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'm not too sure about the MuswellHill International System of Parental Categories... or why it's important for us to sort ourselves according to it!

Handcream, you realise that comprehensives usually set too, right? It's not something private schools invented, or on which they have the monopoly.

Yes, we cannot just pick on schools as charities. Agree re churches as well. Look at the Catholic Church - stuffed full of money.

Honestly - I went through the state system during the time grammar schools were scrapped. It was a horrible mess. We have the grammar's around here. IMHO the way they were run before was much better. They really were for the academically inclined and money didnt come into it.

Now, they are difficult to pass without tutoring. This means they are closed to anyone without the money to pay for it. So, the grammars are almost solely filled by middle class parents who have focused and paid for the option. Yet they are still classed as 'state'.

All the ministers bleating about the state system and then opting out and using the private option. Diane Abbott is a prime example of this what's good for you isnt an option for me. She then tried to play the race card and said West Indian women go to the wall for their children. horrible women and I wouldnt trust her to cut my toenails!

I agree with you on two points, Handcream - the 11+ system sucks, and Diane Abbott is an idiot.

Silly comments from Mr. Wilshaw.

All private companies benefit from state-educated teachers (universities and so on). The teachers working in private schools cost no more to educate than the quantitative analysts working in hedge funds.

Education has long been seen as a good itself, hence the charitable status.

The tax break is worth only £100 million a year, a mere £200 per pupil.

It is nothing. Yet this tiny bauble is used as a constant threat to bully the private sector.

I agree with Mumzy - it is the job of governments to sort out the education problems in the state sector. The private sector has no responsibility whatsoever to do so.

Having said that, I am increasingly against "luxury" private education that gives children a radically different world view to the one afforded by state education or more basic private education. I think there are strong reasons for legislating against "luxury" education.

Bonsoir, how would you define "luxury" education?

"Luxury" education is the type of school that has professional standard on site facilities and teaching - basically you never have to leave the school campus for anything. I am beginning to understand just how spoiled children who go to those sorts of schools end up being!

For co-curricular, I mean.

I went to a state school and we never left the site for anything apart from cross country and school trips (such as visiting museums which can't be done at school however luxury)

Eton has two museums.

Charitable status is not about tax breaks, it's about bearing in mind that your endeavours are supposed to be for the public good. Not everyone is in agreement that private schools are for the public good, hence the controversy. I'm sure if people looked through the list of organisations which are charities, there would be quite a few other "charities" that groups of people would be upset about.

Sorry patpig, I was trying to express that there were some things you just couldn't do at school. Eton doesn't have Stonehenge or the Tower of London for example

There are indeed some things you couldn't do at school - it's just there are more things you couldn't do at the average state school than at Eton.

Could I chip in here regarding 'luxury' education. I will really be as honest as I can using my experience.

I am happy to take any questions and I promise I will answer as truthfully as possible.

I have bullett pointed for ease so might look a bit formal

1. I have two DS's both at schools that would be considered 'luxury' I believe. My oldest son is at a well known boarding school. Like most of them it costs over £30k per year

1. I am very conscious that they could get caught in a bubble especially if they have a close friend who has parents so rich they really dont need to think about ever working. What I would say is that you would actually be surprised how many different cultures and nationalities there are in these schools. From the very bright from say China, to the chap with some SN but with parents who are rich (or famous!)

1. I didnt come from this sort of background at all. I would love to live in London because I think it makes kids more street wise and they learn independance far quicker than someone living in the middle of nowhere who is driven everywhere by the parents. Sadly my DH likes a bit of peace and quiet so we live just out side the M25. London is still Ok to get to though

1. I have encouraged my older son to take the tube, train and get himself around without me hovering over him. He can meet friends in London as long as he gives me the name of a couple of other friends. Consequently he is confident (due to me and I think the boarding element). I went to school on my own from 11.

1. I recognise that boarding isnt for everyone. I do see some of the boys who really arent comfortable but cannot complain because they feel it is expected. That's horrible in my view.

1. if I ever thought that one son really hated boarding and was a home body I would move house and find a day school. Both boys have been encouraged to speak their mind (often by their schools). If they tell me something that I dont agree with its to be expected!

1. My older son is late August birthday and isnt wildly academic. He did very well in his GCSE's, much better than we were expecting tbh. I am very proud of him.

1. We are now looking at uni's after a gap year (which he will fund!). The career teacher suggested a aspirational uni as well as a good 2nd choice. He might just get the grades! We are all trying to avoid Clearing.

Just because state grammar schools and church schools also involve elements of unfairness into the education system, isn't enough of a justification for private schools, handcream.

That private schools have charitable status today is an outrage. Their educational benefit is directed to a very small minority of wealthy children save for the odd bursary or scholarship here or there (which arguably destabilises the state sector further by removing bright, able children from it). Even if some private schools lend their teachers or facilities to the state sector (and none of that is happening where's I live) it is not sufficient to justify subsidy by the taxpayer of their charitable status. Amd that's not just about tax breaks, VAT exemption but also private schools get huge reductions in their rates. Even I fall that only adds up to £100m it is in principle, wrong.

When I am Education Minister, all schools will be state, secular schools, genuinely comprehensive at secondary level (which may not mean your child attends their local school, actually) but it would improve social mobility for all children and not just conserve power in the hands of a wealthy minority as now. It would also do away with the phenomenon of bumping up house prices in the catchments of good schools. It won't be popular though becaus no-one wants their child to lose any advantage they have in the system as it currently stands. It will cost more too, but if we're a decent society that thinks a good education is the right for all children then it's the way things should be.

"What I would say is that you would actually be surprised how many different cultures and nationalities there are in these schools. From the very bright from say China, to the chap with some SN but with parents who are rich (or famous!)"

I am well aware of the variety of nationalities, cultures etc in "luxury" schools. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. There are spoiled children in every culture.

Er...my point was precisely that most kids at private schools aren't necessarily bright - the schools buy in bright kids to push their results up!

My DD1 goes to a state comp which is large, scruffy, sets in most subjects and expects her to get excellent results. I don't really want her poached to push up the results of the posh school up our road, frankly.

Incidentally, I'm a state school educated journalist. (My comp sent me to Oxford, whereas DP's posh school, er, didn't...we're going down the route that has pulled in better outcomes, here in the Inferiority Complex )

Bonsior - at my DS's boarding school they are encouraged to use their weekends to explore yes, they do have acres of pitches, tennis courts, the fees do pay for something! My DS can hold his own on the golf course and play tennis. I cannot even play...

If you are gong to ban private schools, will you also ban private hospitals as they take money and patients from the NHS? How about banning big cars as they use more road space?

Where will you stop

Good ideas so far, elastamum. I'm in on both of those.

Fayrazzled. I applaud your ambition but what worries me is that the issue of private education is a side show which takes our eye off the ball on the issue of why state education is failing some of our children. The percentage of children attending private schools in the UK is so small it's actually an irrelevence imho. I wish people would stop worrying about he advantages privately educated kids are getting and focus on giving state educated kids exactly the same standards of teaching.

FayRaz Your fantasy ideal has been trialled previously in Hull, including bussing kids around the city to mix up the mix. You can easily read about how it failed children hugely and of course undermines walking to school and opportunities for local friendships.

motherinferior - what if your dd's state comp didn't set in most subjects and you felt it wasn't expecting particularly stellar results? Would you move house, trust her to do well anyway, or pay for private? And what if she had areas where she needed support and that the comp wasn't dealing well with that? How long would you persist going into the school trying to get her the help she needed before you looked outside the school for the support and paid for it yourself?

motherinferior Despite your Oxford education do you nevertheless acknowledge that state kids are under represented at Oxbridge/RG universities?

I don't feel the need to justify how I spend my money to anyone, whether I choose to spend it on "luxury" education is up to me....I don't think it's luxury - I think it's the best I can give my child. A fancy car or a nice holiday is a luxury to me.

If they do away with charitable status (but see earlier comments about the changes that would be needed to the law to do this), then my DC's school could stop pandering to the govt and use all the money I pay them to educate my child.

I believe it is up to me to ensure my DC do not grow up in a bubble - they are on school holidays for much of the year and there are clubs and activities outside school that my DC have done/do where they mix with lots of children from different backgrounds.

I also pay my taxes so I contribute to the education of other children in the country and I have vacated spaces in local schools for the growing population that needs more school space. Blame successive governments for messing up how they spend the £billions of the education budget, and hence the state of state education - they are only concerned with their own re-election every five years.