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.

Does anyone know what the contribution to the economy would be if VAT was added to school fees? Just wondering.

Soup some schools do do a lot, to be fair. The charitable foundation of one of my local schools provides amazing support to local state primaries - extra curricular stuff mostly, for children who just wouldn't get to do anything like that without the help they provide. Kudos to them.

Whatever your view on the public/private debate, the comment by Selden in his Guardian article made me cringe at his snobbishness

Whatever we may think of Tony Blair and David Cameron, they display impeccable good manners and courtesy to all. What if boorish Gordon had been to such a school?

Ugh.

yes true

The supply of education is exempt for VAT (can UK change it? Or does it have to be EU-wide these days?).

I don't know how much could theoretically be raised, but I'd worry that is VAT were extended to all suppliers of education as a business activity, there would be a pretty big unintended effect as universities are classed together with independent fee paying schools. I think VAT on tuition fees would be a big vote loser. And generally I don't like the idea of tax on learning (which is why I also support eg books continuing VAT free)

Here's the VAT notice about VAt and education. You'd need to look also at the one about charities to get the fuller picture.

Thanks Edith.

RelaxedAndCalm

I didn't suggest this was about abolishing private education. And neither does Anthony Seldon. Odd comment flatpack.

Not odd at all. The whole purpose of removing charitable status is the first step towards getting rid of private schools completely. Charitable status is a smokescreen used by abolitionists.

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.

Perhaps neither he nor you recognise that the term 'independent' means exactly that.

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.

Does it? It seems 'reasonable' to me that if I pay a school to educate my child, they do that. It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me that there be a state-mandated level of 'community spirit' below which an independent school is classified as failing by that same bullying state which fails at least a third of its pupils.

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.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest that you want to pull the ladder up behind you. That's a very common attitude.

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.

Lots of other things are charities. Think tanks, for example. Gordon Brown's "Smith Institute" was a 'charity' although its primary role was a conduit for donor money to various campaign groups. Lobby groups such as ASH claim to be charities, receive all their money from the taxpayer in one form or another, and then lobby government to change the law.

^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.^

Which is why he gets so much facetime in the Guardian. And which is why he's wrong.

RelaxedandCalm I think the private schools would LOVE to provide leadership, but the ethos and beliefs of those in private schools - whilst they self-evidently WORK, your lot don't want to hear them, do you?

Here's one for starters:

When you PAY people who are too stupid to finish school, too undisciplined to hold down a job, and too immature to sustain a committed relationship - when you PAY them to be parents, why are you surprised when they make terrible parents????
It the state not paying the WRONG sort of people, to have children?

Now, you may think that is an example of appalling fascism. I think it is a statement of the blindingly obvious.

Benefits should not accompany babies.

flatpack I do not think the 'ladder should be pulled up' behind me. I have made that clear. I would love to see the reintroduction of APs. But that's just me.

wobbly. As above. I am not anti state schools. While I was at one I was taught to listen to and value the opinions of others (as were my state-educated peers).

And yes, I do think that's an example of appalling fascism. I choose not to see the world in such simple black and whites.

not anti independent schools

(clearly, I was not taught to proof read)

Ahem...I can't see why anyone who calls anyone else a 'muttering idiot' can be said to display impeccably good manners.

My ds is currently in Reception at a private prep, which i chose partly because it was prepared to be far more accommodating to his SN than the local state options. Our LEA, by contrast, has obstructed us at every turn. So my persoanl expereince is that I have seen far more awareness of "moral purpose" in the private than the state sector, but that is just my experience.
The wider point though is this; it's really important to have diversity of provision and approaches in education, because that's how innovation and progress happen. That's particularly slow in my particular field of interest, the education of children with ASD; if it weren't for charitable and private entities that would be in an even worse state than it already is. but I think it's true more generally, and justifies the charitable status of public schools.

Whilst I agree that a diversity of provision and approach is important, I don't believe that independent schools are important to this. I am sympathetic to parents whose children have specific needs or where their local school has been poorly managed; however, I don't believe that private education can ever be moral. In my area, the state provision is outstanding in the majority of schools, yet still some of my friends have decided to send their children to fee paying schools. Their decisions have not been a result of wanting the best educational experience, more that they feel their children will have more opportunities and will avoid having to associate with children from a wide range of backgrounds. If state schools were on a level playing field with fee paying schools ( suspending reality for a moment) , it would be clear that the vast majority of state schools do a better job. I believe all schools have a responsibility to all children in the wider community, and the argument that fee paying parents would not like it saddens me greatly.

I have no problem with private schools. If someone wants to spend the cost of a new car on their child's education every year and can afford it, then bully for them.

I am, however, extremely about them having charitable status.

It's excellent , that you are surrounded by outstanding schools, I on the other hand had a choice of two failing schools for my dd, hence sending her private. If all state education was equal I would send her to a state school, but not while it's such a lottery

I've never understood the point of Anthony Seldon. He reminds me of Prince Charles- nice enough but constantly pontificating from a position of high privilege- very annoying. I would suggest he shuts up. If he really wants to support the state sector and be a moral leader of the educating left he can go and be a headteacher at a state school. In the meantime I shall look for moral purpose elsewhere.

I agree with him-if they have charitable status they should be helping the less fortunate. The good private schools already do.

I am all in favour of public schools losing their charitable status.

Can I ask you what impact thread-readers think this will have upon school-fees? It's not the dramatic impact that most people think. For one thing, most independent schools are not-for-profit organisations. They do not exist to make profits. Therefore they do not pay corporation tax on profits. The only impact it will have is upon VAT.

As a parent of two independently educated DCs, I would far rather pay the additional £1k or whatever it works out at (probably less) than have the teachers' energies diverted by trying to raise standards at the local comprehensive.

I am in favour of them losing their charitable status and then they wouldn't need to be a moral compass.

Seldon is also saying that there are many things, including leadership, teaching & learning that the private sector can learn from state schools. In my experience that is true. My personal experience of the private sector is of many second rate teachers and only a few brilliant ones! I am glad I changed and went to a state school. I learned more there that I ever would have done if i had stayed in the private school. I would not consider private education for my child unless they had a particular special need that could not be met by a local sstate school.

Heaven forfend, heavenly (makes you sound a bit hard-faced but at least you are honest.) And as the parent of 2 children in the nearest comprehensive that would have them, I agree with you. I don't want my children's teachers distracted by well meaning advisers from private schools. They hasve enough to do! The system is wrong, imo, but I'm not sure that the answer is to push the two sectors together. I've yet to hear of any examples of this being successful, tbh.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the existence on public or private schools.

What I do have a serious problem with is how they, via selecting out, are in a position (that just about any school that was allowed to 'select' would be) to get their charges higher grades in public exams than they would have achieved without their private education.

As a result, many of these DC....

-who would possibly sink without trace in the rough and tumble of a state school (how many MNetters do we endlessly read about on here who've moved their DC out of state schools because they just weren't coping??);
-whose academic performance would be distinctly average if they didn't have a teacher standing behind them every step of the way, a teacher who taught 10 or 15 DC instead of 30, who didn't have a 'I'm paying your wages' parent standing behind them ';

........ find themselves being offered precious, limited places in Russell Group universities, places that will lead them to great degrees, then jobs-that-pay, which in turn buys power, then allows them to perpetuate their privilege.

Until universities make relative offers to DC based of the quality of their education, I will continue to have a problem with the existence of private and public schools. And see how private paying parents who are absolutely only sending their DC because of the marvellous sport/drama/music facilities howl at that idea! True colours, anyone?

Incidentally, before I get the 'bring back the grammar schools' (to give the hoi-polloi a fighting chance) debate, I might be slightly more in favour if:

a) the 'pro' campaigners were championing the Secondary Modern in the same breath and
b) if many GS's intake weren't pretty much exclusively from the local prep schools
c) their DC's uni offers were also made relative to the quality of their education, too,

oh, and d) if they weren't so utterly socially divisive. Like private and public schools are. ( I speak as ex GS, one that is now bulging with said privately prepped DC..)

Finally, if I could afford it, I'd've sent my DSs private in a shot if I hadn't managed to get them into a very good comp; however, I'd rather live in a society that didn't allow one group, via its financial muscle, to so blatantly buy otherwise perhaps unearned advantage for its own DC over another's. Just because 'I'd like it', doesn't mean I should be allowed to have it.

"Can I ask you what impact thread-readers think this will have upon school-fees"

It would eliminate them.

For you cannot just relinquish charitable status and carry on. All the principle assets of the charity have to be disposed of in line with the law and Charity Commissions regulation. So the school would cease to exist.

Relaxed, you have just illustrated why the twain never shall meet. I gave a harsh but succint synopsis of the economic origins and rise of the underclass, which you rejected (I suggest you read Hayek); and in that were the morals of

valueing education to a huge level of investment
delayed gratification
self discipline
hard work

So the moral leadership is not wanted is it? Deny the link, resent the result (domination and leadership), but you can't stop us. Join us by all means. I would like not to have to pay huge amounts for my children to be honestly oriented in the world, but until my local state school provides discipline, rigour, a pupil number not greater than 700, teachers very firmly in charge, a house system, compulsory games - I'm not going there.

am new to mumsnet..what a lot of terrible NIMBYs all out for number one!