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.

My local comprehensive is dire. Ofsted call it satisfactory. GCSE pass rates actually look okay from the outside with 48% getting 5 A-C. Of course they fiddle the figures though, and use the fake GCSEs to get the numbers up - ones where you get multiple GCSEs in meaningless subjects. English BAC equivalent would be precisely 2%. They didn't publish that figure. I happen to know it because I happen to know the Deputy Head. She advised me not to let my DCs within a mile of the place. They don't publish the A* and A pass rates either.

elastamum without knowing the intake of the comprehensive you mention, I couldn't possibly say if the 30% are let down or not.

None of this affects the wisdom of altering admission requirements: not changing one thing because you can't change every thing is not the way forward.

What Hopefully says about the misleading figures is right, though it is not fiddling, it is responding to government who wanted 5 A-Cs and made this the benchmark of attainment. Remove this requirement and you'd remove the push on 'silly" GCSEs, though you don't say what those are. RE? compulsory in all state schools, and sucking out valuable teaching time for a subject which,as presently taught, has no value.

The focus on A-C also takes attention away from extending the As, who'll get their A anyway, and instead nurses the Ds into Cs. The latter are not unworthy of attention, but they're only getting it for headline figures. Getting an E to D is very rewarding but worth fuck-all.

The point here is that state schools respond to what governments set as the bar.

How much is the financial benefit actually gained from charitable status for private schools?

I wouldn't have thought it would be sufficient for the private schools to want to do all that much in terms of charitable aims.

The benefit is estimated at £100m, which when divided amongst the estimated 505,000 children attending independent schools, works out at £200 per child per annum.

It shouldn't exist. That way, perhaps those responsible for improving state education would concentrate on improving it, rather than trying to fix university admissions to make up for their own failings.

Out of interest, what difference would removing the charitable status make to those not in private education?

DCs are/will be in private secondary - I don't really care about the charitable status as XH is responsible for the fees. Their school appears to earn theirs (although I think it impossible the charitable foundation backing it rather than the school itself that has charitable status... not sure).

The amount of money it would raise for the treasury - would it make any appreciable difference?

I think it is ridiculous that private schools have "charity" status, as clearly they are not charities but businesses! I don't know why labour, in their 13 years in power, never addressed this ....? Hmmm, maybe all their children went private?

And am saying that as a private school parent.

Had to smile at flatpackhamster's post though.

I am wondering if that staunch socialist Tony Blair will be sending Leo to private or state school? hmmmm

You can't say 'state' schools as if they are all the same or 'independent' schools as if they are all the same. They both have the whole range from excellent to dire. You would expect the independent to have less of the dire as people chose and pay.
If you live inLondon you are going to have a pretty skewed view - a comprehensive in Tower Hamlets is going to be very different from a comprehensive in Ascot.
If you look at Eton, they do a lot for surrounding State schools - and so they should - if they have charitable status.

"I am wondering if that staunch socialist Tony Blair will be sending Leo to private or state school?"

I imagine he will probably go to state Catholic like the others.

I thought he was at a state Catholic.

"state schools fail children"? "go improve state sector"?
Really?
HAve you looked at the results of the global PISA tests and the separate paper on the situation in the UK (www.pisa.oecd.org/​dataoecd/33/8/46624007.pdf) which indicates that:

• UK has one of the greatest gaps in results between the state and the private sector schools

UNTIL you take into account the socioeconomic background. After that, it turns out that the state schools achieve considerably better results.

What this shows is that the private schools can show off their results because of the particular intake of pupils. And those pupils achieve great results not because of the greatness of the schools but because of their families which provide the atmosphere that supports learning. So the only reason for putting your children to private schools is to surround them with children who will, in the future, potentially up your kids status... I see in this very little that is "moral" in the greater humanitarian sense of the word.

yes- I agree doing it on income alone would be problematic and throw up unfair situations. but something like if you get the grades and your family is on income support = priority for you in a tie break might be a way forward. but perhaps that happens on the quiet anyway because I would have thought that lots of unis are very keen to pull in disadvantaged students who achieve against high odds. the real problem is helping such students achieve the required grades in the first place, I guess.

ScummyMummy

This info might be out of date as I haven't taught in the UK since 2010. UCAS forms asked about parental educational attainment. I think the view was that children who were the first in their family to go to university either got a lower offer or offered a place in a 'tie-break' situation. I'm sure someone else will be along who knows a bit more about it.

that sounds good, mammaBrussels. I think in a system where educational success is so predicated on parental capital (financial, social, intellectual) I am in favour of giving an advantage to children who haven't had the benefit of that, if there is a way to do so fairly.

ah...I stand corrected. Good, I am learning new things today.

Seldon is good at getting publicity.

Most private schools give parents what they want so something is working well.

Charitable status means we don't pay 20% VAT on the fees just in the same way you do not pay VAT on most basic food. If you remove it then fees may go up 2-0% so there may be more children in the state sector. Now if you think my precious little darlings are such a good influence their golden glow would shine on your own state schoolers if mine were thrust into a state schools then you may think that's a good thing. If you think the 8% in private schools do not make state schools worse then you wouldn't and you may be concerned about the extra cost to the state of having mine in there.

For me I could afford double the fees we paid - I told them they could board if they wanted not that they or I like that so a 20% rise in fees would not affect my ability to keep them there and schools woudl also lose any suggestion of need to offer bursaries to the poor and allow locals into the swimmng pools at weekends etc so some of the 20% increase might be swallowed up.

There is no chance at all of charitable status going. In fact the Charity Commission has had to back track on its strictness. Education was always charitable even if you educate the rich. That changed in the Charities Act in about 2006 and things like Opera houses had to show "public benefit" - and apparently rich public are not public although I don't see why not.

If charitable status went there would be some VAT issues I think too on building works but it is certainly some schools have considered - just choosing to ditch charitable status anyway.

Private schools save the state a fortune as our children aer not a burden on the state. Arguably a parent who could afford fees, or a hosuewive sitting aroun at home not earning who could go back to work full time and pay fees - those are the ones who are morally wrong as they are burdening the state when they need not - a form of tax avoiadance almost. We shoudl villify those who choose not to pay fees when they might do so. Therein lies the moral wrong. Given prviate schools are almost universally much better too those mothers choosing not to work or pay fees are doubly in the wrong as they deny their children a better education too.

Mayamama

^- UK has one of the greatest gaps in results between the state and the private sector schools
UNTIL
you take into account the socioeconomic background. After that, it turns out that the state schools achieve considerably better results.^

This is the same sort of lefty figure rigging that 'charities' like the New Economics Foundation use to 'prove' that countries like Cuba and Zimbabwe are better places to live than the UK. There's no scientific way to calculate the effects of background on education.

What this shows is that the private schools can show off their results because of the particular intake of pupils. And those pupils achieve great results not because of the greatness of the schools but because of their families which provide the atmosphere that supports learning. So the only reason for putting your children to private schools is to surround them with children who will, in the future, potentially up your kids status... I see in this very little that is "moral" in the greater humanitarian sense of the word.

So what's more 'moral' in your view is to deny those children the opportunity to go to the university of their choosing on the basis that their parents are good and loving and work hard.

Go lefty morals!

Hopefullyrecovering

The benefit is estimated at £100m, which when divided amongst the estimated 505,000 children attending independent schools, works out at £200 per child per annum.

What's the cost of education a further 7% of the UK's under-18 population in the state system?

It shouldn't exist. That way, perhaps those responsible for improving state education would concentrate on improving it, rather than trying to fix university admissions to make up for their own failings.

The failure here is systemic and the same failing left-wing "thinking" that gives us 'learning through play', as opposed to learning through reading and finding things out, and gives us 'non-competitive sports days', to avoid upsetting the slow and fat children.

Smashing up the only consistently decent part of the UK's education system is not the solution.

Hopefullyrecovering - "Make the independent sector redundant. Make independent sector parents rue the day they wasted their money on education for their children, when the same quality of education freely available. "

Absolutely agree. I send DSs to private school because I simpy can't get them into the nearest local Catholic primary and seciondary schools. I am not a Catholic and both schools are massively oversubscribed. Discipline is good, sport is good, facilities are good, educational attainment is good. Parents like it and it is the state sector.

I resent paying but I have no choice other than to send DSs private or to send them to the other local school that is in special measures.

agree with this: Make the independent sector redundant. Make independent sector parents rue the day they wasted their money on education for their children, when the same quality of education freely available.

and I am a private school parent (DS was sinking completely in lovely "outstanding" local school, btw, I was glad to have the private option)

If the local schools were able to give DSs the same that the private one will, they would be going there instead. I think very few parents who have chosen private education would disagree.

Echt, I am talking about a whole town - not a particularly poor town either - where the majority of children are sent to schools which then only achieve 30% A-C at GCSE. Now I'm quite sure there are plenty of bright kids in those schools being failed by the education system. I lived there for 20yrs myself.

Where I live now, rural, northern area, there is no choice of state education and what is on offer is also not good at all. I choose to send my Dc to private school because I want them to have the best education that as a parent I can give them. If as a result of social engineering, you deem them at 18 not worthy of entry to good UK universities because they went to private school, I will simply send them overseas, to good universities elsewhere in the world.

Setting aside the question of 'facilities' like boating lakes at private schools I really believe that the best state school are the equal of the best private schools.

Problem is that there are not enough good state schools so the result is that as with any constrained resource a 'market' develops to allocate that resouce and the poorest do without.

Perhaps the real 'moral' question here is why the poorest families have to do without a good state education.

Good state schools are surrounded by expensive houses that parents mortgage themselves to the hilt to buy. Parents pay for tutors or private Prep so their DCs can pass the 11+ to get into a Grammar with 100 applicants per place.

Getting a good education in the UK is always about money even if you are a Guardianista congratulating yourself on using the local state school whilst living in a nice exclusive leafy suburb.

yes

Perhaps the real 'moral' question here is why the poorest families have to do without a good state education

I think the answer to this is partly that poorer families are disengaged with their children's education and that creates poorer educational outcomes. It's understandable, if you are in poverty you are going to be more worried about paying the bills than you are about making sure your child does their homework, but there is only so much that the state can do.

There are plenty of excellent state schools where children do achieve their potential, so there is enough evidence to suggest that it's not state schools that are failing.

When you factor in the extra money that schools with a poorer intake get through the pupil premium, then poor educational outcomes cannot all be down to the schools, and it's certainly not down to a lack of intelligence among the children. It has to be down to the parents.

The state system failed both of my children - one who is able, but was bullied until she became a shadow of herself, and the other because he has complex SEN.
My daughter was given a bursery and attends a wonderful private school, where she has progressed above and beyond anything we thought possible, and she is happy.
My son has a place at an independant special school - the best around for his needs and we are supported by his consultants at GOSH in this choice, but to get him there we are having to go to Tribunal.

Its not all as cut and dried as it may seem. If state schools all fullfilled their purpose we wouldn't be in this situation, but many let our children down and a difficult choice must be made.
We have people in our town who refuse to speak to us because we sent our daughter private [for vocational training, not on an accademic basis]. We keep it very low key and don't mention the 'type' of school she attends as we are just 'normal' everyday working class people. Others have judged us, and that has been very upsetting.
Our son is disabled, and the state system discriminated against him at the age of 6 - leaving him in the corridoors to work alone, making him eat in a cupboard, and making a point to the other children of his disability. He is Home Educated until we can get him to the school he needs to be in. Its private because the state do not prioritise SEN in the same way - and that's not the fault of us parents with SEN children but a political issue that no-one really wants to take on.

What sort of 'moral vision' are private schools meant to provide? The 'moral' that money buys you out of the common weal, and the rest can go hang?

How dare Seldon presume to think he can offer any sort of 'moral vision' to the rest of us - who the hell does he think he is? It's bad enough these places exist, but jesus, do the rest of us the courtesy of taking the rich people's money and doing what you want with their kids in return and shutting the hell up about it - I don't want any moral vision or exemplarity from the likes of Seldon?