Private school wants to open free school near me. Why?

[Dibbets]

A private school on the other side of the city wants to open a free school near where I live. The idea is quite appealing as there isn't a well regarded school near here and many children bus out to other areas. But I can't help feeling a bit uneasy about the proposal. What's in it for them? They talk about it being a beneficial partnership for both sides but the focus is on sharing knowledge and a moral drive to raise standards across the board. It seems a bit unlikely that they would invest so much effort into this for such woolly reasons.

[noblegiraffe]

means when losing an argument attack the person not the argument

Yes, that's exactly what you've been doing for the last umpteen posts calling me a momentum supporter, a militant socialist and saying my beliefs are 'narrow abusive claptrap'. Glad you've finally recognised the problem and hopefully your decision to go back to discussing the OP will stick.

I don't think it is to be automatically celebrated that a private school is trying to open a school in a deprived area. Where is the expertise that will make the school a success? Like I said before, I do hope that they are going to bring another group in to support them, like the one that runs the other Bristol Free School that worked in London Challenge schools.

[mathsmum314]

Just because a private school has no expertise in running schools in deprived areas, therefore no one should try and help? That's plainly wrong. We should celebrate a successful school trying to help children in deprived areas, not questioning and denigrating them.

[noblegiraffe]

Another straw man. Do you even read people's posts?

[noblegiraffe]

I mean, surely no one who has read I do hope they are going to bring in another group to support them
Would reply
Just because a private school has no expertise in running schools in deprived areas therefore no one should try to help. That's plainly wrong

I hope people realise mathsmum has been doing this all over the thread, spouting random offensive shite and then claiming I said it.

[Genevieva]

I did read your original and subsequent comments Noblegiraffe. I am sure you aren't the only one who feels that way, but it strikes me that no one opines that a shop worker who cares about the wider community should work in a charity shop, when the argument is no different. I am also sure there are plenty of teachers who are deeply committed to charitable activities that are entirely separate from their place of employment and others who do nothing charitable. It is never helpful to moralise about the priorities of other private individuals.

Moving on: Most non-state schools in this country are registered charities for historic reasons. Our understanding of what constitutes a charitable activity has narrowed and private schools have become increasingly expensive in relation to people's incomes, with the result that there is an important conversation to be had about their role in 21st century Britain. The perception that private schools are ivory towers is very damaging for them and they need to continue to challenge themselves on how to address it.

Having said that, I am not sure that reducing the financial burden of the Treasury should be a pre-requisite of charitable status. Bursaries in stratospherically expensive schools offer a clumsy, scattergun approach to reaching children whose families can't afford the fees. I also don't know whether it is a good idea for private schools to set up state schools or not, but I am pretty sure that coercion is not the way to go about getting them involved in state education. I am with the Chancellor of Oxford who has refused to get involved in the government's equivalent idea of making universities found schools. It would be a distraction from their core purpose and would probably involve them in activities that they lack expertise in. The same might be said (to a lesser extent) of private schools. I am not convinced they have expertise that the state sector lack, in fact I think it is more likely that the private sector lack the expertise that already exist in the state sector when it comes to transforming the education opportunities of children in areas that are currently poorly service.

As charities, private schools plough all their earnings back into the education and facilities that enable that education, so I am pretty sure that removing charitable status would increase their accountancy bills, but not increase the tax take for the treasury. There is no VAT on educational activities, which is completely as it should be. Can you imagine the nation-wide fury if parents had to pay an extra 20% for every ballet, football or music lesson that they take their children to?

So, I share some of your doubts about private schools in the state sector, but I don't have answers for what would be a better way of demonstrating charitable status and I don't think that removing their charitable status would offer any benefits to the wider community or treasury. I do think that keeping fees in check is probably more important than offering bursaries if private schools don't want to alienate their local communities (a 10 year freeze on fees and the facilities arms race might not go amiss!)

The OP is right to be sceptical about the particular private school's motives in setting up a school near her (given the timing and the geography she describes). However, it sounds like there is a need for more school places, so if local people are unhappy about the proposal they will need to provide an alternative solution - maybe a parent-founded free school that aims to continue providing the facilities that are currently offered on the proposed site.

[EllyMayClampett]

Good post Genevieva.

[Genevieva]

Sorry it was so long - got carried away!

[EllyMayClampett]

There are a lot of long thoughtful, posts on this thread which I have found thought provoking. I like a well thought out long post!

[noblegiraffe]

but it strikes me that no one opines that a shop worker who cares about the wider community should work in a charity shop, when the argument is no different.

I totally disagree. Disregarding home education, every child has to go to school. The vast majority of children are educated in state schools. Giving people of wealth and power an opt out from the state system in the form of private education is actively damaging (in my opinion) to state education. Overwhelmingly the people who are in charge of state education and other offices of power choose not to use it for their children and because they can choose, that means it's not in their personal interest to make it better. We also know that the top private schools are elite institutions that breed privilege in a way that the state can't hope to compete with. I don't think that someone who was genuinely overwhelmingly concerned with inequality in society would choose to run a private school, which perpetuates it. Similarly, I think that a teacher whose main priority was social justice couldn't work in a private school without accepting that they were overruling their principles to do so. Clearly some may nonetheless work in private schools for other reasons, but that's because they have prioritised other things.

No one goes to teach at Eton with the aim of helping wider society. They might do some stuff on the side, but the main aim of private schools is to provide an elite education to those who can afford it, and this directly perpetuates social inequity.

[minifingerz]

"Bursaries in stratospherically expensive schools offer a clumsy, scattergun approach to reaching children whose families can't afford the fees."

All the children I know who have bursaries have hugely supportive parents and are thriving in state education prior to attending private school.

We've got to ask whether these children need charity, when there are so many others out there who are failing dismally in education.

Charity should be for those in need. Children who are succeeding highly in education already are not 'children in need'.

""So that either makes socialists hypocrites "
What, all of them? - Yes socialists that send their children private, yet try and stop selective schools, are ALL hypocrites."

Instead of 'try to stop private schools', perhaps 'argue against them'. Because there are some people who feel that private schools and selection have so distorted and ghettoised our school system that wanting to send your child to a genuine comprehensive is now a futile dream. In other words, they believe selection is generally educationally and socially damaging and divisive to the majority of children, but while it exists they feel they have no moral choice except to protect their own children from the effects of it by sending them to schools where there aren't disproportionate numbers of disadvantaged children.

That's the difference between the hypocritical socialists - they want equality of opportunity, and the right-wingers like Mathsmum, where it's not even on the radar.

[Dibbets]

This has been really interesting. I do kind of agree with your last post noble, but people sometimes just need a job so I don't feel judgemental of individual teachers.

genevieva It would be good if competing proposals could be put forward and the community allowed to vote on them. Unfortunately this proposal has gone in first, and in a very cloak and dagger manner, so there isn't a chance now for anyone else to have a go unless it's rejected.

[noblegiraffe]

I agree that sometimes people just need a job, but there can't be many people working in a private school because they couldn't find work in a state school (don't even need a teaching qualification any more). There's a desperate shortage in a lot of subjects at secondary.

[Genevieva]

So is your solution to nationalise all private schools and force people to use the state education system? If not what is it exactly?

I don't like the sound of such a controlling society. How far would you go? Would you prevent parents from taking their children to extracurricular activities after school? Would you prevent parents from reading to their children at bedtime because the most deprived children don't have that opportunity? Inequality exists and removing choice does not improve the opportunities of the most disadvantaged children. In those circumstances many more people would choose to home educate rather than be dictated to. Or they would emigrate.

Our private schools are the envy of the world and I think they have done a lot, by example, to encourage the state to aim higher in what it offers. Taking a step back, I think that it is completely amazing that our country manages to provide so much education for children free of charge. For the most part, children have access to an enviable education in a clean, safe and pleasant environment with well-trained teachers. For the most part, teachers work incredibly hard to give every student they teach the best possible chance of excelling. The amount of money a school has access to is not dependant on the affluence of the local community in the way it is in the USA and there are impressive programmes for gifted and talented, free school meal and SEN children in many schools. I really think we should be proud of what the state provides compared with most countries and compared with a generation ago. The state education system isn't perfect and there are pockets of problems, some of which are difficult to solve, but state education at its best meets the needs of its pupils just as well as the private sector at its best. They don't need private school or the abolition of private education to achieve that. Equally, private schools do not always meet the needs of all their pupils either. There are many threads on here of parents who feel let down by their chosen private school.

Teachers face huge challenges beyond the remit of simply teaching their subject - the management of serious behaviour problems, liaising with social services, dealing with the implementation of political diktats... The stress and workload created by all this is huge and seen to be largely responsible for teachers leaving the profession. The same issues play a part of the decision-making for parents in a position to afford private school fees, often making huge sacrifices to do so. It is not unreasonable to want the best for your child. Many parents paying fees would dearly love to live in an area with a state school that meets their needs, but work commitments or the cost of moving house result in them choosing a private education for their children.

There is never going to be a perfect system, but if we start judging people for making choices about where they send their children and whether they work in the public or private sector, then we are on a very negative and sanctimonious slippery slope.

[noblegiraffe]

No, I don't propose we start closing down private schools but given how they damage state education I'm certainly not going to start cooing about how marvellous they are if they, as Sam Freedman says, take state money to set up schools to educate kids who are already doing well, or, as mini points out, give bursaries to kids who can only possibly enhance their school.

This proposal is interesting because the proposed school is not selective. However, without further details of how they intend to tackle the deprivation of the area, I'm not convinced. Bristol is an area that has suffered hugely from a proliferation of private schools - they're one of the reasons Bristol languished at the bottom of the state league tables for so long, and that has been a massive job to turn around. I think the recession leading to people not being able to afford school fees and having to take the state offering has helped.

[Genevieva]

But the recession won't have helped improve the results of the children who were there anyway. It will only have massaged the figures. The funny thing is, despite a very different view on the existence of private schools, we actually agree a lot on this new government policy. The creation of new grammar and the involvement of private schools in the state sector isn't going to meet the needs of the lowest achievers. Both have expertise in the same area - the provision of education for academic children. We need to start valuing children who are less academic.

Vast numbers of children fail to get 5 C grades at GCSE (nearly 40% - a percentage that has remained almost static ever since GCSEs were introduced). And 10% are failing to get any C grades at all!!! They are not being failed by the existence of private schools. They might be being failed by their parents, but without massive and draconian state intervention in the pre-school life of our nation's children, it would be impossible to know.

They are being failed by a system that seeks to give every child a grammar school style education covering 8 academic subjects and taught in a traditional classroom environment, ultimately assessed with a written exam. What some children need is very different from that. Many low-achieving children who act up in the classroom come into their own when they are outdoors or engaged in hands-on activities that make them feel confident. I can't imagine anything worse than being a child who struggles academically, but is forced through day after day and year after year of lessons that involve sitting still, reading, writing and looking at the board. Yes they need strong literacy and numeracy skills, but beyond that there is room for a massive rethink of how subjects are taught to them and what subjects are prioritised, particularly at 14+. There are many different types of intelligence and our education system really only values one or two of them. A child who doesn't fit the GCSE model can feel completely worthless and can leave education without any sense of what they should do next.

The centre that the OP describes is really important for engaging teenagers in developing skills that interest them and which might provide future career opportunities. We need more of them and we need a more joined-up approach to careers guidance based on preparing children for jobs that interest them.

[noblegiraffe]

A couple of Bristol private schools actually became state because of the economy. Those teachers and facilities can now benefit state kids m.bristolpost.co.uk/state-schools-driving-standards-city/story-22930350-detail/story.html

[noblegiraffe]

This post is thought-provoking on the topic of 'forcing' poor kids to take academic subjects:

www.emaths.co.uk/index.php/blog/item/every-single-child-can-pass-maths-12

[Genevieva]

Interesting article. I agree that every child can pass Maths, and we should aim to reach a point where every child does. I don't think that every child should have a curriculum filled with grammar school subjects though. Even if,in theory, every child has the capacity to get 8 Cs in GCSEs like History and Physics, we have consistently proven ourselves unable to make headway towards reaching that point this in practice. Looking again about what subjects and skills interest less academic children would enable us to focus their sitting still time on Maths and English and develop curricula that inspire and interest them during the rest of the day. As long as they are widely respected and offer a route back into tertiary education later on then the child and their teacher would end each day feeling fulfilled and successful rather than downtrodden.

[Genevieva]

sorry - full of typos, but comprehensible I hope.

[mathsmum314]

Why are the motives relevant? The only thing that should matter is the chance of getting a good school.

The area doesn't have a good school, no one else is chomping at the bit, its this or nothing. So its all very well to say you want Nirvana High but high ideals don't get you a good school. So until there is something better on offer I say with a very positive attitude, this is a good thing to try.

The private school might or not have huge expertise in working with low achievers, but they have experience in running a school and they can employ people that do have experience in teaching low achievers.

We know the current selective comprehensive system isn't working for all. Allowing different types of schools,including grammars is the way forward to change our current unequal system.

[minifingerz]

"I don't like the sound of such a controlling society. How far would you go? Would you prevent parents from taking their children to extracurricular activities after school? Would you prevent parents from reading to their children at bedtime because the most deprived children don't have that opportunity"

I'm not aware that anyone on this thread has suggested these things.

Actually those arguments are insulting and underhand - implying that if you have grave concerns about the unfairness inherent in our current system of schooling, and state that you wish for it to change, you are automatically declaring that you would support a system of soviet style cruelty and oppression in order to achieve this.

[noblegiraffe]

I don't think that every child should have a curriculum filled with grammar school subjects though

But if you say that, we know that the more advantaged kids will have a curriculum stuffed with academic subjects and the disadvantaged are more likely to be shuffled into the 'vocational' subjects.

Also, Progress 8 does allow for a vocational offering even if the student takes the Ebacc.

Interesting info coming out about how a huge increase in Ebacc take-up may possibly improve results in core subjects:

Critics of the EBacc worry it crowds out the creative subjects, it forces less academically-orientated students into subjects for which they have neither aptitude nor interest, and that it distracts the focus on the core subjects of English and maths for low achievers. We find no evidence for the last two of these concerns in schools who have already made substantial curriculum shifts: pupils were more likely to achieve good GCSEs in English and maths, achieved higher average grades across the board, were 1.7 percentage points more likely to be taking an A level or other level 3 qualification after the age of 16 and 1.8 percentage points less likely to have dropped out of education entirely.

We wouldn’t want to make causal claims about the relationship between EBacc entry and GCSE attainment. It is possible that whatever drove the decision to make radical curriculum changes at these schools was also driving improvement in maths and English, for example. But there is a perfectly plausible argument that students who have weak literacy skills at age 14 benefit from taking subjects (such as geography) that involve extensively practising these skills over the next two years.

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/07/changing-the-subject-why-pushing-pupils-from-disadvantaged-backgrounds-to-take-more-academic-subjects-may-not-be-such-a-bad-thing/

[mathsmum314]

Just looking at the ex private school Bristol Cathedral Choir and in its last admissions only 29 pupils (from across the whole city) were allocated a place by random selection. So what has actually happened is that its probably more selective than when it was private.

So the state are now paying to selectively educate these children but that's ok because it makes the stats look good.
It would have been better for the state children in Bristol if that school had stayed private and the extra money used to make their schools better.

[exexpat]

mathsmum - I think an awful lot of BCCS places go to siblings, which may go some way to explaining the low number of randomly allocated places. The only actual selection the school can do is up to 10% on musical aptitude and a handful of choristers. Offspring of staff members also get priority, but lower down the list than looked after children, medical need etc.

Of course, there is the argument that the pupils at BCCS (and also Colston's Girls, another ex-private turned state academy) are self-selecting from better off families/families who prioritise education (and are therefore likely to perform better than average), because they are prepared to travel from quite long distances, at their own expense, rather than going to their local school.

[EllyMayClampett]

mini you seem to be strongly against private schools. How do you see an end to them without some form of coercion?