Tory schools policy - what do you think of idea of allowing parents/others to start their own schools? A good plan or no?

So are you accusing the LibDems of class warfare as well, since their idea goes beyond what even the Tories are proposing? What a simplistic take you have, and I would hardly consider my position to be one of hate.

Here is an example of a charitable foundation and their involvement in an inner city acadamy. Temple Grove. In this case working in schools rather than setting one up.

It's a disgusting idea, part of the class war waged by the Tories for generations.
It basically says - we don't want to educate our kids with working class and immigrant kids, or the black and Asian second and third generation kids - so let's take state funding and do exactly what we want. It's obscene, not that you'd expect much more to be honest. It is bad enough we have parasitic faith and private schools in this country, destroying choice for the majority of parents, undermining standards, segregating children on class, race and ethnic lines, but this is just pure hate dressed up. You want a decent education system, don't copy the US, copy the French/Germans/Scandies...

jackstarbright, I think it's because after a career in UK education I realise just what is involved in the administration of a school.

It's a job that defeats hardened professionals.

Soph I think the theory is also that while there will indeed be groups of middle class parents just after a better education for their own kids, there will also be charities and other organisations doing it for more altruistic reasons and this is why the deprived areas will get helped too.

Can I just ask those who think it's a bad idea for parents to be able to set up schools:

Is it because you wouldn't want to do it yourself (or see the need in your area)?

Or, do you feel strongly that others shouldn't be able to set one up?

soph24 My understanding is that the government's plan to help those in more deprived areas is the Academy Programme. Outside of this the council estate kids are mainly attending the poorly performing schools at the moment anyway.

Barefootinthepark. I was a maths teacher for a dozen years. I don't have a maths degree. My first degree is in Psychology. At the time and place I did my degree, psychology included some fairly heavey statistics, which is where my mathematical background lies. I also have a computing degree, which is fairly maths heavy too. (I also have a religious studies degree too, but then I'm incurably academic)

There is an argument that maths teachers who don't teach the higher level stuff are just as effective if they aren't natural mathematicians. If you've always found the numerical universe an easy one to move around in, it can sometimes be difficult to relate to students who find the basic concepts hard to grasp. The fact that I struggled with calculus both when I first learnt it and again when I relearnt it in order to teach it, means I could empathise, guide and help students to find alternative methods when they were equally struggling. This is not to say that Maths graduates make bad maths teachers, but if you've ever had the experience of a teacher not recognising when you can't make the conceptual leap because it comes easy to you, then you'll understand what i mean.

www.thensc.net/ is another current campaign for a secondary school

Would you rather attend a school run by a small autonomous group or by central government?

small autonomous group any day. I am crippled by school fees in order to avoid central government control. Heaven help anyone who can't afford fees. Personally, I'd home educate.

Ridiculous Ideas - what happens to the poor sods that live on the council estate do you think their parents are likely to have the skills to run a school.

This idea that anyone can run a school, health service whatever is mad - you need professionals. Plus surely the key to creating a fairer society is that ALL children have access to the same opportunities not the previledged few that have the parents with the spare time to run a school.

LOL (in spite of herself) re Toby Young's children

Of course they'll be in the to set. They're all called Ludo and Miranda. The bottom set will be the ones called Darren and Chardonnay.

And can you IMAGINE the hoo ha if Toby Young's kids are not in the top set....

I would worry that this policy will create more faith schools. I don't think religion should be allowed in schools at all.

Builde - My local comprehensive does not set. Apart from maths, it is mixed ability teaching throughout. Its catchment encompasses leafy middle-class Muswell Hill as well as (40%) from some of the most deprived areas in the country. Many of these children enter Y7 below level 4. The vast majority of pupils entering Y7 from Muswell Hill primary schools have achieved level 5 in their Y6 SATS. Furthermore, 33% of the children who sat GCSEs this year had some sort of special need. Whilst I agree that most mature and motivated bright children will succeed wherever they are educated, I fear the bright but immature (teenage boys anyone?) are more likely to become bored and switch off. Why push yourself to succeed when you can coast a "C" grade? This has happened to too many sons of my friends to mention.

Wilbur

I suppose the difference is that in a primary school it's only some learning that is setted (differentiated rather) and children aren't physically divided on different sites by their abilities.

So a primary aged child may do maths and literacy with other children of their ability, but they will be in the same room and all other activities will be together.

I'm not actually sure whether I agree with setting in primary school but I was just trying to explain to LINGSTASH that comprehensives aren't what she thinks.

However, my comp. was very heavily setted and I would be interested to see how mixed ability classed would work. My feeling is that bright children always thrive but less able children feel demotivated if stuck in a bottom set.

We seem in the UK to be so hung up about ability (everyone gets labelled early on) and want to always divide people (whether by class, ability, background). I suspect that if comprehensives taught in mixed ability groups (like in Finland) the chattering classes would get nervous and start looking at private schools.

But, dividing people at 11 is very wrong. (sitting children on different tables at primary school is a much lesser evil!) (Luckily my children aren't growing up in an area with the grammer school system).

When listening to the chat of the mums in my school playground the big worry in our area is that the secondary school pull in from a huge catchment including "deprived" areas which the middle class ethos of my area sees as children who will be disruptive and not want to learn and thus jeopardise their own child's education by making classes ineffective and being badly behaved.

Yes, the Tories are aiming at that socio economic group.
The perennial problem of "how can I make sure my child's classes are not disrupted by children who don't want to learn and who the school can't get rid of".

I still think the crucial issue that hasn't been addressed is how these schools are to be funded. Until and unless the Conservative party actually comes up with a clear statement of how it plans to find the money to fund these new schools, it is just an election gimmick aimed at pacifying middle-class parents who for whatever reason are unhappy with their local comp.

Thanks builde. I realise I was coming a bit late to the debate but I have read the thread with great interest and also with a sense of hope that so many people do feel strongly about education and are prepared to debate and fight for what they feel is best for the country's children (and therefore the country's future). I, personally am in favour of lots of different types of schools as I believe the exchange of ideas from one sector to another (faith/secular/state/private/grammar/comprehensive) has the potential to really enrich education overall, but this particular policy seems to be saying "here's the answer, noe get on and do it" without really looking at the quailities of the people who are going to be involved in the decision making process. Plus, I live in an area which is desparately desparate for new schools and I worry that the campaigning and money for those will be rerouted.

Builde Not sure that I follow the logic that whilst academic selection at 11 is harmful, dividing kids by academic ability at 4 years old is fine. Do you think the dc's don't notice that the 'top table' is for the clever kids?

From what I've read there is a lot of merit in the way the Finns have developed their comprehensive school system. Ours, in comparison, is totally half hearted.

wilbur - love your comments!

SethStarkaddersMum I truely hope you are correct in that the free schools will be left to be...well free. i just don't think it will happen. If they don't but in budget control based on attainment then the first time a parent complains or a newpaper gets a headline that a free school is underperforming the government will be asked to step in. Cue policy to curb that freedom. I don't think in principle they are a bad idea I just the Tories are suggesting them as a gimmic.

LINCSTASH

In how many schools does mixed ability teaching continue...certainly not in any of the comprehensive schools around us or the one that I attended (which I left with the best GSCE results in the country before going on to Cambridge)

Even in reception, my dd was setted.

I think that this is a myth propagated by people who don't like comprehensives. (They are not hot-beds of left-wingism; just places where teachers (who do transfer between all sorts of schools) create a good learning atmosphere.

Some mixed ability teaching did happen in the 1960s but I have been associated with many comps. (either through attendance or teaching) and all of them have setted the children.

And why do people not like them? In grammer schools areas (like Kent) results are poorer than in areas with no grammer schools. Probably because those who get into the grammers think they've 'made-it' and do less work than they would be encouraged to do if in a top set in a comp. and that those in the secondary moderns are just demotivated.

And, just to add, our town is all comprehensives and even the least popular one that gets the most difficult and least motivated children still achieves 47% 5 A-Cs.

Many of the comps. send lots to Oxbridge each year.

Funny. Finland don't stream their children and have the best schools in the world. Labour have put in massive amounts of extra funding which was very much needed after the last Tory government. Infact, new rules were brought in to stop schools stock piling cash because they had become so used to the the low and uncertain budgets handed down by the conservatives.

The Labour party have over prescribed the curriculum and almost everything else in public sector services. They need to back off and allow people with experience dictate the next moves in education. The Conservatives have an 'I'm alright, if your not, tough!' approach which will be to the detrement of many.

Education will continue to 'fail' in this country until we decide what we actually want it to do. Education for education's sake, factory fodder, or something else?

Soapboxqueen I think you have a very good point about targets and policies still getting in the way, but I also think (hope?) that free schools will be better placed to say 'we don't care about league tables' etc than schools in local authority control.
IIRC free schools will be able to do IGCSE, Baccalaureat etc and that should make a big difference to the opportunities available.