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.'

I went to a secondary modern. I wouldn't wish that education on anyone.

Do you have a chip on your shoulder Rabbit. Presumably you call yourself a 'worker'. Well snap - I am a worker too. I choose to spend my money on education. Why my choices have anything to do with you or your choices to me is beyond me.

That's a bit disingenuous, lisad123. I really don't think private schools would be at all happy if they got hundreds of applications every year for full bursaries for just one or two places (if they offer any full bursaries). It suits them just fine that not many people apply.

So you do think the grammar system is a bad one?

lisad it wouldn't matter how many people applied, the private schools wouldn't give two shits for an applicant who was not academic, would they?

handcream - what on earth makes you think I call myself a worker? I'm very middle class in my upbringing and attitudes. I'm just cynical.

Basically, nobody educates their children in the private sector because they want to be charitable. They do it for their own benefit, because they think their children will be happier there, or more fulfilled there, or have better prospects there, or come out more "rounded" in some way. They do not do it to save the taxpayer money.

I think its the governments job to improve state schools not the private sector. Methinks Wilshaw is passing the buck. Agree the culture and ethos of private school is completely different and that is why they are so successful plus the parents value education and support the school and pay through the nose for it. Most independent schools are also selective ie. selective on ability, or caters for a specific SN eg dyslexia but in state schools selection on any crteria is taboo and all must be educated together which on limited resources is difficult to do well.

lisad123 - great idea! I think they should be forced to educate whole groups of children .

You know, if you are an amazing teacher and you know your stuff and you care desperately about the outcome of every child, and you decide that what you're going to do with all that is head a private school...well, you're allowed. Though it would be odd. But please, don't think that the results you get from your hand picked intake make you somehow eligible to tell people who haven't sold out how to do their jobs.

The 'fuck the rest of you, why should we care?' posts on this thread make it very clear how many private school users think about other people!

How do they choose whom they give the bursaries to?

The government will be asking BUPA to fix the NHS next and threatening not to send them any patients if they refuse. I think Its a bit rich for Wilshaw who was appointed by a government made up of ministers most of whom were privately educated to come out with this bunkum and threatening schools with the line that that universities wont accept yheir pupils. Well if that happens sod them, well educated aspirational pupils will always be sought after by universities abroad i'm already looking at ones dcs might consider.

If it's the government's job to improve state schools why do private school heads keep telling them they're doing it wrong though? The guy I'm quoting might have a point but is he p*ing in from outside the tent?

I don't think it would harm the state sector to be more aware of what has gone into producing the academic results achieved by selective private schools. Knowledge is power, as they say. If these schools do teach their children in a radically different way from the way students in the top sets at comprehensives are taught, then it would be interesting to know.

It's quite hard to piss inside the tent, these days. Big Brother is watching.

Yes, rabbitstew, if they did phonics tests and SATs we could measure their progress and work out the average point score of their L5 attaining pupils compared with those in a state school. But maybe they'd rather we (or rather, potential customers) were kept in ignorance. Certainly the private schools entering the state sector as free schools have had a rude awakening with Ofsted. But there are still plenty of private schools queuing up to convert.

Am still waiting for someone to explain why their child's expensive private school deserves its charitable status. A friend of ours was talking about this charitable event she was planning. It sounded really interesting and we were all eager to attend. When asked what it was in aid of, she admitted it was for her son's potty, snooty little prep school. We all fell about laughing - the rest of us have kids who go to our local state primary. To her credit, she was suitably embarrassed .

Well why shouldnt they be....

The act of education is charitable and they are a non profit organization. Which in itself make it charitable.

quite simple really...

No, doesn't quite work... Charity means giving something for free, doesn't it? That's like a homeless charity that charges the homeless for giving them a sandwich. So then I guess only really wealthy homeless people would be able to afford the sandwich... And thus, waitrose was born. Or something.

I'm beginning to understand the get rid of private school idea. Take this example.

Today's world - non-utopia

Student A is at private school and gets straight As and becomes a doctor or goes to Oxbridge. The parents have spent over £200,000 on education and the taxpayer has saved £80,000 on education whilst also having an extra place to offer.

Student B is at comprehensive schools and gets straight As and also goes to Oxbridge (to train as a doctor). The taxpayer paid £80,000 on education.

(NB uni costs excluded at this point in the hypothetical story)

Utopia - private schools abolished

Both students go to comprehensive schools, get straight As and become doctors. The taxpayer pay £160,000 and had to add extra infrastructure (either by building, buying or compulsory purchase) and the wealthy parent of student A are now £200,000 richer and put down a deposit on a flat for their child.

Does this mean that all those in favour of abolishing private schools are actually closet tories hoping to protect wealthy people?

Ah, but the children aren't paying for their education, TOSN - their charitable parents are making the contribution, for the public benefit.

MuswellHillDad - absolutely. Save the wealthy from the shame of resorting to charities for their education. Instead, they can hold their heads high and say they deserve their state education because they pay more tax than anyone else.

Technically being charities, though, is a stick that governments use to beat private schools with from time to time - as does Michael Wilshaw. They wouldn't put up with that if they were profit making enterprises.

Also, think about all those poor private school teachers that won't be able to transfer to comprehensives because they can only teach bright kids and are not actually any good at their jobs ..... oh wait a minute, that sounds like total rubbish and slightly offensive.

(sorry just getting used to using smileys, so perhaps I use them too much)