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.'

There is no such thing (in my opinion) as a deserving or undeserving child. All children are equally deserving, however, some parents have a more involved style of parenting than others. Some parents have different priorities to others. Some parents value education more than others and see education as a joint home and school effort, Others think that academic teaching is the sole responsibility of the school. Some parents do not have the academic ability required to help their children themselves.

All children are deserving of equal opportunities, but just because some cannot access those opportunities it doesn't mean that others shouldn't either. Additionally, all children have different levels of ability so regardless of parental enthusiasm, wealth or parental ability they cannot achieve the same things as other children and there is nothing that can change that.
I don't see why a bright child from an educationally motivated family should not be able to access whatever opportunities are available just because a bright child from a family who couldn't care less about education isn't accessing the same.

Does the child in your example have a "right" to access the same opportunities despite their parents inaction? If so then something needs to be done to fulfil that right.

I'm not saying one way or the other, but I think the answer depends on whether you think the child has equal rights or whether the parents do (and can choose not to exercise them).

'Is it wealth / poverty that is the driving factor for academic success?'

Yes, emphatically. But it's as much or more to do with who you live among than how much you earn (the IDACI score).

1. Being wealthy buys you opportunities. That includes education and travel. It allows you to buy a house in a rich area which gives you access to schools with other middle class children. But also neighbours and friends. The very wealthy may still send their children to the very selective private schools, (0% FSM), which mostly tend to be in or near London, the wealthiest part of the country.

1. Being wealthy enough to afford a middle class area you will get the divide we have discussed between superselective grammars (3% FSM), faith schools (14% FSM compared to 17% non-religious schools, but e.g. 7% London Oratory) and the schools left over may be sponsored academies (26.6%) or a girls' school. You may still feel unlucky with your limited choice of school but have lots of books at home, you are well educated and can support your child at the local comprehensive, pay for school trips, a bit of private tuition, and several friends send their articulate children to the same school, etc. There are lots of young teachers, e.g. Teach First graduates. It's still only 'good' but it got 30% through Ebacc this year.

1. Being poor means you can't choose where you live. This means you may be living in an area of high unemployment and low aspiration. I'm not talking about London where you can get on a bus or even walk and see how the other half live, have many job opportunities and world class museums, cultural experiences, etc. Such areas aren't attractive for property investors unless it's buy to let. But still unaffordable to those on benefits or minimum wage they may be in rented homes or social housing. Not particularly attractive to bright new teachers with a first in Maths or Languages either. It's hard to do homework when the heating has been switched off to economise or you share a bedroom and the family is watching TV. You don't know anyone who has ever been to university. You live near to where you grow up so your mum can do free childcare. You've never met anyone who is a lawyer, unless you've been in trouble with the law. You don't have a car and you live near a dual carriageway with no cycle paths so you stick to the nearest school where your child can walk. It's a sponsored academy with 11% high attainers and three times as any low attainers, and 41%. It's probably your only bit of good luck because it had an outstanding Ofsted. But only 3% passed all Ebacc subjects.

And so on.

three times as many low attainers, and 41% FSM. I picked it out of the performance tables - it's a school praised by Michael Gove on the Norfolk coast.

And this report just out:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/08/thousands-pupils-destined-fail-school_n_4061784.html

'Almost 80% of the difference in GCSE results between rich and poor children has already been determined by the time a child is seven'

'less than a sixth of poorer children who are behind at seven will go on to achieve the benchmark five good GCSEs'

Maybe middle class pupils should no longer receive a government subsidy for 15 hours' education of three and four year olds - or prep schools, especially those attached to popular senior schools with high income, should exclusively prioritise poorer children. It's a critical time.

So basically its a caste system. You are what you are born into. To be honest I hope not. I am a great believer in social mobility. Even if 99% of those who are socio economically dysfunctional couldnt care less about their children. In which the children really haven't a clue. There is still a rather large 1%. Who do care who do want out of the ever spiraling state of affairs they are caught in.

The real point is how we help those who want to be helped. In these cases I suggest Bursaries for the smart kids full boarding. To get them away from the very environment they live in. Yes it is unfair to the local school who will lose a very able student.

Will it help to send the child to a good grammar school a million miles away from home. It may help but to be honest if its to far they will only be educated exam wise and miss out on the extra curriculum activities that make most wealthier school children more rounded.

So the only alternative is to build a good school in deprived areas. Again this can only be done in big cities as the population densities in a rural setting would be to low.

BTW....Im curious what level of commitment does a parent need to make their child successful.

Im talking helicopter parents .....Tiger parents....laid back....educated parents....or just interested parents ?

Mum Im not sure by taking away a subsidy from the middle class will help the poor. I rather leave the middleclass doing what is successful and work out what other things we can do to help the poor move up the social ladder if they so wish too.

A child who yearns to leave the destitution of his parents low aspirations needs to be fostered. I was lucky I had a great teacher....

Does the child in your example have a "right" to access the same opportunities despite their parents inaction? If so then something needs to be done to fulfil that right.

I'm not saying one way or the other, but I think the answer depends on whether you think the child has equal rights or whether the parents do (and can choose not to exercise them).

Children are all deserving of having equal opportunities, but that doesn't mean that the capacity for them to access those opportunities is available. Ultimately the decision making belongs with the child's parents.
There is also the difficulty of children having different ability levels and therefore certain opportunities not being an option for them.
Something not being available to a child doesn't mean that the child is less deserving.
I have a child with a severe disability (learning and physical), he cannot access the same learning or extra curricular opportunities as his brother but that doesn't mean that he is less deserving in any way.

Deserving and possible and not the same thing.

Im not sure by taking away a subsidy from the middle class

Read the link. I'm not saying the middle classes should not have access to fee-paying places. Subsidy of nursery education is a new thing, introduced under Labour as a universal benefit, with unintended consequences. There were never enough nursery schools but with this grant there was a boom in private nurseries but with lower trained staff. It was a universal benefit meant to help the low paid, but my friend working as a prep school teacher told me her reception class pupils got the subsidy too. These were not working parents either.

Now it has been extended without means testing to three year olds so that can still apply to nursery classes in private schools. The very poor can't afford childcare at all (it's not just about preschool children) so they may use family relatives or unregistered childminders and can't claim anything back.

If the coalition can introduce the bedroom tax, limit child benefit, remove other means-tested benefits for the poor, then they are being duplicitous in allowing this one to be used by rich families.

The mistake was not building high quality nursery schools for aged 3-4+ or adding nursery classes to primaries. We have an outstanding one in my LA. They used to prioritise by age and take from all over (from the term after you hit 4) but now have had to add a year (from aged 3), so they now have a smaller catchment area. They only have so much space so couldn't increase class sizes. Luckily it's in a mixed area, but it could have been a wealthy one excluding poor children further away. The Conservative council nearly closed it in the 1980s.

So what about Dulwich College sponsoring nursery classes in Peckham or even Grimsby?

Does Dulwich College School has any experience in nursery education? Last we saw it, I thought they only know about secondary level education to A level and have huge expertise in sending its pupil to Oxbridge or medicine and like.

And for huge fees, unaffordable for middleclass professional like us. I often wonder which middleclass now affords private fees, even with 2 children.

Perhaps now bankers on high salaries are the middleclass?

Or perhaps, we are not the middleclass, we used to think that we are.

"Does Dulwich College School has any experience in nursery education? Last we saw it, I thought they only know about secondary level education to A level and have huge expertise in sending its pupil to Oxbridge or medicine and like."

Yes!

Dulwich College has a well-established nursery department, DUCKS, which admits from age 6 months and has been around for a few decades. The Junior department of the College (age 7 and upwards) has been around for a few centuries.

Great, then they could certainly give consulting services if LA or any other group want to establish a new free nursery.

or a junior school.

Yes, they might! In fact, they possibly already do, via their involvement in the Southwark Schools project.

My apologies. Just checked on line - the Southwark Schools Learning Partnership is secondary only.