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.

"Which one is providing an essential service to working parents and which one is providing a luxury"

Childcare in a nursery is a luxury.

You should never get get confused by the word 'grammar' - some with it in the are now comprehensive schools.

hackster: the nursery could apply for charitable status if it wanted to. Do you know why it hasn't?

Well, I stand corrected. You learn something new every day!

Nothing is fair and communism doesn't work. People with more money will always be able to afford better things. What about the unfairness of people who can afford private health and get treated quickly and can afford expensive cancer drugs, etc. What about someone who has a tiny flat for the whole family compared to others who have a 5 bedroom house for two people?

Nothing will ever be equal. The problem is that the state school system has become so bad that the inequality is really outrageous. I do feel that the state system is moving slowly in the right direction with the opening of more free schools which try to follow private school maxims...ie the 3 rs, discipline, good teachers, etc. The education system is in a mess because of the constant meddling of governments who love a bit of social engineering which never works.

Yes, because up until now state schools haven't taught reading, writing or mathematics, do not discipline children and have no good teachers? What a crock.

It's sad that so many people have such a negative opinion of state education, and that opinion is completely at odds with my experience. My dc have attended two primary schools, one is at state grammar and one will be going to a comp, and I work in a primary school. Every one of those schools, and many more that I know of are lovely places for children, and all achieve well academically.

The only major difference between private and state schools, apart from facilities, is that one is almost guaranteed to have 100% of families that value and support their children's education, and the other could have anything from 0% to 100% of families that fall in the same catergory.

There are good and not so good teachers in every school, I went to a private school and I don't believe the standard of teaching is any better there than it would be at a comp. the difference is the attitude that parents and teachers have, and the expectation that all children would achieve their potential. If you could bottle that attitude and pour it liberally over every state school that isn't doing that well, then I don't believe the gap between the two types of education would be anywhere near as large. That attitude is where the real inequality lies.

I'd agree with you freddo except you can't discount the intake. You say yourself it's about the families as much as the teachers. Pouring a bottle of "attitude"over school won't do anything. It's societal.

Do people honstly think that state education (or indeed education generally) is any worse now than it was 30 yers ago?

My experience was absolutley dire, as was that of many other people I know. I can recount dozens and dozens of examples of truly dreadful practice that quite simply wouldn't be remotely acceptable now.

What I see happening with my own child and the children of my friends and relatives is, as a rule, many times better. I do sometimes wonder if the model pupils of 30 years ago are over-represented on MN, because a lot of people seem to be recalling a past that I do not recognise.

I agree - there were shit schools and great schools 30 years ago. In think the difference is that they weren't inspected and graded so often (if at all? I don't remember the schools I was in being inspected).

There were inspectors, but there was no National Curriculum. For all it's faults, when I was at school they could teach pretty much whatever they felt like until maybe 4th year/Y10 when there were exam syllabuses to follow.

There was precious little in the way of tracking or planning and the old "those who can't, teach" was very much in evidence. Some of my teachers were wonderful of course, but many (especially the more senior ones) were awful.

it's faults? I told you I had a dire education.

Q:- "If private schools were banned the result would be even more intense competition for good state school places. House prices would be driven even higher in good catchemnt areas and private tutors would become the norm and exams to get into Grammar schools would be even more intense and there would be 200 children for each place.

um- who says there should be 'grammar schools'? Where does that assumption come from?? A parent who, in common with rather a few here on MN, assumes that the alternative to private, for their own DC, is grammar?! And how about banding?

Children from relatively poor families would have even less chance of a good state education. Some wealthy parents would set up their own schools and demand state funding to run them.

er- not if they weren't allowed to. Someone already said far earlier on this thread that they LOVE to be able to afford send their DC to a selective by academic ability and social class - no 'oiks', please- educational institute that could get them higher exam grades that they might otherwise get, get them into a Russell Group uni, get them a well paid and influential job, and to go on perpetuating their 'good fortune'- BUT that they felt that it would only be right that such blatant, bare-faced self-interest shouldn't actually be allowed in a modern society.

In short, banning private schools would make the social class and wealth segregation beween 'good' and 'bad' schools in the state sector.

• see above.

LittenTree - you could ban private schools, ban Grammar schools, ban parents from setting up schools and after all that parents would STILL work the sytem and buy houses in the catchment area of good schools.

The 'market' for good school places would still exist because parents want/demand a good education for their children. The market price of a good education would be expressed even more starkly through house prices as it is today in some places already.

Has anyone said they want to be able to select by social class?

And how do you stop the seriously wealthy setting up their own school under the allowance to "educate otherwise" which permits home ed?

Communism didnt even stop selection by social class.

They just had special privelleges for 'Members of The Party' which included where you were allowed to live and what school and university your child went to.

The only way to stop it is to provide more good schools, allow selection by ability and by that means provide a route to social mobility via education.

My DW (and her Dad) are classic examples. My FIL was born in 2 up 2 down behind the steel works where his Dad worked but he went to the local Grammar and then sent his own daughter (my DW) to the local Grammar. It turned Comprehensive in the Sixth Form but she made it to Oxford and The City.

Now that is social mobility in action - from scraping the slag out of the smelters at the iron works to The City of London in 3 generations. All through a decent free but not spectacularly good Grammar school education. It would never happen today. Social mobility collapsed in the last 20 years.

I know - how mad is all this? People will do anything, literally anything to avoid having to tackle the problem of state schools. The solutions offered so far to the issue of poor state secondary education have been to:

1. Lower standards for university admissions for state educated children
2. Abolish public schools

With respect, neither of those solutions is actually going to improve state education.

Q: LittenTree - you could ban private schools, ban Grammar schools, ban parents from setting up schools and after all that parents would STILL work the sytem and buy houses in the catchment area of good schools.

• see my remark 'banding'. Hence the outcry in Brighton when suddenly the existing form of social engineering, selection via house-price, was foiled.

Q:- "The solutions offered so far to the issue of poor state secondary education have been to":

I cut'n'paste another post: "my DSs comp gets:
5 GCSEs, A-C -97%
5 GCSEs, A-C inc maths and eng 88%
Eng bacc (figure for 1st year of its intro, as in 'retrospectively')- 55%"

What 'poor state education'? Those results aren't far off my my DC's school achieves, with a completely non-selective intake. Please don't tar it all with the same brush. There's some poor private education going on out there, too!

The simple fact of the matter is, the English would never be satisfied with 'good'. If the local state schools were universally deemed 'good', many would always, always seek 'better'. Some way to advantage their own at the expense of the others (Hence the hue and cry maybe about the sensible suggestion that universities should make differing offers depending on the DC's education? That could easily be differentiated according to the 'social profile' of a given school, not a blanket 'state school' in that many state grammars outclass many privates). Outrage!

Q: -"And how do you stop the seriously wealthy setting up their own school under the allowance to "educate otherwise" which permits home ed".

You might be surprised how many well-enough to-do parents choose private because it allows them to step away from the often highly time consuming and sometimes onerous task of what's required by state parents towards their DC's education. Before-school care, anyone? Homework club, anyone? 8-6 wrap around schooling, anyone? A good friend of mine has the decency to state she sends her DSs to a £12k p.a school so she doesn't 'have to do it'.

Can't see many of them home edding. Yes, there's the 'abroad' option but you'd have to ask yourself exactly how driven a parent would have to be to advantage their own DC over others to the extent they'd send them off boarding abroad!

LittenTree it's all to do with our primitive brains, apparently (pace Ronald Wright). We just haven't evolved past the 'grab what you can when you can' mentality, we've had since we were hunter-gatherers living in caves.

And a question: What is the 'moral purpose' of private schools? Is it 'To allow some children to get a better education than others'?

One of the things that Seldon is saying is that private schools always have to justify their existence and come the election, if the economic situation isn't any better, they are going to have to answer questions like the one above, and defend their charitable status. So in his opinion it makes sense if they are wise and accumulate some brownie points now by sharing a bit of what they've got.

Solo: - true, but how come say the French haven't succumbed to this concept? Or much of Europe, in fact? Why is it peculiar to the Anglo-Saxons, this idea that they must always seek to advantage themselves and their own over everyone else? Then complain that everyone is a drain on the public purse?

"Can't see many of them home edding"

You are failing to see that it wouldn't be home adding but "educated otherwise" that involves a "nanny" and tutors. Probably in a dedicated building with other children with like-minded parents... rather like a school in fact.

edding, not adding. Bloody autocorrect. [sigh]

LittenTree

Solo: - true, but how come say the French haven't succumbed to this concept?

Really? There's no mechanism to buy advantage in France? The civil service is practically a caste system. The people at the bottom of the pile can't even get a job, let alone break the concrete ceiling that keeps them out of the corridors of power.

Or much of Europe, in fact? Why is it peculiar to the Anglo-Saxons, this idea that they must always seek to advantage themselves and their own over everyone else?

It isn't, but it's revealing that you think it is.

Then complain that everyone is a drain on the public purse?

The lowest-earning 60% are a drain on the public purse, if by 'drain' you mean 'take out more in welfare than they pay in in taxes'.