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.

Removing the charitable status of private schools would decrease incentives for private schools to offer bursaries, work with local communities etc. It would make them more divisible.

Divisive

Iggly is this a good reason?

If private schools aren't charities, they have to charge higher fees. There will still be some people who can afford the steeper fees, but fewer of them. The gap between those who can afford and those who can't becomes more pronounced. Simultaneously, the incentives which exist for private schools to offer bursaries to not-overly-wealthy families disappear.

Eton gets toffier. The gap gets bigger. Maybe Prime Ministers and senior politicians might start to come from the state schooling system, but what if that doesn't happen? What if the UK lands up with Camerons and Milibands but from a schooling system where they've never met, or been schoolmates with, a normal person?

Lonny, if I am incapable of home educating I have to send them abroad. If I hire someone to home educate them for me, is it then a tiny private school? If I split the cost of the private tutor with another family home educating, is it then a school?

Removal of charity status would require an act of parliament to allow the schools to avoid formal winding up - doable. Hell of sledgehammer to crack a nut tho.

So thinking about this - what are the outcomes and motives
1 - Is it about improving standards in state schools? - none of this will do a damn thing about that - it is conjoining attacking one sector (private education) with improving another - no causal links at all.
2 - Is it about tax revenue? Not likely - even if a change were pushed through and the places had to charge business rates it is unlikely to yield a large amount. This will be passed onto the consumer. No biggy - 200 quid a year isnt much. In fact this would lead the schools to actively wind back what they do for the state sector

1. Is is about fairness? How do any of the outcomes improve the life chances of children in sink schools. There will be no new money, the sink schools wont have an influx of wealthy parents who are the apparent driving force behind pushing up standards (not my argument mind you - but it seems to be strong in the minds of the close the school - it will improve the state sector brigade). By any measure fairness will remain the same

4 Is it about showing TH's solid left wing credentials to a credible public who are a bit put off by Ed Milliband? That fits - get an oxbridge educated, private school educated nicely spoken young chap to have a rant about something core to the old lefts heart? Make the labour party seem more in touch with their core vote? More i look at it, the more it fits.

Of course many people here are taken in by 4 - but they would vote for a duck in a red rosette.

So instead of bashing people who have more than you - for whatever reason - ask - what can i do to improve the education of my children. If your local provision is so poor- you can set up your own school. Or does blind ideology state that you should allow a 3rd of your budget to go on the LEA to have meetings and have a highly unionised closed shop delivering 2nd rate outcomes soak up the remaining?

Oooh you could have a governess I always wanted a governess.

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

Not at all. I resent them being well off at the expense of essentials for less advantageous and vulnerable people. I resent their ability to remain completely out of touch with the struggles of a good number of real people and their often scapegoating of those people in order to justify the differential.

I resent the attitude that often comes with having wealth. The God-like complex associated with 'donating to charity of choice' thereby deeming some people worthy of help but others not, instead of contributing to services so that no-one has to rely on charity.

I resent them making an elite world where they can gate themselves into a life that makes it possible for them to ignore their less fortunate neighbours and judge them for decisions they themselves were lucky to never have had to make themselves.

Yes, people with money can have problems. Some of societies struggles are not class based. But those without money have them ON TOP of their poverty-induced struggles. They don't get to opt out simply because they have already had their share of trouble.

'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.'

The only thing true here is that they are required to attend state education. The rest is up to you as a citizen and a voter/campaigner/fundraiser/volunteer politician. And if it is worth several thousands of pounds a year to you now, just think how motivated you would be to work to improve/change the state system to offer the education you feel is appropriate and ensure there is adequate choice.

This is my point exactly.

MoRaw You're not talking sense at all. Your posts are full about assumptions and extensions about what I am saying.

Just read what I have written and take it as that. Your filling in of a position and applying it to me is creative and amusing and quite frankly daft.

'Removing the charitable status of private schools would decrease incentives for private schools to offer bursaries'

So what? Isn't it better not to have the brightest kids syphoned off to boost the private schools league tables thereby artificially making them attractive to parents, with the consequence of lowering those of the state schools?

Bursaries are PR stunts, not acts of charity.

'So instead of bashing people who have more than you - for whatever reason - ask - what can i do to improve the education of my children. If your local provision is so poor- you can set up your own school. Or does blind ideology state that you should allow a 3rd of your budget to go on the LEA to have meetings and have a highly unionised closed shop delivering 2nd rate outcomes soak up the remaining?'

Are you talking to me OddCommentator?

If so, I am a School Governor of a state school, a Director of a National Charity educationalrightsalliance.blogspot.co.uk/p/what-we-stand-for.html, have rewritten my LA's Autism strategy document to make it more about outcomes and less about provision and meetings, contributed heavily to the establishment of two local free schools, one mainstream and one special and regularly lobby heavily through social networking for more accountability and transparency from LA officials as well as regularly submitting fully referenced papers for the Governments call for evidence for whatever ridiculous new initiative they are trying to push through.

It all reminds me of the story I heard on radio 4 once about a Russian family in the 1920s who were destroyed by their neighbours because they owned an iron bed. Apparently, jealousy over the bed was so overwhelming that the family had it coming.

The parents murdered, the children raised in a sort of concentration camp. People shouldn't get to up themselves, or have ideas of their own really.

Removing the charitable status from independent schools - even if it can be done in a way that doesn't force them to close and sell off their assets - would mean a large increase in fees.

Whilst there are some schools that are oversubscribed and have many pupils that could afford the higher fees, most independent schools struggle to recruit enough students. For most schools, the higher fees would make it more difficult to recruit new students and over time this would make if more difficult to ensure that the school is financially viable. Certainly, some schools would close.

Do people that are calling for an end to charitable status want the smaller, less viable schools to close? Or is it that people want wider access to good universities and good jobs and somehow think that having some independent schools close would ensure this?

People can improve their lives, but not by degrading and forcing others into unbearing living conditions.

That Russian Family didn't deserve murder, but I bet there was a lot more to it than an iron bed. It isn't money that is a problem. It is attitudes surrounding money that is the problem.

Again, see this: www.metaspoon.com/pizza-slice-strangers-homess-man/

No doubt some of you see the man with the large pizza as deserving of his situation, seeing as he is so willing to share what little he had. No wonder he is homeless right?

I think they should earn their charitable status, properly, fully. Not through token, very occasional community engagement but with proper opening of doors for wider access/upliftment.

Removing the charitable status from independent schools - even if it can be done in a way that doesn't force them to close and sell off their assets - would mean a large increase in fees

Well they aren't charities though!? So tough quite frankly.

Either that or start acting like charities.

I bet those who demonize those on benefits don't bat an eyelid about quasi a charitable status for private schools when the latter are getting state help.

I wouldn't have a problem if private schools were more charitable.

It would do well for those who use independent schools to look into the history of them. I was reading about Alleyns for example - set up to help disadvantaged children. It is a world away from the school it is today, which hands out scholarships or bursaries to those with particular talents even when parents are earning 6 figure salaries that's hardly charitable.

I don't have any skin in the game random. Without charitable status private schools are simply businesses, so it would be down to the free market to ensure their success or failure. Lots and lots of small businesses survive and flourish, why would private schools be any different?

Starlight said, 'Bursaries are PR stunts, not acts of charity'.
Bursaries long predate PR. Are you going to argue that schools with a long tradition of lots of bursaries have only hung onto that tradition for its modern PR value? If so, I think you're mistaken.

my answer wasnt aimed at you Starlight.

I am sure your work on SEN provision in the state sector is both admirable and excellent. I remain however unconvinced that your attacks on private education are nothing more than driven by desire to make those who have different choices or opportunities suffer or pay more for their privilege. They might do, 200pounds was the estimate. For the super expensive schools, and the super rich. Wont get noticed. For the next league - i doubt it will make a difference. IN the end you will have succeeded in raising the barrier further.

Destroying that system wont make yours any better. Forcing everyone to experience equality of input wont produce equality of output.

Making the parents pay a bit more wont make life any different for anyone else.

Making the rich poor will not make the poor rich. All you will have is more poor people.

You talk of class struggle - you clearly make your analysis through a classical marxist standpoint. Time to move on from that - he was wrong. time and again he was wrong. Millions died putting his ideas into practice. Millions.

I have empathy with the Marxist type of system but do not argue from that standpoint. The suggestion of it on this thread and others is probably nothing more than the next Godwin's law and therefore impossible to argue with due to it's irrelevance and blunt instrument of the ignorant usually.

We have never seen true communism, just as we have never seen true capitalism. Decency and compassion should be the words we use, not political movements.

There aren't separate systems. They are all a part of the same system and one is draining the other to some extent. I have no desire to make the rich poor, only to improve the standards of living and life chances for those who are restricted by the actions of the rich.

I do not talk of class struggle. I am not sure why some posters on here are so quick to try and place my politics in some box or other by extrapolating things I have not said. My theory here is that perhaps it makes uncomfortable reading to those who have chosen a way of life that can only continue by having a desperate underclass they have justified to themselves as deserving of.

Bobs123 I agree with you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Starlight, I must admit that you last post has caused me to scratch my head. It has said a lot and yet said nothing at all to make your position any different to the one painted - a desire to force everyone to be equal in terms of economic achievement.

Equal in terms of having their basic human needs met as well as opportunity to realise potential, yes. Isn't that what you would want?

Starlight - you bring in class and money "struggles" at 1217. But moving on to the meaning.

You talk of a theory - removing private schools will not remove the underclass. Most of the people who send their children to private school do not require an underclass to exist. (again back to class).

You believe it to be so - but the state provide free education to any child in the country regardless status (or class?) it will not be improved by taking pot shots at those who chose (or who must) send their children to a fee paying school. Is the real reason for poor state performance nothing to do with a very tiny percentage who opt out but instead those who opt in not giving much of a damn about their kids?

simple economics points to things which are free (or preceived to be free) are held in lower value than things that are paid for (i could go onto Friedman types of expenditure to illustrate). Could the behaviour of parents at these schools be because they have shelled out in their minds twice?

So to focus on your point above - how is that by some rich people paying their taxes (which fund central education) and then paying again thus freeing up some or all of those resources for other children, damage the life chances of those children at other schools? Should not the state look at these schools and say - what can we learn about methods, spending, budgeting, control, teaching, teachers that works or instead call em all toffs and aim to shut em down?

contra to the socioeconomic theory of the left - which comes through loud and clear in the anti-private school threads - these children at fee paying schools in no way hamper the resources or chances of children at state schools. All we learn is that again the state is a poor provider of services at an individual outcome level

A great deal of people on the left would like to tell and even enforce how people spend their money after they have earned it and paid their eyewatering taxes on it. They espouse that tax in and of itself is a good thing rather than a necessary evil, that somehow earning more than thy neighbour should be frowned upon. Nowhere has this corrosive attitude been more prevalent in post war western Europe. The danes have Jantelov, we have getting above ourselves. The sense that somehow, making a living, doing well getting on in life, is somehow wrong or tawdry.

This is why so many of the upper echelons of society loathe the tories and are proper lefties. The left needs the bogeyman to keep the serfs voting them in with the promise of more bread and circuses but never letting them accrue money or ambition. How dare they do better than me? Tax em!

You end up with the political dynasities, entrenched in wealth and privilege slamming down hard on those with a bit of graft and a bit of ambition. Wether it is hunt and people daring to send their kids to private school or the ghastly sneering Thornberry - ugh a white van - how unseemly. Wont stand for that in islington. The blairs, the Milibands, the Benns, the Harmans, all dug in and claiming to be for the common man - but no. They want our votes - else the trough runs dry

And breathe.....