergeis and Ji Erns. People like nit might just have their wishes fulfilled, not by the abolition of these schools, but by the irrelevance of these top schools to an even greater percentage of the UK population.

Momin your right most children at these very top schools are from exceedingly wealthy backgrounds and many come from all over the world including Germany Scandinavia the Benelux countries and France as well as the obvious HK Chinese etc. I personally doubt that the handful of top boarding school were ever inhabited by the middle classes but their three or four London day school equivalents were, I know from personal experience 35-40 years ago schools like SPS and SPGS were within the reach of even careful professional middle classes like teachers no bursary required.

Surprisingly my daughter school has a swimming pool and a beagle too....The pool is great for making friendships as I suspect not much swimming is done. The Beagle I haven't seen but the other dog is lovely. I think its a great touch as kids love to play with dogs and its sort of reassuring.

I think what the middle class in the UK and what international families want may differ. Yes Yes we all want them to get 5 A'levels at grade A or do we? So that they get into a RG Uni.

I think choosing a private school is just a big of a minefield as choosing state schools. We chose ours and this is where Tiffin will berate me because the school is close to her Grandmother. Why didnt we choose public because most public are day schools and we wanted her to board. The school has a good history and to be honest the girls are friendly courteous abd smart. Will they all become high flyers no...But the school enciuragea each student to be the best they can be. I like that in a school.

So yes my daughter may not get her 5 Alevel A's but she will have a great time at school...hopefully make really good friendships. I don't see the need to send her to state so she can be teased for her ethnicity. Although her school is 90% local girls.

I did not send her to the private super selective as we wanted her to enjoy life... as well as study at school. Btw she was accepted there too.

As for overseas I think most privates prefer them as getting money out of them is easier. As the middle class shrink they need to think more globally and get the students in. Although Im a little selfish in thinking that a local based UK school with a high percentage of locals will be better than having a class full of overseas who will all get A's.

But then again its our differences that make for thought provoking ideas.

encourages....sorry damn phone

Yes Yes we all want them to get 5 A'levels at grade A or do we? So that they get into a RG Uni.

That's not the aim of everyone who chooses private school. I chose to go down the private route after witnessing my child being desperately unhappy in a large state primary school which was not meeting his academic needs and had shockingly poor pastoral care (or zero pastoral care). My child was dumbing himself down in state school, trying to hide his academic ability as it was seen as odd and geeky to be clever and the perfect reason to be made a social outcast.
The private school I chose has much smaller classes, is a more child friendly environment, has excellent pastoral care and meets his academic needs. It isn't seen as weird to be clever, it's seen as something to be proud of.
I don't care if my son gets 5 A's at A level or goes to an RG uni. I care that he is happy and has choices and that those choices are not restricted by being poorly educated or thoroughly miserable throughout his school life.

I agree, a big chunk of the English middle classes cannot afford the private schools that used to be accessible to them, or won't be able to within the next generation. But then if you are going to go for the "nothing but the best in everything" option, you have to expect that, because that's not a traditional middle class aspiration.

Kenlee please don't take this the wrong way but beagles are a pack of hounds which were used for hunting hares and foxes. Followers follow on foot rather than on horses. I think only three schools have then now (my DS doesn't attend any of the) I used it as an example of how far removed private schools can be from state schools.
I would be the first to admit I know nothing about failing state schools and how they are turned round but I am slightly unconvinced that private schools can play that big a role in doing this because the ones with the resources and time to do this are often as Im trying to point out so far removed from the state sector counterparts. Michael Wilshaw thought parents at private schools wouldn't like it I think Kenlee you are right about most parents wanting results they certainly do at my DS's school and as long as the education of those at the private school isn't jeopardised I don't think parents care what else the head master and other staff gets up too. Lets not forget no head in his right mind is going to upset current or future parents.

rabbitstew the middle classes must be particularly struggling to pay fees in London and the home counties where mortgages/rents are so high.

I'm sorry tiffinboys but I don't think DAO in Herts is a very good example of 'what a good state school can do on its own'. It's very much a selective school in terms of wealth and ability - have you seen the price of houses in Potters Bar? Only 2.2% of pupils are entitled to free school meals and out of an intake of 200 pupils in 2012 - 146 were already high attainers, 50 middle attainers and only 4 were low attainers. The school is extensively talked about on the eleven plus website (tutors et all) and I assume many of the children who go there have parents who would willingly pay for private tutors throughout if necessary. Lucky if you can afford the catchment area/tutors.

Actually this thread has been about how private sector does agaisnt public sector. Im just curious aren't grammar schools selective and free? So shouldn't they be placed into the equation? What about comprehensive in rich areas. Where the parents use them as free private schools...

So I am of the thinking there must be a lot of good state sector schools out there. Its just difficult getting into one if your poor and without the know-how to do so.

I have actually learnt this reading this thread...

kenlee nothing is that black and white. In very wealthy rural areas there will of course be areas of poverty maybe not as obvious as in part of our major cities but still there, wages for farm workers are often poor, businesses expect to pay semi skilled workers less in rural area than those in a major city would because housing is so much cheaper. For example my DH when based in London paid a unskilled worker 9 yrs ago the same amount a highly skilled worker would earn in our rural area now. So children of "poor without the know how" parents can access good quality education. Our local slightly undersubscribed (just through lack of local children and the nearest significant major town is 25 miles away) comp results are at the very least on a par with a local mediocre rather expensive private school.
IME experience and many others it's what many on here call "the outliers" (a hideous term) who get a bad deal in state ed: the real geniuses not the very bright but the IQ of 150+, those with educational learning difficulties not bad enough to warrant a statement but still time and resource consuming, the vulnerable and anxious, the school refusers those who really need extra TLC long term. They get the raw deal and these are often the parents who look for an alternative: the private sector. Of course it's often no better there either!

So basically from my understanding is that if your poor and are relatively well informed is that you can get into a fairly good state school if you want to travel.

If you have certain difficulties even these state schools would shun you. The private schools are no better.

So shouldn't the government be tackling these problems rather than just saying that the state sector has failed because the private sector is not helping?

I have no solutions for these children apart from saying that there should be schools to help them. Specialist to understand and nuture them...

Where should the money come from....I have my ideas but it is beyond the remit if this thread

I have to comment on another poster who says:

'Momin your right most children at these very top schools are from exceedingly wealthy backgrounds and many come from all over the world including Germany Scandinavia the Benelux countries and France as well as the obvious HK Chinese etc.'

Not true. Both my sons are at schools like this and we are NOT exceedingly wealthy. Lots of my DS's friends parents arent either. Of course we earn way in excess of the average salary living near London. But we cannot really compare someone who is working part time with 3 children on NWW and saying its not fair these schools arent open to them.

Well, Business Class travel isnt sadly open to me! I would love to use it for long haul travel but I cannot afford it. Could I afford it if I changed my job and took more responsibility. Yep - I probably could but like everyone else - you make your choices in life....

My DS went to a feeder for Eton, Harrow, Radley etc and the parents were again not 'exceedingly wealthy'. Some where but others were two working parents in professional roles who stopped at 1-2 children.

I think it makes it convienent to talk like this. Someone else was talking about 'ruling classes'. It really isnt like this.

So, not wealthy people.... just people who 'of course' earn 'way in excess of the average salary living near London'. That's cleared that up then!

So, not wealthy people.... just people who 'of course' earn 'way in excess of the average salary living near London'. That's cleared that up then!

We don't fit into either of those categories. We have one average earner and one non earner but manage to pay one set of private school fees. Admittedly, private school fees are much cheaper where we live than in other parts of the country, but earnings are also less so its relative.