'State schools are creating amoral children'

[BurgenSnurgen]

...because state schools are under so much pressure to improve results that there's no time to teach them right from wrong.

So says Chairman of the Independent Schools Association

Bit speechless really. It's giving me the absolute RAGE.

what rot, my dd's school spends a lot of time on PSHE.
Besides is it not really the parents who teach right from wrong?

Hmm - the headline is crappy, but I sort of agree with what he's saying when he says that state schools are under so much pressure to deliver on results that they have no time to deliver those parts of education which are vital but not measurable.

besides with all the stories popping up daily about goings on in private schools I think he had better keep quiet about 'teaching right from wrong' know what I mean?

What a load of cobblers. In my experience.

I know what you mean Bramshott and I don't have much experience of private schools myself so have no idea really, but aren't they also under a fair amount of pressure to get their pupils into top-flight unis and so on?

It's a bloody big leap though to go from 'teachers are under pressure' to 'children are amoral'.

I think it's just extraordinary to label vast swathes of children 'amoral'. Absolutely extraordinary. Smacks of a very nasty agenda indeed IMO

I think he has a point about a rounded curriculum. People are always saying what a crock Y6 is because it's all about SATS. I'm not sure how that translates in secondary though, when you are tested on a broader range of subjects.

I'd be surprised if there was a golden age when 'right and wrong' was specifically taught. Wouldn't it just come up in RE/Eng Lit/PSHE and generally existing as a community?

Erm...isn't that the job of the parents?

I prefer to teach my own children right from wrong. And IME my children are very 'moral' in that they have a strict code of ethics as to how to treat other people.

I do agree that the pressure on schools to churn out results might well lead to lack elsewhere but IMO it's parents and peers that help to develop a sense of ethics not schools.

I read one of the non-DM versions and it looks like a poor "trash the opposition" style advertising spiel.

My daughter's comprehensive is covered in posters about refusing to tolerate homophobia. I'd say that was pretty damn moral.

Agree that Y6 is a pointless test-fest

When I was young our impression of private schools was that their pupils were test-drilled constantly. Is that no longer the case?

I agree that 'amoral' is a strong word, but reading the Guardian article I couldn't see any quote from Richard Walden using that phrase - just in the response from the NAHT. But then again, he hasn't even given the speech yet ...

Rubbish - my DCs secondary has a very high ethical standard and it is communicated very effectively to the students.

You could argue that private schools are bad at giving students a moral compass as their students do not have daily practise of interacting with those who are: of different Intelligence levels, have special needs, and of a different economic background.

I believe both schools and parents have a role in communicating morals to young people. It isn't something that is purely "taught" in a seperate lesson, it is taught through every interaction.

Yes, true, it seems to have been the way the speech is being pre-briefed. 'Amoral' comes from the Times article but didn't link because £££, it's here

Still, the implications behind 'failing to provide children with a moral compass' seem fairly clear.

If that's what he ends up saying of course

Meanwhile, in the private schools...

Basically, the flagship of the private schools is actively excluding any child with actual morality - such a child would see through the repellent prospect of describing atrocity as 'necessary' and 'moral'.

OMG if you could see the amount of personality-improving guff our state primary sends home and all the requirements for DS to so something vague to help his community every other minute... I could do with slightly less morality tbh.

Although being serious I do think it's good that they put a lot of effort into teaching them about caring for each other, respect, thinking of other people's feelings and so on. It's a big improvement on when I was at school. And when I am in the school without fail DC will open doors for me, pick up something I've dropped etc. and they are always polite.

And yes what does going to private school teach you exactly? That if you are (generally, scholarships aside) the financial elite you get to be creamed off and avoid the unwashed hoi polloi. How very... moral

I see so school is responsible for instilling morals into children? surely that's a parents job!

Actually PHSE is full of stuff about making the right choices in life etc so I'd say they were fulfilling that role well.

Parents should be teaching their kids right from wrong,not schools,Yes there needs to be discipline when things happen but i hate the way schools are bringing kids up these days,its getting worse and worse.

Reason 1001 to Home Educate!

This head is apparently the chairman of the Independent schools Association according to the article it's members (340 of them) do not include the big name public schools, most are small schools owned often by the heads themselves. These are the type of school that frequently and increasingly struggling to fill their vacancies, so of course he's going to say this sort of thing how else can he attract parents?
IME result/league table obsessed schools exist in both sectors, and I doubt either has a monopoly on the effective teaching of right and wrong.

So has anyone actually said this then?

The news article claims he will say this and he will imply that. Not that anyone has actually said it.

It's in his interest to say that because he is trying to get more customers for private schools. He is trashing the opposition as someone else said.

A local boys' prep has a billboard up along the side of the road saying that they are the only school entirely focused on the 11+. It sounds thrilling at that school!

It's true 93% of the population are amoral inarticulate thugs.

Oh wait

95% of children go to state school, surely that would suggest the figure for criminal activity etc would be more likely to fall to people who were educated in the state system. Also, surely other factors woukd be at play? It's a more diverse section.

I do agree though, teaching morals is the jib of the parents and if children are being neglected or showing abnormal behaviours at school then they need to be refered to exterior agencies or services

Oh, for goodness sake. The (IMO, and I do realise that much of mumsnet will disagree with me here) ethical and political aspects of a free comprehensive education available to all is a reason that I'd choose state schools for my dc even if the independent ones were offering me free places.

It depends what your ethical priorities are. My ethics (leftie egalitarian eco-type with underlying communist urges) are very compatible with the ethics of state education, and not compatible with what I perceive as the dominant ethical stance of many people in the independent sector.

He's obviously a Mumsnetter. Isn't the general view that you have to either be a Christian or go to private school to have a moral compass?