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.

"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."

They don't face ruin - if they could relinquish and carry on, they would continue much as before. No, what they face is closure because under current law there is no way to remove charitable status without winding up the charity according to what the Charity a commission lays out.

Now, you could change the law, but all charities with an educational purpose might have something to say about that. So a very time consuming major piece of work to get new legislation right for all charities. And it won't do anything to change what is happening in state schools.

Bottom line question: should a SoSEd be concerned with raising standard in state schools, or changing the law on how charities are run?

Are there any voices at all within the state sector who want extra input from the private sector? For I've not really heard any saying they think it is important in raising standards.

What about private schools which are genuinely doing something differently? I doubt that The Royal Ballet School, Brockwood Park, The Menuhin School, Summerhill, various Choir Schools etc, would exist if they didn't have charitable status. I think the country would be poorer without special schools like these.

Unfortunately, the state system is bound by too many regulations and exams, and is just too inflexible to allow for the wonderful and inspiring variety which you British currently have in your wonderful school system.

If you look closely at great socialist systems of education, such as the Dutch system (virtually no private schools available), you will find a whole host of different problems.

It is impossible to run a school like the Menuhin school (for instance) as a state school. Maybe you don't think places like that should exist, but don't be dismissive and say this is a red herring.

I'm not saying that there aren't fantastic and creative state schools, just that those four schools I mention (for instance) could not be state schools, unfortunately. I mention those particular schools because I know a little bit about them.

Why couldn't they be state schools?

Meditrina - the suggestion that a host of schools are teetering on the brink of profitability and would be forced to close is in the OP. So maybe Dr Seldon has misunderstood?

Although actually Labour's proposal only relates to business rate relief, not to all the benefits of charitable status. I doubt it is beyond the wit of Parliamentary Counsel to draft provisions to the effect that schools are only entitled to business rate relief if they have charitable status AND they satisfy some sort of public benefit criterion (suitably defined). You wouldn't have to jeopardise their charitable status by this test.

And as for schools like Menuhin, these are the very few private schools where the teachers might actually have skills which would be of benefit to the state sector. Our state school has very little to learn from the local Indy teachers but would be delighted with some specialist music input. So they share some of their expertise and get to keep their tax relief. It's a win-win.

I think teetering on the edge of profitability is wholly unrelated to charitable status. Seldon does not link the two issues either.

I do not think that altering the status of charities, by removing the entitlement to charitable reliefs for some, is a good thing for the charitable sector as a whole.

Especially when the ideas of what they 'should' do for the state sector are being imposed by a politician, not demanded from teachers or governors of state schools.

Schools like the Menuhin school are just too expensive to run and too unconventional. Kids get about 4 hours a week of 1 to 1 tuition with a very highly qualified specialist teacher.

tobeabat, try suggesting that the state funds choir schools and see how far that goes... Or do you think losing choir schools would be just fine?

Besides, any child who benefits fully from 4 hrs a week of one-to-one with a top-end (and probably v. expensive teacher) is probably sinking lots of time in practice, ensemble playing and music theory which I don't see fitting round a standard state school routine.

None of that answers why music and choir schools couldn't or shouldn't share some of their facilities and expertise with the state sector.

If they do, they have nothing to fear from Hunt's proposals. If they don't, they don't deserve the tax breaks.

My son attended a community Maths competition at a local private school. At the end of the day, the winning school was announced and surprise, surprise it was the host school. But with less points than our team. After some dark mutterings, a recount was requested and it transpired that our team had scored more than the winners. And victory was conceded to the state school..after everyone had gone home.

If anyone can tell me why that was worth an estimated 500k in tax reliefs for this particular school, I would be very interested to hear.

I don't understand how the Conservative world of private schools should demand taxpayer subsidy. Sure if it can't make ends meet it should make efficiencies or close it's doors like any other business or charity. Or does that rule only apply to working class industries like car manufacturing or coal mining?

I am just using one school as an example. Maybe you are right and the state can provide all the different special schools that are currently privately supported. I have no axe to grind. I would be thrilled if the state could have that kind of flexibility.

I am a classical musician, and I went to a state school with "good music". It was in no way comparable to what kids get at one of your amazing specialist schools. Children at the Menuhin School have individual schedules so they all have time to practise for many hours every day, with numerous rehearsals and lessons carefully worked in. Many of the teachers have performing careers and show up to teach at irregular times. If hired privately, these music teachers would be charging about £80-£100 a lesson. Academic classes are squeezed in around all that.

I doubt that the choir schools you mention are comparable to King's Cambridge or Christ Church Oxford. The state schools you mention may be MUCH better, more balanced and humane schools, but their choirs will not be as good.

If you want to argue that these private schools should be abolished as they are unreasonable, I might be convinced.

But surely those that are paying school fees are also paying for state school places through taxes, and then not taking these places?

I'm sorry I have annoyed you Tobeabat. I was trying to point out that private schools can do more extreme and unconventional things because their funding and their regulations are not attached to a large and unwieldy organisation (the state). I used the Menuhin school as an example, as I couldn't imagine a state school paying approximately £300-£400 a week per student for private music lessons.

I could easily be wrong about this, so I will agree that Summerhill, The Menuhin School, The Royal Ballet School, King's College School, and the wonderful Brockwood Park (Krishnamurti's etraordinary school) could all be state schools, publicly funded, and free to any student who could get in.

That would be fantastic!

Exactly superlove. Surrey CC have a £215m deficit in their budget for providing school places for 2015 and they have warned there are going to be shortages.

If you shut the private schools down there will suddenly be a lot more pupils needing places as a cost far greater than the £200 a year that could be raised.

Where would that money come from? The country is broke.

The rebate for non-use of service is not something we do in our tax system. Childless people don't get rebates. People who don't go to university don't get rebates. People with private medical insurance don't get rebates. The service user is the child who doesn't pay tax anyway.

Mellicauli
It's not a question of a tax rebate its a question of 000's of children suddenly needing state funded school places with no additional tax being payable (unless tax rates were changed)

This isn't about scrapping private schools though. It is about removing the charitable status. So while some parents might no longer be able to afford fees where the schools hike them up, I'm sure plenty would be fine.

That's what I cannot follow in this debate Iggly. Some posters seem to be saying that taking away charitable status is in effect forcing the schools to close by a technicality. Others insist that it could be done. The former is abhorrent to me, the latter a shrug.

I agree with Claraschu that it is more complicated once you look beyond the standard private schools. I think many students at schools like Royal Ballet school students receive bursaries. Also there are many schools that specialise in supporting children with SEN where some of the fees are funded by the LEA. Also, many parents with funds take their 'less easy' children out of the state system because they can find better provision in private schools. (I know the state can be very good at supporting SEN, but when it drops the ball I think the less well off just get dropped and those who can scrape together the money find something better)

I'm not really arguing one way or another about the tax breaks - just that removing them might reveal a whole cobweb of educational provision that is currently cobbled together with the support of tax breaks and worn out parents who would rather remortgage the house than fight any more for better provision in the state sector.

Anyway, how much difference to tax breaks make to struggling private schools?

You don't generally pay tax if you don't make a profit…

Off to investigate...

If the charitable status is removed then the next thing will be VAT at 20% on top of the fees. £200 isn't going to make anyone pull their child out of private school but 20% will and then there will be 000's of kids needing school places with no extra funding.

Politicians love to fire shots at private schools but never ever mention the unfairness in the state system where (a) many parents buy a place anyway by buying an expensive house in the right area and (b) faith schools many of which are the preserve of well off parents.

If a politician generally cared about social mobility and fairer education for all children they would scrap faith schools, which in many areas do nothing for social integration and introduce a lottery system for the allocation of places.

Far better to try and win votes by having a go at the 'rich' who send their children to private school.