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.

Hear, hear oddcommentator. To add it is fair to say that most of the parents are ordinary middle-class parents who happen to choose to invest in their children's education. Some parents may choose to invest time and resources otherwise. I see no reason why the former should then be despised for their choice but latter lamented over as being unfairly treated?

What are you on about oddcommentator?

Paranoid much?

tin foil hat left at home.

But it does seem that the political left are all doing very nicely indeed and really have a problem with people with ambition and graft.

The political dynasties then parachute their private school educated oxbridge tutored lovelies into the safest of seats so they can then bash the rich?

At least some on the right respect you for working hard and earning a living and don't see that it should all be taken away from you.

I suppose i get cross at the intellectual dishonesty of the left.

Not all private school parents are rich bankers. There are quite a few people on education threads who were comprehensively educated and are sending their children to private schools because the state alternatives are simply awful.

Where I live all our catchment state schools are poor or need improvement. All of them - we don't get offered any other choice as we are rural and always last on the qualifying list for school place allocation. So because I can, I pay an eye watering amount of money in fees, as I think education is more important than flash cars or big holidays. I don't think shutting my children's school down and sending the 600 or so children, many boarders, elsewhere is going to make a difference to local education. Neither will sharing a few teachers, or sports pitches solve the problem. And if we had no other choice, people like me would simply move house and then you would be no doubt be complaining when we pushed other children out of expensive catchments.

The government needs to push up standards in underperforming schools, not try to distract from the issues by taking pot shots at the independent sector.

Hear Hear

bread and circuses bobs, bread and circuses

Mr Seddon, you wouldn't wish to have me as a parent at one of your schools. My car is a little, ahem, on the common side...

try it yoni - you will find they treat you as a valued customer. With respect, openness and friendliness.

For me, it's like this:

1. Some children are getting an excellent education in the private sector, paid for by their families or bursaries. Hurray! I want every child to get a good education because it is good for us all. I don't begrudge them based on their family background.

1. Some children are getting an excellent education, paid for by the state. Hurray! That's what should happen. Again, it's good for us all. It's irrelevant to me that they may have passed an entrance exam or live in a good neighbourhood.

1. Some children are getting a mediocre to poor education in the private sector. This is regrettable, but the numbers are going to be necessarily small, and I would allow it to continue, short of abuse, on the basis that parents should have the ultimate say in their children's education. It's not the state's role to bully and boss parents, but to let them make decisions and get on with it.

1. Some children are getting a mediocre to poor education in the state sector. This is the problem. It's important for our society that every child be educated well. Tristram is applying for the job of dealing with this. I am not impressed with him monkeying around with things that actually aren't problems. I feel he is playing on base human emotions like envy, rather than applying himself where are real and substantial difference can be made. I think it is cynical. I am not impressed.

Excellent TMHG. This is the point I'm trying to make all along. The party who has a coherent plan for raising the standards of underperforming schools gets my vote, even if my children are educated elsewhere.

Not the party who tries to distract everyone from the real problems because they haven't a clue how to solve them, or the party that simply doesn't care.

My kids are actually in the state system. That's what I am concerned about. I can't see what the local prep schools could do to assist, frankly. Some of the problems aren't due to teacher competence, or even money, but more to silly central control and an idealogical stance that limits the children's possible attainment.

TMHG - that is the point - silly central control. Ideological stand points from unions that have fought any change. The ideological control of children is a fundamental tenet of the development of socialism

odd I am sure I would be treated with respect to my face, but wasn't it Anthony Seddon who commented on the lower class of cars in his car park these days?

Seldon - apologies, I had a head teacher called Seddon back in the day...

The thing about having high achieving independent schools in existence is, when we are being told that everything is wonderful and that this is the best of all possible worlds, there are concrete counterfactuals to which one can point.

Maybe that's why labour has it in for the independent schools. Rather than facing the facts, it's more attractive to try to obliterate them.

Either we abolish private schools altogether or we ensure that all children can benefit equally from them. This means educating parents very early on about the options available, supporting the in tutoring, applications, open days, deposits, special talents to be nurtured, all that stuff.

Many/most private schools are a mix of charity and business.

The buildings and land are owned by a charity. The fees that parents pay go into a business that effectively pays a rent to the charity for use of the buildings and the rest goes to pay teacher salaries, materials, heating, electric, books, etc. There is very little surplus. Bursaries and scholarships usually come put of a separate charitable fund.

The business part of the school simply has no surplus to 'give' to the state sector. My children at a private school share some facilities (eg running track and swimming pool) with a state school. They are both nominally Church of England schools and it is part of an initiative by the diocese. However most of this bleating about private doing more to assist estate sector is just pretending there is a magic money tree. There isn't. The money has to come from somewhere.

Personally I would like to see the state pay private schools to take children from the state sector. If the private school can do it better for the same price as the state doing education then private schools could take over the state sector entirely. Then all would have access to private education.

I went to a private school at time when Govt did contribute to my fees in recognition of the fact my parents we not using a state school place. Then that was withdrawn and fees rocketed. My parents almost had to take me out of the school and put me in the state sector. If they had done so the state would have had the expense of educating me anyway. Nothing would have been gained.

We all know there is a tremendous amount of secret knowledge around getting into a good private school even if you have deep pockets.

The endless threads on here about common entrance (I've no idea what that is) tutoring, exams, interviews etc etc
It really means that unless you are already in the game or have terrific advice, you have no chance.

That said - all
Mine go to fantastic state schools, with hard working children and they will go on to a good university. And it's al free!

The knowledge required to navigate private education isn't "secret" - it is widely available. But don't hold your breath waiting for someone to show up on your doorstep to do a presentation - you have to do your own homework!

Bonsoir. I suspect there is a school in North Yorkshire, that could send Sales People round to sign you up?.

Bonsoir it might as well be secret to the vast majority of families. It is a system based on exclusion elitism and competition. It is not in the interests of the system to make itself easily accessible to all.

"If the private school can do it better for the same price as the state doing education then private schools could take over the state sector entirely. Then all would have access to private education." - typical statement of someone educated in a private school - really out of touch. If you halved class sizes you would need twice the number of teachers and twice the number of classrooms. Do the maths dear.

Blaming the system for being inaccessible is a lot easier than doing your own research. It just isn't true that the information is un available.

I'm not interested in private education as my children go to excellent state schools.

But the system is deliberately opaque. Not fir perhaps the big standard private school round the corner which is selective but doesn't do much better than the state offering. But the more fashionable and highly regarded private options - I'm talking Eton, Harrow. Gordonstoun.

why should these eye wateringly wealthy institutions to pay lower tax when state schools and local authorities have to pay full whack?

What exactly do they do to earn it?

And actually why should these private enterprises get tax breaks? That's a subsidy which flows directly from poor people to rich people 1 what's the sense in that?

The teeny orchestra and I are still playing a lament for all the struggling private schools facing ruin for having to give up their tax perks.

Even the heads of these schools are saying that fees are rising so fast that they will soon educate only the children of oligarchs and Chinese leaders. So let them get on with it! But not with tax relief, thanks.

There is also an interesting question about what private schools can teach state ones anyway. Sharing facilities? Definitely. Teaching and leadership? The state sector is miles ahead.