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.'

"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 agree with this. It's amazing how many staunch anti-private school parents I have known pre-school and all through primary were discovered at a private school open day and started saying talking about their child's needs.

There seem to be a few types of parent:

1. those that put the greater good above all else, even at their child's expense
2. those that think the greater good and their child's welfare are the same choice
3. those that say either of the above, but don't practice what they preach
4. those that say their children's welfare is priority and act on it, ignoring any notion of greater good

Define "greater good" however you please.

Unfortunately, I would ultimately put my children's welfare at the top whilst believing that this is not actually for the greater good - so I'm a 3.5.

There is a large part of me that finds choice irritating. I would rather make the most of what I've got that worry about whether I've made the wrong choice.

"Charity means giving something for free, doesn't it?"

Not under current charity law. Charities are permitted to charge fees for services. Whether and how they do so must comply with the law, their stated charitable aims, and reflect the actual cost of what they are doing.

Sorry, but charging thousands of pounds to educate rich children is not a charitable act, any way you look at it.

And while you could argue that giving cheaper/free places to the sort of kids who are going to pull the results up (and thus lure in more fees from parents desperate to buy a piece of that results action without realising it's been skewed by abilty rather than intrinsic school-related goodness) is an act of charity I am not exactly sure which way the charity goes...

Better stop paying my daughters brownies fees then as they should be letting her go for free.

I'm probably a four on that list.
Having been to 2 and 3 other state schools and been failed terribly two of my children are now thriving at private school on scholarships, bursaries and GP) I also have two who are thriving at state school.
To be honest it's probably better for the world that my eldest gets the education he needs otherwise he says 'that he would have used his powers to become an evil genius mastermind and get his own back'.

I don't know how I feel about Wilshaw's suggestions. Maybe they should set an amount that private schools have to do (someone could work out some incomprehensible formula for it).
Selfishly I wouldn't want them to lose their charitable status because I would have an evil genius mastermind on my hands.

One of my state educated children is currently at the local prep school using their facilities. If the charity status was revoked for private schools presumably their small state school would have to manage on the little funding and facilities they have.

There's another dimension I've observed

A) parents that believe the private school in their catchment will be, by definition, the best place for their child to learn and be happy

B) parents who believe the church school .... (As above)

C) parents who believe the grammar school ... (As above)

D) parents who believe the comprehensive ...( as above)

I try very hard to think about what suits my kids best and set aside my politics, religion and other prejudices and preconceptions in the interests of my child's welfare.

Hence the kids of a wealthy atheist are at the local church school, because that was the best for them, regardless of where I am on the scale.

Sorry for trying to put people in boxes but I say "great" to those who recognise what box (e.g. 4c) they're in and admit it.

I wish people who have little knowledge of private school assume that all the kids are bright hence the fantastic results. They arent. The few who do know how are private schools are run know there are sets for every subject. At my son's school there are Sets 1-6. You can be in top set for Maths and lower for French. It brings out the best in the boys who are being taught with kids of the same academic ability as themselves.

Surely putting a shed load of pupils (30+) into one class with mixed ability doesnt work. If state was doing well they wouldnt be jealously looking at the private schools and demanding not only that they fix the state's problems but actually that that they pay for it!

Look at what the privates are doing right and then mirror.

May I also call you "Jayne"? I applaud you.

Handcream

I still didn't get the distinction people made earlier between streaming and setting. Seemed to be the same thing to me and what I've heard from all the teachers I've spoken to (at too many schools now) remained true, whatever terminology you choose.

However, it's tough to mirror why many private schools are doing when you aren't allowed selective intake. That said, 11+ tends to focus on English and Maths only so, as you say, you might be rubbish at languages, science and music but still get in.

I'm so confused! Too many opinions, conjectures and not enough facts and first hand experiences in this thread.

Now, if we could all put ourselves in boxes, we'd solve the housing crisis.

Do I pay tax on that spare empty box I have, the one I jump into when I change my mind?

I think you would find that if it was possible for a school to renounce its charitable staus and continue as is, then many private schools would do so. That £88million saved in charitable status equates to less than £150 per pupil.

For my DC's school, that is less than £100k - considerably less than goes out in scholarships, bursaries and the use of science and sports facilities to the village state school. The school could quite happily put the fees up to cover this and continue offering the bursaries etc.

But I suspect Wilshaw and a number of others, would not be happy about this, as what they really want is for independant schools that can produce better results than those offered by local state education to cease to exist.

The problem isnt really the charitable status of private schools, it is that state education in a number of parts of the country isnt good enough so parents who can do go elsewhere. We dont have grammars, or any choice at all in state education where I live - so the choice is between getting bussed miles to a not very good comp or paying.

handcream - I think you'll find the state sector is not looking jealously at private schools, it's privately educated journalists and politicians, and Michael Wilshaw who are telling the state sector it should be looking jealously at the private sector.

MuswellHillDad - there is a colossal difference between streaming and setting. If you stream children, then those in the top stream are automatically in the top for every subject and taught entirely separately in all subjects from those in other streams. If you SET children, then you assess their abilities subject by subject, so that a child who is good at English can be in the top set for that, but might be in the bottom set for maths. Such a child in a streamed setting might end up in the bottom stream for everything, because they can't keep up with the maths in the top stream.

The question is: are there actually enough good teachers to go around? And of those good teachers, how many can cope for an entire career with the stress of teaching the most troubled children?

Muswell - I dont either. Basically if you put the same ability into the same class the teacher can organise her lesson at the appropriate level. If you have mixed ability IMHO it wont work wel. If it was working we wouldnt be discussing this in such detail.

I also believe that for some subjects seperating the sexes works. Girls are often streets ahead and a August born boy who isnt particularly academic might feel the need to muck around, show off etc as only teenage boys can do.

If we talk about charities. What about all the charities that acutually give little in the way of donations once they have taken out their 'costs'.

What about people who use their company provided private medical insurance? Saving the NHS, queue jumping or something else?

Ahh, I get streaming and setting now! Thank you, can I move up from the MN class D to class C now ?

If we're going off topic, why are churches charities? Don't they sell fairy tales for a living?

(Puts on hard hat and retreats to the bunker built by the Hitchens Dawkins PPP charitable trust LLP)

There is a shortage of teachers in subjects such as science and maths. And if you were a physics or chemistry teacher where would you rather be? In a school with good facilities and no disipline problems teaching children who are in the right sets, or in an underfunded science lab with poor facilities, trying to keep order so you can teach the children who want to learn?

Teachers in private schools with children also have a huge interest in staying in the system as their children are usually educated at the schools at a huge discount or for free. I think about 1:10 children at my DC school are children of staff who get a 90% discount on the fees.

Homework for MHD:

Is an athiest paying for education making a better moral choice than an athiest using a church school?

Discuss.

So the more academic the teacher, the more likely they are to be lured, gradually, towards the private sector, or grammar schools...

elastamum - I don't think atheists have to think churches are immoral! I see no moral problem in mixing with people who believe in fairies.

We had a high flying Head from a private school teaching background come in to turn around our catchment primary school several years ago. The school had a poor reputation for both discipline and results. The Head was tasked with turning the school around and was specifically asked to see what he could implement from his private school experience. The results were absolutely amazing. He completely changed the ethos of the school and there was a real buzz of enthusiasm. The results dramatically improved as well.

Unfortunately he was quickly moved on and since then the school has rapidly gone downhill again. Every single initiative that he implemented has now been dismantled (the last straw for me was the dumping of the Curriculm Evening this year) and results are right down as well. It is so frustrating to watch. DS was fortunate to have spent his first years under this Head and DS is actually now at the private school where the Head used to teach so I can directly see what he was trying to mimic. DD started school after the Head left and it's a completely different experience to her brother's.

The point of my rambling is that I do think private schools can and should provide support in a variety of ways to the State sector- there can be a wide impact. However, from my experience the barriers come from within the State sector and yes I know I'm massively generalising Many of the parents at DD's school are happy to berate me for going private but at the same time they don't want that sort of environment for their own children. It's kind of a no win situation.