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.

Would I let my DS to sit in the same classroom as next doors?

Don't know - Many private schools don't check the parents out before offering a place. It does sound as though you are having a particularly stressful time with your neighbours piano, but not all parents of children who attend private schools are lovely people and plenty of people send their children to state schools without their children having to mix with the children of the neighbours from hell.

Having said that...

Some schools have to cope with more children from difficult backgrounds than they can cope with. We all have a legal duty to provide our children with an education suitable to their aptitudes and abilities. Who is to judge whether somebody who opts out of the state system and chooses to fund their child's education themselves is a snob, or just using the only method available to them to fulfil their obligations?

merrymouse I don't think anyone required such leadership from the independent, but historically it was located in producing a decent officer/empire civil servant class who could reasonably be expected to behave like Christian gentlemen, and be an example to others. This imperative no longer exists, and it seems Seldon saw work with the academies as a 21st century way of fulfilling the obligations of privilege.

As he has discovered, for the most part, the independents aren't interested, and he's disappointed. I think he's right to be so, but I'm not surprised. In a world where the competition is fiercer for a slice of the pie, the privileged will hold onto their advantages.

It's no coincidence that social mobility in the UK really ground to a halt in the late 70s; after all, true social mobility MUST show some of the haves losing at some point, there not being an endless supply of well-paid jobs, for instance. But this hasn't happened, has it?

Back to schooling, though. Whether someone is motivated by snobbery is hardly the point, it's whether someone is looking after their own at the expense of others. In the case of private schools, they are, bankrolled as they by favourable tax deals; keeping staff costs down by their teachers being able to cash in on the Teachers' Superannuation Fund (watch the fees rocket if THAT little sweetener no longer applied). It's the claims to being making their own choices which grate.

Sorry, I should say independent/spending their own money,etc.etc.

But what does the head of an independent school necessarily know about running a state schools? My point is that the independent sector covers a vast range of schools, and they don't intrinsically have much to teach other schools.

Some independent schools are very good at getting bright children from (it is assumed) supportive backgrounds into a selection of universities. They have very little experience of dealing with children who wouldn't have the ability to pass their entrance exam. They don't have any experience of pastoral care of children from very deprived backgrounds. I think its patronising to assume that they should be providing leadership.

In the case of private schools, they are, bankrolled as they by favourable tax deals

On the other hand, plenty of parents pay for their children to go to private schools because their needs are not met by the state sector. (I'm really talking about SEN's like dyslexia here, although I am sure their are other reasons). There are plenty of state schools that are great with SEN's, but to assume everybody has access to them is naive. The state sector does not provide for all children.

I'm unsurprised that some independents will take dyslexic students, but wonder just how many students on the autistic spectrum, with emotional/behavioural problems they take on, money or no. Not many, I'd bet. They pick and choose.

Not sure who you're saying is being patronising or who is assuming independents should provide leadership - not me that much is certain. What I hope I'd made clear is that Seldon regards this as part of the duty of privilege. I don't agree with him, but one government after another has hailed the private sector as the one for the state sector to learn from. This is rich, when you consider how such schools cherry pick. On the other hand, I've never encountered a private school teacher who thought they had anything to teach a state teacher, they're just bloody glad they don't have to do it.

SOme of the best special needs provision is in the private sector.

Private schools are virtually all non profit making charities who are mostly funded by the school fees. The tax breaks are not particularly material.

As we all know they are the best schools on the planet and many a woman lets down her children by picking a career which means she cannot fund school fees. Those are the women who are morally bereft and deserve criticism, not women who pay school fees and do the best for their children.

If you suggest wanting to help your children is bad then surely every evening you should be on a sink estate reading bed time stories to the chidlren of the poor and not your own etc etc. Everything we do to care and love our own children is giving them things plenty of other parents don't give theirs. The advantaging of your own is a huge moral good that should be encouraged.

Most leaders of this nation, male or female, come from the private sector educational system as it provides the best education.

I think I misunderstood the OP - I thought Seldon was saying that independent schools school teach leadership, although I think he was actually saying that independent schools should be pro-active in sponsoring academies which is slightly different - I think we agree about how much private heads can offer state heads.

I don't think traditional 'boater wearing' private schools take on many students with behavioural difficulties, but there are private schools who specialise in children with dyspraxia and dyslexia which often overlaps with not being able to cope well in a normal class setting - these are very expensive, privately run, and places are often funded by parents, not the LEA.

There are also a number of alternative/small scale schools who will educate children who don't fit easily into the state system (e.g. classes of 30, too much sensory overload, learning according to a particular timetable).

My point is that there is more to independent education than an old school tie.

And there are also plenty of more traditional private schools who offer extra support for children with dyslexia which simply doesn't exist in state schools and children with special needs who find they can cope in a run of the mill private school just because it suits them better.

Thats pretty much what happened to my DS1 MM. He is extremely gifted but also dyslexic. His ed psych said because he is so bright he wouldnt ever completely fail educationally, but in a large state school would just drift along in the bottom 1/4 because of his difficulties with writing. He would never be bad enough to get offered extra support and would probably not even be noticed.

His independant school has given him several hours of 1:1 tuition in english each week and he is now in the top set and getting straight A's.

I dont care if you think I am selfish, or looking after my own at the expense of others. I'm not going to sacrifice my child's education for your idea of political correcttness. You could argue that by taking my son out and paying for his extra support I leave those resources available for another child whose parents cant afford to pay.

Xenia if the tax breaks and charitable status meant so little, the private schools wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail to hold on to them.

Your paragraph denouncing women who don't pick careers which afford school fees for their children is astonishing.

1. Just how many people, never mind women, have careers?
2. You describe such women as morally bereft. Is this for not having career at all, or not spending it as you would choose to do?
3. Where are the men in all this?

Your supposition that I think those who choose to privately educate their children is bad is far from the mark, as I have been at pains to point out. I believe they are not truly independent as they claim, their choices being shored up by government support in the form of charitable status and their staff being part of the Teachers' Superannuation Fund.

Private schools the best schools on the planet? Really???

I would agree that many, if not most of the leaders of the UK come form the private sector, but not because it is the best.

The new pensions proposals stop access to the Fund you mention so that's a bit of a non issue.

yes, people fly their chidlren all over the world for the English private schools. There is little better on the planet .

Yes, some women don't work hard at school, get useless A levels and pick careers which mean they cannot pay school fees. They do their children a disservice by so doing and yes we can castigate them for their failures. There is nothing special about me.Any mumsnetter could have worked as hard and done as well unless she was educationally subnormal.

The private schools produce what most companies and organisations want so therefore children who go there do very well.

Tax breaks genuinely is not such a big issue. Indeed if you lose charitable status you can ditch bursaries and sharing playing fields. It is really not something to be overly concerned about. You have to remember the make no profits at all so they are not going to be taxed on any profit. I think someone said above there would not even be VAT added to the fees if charitable status went as education is not vatable. They do pay I think 20% of business rates not 100% and there will be some VAT on buildings implications presumably and those with income from land and building (very few of them) have some advantage but nothing like the huge benefit to the state of not having the cost of educating all our children. We should be given medals if we work very very hard to pay schools and relieve the state. We payers are heroes of the people.

The idea of relieving the state of the burden of educating your children is risible. A bit like saying getting a car relieves the state of the burden of you being on the bus.

If the tax breaks weren't such an issue, the private schools wouldn't scrabble for them, but they do. So they are.

I'm glad to hear the private school teachers will no longer be battening on the Teachers' Fund. About time.

I still don't quite get why you so consistently have a pop at women, not men? Explain, please.

What does working hard at school have to do with doing well?

So we should pick jobs which service school fees or we're failures?

Which are the useless A levels which won't produce a career to service school fees, assuming that's the driving force behind choosing advanced level study?

Interesting you should ascribe educational subnormality to MNers who haven't achieved as you have. Put that up on AIBU, why don't you?

Xenia, we've talked before about this.

Not all of us had crystal balls in high school. Some older professions have seen massive salary reductions in real terms in the past 40 years.

Accept that good and bad luck is part of it; some of us have worked pretty hard but still can't ante up 15-30k per child per year from post-tax income. Nor will it have been obvious to everyone that state education would go into relative decline in the same period.

And some of us have different priorities. I don't want my children anywhere near a private school, and I do want to be around at least some days when they get home and when they leave, and I do want to do a job which I find enjoyable, fulfilling and worthwhile, which is what I do.

If I didn't, I'd be more inclined to be annoyed and offended by this 'picking a career' nonsense, but as it is, along with most people, I just find it utterly risible.

"The idea of relieving the state of the burden of educating your children is risible. A bit like saying getting a car relieves the state of the burden of you being on the bus."

That is an interesting comparison - Until very recently I lived in a London Borough where lack of planning for the 2008 school primary intake meant the majority of schools had overflow/temporary/shared classrooms, and the government has withdrawn funding for the additional secondary places required by these children. I am sure they are very grateful to any parent who takes themselves out of the system, and are indeed planning that many will.

Equally, many people in rural areas rely on cars because there is no public transport available to take them to work.

I'm happy to support the theory of state provision. However, when the state doesn't provide, and I am legally obliged to take up the slack (educate my children, get myself to work), I will. If this costs me a little less because of charitable status and no VAT on education, well, frankly, thanks very much.

At least you're honest about it, merrymouse.

Xenia - as I said before - huge respect for managing 5 x school fees.

I think expecting all women to achieve the same is a bit unreasonable as there are not enough top management jobs and actually material gains in my view is not the ultimate goal of good education.

What I do find alarming is the pseudo liberal reversed snobbery - its totally acceptable to attack and name-call people who use private education but God forbid touch those who never worked and bring their kids like my neighbours do.

To be ashamed of admitting that you dont want your DC anywhere near them.

To demand increasing taxes on education even though its already taxed . Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.

There's no need to respect Xenia for having 5x school fees - as she says, everyone could do it if they wanted to!

No-one's attacking you, and the things I said to you weren't because you use a private school, but because of the unpleasant things you were saying about state schools and those who use them.

pianomama who has name-called pro-private parents?

Who's attacked them, unless you call questioning their views an attack?

To be fair, I did say something about arseholes... but then again wasn't there a bit of name calling about 'smug Islingtonista Guardianistas' and holidaying in Tuscany from the other side first?

Fair do's, TOSN Fifteen all, I'd say.

As somebody who works in tax I can confirm that the tax breaks go far beyond the VAT reliefs and business rates relief.

Charities do make profits so that statement is incorrect. The definition of a charity for tax purposes is not one that doesn't make a profit but one that does spend all its profits on its charitable activities. So any tax relief receive immediately benefits the school, pupils and ultimately the parents ie lower fees.

As a charity, the schools pay no tax on profits as their primary trading activity (school fees) is non-taxable. With a current rate of CT of 24%, this is a sizable tax break.

They are also exempt from CGT and from tax on renting out land/property. Again, worthwhile tax breaks.

I also am a woman, have a career, the ability to pay school fees but chose not too. Am I doing my children a disservice?

I have to say, the comment "we payers are heroes of the people" was the funnish thing I have heard in a long time!! It's up there with "private schools have provided some of the top leaders" er Fat Dave, Gideon, Boris the Buffoon???? I don't think so.

I disagree, I think in years to come, children will sing songs to these 'heroes of the people', and recount tales of their valour, selflessness and bravery around campfires.

Years ago, in times gone by,
A noble lady lived nearby
She saw the local schools and she found them uncongenial
And she paid to go elsewhere, that heroic Xenia(l)
And, this not being quite enough,
She posted on Mumsnet that they were too rough
O, Xenia, to thee we sing!
With all the tunelessness our state ed brings
O Xenia, praise be unto you!
You nobility, too good to be true
Let blessing be heaped upon thee!
So sing we, though not in RP.

I obviously meant "funniest"

Having spent most of my morning reading this thread, I have copied and intended to post on a large number of comments, but I won't.

However, I do want to say how much I dislike the sterotype private school parent illusion, of privilege.

I went to a state school, and a very poor performing comprehensive in the 70's, it changed from secondary modern as I went. My father had hardly no education, leaving school at 15, Mum went to the local grammar, but left at 16. No one in our family has ever been to University. I obtained the heady number of 4 O levels, and 4 CSE's, left school at 16, being told FE was a waste of time for me, as I wasn't clever enough. My Comp. had its first 6th form starting the year I left, with 20 pupils staying on, in a school of 1,500 pupils. I went straight to an office job and worked hard, which resulted eventually at a high level job within the BBC.

My dd is now at an idependent school, DH and I (he did go to university), moved her from her state school at Yr 2, last September. The reason because it was failing her, she had switched off, demotivated and couldn't read. This is an 'outstanding' catholic school. We were told she may have learning difficulties, because of lack of concentration and focus. A year later and £9k lighter (my PT annual salary), we have her report, her exam results are slightly above average, she is motivated, working hard and can't wait to go into Yr3.

I wonder where she would have been if she had stayed where she was? The teacher there spent most of her time 'firefighting' in her class of 30, I offered to go in and help listen to kids read, because I thought it would ease the pressure! I saw five children who obviously need extra time and help with their behaviour making life difficult for the rest, who really want to learn. Those five particularly are being badly let down, as the process to put in place help takes so long.

I count myself very lucky we had the means to do something for our dd, but I feel bad for that teacher and those children still in what I can only call 'madness of a class'.

I make no apologies for opting out, my dd is my priority, but that doesn't make me selfish, uncaring or patronizing.

If you are lucky enough to have a state school that is fulfilling your childs needs, then bully for you, ours wasn't and we did something about it.