Michael Gove

I think the main problem is actually not money, or buildings, or whether schools are 'free' or not, but the fact that shedloads of teachers in the UK have limited subject knowledge and are teaching out of their area, particularly in MFL, Maths, Science and the like.

Amongst primary school teachers the situation is even more dire, with hardly an A Level Maths in sight, let alone decent scientific knowledge. Even their spelling and proofreading skills can be variable. In addition to this, vast swathes of primary school teachers are monolingual (unlike so many of their pupils in urban areas) and forced to try to teach a bit of French or whatever very badly under duress. Their knowledge of music and art is extremely limited - it is a big deal if someone has grade 3 piano and can accompany in assembly (in fact that seems to be the requirement to be Music Co-Ordinator), or can get the kids to draw a few daffodils stuck in a jar. In short, many of the poorer teachers are lacking in creativity, lacking in culture, unintellectual and unscholarly and do our country a huge disservice, while the teachers that do bring more to the table seem to lurk in the shadows. To be a good teacher, particularly in primary schools, you need to be something of a Renaissance man or woman, but we seem to applaud and reward people who fill in forms well and comply to competency tick lists. I despair.

Muminlondon - you have a point. According to this parliamentary report

"60% of modern language A grades come from in independent schools."

MissM - I didn't study Latin - so I'm no expert, but private, grammar and some of the most academically successful Comprehensive schools offer it. So I assume it has some merit. Tbh - the drop in the 'harder subjects' studied in state schools is the real issue - see my link above.

Tee hee!

Everytime he opens his mouth, I hear Eminem rapping, 'Nowadays everybody wanna talk, like they all got something to say. But nothing comes out when they move they lips, just a bunch of gibberish . . . '

Why would learning Latin enable bright children to 'reach their potential'?

It is all about finding money to fund their so called "Free" schools. If they abandon the crumbling buildings the middle classes will move to Free schools or go private - lining the pockets of business. They don't give a stuff about anyone else, so why would they care if those less financially comfortable children are left behind are in rotten buildings.

Latin was taught at the bog-standard comprehensive I went to (a hundred years ago). I did it for a year but then opted for German where I learned far more about grammatical structures than I did from the Cambridge Latin Course where we had to act out playlets set in Roman villas. The cases were numbered 1-7 rather than called 'nominative, accusative, vocative', etc. German was more satisfyingly technical!

So sod Latin, there's been a crisis of language teaching generally in schools since they took it out of the national curriculum. Only 30% of children on average take any language at GCSE level. Now there aren't enough graduate language teachers to cover French well enough, let alone Latin, Chinese or whatever other specialism.

Boffinmum - sorry, I've just realised that the research is nolonger free - the linked article only gives a summary (and no funding info).

Sorky - you'll enjoy Abbott's book. Although, I suspect like me, you'll find his decription of Finnish, community based schools 'bitter sweet'. How can they get it so right when we, so often, get it so wrong?

Boffinmum- I found this research on the Kipp program. Kipp Charter Schools. I imagine there is a great variation in the US in Charter schools - but these ones look encouraging.

Latin is taught in some state schools. It certainly was in a Lambeth comprehensive I worked in, and my DS2 does it at primary school.

WRT funding, I am doing some academic research on this very topic now, but I was to see that the parts of Boston in the US with the most charter schools appear to spend double the amount of public money on education that the ones with the fewest do. Unless I have misunderstood the data, that's a scary scenario indeed.

I haven't no, I opted out of the state school system and decided to Home educate. Will have a look at it thanks.

John Taylor Gatto wrote a very interesting book a long time ago called Dumbing Down, which was a damning indictment of the American school system. John Holt also influenced our decision to home ed. There are other much more recent texts, but these had a profound effect on us.

I'd love to see the NC scrapped altogether, for OFSTED to merely have a guiding role in teachers competencies, but for league tables and SATS abolished altogether.
I'd love to see teachers be able to teach as I'm sure they would love to teach. Inspiring kids to learn for the joy of learning, not because someone told them they had too, or teaching something because the government felt it would be useful.

I want to see schools become much more community based. When we were at Juniors for example, people popped in all the time to give us talks or to teach a specific class, pottery for example.
Now, it's all red tape, insurance and CRB's. You can't even go in and assist with reading to free up some of the teachers time without going into the far end of a fart-type paperwork....it's crazy.

Oops - sorry sorky

Snorky - I agree. Have you read John Abbott's book Over schooled and Under educated. I've just started it - but it looks very interesting. He seems to be arguing that the current approach to education is totally wrong.

No of course not, but Michael Gove has a point, that the NC has been dumbed down and is so prescriptive that the joy of learning is removed. That, coupled with the fact that almost everything is modular and 'achievable', that the qualifications children leave with are worthless.

We had to learn everything for the full 2 years and retain it for the exams at the end. The same for A levels.

My DN is expected to pass everything at A or A* level GCSE and his awareness of the world and general level of knowledge is disgraceful!
Multiple choices instead of writing answers...load of crap!
Not bothering with spelling, grammar etc is disgraceful.

The schools system is failing and something radical does need to be done.

We need to stop trying to make all kids the same and acknowledge that some will be very good academically and should be challenged and encouraged thus. Others have different skills, which should be nurtured in a different way.

Somewhere over the last 30 odd years it seems we've forgotton that 'comprehensive schools' are there to educate all children and that includes the most academic.

If children need to study Latin or all 3 sciences or further maths or whatever, in order to achieve their potential, then shouldn't the school provide it? Or are we happy fof many parents to see the private sector as the place for academic dc's?

BeenBeta To some extent, yes - I certainly think that private school fees will come down if good free schools are set up locally.

On the other hand, parents of privately educated pupils already exercise considerable choice. Free schools give poorer parents some access to similar choice.

It won't just be failing state schools that get a kick up the backside from Free Schools. Independent schools will have to work harder for their fees too if a good Free School sets up down the road.

I think a lot of parents would be very interested in not having to pay fees.

MissM

Well, if other local schools start losing their pupils to the free schools because of the chattering class grapevine, then they will have to do something about it.

If there was such a demand for teaching Latin amongst parents, then they would have to start providing for that demand instead of brushing it off. If Latin is desired by middle-class parents, why shouldn't middle-cass parents get Latin in the state system? Especially as doing so helps non-middle class kids in the same school and all the surrounding schools, because competition drives up standards.

Anyway, most of the free schools are going to be set up and run by teachers, educational charities, and school federations - not by parents - middle-class or otherwise.

I quite like him.

I agree with throwing money though, I mean, look how high the standards have been raised by the Labour government throwing money at education.

I HE because I can't afford a private, classical education. This is the best option for us. I set the curriculum because the NC is shit!

If there was an affordable free school near me, which offered a challenging curriculum, I would definitely consider it.

Gove, over Balls anyday!

he's an arse
depriving existing schools of improvements to poor buildings whilst throwing money at pushy parents to set up new schools which will inevitably mean even less funding for the rest
makes me want to spit

He might also attract people like Fiona Millar - whose old school Camden School For Girls is very proud of it's extensive Classics Curriculum

''What's not to like?'' Well in my opinion lots and lots of things, but I'm not going to get started on them!

The admissions policies to free schools may not be allowed to discriminate, but let's be honest - the kind of school Toby Young is intending to set up is going to be more attractive to the middle classes in his area. Why? Because that's who will know about it, that's who'll like the idea of learning Latin, that's who will hear about it via the chattering class grapevine.

Jack - I don't doubt your friend's motives and obviously there are people out there who aren't just out to make big bucks. But what would be the incentive for someone with a day job to run a free school?

"But private schools are set up by people in order to earn money. And they're not pretending otherwise.."

Most private schools are 'not for profit' organisations set up to educate children. I have a teacher friend who set up a private school as she was frustrated with what the state schools were offering her own children. Many years later - her school is still providing it's pupils with an excellent, nurturing and fun education. She has never been motivated by money and keeps fees as low as possible, so as to widen access to the school.

I think if the Free School option had been available at the time - she might have taken it.

"And who does he intend to attract?"

Probably all the 'multi-cultural' West London kids who undertake the one hour commute each day to attend the 'super-selective' grammars in my corner of London.

MissM The admissions policies are not allowed to discriminate, and the pupil premium will encourage free schools to attract pupils from poorer backgrounds.

Not to mention the main benefit - existing schools will have to compete with a new free school, bounding with energy and enthusiasm, with the head firmly in control. That alone will force all the existing schools to improve, or lose pupils and funding. There will be much less room for those bad teachers who are more interested in coasting than in good teaching. And the power of the teaching unions, the single biggest roadblock to better education, will be much diminished.

What isn't to like?

But private schools are set up by people in order to earn money. And they're not pretending otherwise - parents pay for their children to go to them. The free school concept implies that if you're an individual (as opposed to a company, charity etc) you do it out of the goodness of your heart but with a wedge of money from the government for all the obvious costs. I'm confused as to why people with other jobs would start a free school when there wasn't anything obvious in it financially - unless they can either afford not to work or - erm, can't think of another reason!

I also think that the endless comparisons with Sweden are clouding the issues. In Sweden the schools are run for profit (or at least some of them - I'm a bit hazy on the specifics). Plus children start school at a different age and there are different attitudes etc to education, the curriculum, faith etc. etc. So to compare a free school system here with an established one there is completely missing the point and misleading to my mind.

Looking at Toby Young's plans I do wonder why he doesn't just send his kids to private school. He is ostensibly setting up a grammar/private school model with all that emphasis on Latin! And who does he intend to attract? Call me cynical, but in my mind the answer is 'people like him'. So in other words, not the multicultural, diverse community of the rest of Acton.