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.

I have no problem with independant schools having charitable status. It's education, and all children are worth the charitable act of education.

VAT on school fees is a horrible idea. It's bad enough that school fees don't come out of pre tax income.

The article at the start of his thread talked about independants sharing ideas with state schools, which just seems daft. Teachers at independant schools don't know more than teachers at state schools to be able to share ideas anyway, and they probably have far fewer techniques than an experienced state school teacher who has had to teach a larger variety of children.

If it can't be about ideas, then it has to be about money and facilities, and I don't see why paying 'customers' should have to subsidise non paying 'customers'.

The state should just make a better job of funding state customers instead of expecting other people to do it for them.

My dc are state educated btw.

Joycie, the trouble is the wrong people are being blamed.

UNTIL it is admitted that the state educational system is in the clutches of left wing ideologues from the universities through the PGCEs, and into the classrooms, and that their ideology is failing children, the gap is going to get wider and wider. You are looking at the wrong end of the problem!

State schools fail children. The Chinese couldn't give a monkeys that life 'should' be equal, and nor do the Indians. They are churning out 100s of 1000s of maths business and engineering graduates a year. And these are the people our children have to compete against.

Get real.

So, the private schools are going to share their 'excellence and know-how' with us poor state-school teachers, are they? How grateful we should be. What a pity we aspire to neither.

Abitwobblynow The teachers in state and public are all trained in the same places! I admit it I am a state school teacher. I work blooming hard for every child I teach to attain the highest standard. I have former colleagues in the private sector..its a doddle they tell me..I don't have to work hard at all and they get longer holidays but the kids are just the same!

Most of the children that state schools fail most starkly are children who are rarely if ever to be found in the private sector- those in profound poverty, in local authority care, those who are traumatised, those who find learning very very difficult etc. Generally speaking the private sector is completely untested (and uninterested) in helping such children. There is a long way to go but many state schools are improving the lives and educational attainment of children in deprived areas every day. Children of mumsnetters generally do not fall into this demographic and do pretty well wherever they go, if they and their parents are happy.

State schools fail children

Could we get this right -some state schools fail children. For that matter some independent schools fail children.

Mine have all done really well in a state comprehensive and they wouldn't have taken different life choices had they been to Eton -and it has saved a lot of money (could I have afforded Eton in the first place). I don't think that the present crop that I know coming out of top universities with firsts and 2:1s have been in anyway failed by state comprehensives.

"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."

That's an absurd statement, if you pause to think and dissect it. What business does the independent sector have to provide leadership for the state sector? None. Why should it be providing this leadership? No reason.

Leave the state sector to the Guardianistas. They've buggered it up and buggered it up and just when you think it's been buggered rigid, they bugger it up some more.

Until state schools stop appointing teachers with third class degrees from the local "poly" above brilliantly qualified Phd candidates, with excellent teaching references I really don't see how the situation will change.

Yes, I speak from bitter experience.

DH would have happily spent his life in a state school but 60 applications and 60 rejections later he gave up and applied for 2 private school jobs. He was offerred both

Our own DC are at state schools and the quality of some of the teaching is piss poor. All that time wasted on ridiculous government initiatives like the worthless COPE (certificate of personal effectiveness!!) makes life harder for clever kids who should be concentrating on getting better grades in subjects that matter.

Yes, the state system is failing.

I don't think Seldon was saying the state schools had much to learn from the independents, the reverse in fact. He identifies leadership, teaching and learning to be often better in the state sector than the independent.

All the patronising shite came from governments who repeatedly suggested that state teachers had much to learn. How we chuckled.

It's about the sharing of facilities. That's the sticking point: how do you convince the independents to share the booty, and the parents to relinquish their purchased exclusivity? Not going to happen.

I find the governments stance on independent schools perplexing. They don't like them "Political reality further dictates the need for independent schools to wake up. In case they hadn't noticed, neither Cameron nor [Michael] Gove, nor the Conservative party, have time for them as they are currently configured, still less do the Liberal Democrats or Labour, who might be in power from 2015. The public climate has moved decisively against their current stance too but in the same breath want them to provide Leadership and moral vision for the state sector. I'm seriously considering our local public school for ds1 because the state provision in our area doesn't meet his needs. I'm glad we can choose something else which is not dictated by the state and politicians and long may it continue. I'm sick of politicians who've had the advantage of a priviledged education telling the rest of how we should educate our dc. We're not rich but we work hard and make sacrifices to give our dc the best education we possibly can.

Erebus - you seem to think that the difference between state and private is the fact that the pupils are selected. Firstly, not all independent schools are selective. Secondly, there are selective state grammar schools, and these in turn generally (uniformly in my area) but generally throughout the country, are outperformed by selective independents.

The reason is that the standards applied are more rigorous. More is expected of the pupils and more is expected of the teachers. Class sizes are smaller, there is little in the way of classroom disruption, there are fewer issues with poor quality supply teachers and disruption of teaching, and the parents are more affluent and generally more interested.

All these factors create an environment in which it is possible to obtain better grades. You seem to be arguing that because children from the independent sector obtain better grades, their university offers should be correspondingly higher than for children from the state sector.

What manner of contorted ridiculous thinking is that? Here are some children who have been well educated, therefore we should handicap them for having been well-educated. This sort of woolly minded nonsense is what has got the state sector into a parlous condition, making the UK uncompetitive in the global economy.

The answer is not to disadvantage those who are in receipt of a better education. The answer is to provide a better quality of state education. It's so obvious that it doesn't or shouldn't need saying.

The experience of Serin's husband is unfortunate, but obviously with no context. Maybe he was not offering what the state schools needed.

However, to generalise that state school teachers are 'teachers with third class degrees from the local "poly" ' merely sounds bitter. Some of us are actually quite well qualified.

The reason for requiring higher grades from the independents ( accepting lower for the state would be more accurate) is that state school students do better at uni. They are a better bet.

Bristol uni did research on this several years ago and sought to alter their admissions policies accordingly. After all, if you're judged by your results, why not take the best?

Cu howls of anguish from private sector schools and parents who saw their advantage eroded.

Cue.

Oooh I do know that Labelle! I didn't mean to insult all teachers.

I regret how that sounded and apologise.

Bitter though? Too right!

What is it that state schools need that he was not offering?

I really believe that state schools are just not ambitious enough for their pupils and that probably suits the government just fine.

It's not as simple as that, echt. The research was a relatively small sample and was unable to eliminate two factors that bias the outcomes:

1. State school students may disproportionately take easier degrees than private school students - the oft-quoted meedja studies degrees.
2. State school students DO disproportionately attend universities that are easier to get into, and those universities in their turn DO award more firsts and 2:1s than universities that are harder to get into. Who would you want to employ? An Oxbridge graduate with a 2:2 or a graduate from the University of Gloucester with a first?

But I actually think you are likely to be right that state schools do not get the best out of their pupils. The answer to that is not to handicap the children that have been well-educated. The answer to that is to fix the state schools. Why don't you campaign to improve those rather than to undermine the schools that are doing a good job.

"Firstly, not all independent schools are selective."

Yes, almost all of them are. Most select on the ability of their pupils' parents to pay the fees.

Since when has it been the job of independent schools to provide an inspiring moral vision??? Share their facilities maybe, my DC's public school provides sports facilites for both the local state and independent primaries, and academic scholarships to children from from outr local comprehensive, but I cant really see why or how the school could be providing moral leadership?? How incredibly patronising to teachers in the state sector to suggest this.

what a lot of nonsense. cannot fault any of the 4 private schools I teach in not to instil moral vision. In fact I have just moved my DS s out of a gr 1 ofsted church primary into prep school for that very reason. Fed up with the unchecked bullying, lack of citizenship values and good old fashioned moral code which is there in abundance at their new school. It is to do with our social expectations, greed and lack of concern for our neighbour, not a state v private school issue. I work bloomin hard to afford to give them a decent, moral, well rounded education and am delighted with the young men they are becoming.

Hopefullythe research was good enough for Bristol to change their offers.:)

In no way did I suggest that state schools fail to get the best out of their students. My implication was that independents are more likely to be hot-housed, hence, doing less well the A level grades would suggest.

How was I undermining anything?? I'm not the one offering the lower grades entry to state school students.

As for your suggestion that I start a campaign, that's classic what-aboutery, not dealing with the issue. I don't tell you what to do with your time.

Q: 'Erebus - you seem to think that the difference between state and private is the fact that the pupils are selected. Firstly, not all independent schools are selective'

Yes they are selective. By the fact the vast majority's parents pay. Surely, surely you can see that that is 'selection'?? And those who don't pay are selected by an academic ability or some other sort of highly valued ability that the school wants to be associated with.

Q: "Secondly, there are selective state grammar schools, and these in turn generally (uniformly in my area) but generally throughout the country, are outperformed by selective independents."

Mm. Guess you'd have to spell out exactly how taking say 'the top 25% of DC in a given, limited catchment' compares with taking 7% of the entire country's school age DC compares.

Q: "The reason is that the standards applied are more rigorous. More is expected of the pupils"- yes, you can do that with a self-selected group of people, people who have signed on your dotted line (and on that of their cheque book), DC who are all of a pretty similar ability (selection), limited if no SEN, and well and truly 'school ready'.

Q: "and more is expected of the teachers"- more concentrated hours, maybe, but, as someone above said, their private teaching friends regard their positions as 'a doddle'. I recall some Ph.D teachers at my GS who would have been taken apart in my DB's SM. Full of nasty ^non (or should I say 'un-?) selected DCs.

Q: "Class sizes are smaller, there is little in the way of classroom disruption, there are fewer issues with poor quality supply teachers and disruption of teaching, and the parents are more affluent and generally more interested."- sorry not sure what point you're trying to make there that contradicts anything I said in my earlier post?

Q: "All these factors create an environment in which it is possible to obtain better grades. You seem to be arguing that because children from the independent sector obtain better grades, their university offers should be correspondingly higher than for children from the state sector." Bingo! Well done, but I wasn't 'seeming to argue' that, I was saying that.

Q: "What manner of contorted ridiculous thinking is that? Here are some children who have been well educated, therefore we should handicap them for having been well-educated." BUT you appear more than happy that the vast remainder of DC should be handicapped for having received a lesser education!

Q: "This sort of woolly minded nonsense is what has got the state sector into a parlous condition, making the UK uncompetitive in the global economy." Ah, 'woolly minded nonsense'. That's an interesting euphemism for 'fair thinking', thinking along the lines of attempting to level a massively skewed playing field.

Q: "The answer is not to disadvantage those who are in receipt of a better education." Why are they being disadvantaged? Or, do you mean, having their advantage duly taken into account when universities make their offers? That's a different thing entirely, isn't it? What's therefore wrong in a university taking a 'bog standard comp' educated DC's disadvantage into account, then? AND can it truly be said to be 'better' if what it's done is to hand hold an average DC to get a higher A level mark that he could have under his own steam? Is he a 'better' academic as a result of that, or just better trained? Is his acuity of thinking, his ability to laterally deduce, infer, actually 'better'?

Which sort of negates your final remark: Q-"The answer is to provide a better quality of state education. It's so obvious that it doesn't or shouldn't need saying."

My final point is a little sharp: IF our great public and private schools really are showing the rest of us 'how it's done' and have been doing so for centuries, how have we ended up in such a mess? Who's in charge of the government? Who's in charge of the banks? Those clever, clever blokes who've made us all such highly respected world leaders in those fields....?

My observation on independent schools is that they generally dont have the disipline problems that many state schools have, there is a culture of hard work, where it isnt considered uncool to be an academic or high achiever and the parents, who are paying the fees, support the teaching staff.

The teaching staff arent necessarily better (how could you tell?), but they are all, in my experience, enthusiastic and committed to their subject - maybe because they aren't ground down by the day to day stress of teaching children who have not been bought up to respect their teachers and work hard at school.

D'you know, this is the first state vs independent thread that I've been on that has seen a universal accord.

We all seem heartily to agree that independent schools have no flipping business providing leadership and moral vision to state schools.

I would personally also like to see the whole charitable status thing abolished as well. Estimates indicate that this costs the taxpayer £100m a year. If this is divided by the 505,000 children in independent schools, I reckon it works out at £200 a year.

The big problem we have is that the results obtained by independent schools are considered an embarassment by those in government and instead of aspiring to do better they seek to dismiss what children can achieve in the right environment. It isnt surprising that our children will struggle to compete on the world stage when their educators fail them so spectacularly