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.

'And those of you arguing that Latin and the ability to sing C sharp are the answers to all our problems'

No one argued that, so why are you harping on about it?

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

We can all see the flaws in your arguments, it's only you that can't.

'The level of arguing here is really quite embarrassing.'

Are you referring to your posts?

''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.'

That's extremely disingenuous, Claig.

SOME parents (those with the sharp elbows) will use their sharp elbows to get THEIR KIDS into Toby Young's school not because of the Latin (except in so far as what the Latin represents i.e. prestige) but because it IS selective. This is what happens in faith schools as my links earlier indicate. Middle class parents can manipulate any selection criteria to increase the leg-up of their own children. And where does that leave the children of parents who are not in the know about how to manipulate the system? Fat lot of choice they have.

So, what you really mean is let's increase the choice and advantage for those who are already doing ok and sod the rest of them.

But didn't Toby say that in the main teh school was not selective?

Clair, I'm saying it's embarrassing that some people on here cannot seem to see the link between selection and good results. And accept, unquestioningly, that the curriculum of nearly a century ago is the 'best' curriculum for children today purely because that is the curriculum experienced by the likes of Cameron and Gove. And if you attribute their 'success' to their education in terms of what they actually learned from it as opposed to what it represented and the connections they made then that is equally fatuous.

But let people choose instead of telling them what to do. Empower the public.
If that school is rubbish, then the small number of parents who want their children to go there will have made teh wrong choice. Let's give it time and see what happens, see if it is any good.

Claig, you may not have read my earlier posts. The school can select 10% according to 'musical aptitude' BUT as research indicates time and again (I've posted some links earlier) any system of overt of covert selection has the effect of excluding children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Such systems, as with faith schools (which comprise the vast majority of the new free schools) are easily manipulable by middle class parents. And that is the intention here. Why on earth would you choose 'musical aptitude' and compulsory Latin unless you were intending to attract a particular sort of parent and put off those parents whose children have the least advantages.

Wake up!

'But let people choose'

FGS. Can anyone really be this naive???

Some people CAN make these choices and some people CANNOT.

Parents on low incomes (especially if they have limited education themsleves) have very few choices. By and large they send their kids to their nearest school. And that should be a good school.

Yes, I agree with you on teh music selection. I don't like it, especially when it turns out that some of the selection may revolve around singing C sharp.

But I think that Toby said that not all teh parents were middle class, so those parents have made a choice that it is teh type of school they want.

Let's expand choice, let teh people vote with their feet. Let's stop deciding what is best for everyone else.

Talkinpeace, you do not need a good attendance record to go to a grammar school in Kent, that is not looked at. You "merely" need to pass the 11+. Parents can sway the results a little with coaching and tutoring, on average older children do do better, but it is age adjusted, and my august born ds is at a grammar. Ideally for me it would be mixed sex, but you do you best with what is available. People seem to think grammar= white male middle class privelege, but if you live here, that's the option. I agree with Xenia that a voucher for all would be fairest, and offer most diversity to children.

If your child has no 'musical aptitude', you have no faith (and don't feel able to do the going to church to get a letter from the priest thing for whatever reason) and you do not have the money or time to transport your kids across London and maybe you also think (rightly or wrongly) that your child will struggle with Latin then what choice have you got? And you know what? There are parents who don't even know there are options are. I don't blame them. It's only because I am well educated and have worked in the system for 15 years that I feel I have a really good understanding of it. Many parents will send their kids to their nearest school assuming that it will be good enough. That's what happened to them after all. Just as Cameron will send his kids to public school which is what happened to him.

But doesn't Toby's school take people from the local catchment. As far as I understand it, there is no selection test for the majority of pupils.

What if you've just come to this country? You cannot possibly understand all the peculiarities of the British education system (and its inequalities and snobberies). You only have to look at the noticeboards here. If you come from a country where everyone sends their kids to their nearest school which is a good school how can you be expected to make sense of it?

'Let them have choice' is so much like saying 'Let them eat cake'. If you have no money and if you have no education then you have no choice.

'If your child has no 'musical aptitude', you have no faith (and don't feel able to do the going to church to get a letter from the priest thing for whatever reason) and you do not have the money or time to transport your kids across London and maybe you also think (rightly or wrongly) that your child will struggle with Latin then what choice have you got?'

I agree, not everybody is like Tony Blair.

Parents look at league tables, even with all of their flaws, and find out what the best schools are. You seem to be blaming Toby's one school for all teh problems of faith schools etc.

It's only one school and it takes local children without selection. Let's create more schools and more choice, so there is no need to bus children across London to get into teh type of schools parents want their kids to go to.

If Toby's school turns out to be rubbish, then people won't want to go there.

claig, I have no doubt that you mean well, but you ARE naive. If you read the posts earlier you will see how Young and friends have carefully designed the catchment to avoid some of the poorest areas.

But really you have heard enough for you to understand that Young's school is not going to be easily accessible to kids from deprived backgrounds.

Let's recap:

1.) 10% are selected on 'musical aptitude'
2.) Young himself said that as it is small it made no provision for children with statements because it's too small
3.) Latin is compulsory
4.) Children have to have regulation haircuts

If you look at the other 'free' schools you will see that the majority are faith schools (mostly Christian with some being run by The Ark with one Jewish and one Seikh from what I can see) so these are also highly selective (even if they say they're not).

The children of parents who have little money or little time or little concern or who just expect their nearest school to be good enough have no choices. It's the parents who are in a position to work the system who reep the advantages for their already privileged children.

claig, what sort of parent looks at league tables?

What sort of parent can actually understand them?

Probably not the parent with learning difficulties on a very low income. And even if he or she can understand them, if her child has no musical aptitude, no faith and no money, there's sweet FA she can do about them.

Do you not see how your points show that you are not in touch with the real world? And that 'choice' is really only choice for some people.

And, as I've said earlier, if YOung's school gets good results which it probably will I wouldn't read that as a sign that it's a good school with good teachers.

I am not staggered to find that my local independnet school gets 98% A-C. They bloody well should do. They select.

I am not blaming YOung for faith schools. I am merely pointing out that most of the free schools are faith schools. So if the only free school in your area is a Seikh school and you're not a Seikh it's not really expanded your 'choice' has it?

Yes, you make some good points, but rather than stopping any change, why don't we ensure that these schools are as open as possible instead.

Don't see the problem with Latin being compulsory. Working class kids are just as bright as middle class kids and can learn Latin.

Haven't read about teh regulation haircuts, but if this means a Gove style cut, then yes that is deeply worrying. and an affront to aesthetics

'Let's create more schools and more choice, so there is no need to bus children across London '

Or how about making sure that EVERY school is a good school and then there's no need to bus any kids anywhere. Sheesh! What a novel idea!

Argh! If the high performing schools were 'as open as possible' then they wouldn't be so high performing would they? The most high performing schools select.

And can you honestly not see how an ordinary working class parent might take one look at the compulsory Latin and be put off?

'Or how about making sure that EVERY school is a good school'

But we had 13 years of New Labour and it hasn't happened. It's not as easy as that, which is why trying different models may lead to some success.

'And can you honestly not see how an ordinary working class parent might take one look at the compulsory Latin and be put off?'

On the contrary, I think the ordinary working class parent is just as clever (maybe more so) than Diane Abbott and would choose teh same kind of education that her son got.

But I would argue that 'different models' are the problem and not the cause. Independent schools, grammar schools and now free schools have increased social division and not increased choice at all for disadvantaged children.

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.

I am wondering when Xenia gets the chance to talk numerous groups of motivated teenagers in rough comps. Strangely enough, my son went to such a school and one of the worst behaved classes was a Physics class composed entirely of higher ability boys (and one girl).

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?

I am sorry but that is rubbish. You are assuming that all motivated children have high IQ's. There are plenty of motivated, average children. Or do you not care a jot about them?

Diane said something like she would "go to the wall" for her child, well working class parents would too. But they are restricted in their choices. Let's give them access to more choice, let's hear their voice.