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.'

Nit - why do assisted places suck? There are plenty at my older son's 'posh' boarding school who are are busaries and such like, the boys dont know who is being helped with fees and who isnt and frankly they dont care!

Its funny how you have a hatred of private schools yet you dont mind using their facilities. Wonder if someone offered you a completely free place what you would do?

If VAT was put on the school fees we would have to seriously have a re-think. We would perhaps look at the state system and even take that place from your own child because we got in first or moved to the correct catchment area.

I think some who are so against private schools would be surprised who uses them.

MuswellHillDad believe me, if there had been one or two more bright kids in my comprehensive (this was during the time of assisted places) I might have had a happier time in school. And don't confuse setting by subject - which can change on a yearly basis - or even streaming by broad ability bands, which can also be reviewed annually - with selection by ability to a grammar school or private school, where there is no movement between schools and resources are ringfenced.

However, I would be very happy to see private schools take the lower attaining pupils, especially on FSM and/or who are disruptive in a large class but would thrive in smaller class sizes.

Finally, I saw an interesting statistic about the number of private school pupils who take up places at superselective grammar schools - nearly a third in some cases. Personally, this doesn't bother me as it means grammar schools in those areas are less likely to divide the state primary school population who were happily co-educated in mixed ability classes to the age of 11.

I agree with Muswell Hill when he says that it wont make a difference if you have a 'posh' kid in the class. It could make it worse .

At my DS's school there are boys who will never need to work, who will come into money in later life. There have been a couple over the years who have tried to distrupt the class and they are removed quickly, no one really knows what happens but rumour is you get a call from the Head, if you cannot fit a face to face with the Head into your busy schedule you are sent a letter stating that within xxx days your son will be asked to leave.

The school can pick and choose their pupils.

Personally, I don't think the state sector should be so poor that your only chance of a good education is an assisted place at a private school... I therefore think the idea of increasing assisted places is not really a solution to anything.

I disagree that streaming is the best way of getting the best teaching to different abilities. Setting, yes, streaming, no. What about those who are brilliant mathematicians, but poor linguists? Or those with a high degree of verbal fluency but relatively weak mathematical skills? Where do you stream, rather than set, such children? Or is society now writing everyone but the all-rounders off as a waste of space?

For people who question the Charitable status. Well, I could use the state system or even better perhaps I could have my money back for not using state. You cannot have it both ways.

?? Sorry, that's just a pathetic argument, handcream. You pay plenty of taxes for things from which you don't personally benefit, so why treat education differently? How very self centred. Do you want every tax payer without children to get tax paid back, too, since they aren't using state schools, either? And how about getting money back for not using the NHS, because you happen to have private healthcare and be remarkably healthy???

And why contribute tax towards major infrastructure projects if you don't use trains or planes or automobiles?... I mean, hey, it's not as if a good education system is supposed to benefit the whole country or anything, is it?...

I guess you could say that the ruling classes are benefiting the whole country by creating the leaders of tomorrow, and saving everyone a bit of money in tax. How very charitable of them.

Totally agree about setting versus streaming.

And really, if a private school's good results are only achieved by packing the place with bright kids who can't afford the fees, that does rather suggest that it's not the fabulous teaching that's responsible...

Make private schools operate like the businesses they really are (i.e pay tax rather than have charitable status) and use this income to improve the lot for the state sector. if this means some of them go under, so bloody what?! Perhaps the pushy middle classes who currently make so many 'sacrifices' to privately educate might no longer be able to afford to do so and instead direct their energies to being involved in improving the lot of their local state school. While we're at it, abolish this 'choice' bollocks and make children attend their nearest school, rather than have the annual bun fight for places at the most desirable one. Level the playing field a bit.

Where would you stop Signora. What about private companies topping up London Underground or how about the Top 50 companies putting funds into the NHS. Why not look at why the NHS is failing, why some state schools are rubbish, why some parents dont care about education for their children.

At my sons mixed ability public school there are 4-6 sets for every subject and everyone does 2 hours prep every night before they leave at 9pm. That's why they get such good results. Everyone studies, every day.

I don't think loaning out a teacher or two is going to translate that into the state system. It's not that the teachers are better. It's that the ethos and culture is totally different.

And if you want to abolish charitable status then fair enough. It is a price worth paying to be out of reach of Gove's endless fads.

I agree with Elastamum. My DS's have the same culture. And there are 6 sets for each subject. They go to school on Sat. Its actually nothing really to do with the money. The way the teaching and culture is is what makes it work. Instead of knocking the private system why doesnt the state sysem copy some of the ways privates work.

What do you mean Handcream? Since when did any other private companies have charitable status? I'm sure Bupa doesn't - it's there to make a profit, so why should it be topping up the nhs? Yes, you pay your money you take your choice, but why should the 'choice' (which, for the vast majority, it isn't) be subsidised by massive tax breaks? So private schools try to justify getting away with paying no tax and admitting only the elite by occasionally loaning a playing field to the plebs or dishing out the odd bursary. Whoopie doo!

Er, where did I say I didn't mind using their facilities? I said I would rather state schools didn't do that, but then if it makes the private schools earn their charity status it's perhaps not wholly a bad thing.

If somebody offered one of my children a free place at one of them, I'd turn it down without a backward glance. And that's true.

Assisted places suck because they both suggest that a bright child can only do well in private, and remove bright children from the state system. They also allow private schools to give themselves a pat in the back for helping the poor, when actually they're just taking bright children who are already doing well. If assisted places were offered to challenging or not very academic children, that would be more impressive.

So if you abolish charitable status and my school fees go up and all bursaries get abolished too, will you be happy? The 620000 privately educated children will cost the state a couple of billion to educate. That's a big pot of money to find

Yes, I would be delighted

Err, what was the question again?

Nit wants all us private school parents to join her. Problem is if one of us takes a place that would have gone to her DC there will be hell to pay.

The school fees won't go up.

Tuition is a tax-exempt item (other than in certain catgories of crammer).

The only tax break is for VAT on certain supplies. If charitable status could just be revoked (without having to close down in accordance with current rules on winding up a charity) then I think school's would be queuing up to do it.

The schools are not private businesses with charitable status - they are charities. The provision of education is classed as charitable. Charities are allowed to charge fees for services.

Not sure I understand lisad123's point? Why should they... what? Do you mean, why should private schools pay tax? In which case, haven't you answered your own question by saying that getting state education up to a good standard is what tax pays for?

Perhaps I should change my name to TheOriginalStrawManNit.

If all private schools became state schools, formerly privately educated children wouldn't need to take anyone else's place in another school, since they already have school places.