Will free schools drive up standards? Read Toby Young's guest post and join the conversation

[ElenMumsnetBloggers]

Are free schools ready to fall or fly? Do they really drive up standards or are they a snobbish gimmick? And should more parents be setting up their own schools? Journalist and producer Toby Young explains why he set up the West London Free School and what makes the free school proposition an exciting one. Join the conversation that Toby's begun and have your say on free schools.

claig
you are such and EFFING snob
working class DOES NOT equal thick
Thick equals thick
Prince Harry having to get all his coursework done by the tutors at eton - that is THICK

BUT
I deal with people who are damned good at what they do (hanging of the side of skyscrapers mending the window seals) who cannot read or write and see no need to do so as long as I cannot massage their taxable income below £50k

'Many people haven't - they have only made objections about siphoning money off for this in the present financial climate, given that best practice can already be found in the maintained sector, and could be rolled out wider for a lot less money than this.'

But how many free schools are there? We'll soon find out if they are any good or not. We can afford the experiment to see if it is in fact beneficial.

TalkinPeace2, I'm not a snob. My parents were working class and I am now middle class. I have relatives with PhDs who grew up in council flats and they are far more intelligent than Prince Harry and the Labour shadow cabinet. I know that working class children can excel if they receive a good education. I want all children to have teh same education as Diane Abbott's son and the Islingonistas get. That's why I vote Tory.

your academic narrowness is only comparable with mine at age 21

the roofers, wallpaperers, hole diggers, bricklayers, electricians and plumbers who I deal with take a HUGE pride in the skills it has taken them year to acquire.
they find it deeply offensive that people value their tangible, economic growth promoting skills below stuff like Latin, Media Studies an economics
why do you think that Osborne the wallpaperman has just released funds for construction ?
because it is REAL
my lovely painter has all the City & Guild Certs he can get
he pays me to do his numbers
why on EARTH would he want to do academic junk when he's made his own way since 16 and will do till he's 70

'why on EARTH would he want to do academic junk when he's made his own way since 16 and will do till he's 70'

Are you saying he should never have gone to school and studied Shakespeare and learnt French or God forbid Latin. We live in a great country that educates all our children in 'academic junk', because we believe it is their birthright to be just as educated as Diane Abbott's son or Tony Blair's children.

No one is looking down on what they do for a living; we are talking about their education.

But where are the comprehensives that offer a truly academic range of subjects to the children and parents who want it? Not even the superselective grammar where I live offers Latin as more than a club in ks3.

claig
the chaps I deal with got out of school as fast as they could
if there were decent apprenticeships at 14 they would have taken them
we had a lad who was permanently excluded at 15
he worked for us full time with daily probation visits as an alternative to prison
20 years later he's doing rather well (buffs nails for having argued that one with the court)

emkana
my two are at a true Hampshire non selective comp - 60 kids per year do latin GCSE as well as French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, German, Triple Science etc etc

PLEASE do not judge all schools by the dysfunctional system that operates where ILEA once was

'the chaps I deal with got out of school as fast as they could'

Good for them. No one is saying you need a degree to do well. Sir Alan Sugar left school at 16, I think.
But we have an education system that fortunately does not allow children to leave at 14. We have a duty to educate them, and not in bricklaying. They can learn those skills on teh job and in apprenbticeships. We have a duty to educate them with what you call 'academic junk'.

Not humble
focused
STOP thinking that books are the only form of skills
ask your pony owning friends about the skills of their farrier
MANUAL skills are what BUILT this country and others
stop demeaning them
merchant bankers are NOTHING without electricity, a carpenter can carry on
the focus is TOO MUCH on "serving" rather than "doing"

Are you suggesting new progressive schools that educate children in the skills of the farrier and in bricklaying. I think I prefer Toby's traditional style school that teaches children what you call 'academic junk'.

Nope
I'd rather that the whole country had access to good comps (like my kids attend) that encourage every child to get a basic grounding in the core (maths english not much else) and then let them excel in anything else that can be found to stop them bunking school
my kids school has 11 types of sport including golf to keep the "recidivist" on board through year 11
ant LOTS of tech (metal, plastic, wood, textiles etc)

Toby's school approach would lose them at year 8
nuff said

'Toby's school approach would lose them at year 8'

Yes, but that is why we need diversity in our schools. Diane Abbott and the Islingtonistas preferred to choose different types of school, and the public should also be allowed to choose whatever type of school they think is best for their children. There should not be one model for all children. Parents should be allowed choice.

There is certainly a place in comprehensive schooling for vocational education. Lots of my school's students have done well out of their part-time college placements in car mechanics, hairdressing etc, and got 5A*-C including English and Maths.

I'm not sure what the argument is that Latin would be automatically better for them because that's what the posh schools do.

'I'm not sure what the argument is that Latin would be automatically better for them because that's what the posh schools do.'

Let parents decide what is better, not the experts in their ivory towers. Give people choice.

I'd rather that state education didn't pander to parental choice, personally. Because when you start doing that, you learn that some parents out there are bonkers.

I think that's being insulting to the brick layers. I believe all children at school should ideally be exposed to the history of the UK, geography, science, literature and of course learn to read and write. If some at 14 clearly need to learn brick laying etc then those are valuable skills too so let them learn it.

Gosh the number of girls who become secretaries after some pointless degree and debt .. they might as well have done typing and shorthand at 14 with lots of work experience and gone into jobs full time at 16. We infantalise a lot of young people who could be in work much younger.

Obviously the Conservatives who are about choice rather than state imposed one size fits all socialism and state control of the left will bring better schooling and variety of schooling. As Cl says let us try and see how the free schools go and let parents have a choice.

Thanks for replying Toby, but you kind of missed my point. Disruptive kids will be disruptive for a number of reasons, including boredom, lack of parenting etc. What happens to the kids who don't have parents who push for free schools, who aren't involved, who don't care? Do you just leave them in underfunded state schools, barely literate in some instances, while your kids learn Latin.....?

And as an aside, I'm absolutely disgusted by this mornings announcement that free schools & academies will have to promote marriage. The implication is that other relationships or the lack of a relationship are not as 'good' as marriage. That's not education, it's brainwashing.

If you ask any group of motivated teenagers at a rough comp they will say the biggest problem is not bad teaching or anything like that. It's low level and constant disruption in lessons by other pupils. If you segregate children by IQ, disruption or whatever you ensure those who want to lear will. if thatm earns you take all the problems ones or the not bright ones and put them in a school which caters to them so be it but why ruin the education of others on the altar of socialist comprehensives?

Segregation by IQ works and it's a pity this govermnent is not brave enough to allow it in free schools when it is one of the key reasons our private schools are the best schools in the world. Luckily some of us chose careers enabling us to pay for that.

Thanks LondonMumsie for the interesting link about the multiple methodology school. I can see a huge benefit of this setup to be that if a particular method doesn't suit a child, he/she could more easily transfer to another "strand" without changing schools. Interesting . . . I wonder if that sort of thing would work here?

I also understand the frustration of LondonMumsie with a perceived lack of choice . . . but would argue that there is a difference between a convenient option and no options. There are no alternative options with regards to primary education where I live, state or independent. The closest schools are in England, over an hours motorway drive. I would be happier to take a few buses across town if I only had the option, and prefer that the option exist even if it's not necessarily convenient, or even if I decide not to take advantage of it.

I'm with Xenia and Claig with regards to the importance of parental choice. Am mulling over Xenia's voucher proposal.

The level of this debate has plummeted considerably. Latin alone does not a good education make. Public schools do not get good results and churn out students who get into top universities and top jobs because they teach Latin. Nor do they get good results because they have better teachers or better teaching. They get better results because they SELECT. How can anyone not understand this?

It's the same to a lesser extent with any school (state or private) that selects even if the selection is less obvious i.e. by 'musical aptitude' or faith or whatever.

FWIW there would not be many people who would object to any school, state or independent, offering Latin to its pupils. However making Latin compulsory for a whole school in London as part of a belief that this will automatically transform results and opportunities is utterly fatuous.

The notion that if only state schools would teach Latin and make the buggers have the right hair cuts then they too could get into Oxbridge and be running the country (forget about the centuries of entrenched snobbery and social inequality) merely validates and perpetuates the snobbery and social inequality.

I find the stupidity (because that is all it is) of those people who hold up schools taking only the most privileged children with supportive parents on good incomes with good educational backgrounds themselves (and most of the top performing state schools come into this category if you look at the numbers of children on FSM and SEN) as models of good practice and expertise to those schools in urban, deprived environments which are genuinely inclusive absolutely extraordinary.

Really, so much for your own education and intelligence, if you can't see the flaws in these arguments.

Of course.
My argument is that it is ludicrous that the Government doesn't allow selection because of PC reasons when our best schools are selective.
Allow selection and be done with this farce.

And those of you arguing that Latin and the ability to sing C sharp are the answers to all our problems in the same week that it's being argued that children should actually be taught computer programming really need to wake up to the 21st century.

But saying our best schools are selective is a bit like saying the healthiest people are less likely to get ill. It's completely stupid. It doesn't mean that selective schools are better at educating children or even that the curriculum they offer is better. It almost certainly isn't.

And can't you see the problem with all schools being allowed to select??

The level of arguing here is really quite embarrassing. It does seem to emphasise that top schools and lots of money are not the same as intelligence or common sense.