Tristram Hunt's Speech

[kellyandthecat]

So, what did everyone think?

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/24/private-schools-labour-warning-tax-breaks-tristram-hunt

Seems to me like Labour have made a big deal out of it but he hasn't really done anything at all, and it's a bit hard for him to sound sincere when he's so posh himself. Honestly, I don't know why Labour don't just admit they were wrong and bring back the grammar schools. DH and I both went to grammar schools and are putting/have put our DCs through private. Hate how in this country politicians can't just admit they were wrong! It's a strength in any other area of leadership surely?! All this messing around on the margins just looks like pointless busy work - I would not support it but I would be more impressed with their convictions if they said they were going to take away the charitable status. Making them play football together?! Stupid.

talkin I just don't accept that bursaries shouldn't be made available to the. children or grandchildren of alumni. Bursaries should be available to all regardless of background.

'Win Coll has a large bursary pot children who are offered bursaries meet it's demanding academic criteria, they are not the less able children of alumni.
I think you'll also find that they like most other do take assets as well as income into consideration.
I listened to his comments on the radio this morning surely all schools can learn off each other? There will be good teachers in both sectors who can bring their expertise to the table.
Win Coll sponsors an academy I've absolutely no idea what this means to be honest or how much contact the two schools have with other I asked my DS once he didn't seem to know either he's never heard of the other school and has certainly had little or no involvement with the sponsored school.

Happy
But as Wordfactory so rightly says, partial bursaries are rather pointless because reducing the fees from £30k to £25k is not going to widen participation much

And actually, places like Winchester and Eton and CLC and SPGS offer so many advantages later in life I do believe its right that those who have already benefited should be excluded from a second helping

Private schools don't look at just income for bursaries! They look at capital, holidays, what car you drive.

Detention for Master Hunt

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/head-of-tristram-hunts-old-school-accuses-him-of-offensive-bigotry-9882825.html

The average bursary at Win Coll is 65% that reduces the fees to just over £12k ok still outside of the reach if many but realistic for quite a few.
talkin the children of alumni are not having a "second helping" as they have never attended the school, just because your father went is not a reason not to be offered a place especially if you father was also there on a bursary. There is a strong case also for saying that children of alumni especially of a full boarding school also understand the schools ethos and ways. There is also no evidence that Win Coll and others of it's ilk positively discriminate for children of alumni, we know five Etonians including two who got the KS who were unsuccessful in getting at least one of their DS's in and two Old Wykehamists in a similar position. These schools are over subscribed so can afford to be fussy and take a boy who they feels will thrive and do well.
Bursaries should be based purely on academic merit/meeting admission criteria and financial circumstances if you meet their criteria for admission you are free to apply for one regardless of your father/mothers occupation, level of education or place of education or social class. Children should not be affected by these sort of decisions, where you parents are educated; sink comp or Win Coll is irrelevant it's the children your educating after all not the parents.
Your DC's wouldn't like Marlborough by the way as it's full boarding only (the vast majority) or day.

Happy
It'll have to be St Trinians then

Bursaries : £12k is still so much more than 80-90% of the population can afford that its an irrelevance.
I agree with wordfactory - bursaries should be full fees plus all essential overheads

I agree 12k is still more than the vast majority can afford but more affordable than the 25k you suggested. If let's say 15% of parents could afford it then that's at least 14 times more than those who can afford 35k a year and it's a start.
Somebody told me or I read somewhere (old age is setting in so I can't remember which) the suggestion that bursaries are best aimed at the less well off but educated MC's because they and their DC's culturally are likely to have a lot in common with those who can pay the full amount and thus "fit in" better and that this advantageous to both sides. It's an interesting thought I can't say I necessarily agree with it but I can understand the view.
A friend who supports this view was telling me about a boy she knows on a 100% plus expenses bursary to a big name boarding school. He lives in a council flat and shares a room with a relative, he's found that his friends (all from very wealthy homes) don't give two hoots and don't like him any the less because of it but he does care. By attending the school his eyes have been opened up to another life; large expensively furnished homes, 3-4 other houses around the world, expensive cars, endless expensive holidays and even super yachts and that he desperately covets their lives and is jealous of their possessions. Would he have done better and been happier at a day school with the inevitable broader cross section of families?

happy maybe he would be happier at a day school with a broader cross section of families but maybe he will work really hard and make good education choices to enable a well paid career so that he can work towards obtaining the lifestyle of his current peers.

You're right of course Inthedark he could. Sadly what has passed him by is that money, large houses, numerous holiday homes, expensive cars/holidays etc and lavish life styles doesn't make you necessarily happy, a better person, healthier or more successful relationships. One would like hope that a child on a very generous bursary to a big name boarding school full of mega wealthy parents would quickly realise this.

I just had a quick search : Winchester College were the sponsors of Midhurst Rother Academy : to the extent that they provided a few governors and no more
its not apparent what they do now

I think bursaries are a distraction, however large they are. They're only ever going to make a difference to a tiny number of children. Genuine, meaningful partnerships between state and private schools, particularly those that involve giving kids at state schools access to some of the facilities of private schools, have the potential to make a much, much bigger impact.

I think they share teacher sometimes and best practice, maybe joint teacher training etc, particularly trainee teachers, apparently some students come to Win Coll for lessons and they give also university advise. I suppose it's useful for the leaders of one school to receive advise and support from successful leaders of another school from either sector. This is the sort of thing Tristan Hunt wants them to do. I sure it's beneficial but I personally think widening access by offering substantial bursaries is the most charitable thing a school can do.
Do independent schools heads and subject leaders at any independent school have time to do much more? After all they generate their income from fees. parents obviously want the education of their child to be the number 1 priority for the school.

This is a classic Labour pre election trick 'look over there people - if you had access to private school facilities your children could get into Oxbridge too- vote for us, we will do this for you'.

Really?? A sector with 7% of children in it is supposed to make a meaningful difference to the other 93%? . How many science teachers, (already doing a full day's work) sports pitches (that they sold off), music and drama (that they got rid of) will there be to go round? And, if you send the brightest state pupils to private school the gap gets bigger not smaller.

We have great state schools in the UK, but also some very poor ones too. No mention at all of what they are going to do to narrow the gap between good and poor state schools. Now that would make a meaningful difference.

Also, do you really think any independent school is going to sign a 'pledge' to do what the Labour party says to save £260 per child. Not going to happen. Poorly thought out rhetoric (D- Mr Hunt, and you went to a very expensive private school too)

MN164 - the state primary my DD attends is in a massively deprived area of London, has over 70% FSM and the vast majority of kids are Black/Black African. The school get incredible academic results and has a great record of getting children into super-selective secondaries

When I looked round primaries for DD, one of my 'assessment' questions was to ask about support for selective secondaries. One school told me that they didn't agree with private or selective education; two looked blank and said they'd never thought about it; and DD's school didn't need to be asked as they volunteered the information.

Most of the parents don't have the first clue about how the system works, or would even have thought of applying. If the school spots a child with huge potential who would benefit, then the approach the parents and help with that and a number of teachers give up their spare time out of hour to tutor for the exams for free.

Some outreach work into primaries would benefit everyone.

Under Labour, all private schools would be required to sign a pledge to provide qualified teachers to help deliver specialist knowledge to state schools

Being qualified is important again then is it?!

Why should we need private schools to help state schools though? Why can't we just expect state schools to deliver an education equal to the private sector? Who is to say that state schools are not as good as private schools already?
All this talking about private schools doing more to help state schools is just a distraction from the fact that state schools should be delivering an education to children which ensues every child reaches their potential.
If everyone knew and believed that they could get an equal education in either private or state there would be no need for bursaries as nobody would jump through the required hoops to prove their finances when they can get the same education without the hoops.
Tristan Hunt et al should concentrate on state schools and not distract from their failings by saying the private sector don't do enough to help.

I think the problem with Mr Hunt et al is that they the unfair advantages offered by private schools and reduce the equation to money.

This if private schools had less money and state schools more , then the advantages would cease to exist.

But of course what Mr Hunt doesn't consider (because he has never attended or have children who attend) is that comprehensives and independent schools tend to have other huge differences that have nothing to do with resources.

Academic selection being the elephant in the room.
But there are many other things to. Things that the state system rejects and things the vast majority of parents frankly don't want.

Good post WordFactory. Spot on.

This if private schools had less money and state schools more , then the advantages would cease to exist.

That doesn't match with the school I mentioned above: Clarendon park prep which charges less than its neighbouring state schools get in funding per pupil. It isn't academically selective either and still manages SATs results which place it in the top 100 schools. Clearly money isn't the only factor.

My experience of preps is also that money/funding is a minor factor in their success. Maybe it's different for big name schools, but for minor private schools that's definitely my experience.

I suppose resources and intake will always account for some of the differences.

But there are also others ideas/methods which differ and do impact on outcomes.

I think parental involvement (ie if you are actually putting your hand in your pocket and paying £x a term-you expect certain things is v significant.

I agree rollinthesummer and I don't think it makes a difference whether the parents are paying £1000 a term or £10000 a term, if they are paying then it means not only do they take education seriously but that they also have certain expectations. I think based on that, private schools lending teachers or facilities to state schools isn't really going to make much difference because the main factor of parental involvement and attitude has remained the same. There was a thread on here a few days ago about school related stuff taking up too much time and the majority were in agreement that endless assemblies, school plays, home work and permission slip filling was taking too much parental and family time. I have been in a state school reception class meeting where parents were complaining about having to find 15 mins a week for maths homework (basic numicon stuff) and 10 mins a day for reading. I have also been in a prep school meeting where parents were specifically told that homework was 30 mins per night plus 15 mins reading and nobody complained. Parents from both schools were working and had busy lives.

Expecting private schools to assist state schools in improving is like wallpapering over cracks in a wall; not really dealing with the problem at all and just trying to make it look superficially pretty.
It reeks of an idea that private schools are in some way superior which doesn't do much for the teachers and children who are part of those schools and gives them a very negative message.
I will say it again: Tristan hunt, the current govt and other politicians need to concentrate on making all of our state schools as good as possible without assistance rom the private sector (many state schools are as good already and many better).

I agree with much of what you say Inthedark. I think that there are some amazing private schools, but the vast majority are probably mediocre and rely on having engaged families and weeding out any difficult kids. I very much doubt that the teaching, on average, is better in private schools than in state schools.

I don't think bursaries are the way to go. They benefit far too few and only promote the idea that clever kids somehow need to be 'saved' from the philistine pits of hell that are state schools. It's far too easy for private schools to pat themselves on the back when all they're doing is taking some very bright easy-to-teach but non-wealthy children and mostly they do it for their own benefit in raising their results. It also doesn't help state schools to have yet more of their highest achievers skimmed off.

I think proper facilities sharing is one way to go.

My other idea is completely controversial and a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but if private schools really are these amazing bastions of achievement and good practice then the bright-but-poor are the last children they should be taking on for free. No, if they're so amazing, they should be taking on a percentage of excluded children and the ones with behavioural difficulties. I mean, really if their practices are so superior they should be able to work miracles on them.

But I don't see that happening any time soon...

I think you will find that non-selective private schools have their fair share of disruptive children with behavioural issues - that trait isn't the preserve of the poverty stricken! They seem to deal with them very well IME - clear boundaries and rules that apply to everyone, all the time.