Guest post: 'Yes, private schools could do more to bridge the opportunity gap - but it's not as simple as it seems'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

Tristram Hunt, the Labour shadow education secretary, has this week argued that independent schools need to be doing much more to form meaningful partnerships with state schools. If they don't do so, they will risk being stripped of up to £700 million in tax breaks, should Labour be elected in the general election next Spring. He said, ‘the next government will say to independent schools: step up and play your part. Earn your keep. Because the time when you could expect something for nothing is over’.

Hunt's comments have been predictably vilified by leaders of independent schools in a way that will confirm the impression - in the eyes of the world at large - that independent schools are out of touch. Independent schools are an easy target for everyone to attack. They have few friends in high places - no Prime Minister would dare to send their child to an independent school now, nor indeed any Education Secretary. National leaders in business, banking, the media, the church and military may have disproportionately attended independent schools, and indeed send their children to them, but it's very rare that any of them stand up and defend them.

In fact, most independent schools are not as privileged as people assume. They're not the Etons, Marlboroughs, Harrows or Wellingtons, of which I am head, with long waiting lists and priceless land and buildings. Many operate close to the financial edge, and have suffered significantly since 2008. Look beyond the South East, and it is unusual to find an independent school in rude financial health. Parents have found it harder to find full fees, while improving state schools - including new academies and free schools - prove ever more attractive. A national wave of new grammar schools would kill off many independent schools.

Despite this, many independent schools are already doing a great deal to build bridges with the state sector and to try to boost social mobility. Some 90% of independent schools report that they are working with the local community and with state schools. What Hunt has failed to recognise is that they're not doing it because they've been threatened – they're doing it out of a sense of moral purpose, which many on the Left find it hard to believe is sincere.

Nevertheless, independent schools could be doing more to build bridges and engage with the state school sector, which educates 93% of children nationally. Our country is still too polarised, and it risks becoming more so. In my view, every independent school should join a ‘teaching school’ federation with neighbouring state schools. It wouldn't cost them anything, and it would materially improve both sectors. Every independent school could found an academy in association with a proven sponsor chain, which would provide the expertise that the independent school lacks.

Hunt's rhetoric enforces the idea that it's independent schools which have everything to give, and that state schools have nothing – what about what they can offer pupils like the ones I teach? The opportunity to mix with a more diverse range of children and teachers, for example. The emphasis shouldn't just be on independent schools reaching out – with extreme sanctions if they don't – it should be on both types of schools working together to benefit each other. Both have valuable things to offer.

Social integration and social mobility are vital to any flourishing society. Next year sees the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The dream that came out of that war, as well as the Great War, was of a New Jerusalem - a far more socially cohesive nation where opportunities were available to all regardless of birth and privilege. Tristram Hunt has identified the right problem, but the state sector equally needs to reach out to the independent sector and government needs to provide more resources for such exchanges to happen. The dream of an excellent education for all and a socially just nation need not remain a dream any longer.

Dr Seldon, i very much admire you as a broadcaster, also for your farsightedness in putting mindfulness on the curriculum. However, i really am not sure of the point of your post or what actual actions you are recommending. Please could you come back and explain?

We have several private schools nearby, one is reputed to be one of the very best in the country. Yet i see no posters/publicity for open days/shared lectures/summer courses/any access to facilities for local state school kids. Or anything at all. Sure something is going on but we don't know about it. So it must, at best, be tokenistic and very small-scale.

For what it's worth we haven't gone private but are going the extra mile (literally!) to the nearest outstanding school. Hardly convenient but we feel it's necessary. Our annual transport costs exceed a term's fees in the average private school but the alternative is a mediocre comp with mediocre results/expectations and a real problem with bullying. Our other option would be private and is our back-up plan. Not sure what I'm saying really other than that it is complex for parents. And the only ones who can exercise any real choice are those who have the necessary resources/knowhow/ambition.

Why not just ditch their charitable status instead of pretending that they're charities. They're not.

I pay taxes and there's plenty of public sector services I don't use. So those who go private claimig that they're saving the state what so you expect a £10 discount off of your tax bill? That is ridiculous - as if you did it for altruistic reasons.

This is exactly why pizza education should be free and never bought!

www.metaspoon.com/pizza-slice-strangers-homess-man/

Ditch the charitable status I say.

Would cost us just over 200 quid a year! Whoop-de-doo! The bus fares are more than that...

It would put a stop to this critisism with almost no pain.

A naive question perhaps, but if private schools didn't exist, how would the government cope?

It would cost rather more than the £200 per pupil per term.

For the schools, under the current laws governing the winding up of charities, would have to close. And if those pupils went to state schools, then they would cost c£5k per year plus of course whatever it might cost to create the new state school places for them.

Dunno bobs. Maybe they'd have to clamp down on MP's expenses/salaries, improve tax laws and rates, reduce tax-funded bonuses for those who really don't need it.

Given those who pay privately for education, can afford to lose that money perhaps those people can be taxed a percentage of the money they save to invest in education services for all, including their child?

If the logic offered by many here is applied across the board to jobs, housing, health, holidays, etc we would be looking at communism.

In the very near future I expect to hear that all professions should be paid the same to prevent any one from having an economic advantage over another. If differences in pay are allowed to exist then tax everyone until equality in disposable income is the same. That should teach anyone who wants to aspire a lesson. Bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

This whole debate smacks of crabs in a barrel.

'If the logic offered by many here is applied across the board to jobs, housing, health, holidays, etc we would be looking at communism.'

Not true. Please explain how you have come to that conclusion. Health and Education should be free and equally distributed if we are to have a decent and fair society. The outcome to strive for is a good general standard of living for ALL, with access to luxuries being the choice and incentive-driven, not desperation for poorly funded and provided essentials.

Well said MoRaw

Starlight, I think a percentage of what people are taxed is already used to fund education.

The point i am trying to make is that the government is better off while private schools exist in that they do not have to pay this students fees

The Government is only better off if you measure everything in money.

And better off for what purpose? To hand more money to their rich friends?

The Government and society is better off if all have equal access to good quality education, healthcare, jobs and flexibility. When people want to work, have hope and enthusiasm for building themselves a life, rather than falling into severe depression of despair due to the pressure of mere survival that turns them into ineffective parents, antisocial neighbours, potential criminals and people who fuel the fear and paranoia of those who through luck/inheritance/unequal distribution of resources have managed to stock-pile the country's money.

So you resent those who are well-off, however they came by their money?

The charities commission have already lost a case in the high court and don't have the power to dictate to private schools what they must do to retain charitable status. The business rate reductions that Labour are talking of removing are those attached to being a charity, so removing them isn't as simple as it sounds either. It also amounts to about £250 per privately educated child.

I'm quite sure most independent schools would prefer to increase their fees than submit to politically motivated control from Labour. We have seen the shambles politicians can make of educational policy. One of the reasons private schools are successful is they are outside of all this and don't have to teach national curriculum or over focus on SATs etc. or whatever the latest fashion is. The best independent schools do what works best and they do it consistently from reception through to A level.

Whilst I am in agreement with private schools reaching out to state schools, it isn't their job to solve the problems of the state system and patronising in the extreme to good state schools to suggest they can. There are some very good state schools and some very poor ones. Labour need to have a coherent policy on how they will bring the performance of the poor schools up to the level of the good ones, and so far we haven't seen this at all.

Your idea of fair is an interesting one. Is it really fair to curtail the rights of those who through their efforts achieve comparatively better economic outcomes than others? Even in light of an already redistributive tax system? Your idea of fair is VERY interesting and indeed is consistent with the idea of fair under the communist ideology.

Education and health are free in this country. However, your mission is to prevent others from exercising a choice to pay for better outcomes. You would look to undermine private health provision too, no doubt. Very basic economics is at play here. Nevertheless, we can go your way and have heavy state intervention to kill ambition and innovation and ensure we are all equal to the lowest common denominator for that is what would happen. To get to your fair position the top must be brought down and the benchmark will need to be the lowest common denominator.

To get to the root cause of the problem however, you would have to ensure all professions pay equally. Moreover, any one with ambition and managers of any business that seek to innovate should be executed for having ideas above their station.

Would those who didn't want to/were unable to work be executed too?

It's not communism at all as I have no problems whatsoever with private education existing. I just don't think it should be dressed up as charity and given tax breaks on that basis.

Although I take a pp's point that if the charity status was withdrawn the schools would have to close, so obviously would like to see that changed so they could immediately transfer to business status. And then they need to operate as a business, which would free them from this onerous 'sharing' that they are expected to do with the public sector, and would allow state schools to not have to be diversity models for the well-off.

I think the idea that the wealthy would use bog standard comps if private schools closed is a tad naive.

These rich, educated , well connected parents would send their DC abroad, or home educate, or secure places at the high achieving selective state schools and spend their cash (of which they'd now have more) on educational opportunities.

Bobs123

The thrust of your point is well taken. I would add that it is unfortunate that some of these arguments are anchored in envy and a belief that others are to be blamed for our situation and indeed also for the dissatisfaction we feel about where we are.

There is a discussion to be had about improving outcomes in state schools. However, the solution surely cannot be the ruination of independent schools?

Just ditch their charitable status then. Job done. No one has given me a good reason why they shouldn't.

Let's adopt capitakism properly, not give private schools welfare handouts in the form of generous tax breaks.

WordFactory precisely. As long as economic freedoms exists. Including the aspirations for bettet, the entrepreneurial spirit and the incentives to innovate, economic divides will always emerge. That can only be stiffled by the iron fist of government (aka communism or something akin to it).

Ending charity status is a red herring. It is currently the lowest fence that people who despise the advantages of private schools feel able to jump. Take away charity status and exactly what is achieved? Will that really improve things in state schools? Is this the big thing driving the poor performance of some state schools? My understanding is that state schools receive more money per head than independent school.

Iggly I agree. Let's properly implement capitalism. Stop taxing wealthier people within an inch of their eyeballs and get everyone to earn a living instead of there being generous state benegits. Everyone pay for school and health. Shall I continue? You want true capitalism for only some but not all? The some being those who dare to earn more than their neighbour. As for the neighbour socialism in their favour all the way? Socialism on the backs of the few who must feel true capitalism? I see. Very interesting.

Anyway, what exactly would getting rid of the charity status achieve? It would give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside but what good would it achieve? There are strong arguments why it could undermine education across the board...but at least you would have stick it to those you think have money.

I would never suggest closing down independent schools! I was simply asking what would happen if they were, to demonstrate the knock-on effect it would have on everyone else.

"Take away charity status and exactly what is achieved? Will that really improve things in state schools?"

"Just ditch their charitable status then. Job done. No one has given me a good reason why they shouldn't."

Under current law, this would mean winding up the charity (who must sell their assets and the proceeds be donated to a related charity). So how will the state sector educate those whose schools no longer exist? It will be both expensive and disruptive as there is already a school place crisis looming.

It would be a pretty major change to the law if education was no longer a charitable purpose, and could affect charities other than schools. I do not think there is any support for such a change amongst charities, though private schools would probably welcome it.

If you outlaw private education Starlight, then I am required to send my children to a school run by the state, to be taught the state's values. I don't want to live in North Korea, thanks.

I understand the envy about private schools, but I think there is an important principle at stake here. My children belong to me and themselves, not an overweening state.

That's not true toomany. You don't have to send your children to school at all. You can home ed. You can set up a free school all on your ownty self. You can send them abroad. You are not required to educate your children in the state sector.