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.'

Its very unlikely that private schools will be abolished or that their charity staus will be removed. So this is a bit of a non debate.

Wasnt is Suzi Leather who went on war on privates until she was removed. Thing is her children used them! Maybe they were nearly 18 so that's why she felt safe knocking them (and then using them herself)

I mean when places come up for say secondary school. Its done on catchment and such like. You cannot book a school until you are 18. How would YOU feel if someone from a private took your DS's place.

I'd think how silly of the powers that be, that they are incapable of ensuring that there are enough school places to go around.

Actually, if that happened, I'd pay for my child to take the other child's place at the local private school.

Why should Private schools help State schools, I see no benefit for them by providing assistance to state schools. As for abolishing the tax-exemption status that is madness, private schools produce thousands of very highly educated children every year for only a small expense to the state through a tax break. Looking at what this tax break costs and what private schools add to the skill base, then this tax break is very effective and positive for the country.

The sad thing is that if private schools became state schools then they would be wrecked by meddling. Can't imagine the 9pm finish and Saturday school staying in place in the state system? But my house value would rocket as everyone tried to move into catchment though!

There you go, you see, utreas, you buy into my earlier argument that it is actually very kind of the ruling classes to educate the future ruling classes (mainly their own children) in such a charitable way.

I absolutely agree with originalsteamingnit:)

lisad. Yes, tax does pay for the state sector. There would be a hell of a lot more tax to pay for it if the private schools stayed paying it. Educating your child privately is not a charitable affair. Why should it be? Please, someone. Explain exactly why your child's private school should be considered a charity? Unless they go to Christs Hospital school, or one of the tiny minority who operate like this one, why the hell should an expensive, elitist school be considered a charity - I just cannot comprehend it.

Handcream the state school system can't copy many of the ways private schools do things that make them successful. They can't refuse to educate students with below average ability, or time consuming learning difficulties. They can't get rid of children whose parents have little regard for the value of education, or who have low aspirations for their dc's future. They can't fund the size of classes found in many private schools.

Why should private schools help state school pupils?

I woud imagine Wilshaw's argument is that private schools have a duty to wider society as charities. But if they could help raise standards more widely in state schools (by sponsoring them, he says, so 1,000 pupils might benefit rather than 5 on bursaries), we might have a better skilled workforce, able to compete globally, with increased levels of innovation and entrepreneurship not to mention mass prosperity which would benefit all. No man (or woman) is an island ...

The value of the tax break is estimated at £200 per charitable school pupil per year. It does add up, though: there are about 1200 charitable schools, and although size varies a lot, if you postulate 360 pupils per school (preps often many fewer, secondaries can be many more) then it reaches about £85m pa.

That could pay for 1,700 teachers. And according to MW 1,400 state-trained teachers leave state schools for the private sector every year. Fair exchange?

And how are they going to 'raise standards'? Explain to state school heads that they need to stop taking poor and not academic children?

Seriously. What does the head of a school which selects its pupils based on their wealth and, in most cases, their already proven academic ability, have to say that is going to help the head of a school who just takes whoever lives near enough? They haven't a clue!

Ah, but you see, TOSN, they could shake their heads patronisingly and say, "You see, we told you universal education was a waste of time. Only the elite are worth educating. Look what happens when you try to educate everyone."

Rabbit why do you keep referring to 'ruling classes'. It sounds like something from tudor times! You wouldn't have the option to pay for another child to go to a private school. Privates wouldn't exist. We would all be eligble for the state system. House prices would rocket and you would effectivelty buy your way into a good school.

^^ yy

Look the last thing a two tier system would ever want is for the lower tier to become as successful as the top. Why would people pay to go private if their local, free school was just as good? Actually the worse the local schools are the more customers the private one would have ... Maybe a business opportunity for them in sponsoring state schools after all!

My DS is not wildly academic. However his school has brought out the best in him. We are not posh but we did choose to use our money in the private sector, do I think our local secondary mod would have developed him the same way. Absolutely not!

I didn't say grammars were awful....it looks like a post code

handcream - funnily enough, quite a lot of public schools date back to tudor times, don't they? And privately educated newspaper journalists do so like to "bemoan" the fact that the privately educated are over-represented in politics, law, journalism, medicine, etc. And, of course, under the current system, nobody buys their way into a good school, do they? Oh no, silly me, they just have a different way of doing exactly that. At least if everyone were educated in the state sector, you'd be able to see more clearly the real causes of advantage and disadvantage.

But secondary moderns are?