Private schools have lost their moral purpose - says head of Wellington

[RelaxedAndCalm]

here

"Leadership from the independent sector has been sadly lacking and it has failed to provide an inspiring moral vision for us in the 21st century."

I wonder if this will lead the Charities Commission to rethink their stance re charitable status.

Well, he's stating the obvious - but it needs stating. DC and his pals are still living in the happy belief public schools are the font of all knowledge and will willing share that with state sector.

Public schools have been at the heart of the culture that led to the banking scandals and the destruction of the UK economy in pursuit of personal gain. We'd do well to scrap the lot of them, IMO.

I think Anthony Seldon spends too much time at dinner parties with his Islington chummies. Public schools don't have a moral purpose. Their purpose is to educate children as well as they can, and they do. Charitable status means that, instead of fees being out of the reach of everyone except Guardian readers, they're accessible to normal people too.

Outside the narrow-tight-knit world of the millionaire class-warriors who haven't matured emotionally since sixth form there's no demand for the abolition of private education.

Agree with flatpack - or else you'd probably have to say that all schools, regardless of sector are similarly lacking moral compasses, because of the lack of morality/compassion shown by criminals etc. Because everyone went to school somewhere, and so schools can be blamed for anything and everything.

The question of why, since the general abolition of grammar schools (shown in the 1970s-90s when we saw far more products of that era of state schooling at the too) have private schools have had the stranglehold on so many Government and professional positions?

(As the judicial review (or whatever procedure it was) into the Charities' Commission's actions has just been concluded, I doubt there will be any appetite from any side to open that again).

Here we go again! Blame public/private schools for everything that goes wrong if it makes you feel better.

As usual, Guardianista idealism fails when it meets the harsh reality of economics.

Its all very well exhorting private schools to get involved in the academy programme - but where is the money going to come from when private school parents struggle to pay fees out of after tax income anyway? Private school parents woudl deeply resent paying fees for something other parents were getting to share for free.

I pay private school fees for 2 DSs and the school they go to has a quite left wing Head and Governing body who have linked the school to a local academy staus school. They share a few physical facilities and there is one scholarship in the sixth form for a child to come from the state academy to do A levels at the private school. Beyond that I just don't see how you can charge a set of parents to send their children to a school and then hand its resources over to the state sector for other parents to benefit from. I' sure that private school teachers are not going to work for free either.

DSs school has certainly toned down the rhetoric on its academy link since the Charity Commission backed off and we hardly ever hear about it now.

If the state wants to restore the old grant maintained status of private school like they were when I was at boarding school they might have more traction on linking state and private schools - but that will never happen.

flatpackhamster: "Charitable status means that, instead of fees being out of the reach of everyone except Guardian readers, they're accessible to normal people too. "

Yeah. Because Guardian readers represent the wealthiest constituency of newspaper readers in the country.

This is extremely silly, even by your standards, flatpack, and god knows you've got form.

Private schools are specifically for the rich so they can bond with each other and build important relationships for the rest of their life. They are not for ordinary people and they are not in the reach of ordinary people. Let be clear about that.

Of course, private schools don't have an interest in improving state schools, why improve the education of the hoi polloi?

It is all part of living in a very divided ultimately feudal society.

Could I just point out that the Charities Commission backed off because its stance was ruled illegal in the courts?

The return of some form of the Assisted Place Scheme (one of the first things new Labour abolished) was an important single factor in reducing access of the relatively poor to fee-paying schools.

I doubt that charitable status makes much difference to fees, at least for larger schools. If it could be relinquished, then many would have done so. Unfortunately, the rules over closure of charities and disposal of charitably held assets (like land, buildings and equipment) mean that ending as a charity would also mean closing entirely, so 'relinquishment' is simply not an option.

I think the original idea was for the private school sector to bring its excellence and know-how to the state sector. A good idea perhaps if executed properly.

Problem was, the idea eventually got twisted by people on the left who actually hate the idea of private schools and eventually turned the idea into private schools bringing their excellence and know-how but without getting any resources from the state to do it with.

Its the failing state sector that perpetuates private schools.

In areas with grammar schools you only have to see the desperation of parents to get their DCs into them to see why many parents just choose to pay instead.

Lots of info on the tribunal rulings here.

Morebeta - You've summed it up nicely! But the private schools haters will not hear it.

Well, there are various things wrong with the idea of Private schools running acadamies, firstly, the idea mentioned up thread that parents are finding huge sums of money to not just educate their own DCs, but also partly fund educating someone else's DC would grate on a lot of parents. Not all users of private schools are multi millionaires who don't flinch if fees are £3-5k higher a year because the school has higher costs due to using resources for an acadamy. My DS is preschool now, we are toying with the idea of private school and it will mean significant sacrifices for us if we do it, I'd be rather annoyed if I realised that my missed holidays, going down to just 1 car etc wasn't being sacrificed to benefit DS's education.

And secondly, ok, once upon a time I might see the argument for this, but really, does anyone think the teachers in private sector are significantly better and that really the state sector is all staffed with fuckwits who are far inferior than private schools? It's bloody patronising, the difference is that private schools are better funded, have more resources, are able to fire crap staff far easier (and do!), are able to throw out distruptive/lazy pupils with ease (and do), and can pick and choose which bits of national curriculm, best practice of state sector, and ignore mountains of paperwork.

I know several state parents who would actually feel patronised by the line:

"the independent sector has sadly failed to provide an inspiring moral vision for us"

I can see many including Mner's saying "just who the heck do they think they are ?" just because some of us have chosen private education doesnt mean its everybody's cup of tea, many are quite happy with what state education provides, as we were also until it all starting to fall apart sadly.

More - at the private school level I see your point. Good state schools can lead to local state schools being less popular. But that doesn't hold true for public schools. The landed and superwealthy will almost always choose eton or harrow over the local state school, grammar or otherwise (Paul McCartney excepted).

When I was at Cambridge it was pretty obvious that the public school brigade had already formed a class apart from the rest of us. They had their friends, societies and drinking clubs and rarely mixed with the plebs, even of the private school kind. Sadly many of them are, or in their way to being, our next generation of leaders. I say sadly because I don't think there was a moal compass between them.

That's the culture I think needs to cease. Flatpack, if you want to believe it's because I have the EQ of an 18yo or that I am part of a tightly knitt millionaire class, please be my guest. [chuckles]

I find it very grating when people say I don't want my money to benefit other children except my own.

Certain groups of people in this country, and yes, they are the well off, have such an extremely egoistic attitude. I simply hate it.

I think it is time for me to start moving back to the Continent, because the UK has really become a country which I feel ashamed off. It is a feudal society. Nothing to be proud off IMO.

Good to see the usual sweeping generalisations being perpetuated here.

hackmum

Yeah. Because Guardian readers represent the wealthiest constituency of newspaper readers in the country.

I rather suspect they do. Teachers and doctors, all wealthy middle-class professionals. Public sector earnings have been running higher than private sector earnings for 5 years now. Telegraph readers are the only ones who might compete, and it'd be a close-run thing.

This is extremely silly, even by your standards, flatpack, and god knows you've got form.

Always glad to help.

What the Guardian says about its demographics (to potential advertisers). It's from 2010, and shows the readership is much, much more likely to be A (14% v 5%) A/B (62% v 26%) or A/B/C1 (89% v 54%) than the general population, and also much more likely to be educated to degree level (62% v 22%) and more likely to have been born in the baby boomer years (though smaller margins for this one.

I'll see if I can find similar for The Telegraph.

2011 figures for the Telegraph:

A/B 57%, A/B/C1 87% (both way ahead of general population, but lower than the Guardian). Education, not listed. Main age group, over 65s (older than Guardian),

In our borough thr secondary schools have mostly been rebuilt and have excellent facilities some on par or slightly better than the local public school I'm considering for ds1. The main difference between them w ere the attitudes of the pupils and expectations of the staff. If state schools have excellent facilities would they consider sharing them with local private schools?

I personally don't feel the need for the independent sector to provide me with an "inspiring moral vision" thanks very much. Sounds extremely patronising.

I didn't suggest this was about abolishing private education. And neither does Anthony Seldon. Odd comment flatpack. It's about whether independent schools could be engaging more broadly beyond a very wealthy few. This is the morality to which he is referring. Why should public/private schools seek to have a positive influence beyond the school gates? They are supposed to instil community spirit into their pupil (aren't they?) and so it seems reasonable to expect this at an institutional level.

I was privately educated, in a school with more than 30% assisted places at that time. I was extremely pissed off with the abolition of the AP scheme.

But I don't think that private schools should be charities, unless they are demonstrating genuine value in a charitable sense. That's my personal opinion, partly informed by my role as a trustee of an education-related charity in an extremely deprived area where only one of the many local private schools do anything material in their local community.

I think Seldon is well-placed to comment - given that he clearly understands the benefits of the independent sector. I've met Seldon and found him to be one of the most intellectually engaging people I have ever spoken too. Of the left, yes.

DSs private school has just won the School of the Year Award at the borough's Community Civic Awards.

They are also fund raising to provide a toilet block for their "link school" in Africa.