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.

Then I think you are seriously out of touch with the real world.

The Latin and the 'musical aptitutde' and the haircuts are designed to appeal to a certain sort of parent and put others off.

There was some interesting research about a faith school in Bolton which ended up taking very few children from its geographical catchment at all. Local parents ended up saying 'it's not for the likes of us'. I'll see if I can find a link. Same thing here.

'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.'

But education is not only about social engineering and social division as teh socialists often think. That is not teh only factor. Working class people wouldn't care less if their children attended a school which Diane Abbott's son, Prince Harry and Tony Blair's children don't attend. All they want is a good school, and if there are no Islingtonistas at teh school, they may see that as a blessing.

'Shirley Rawlands has a nine-year-old daughter, and will have to go through the secondary application process next year. "We won't be applying, she wouldn't get in," she says. "If I thought she would, I'd apply. But it's really hard to get them in there. I'm not a church-goer, though I do believe in God. I don't approve, because that's my local school, and children ought to be able to go to their local school."'

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jan/31/schools.schooladmissions?INTCMP=SRCH

From the same article:

'Using the Freedom of Information Act, Education Guardian discovered that, in September 2005, Canon Slade admitted 268 11-year-olds, from 87 different primary schools. Over a quarter of those children were not from Bolton - families send their children to the school from Bury, Blackburn, Salford and Manchester. The eight primary schools within easy travelling distance sent just 39 children.'

'On the Tonge Moor Road, parents say they feel shut out and excluded. If they do not apply to Canon Slade, or complain to their councillors, it's because they assume it will be a waste of time. "We can't go to that school," one says. "It's not for the likes of us."'

The two primaries serving the Tonge Moor Road area are Castle Hill and Tonge Moor primary. Castle Hill, which is 10 minutes' walk from Canon Slade, sent no one there in 2005. Tonge Moor sent three children. "We've not considered Canon Slade," said one Tonge Moor parent, Karen Covell, as she took her daughter Nikita to school. "'They have to go to church if they want to go to Canon Slade and that's not something we have ever done."

I'm not sure what your point is? I agree that all working class parents want is a good school. I think most parents of whatever class would like their local school to be a good school. In fact, the league tables and 'choice' agenda means that middle class parents compete for the best school they can afford (in money, time, whatever) making these schools better and better while the rest of schools get worse and worse.

So are you saying that faith schools should not be allowed for tax paying parents who wish their children to go to them? Why shouldn't a Sikh parent have teh right to send their child to a Sikh school? Let's not blame teh minority of faith schools, let's create more local schools of high quality that perform better than teh faith schools.

Just because someone is of a praticular faith doesn't mean they are cleverer than anyone else, so there is no reason why a faith school should be any better than a non-faith school.

It has also led to 'white flight' in some areas leading to horrible ethnic divisisons and conflcits and ruining social cohesion.

If you put any sort of barrier to a school you are going to keep disadvantaged kids out and make it more appealing to pushy middle class parents. The gulf then gets greater and greater between the two.

I am anti faith schools in the same way I would be anti faith hospitals or faith libraries. They are dangerous and exclusive. They do not promote social cohesion and do not foster tolerance.

Did you not see the post earlier about schools in Northern Ireland.

'In fact, the league tables and 'choice' agenda means that middle class parents compete for the best school they can afford (in money, time, whatever) making these schools better and better while the rest of schools get worse and worse.'

Why are these schools better? Do they receive more money? Are middle class children brighter than working class children? I don't think so. Why does one good school of 1000 pupils make all teh surrounding schools worse?

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.

Do you not think that that in itself might be a form of selection? Parents will not necessarily be choosing WLFS becasuse they want their kids to learn latin, or because they don't want them to have anything practical on the curriculum, but it is the trade of for being able to send them to a pleasant new school with no history.

There was actually quite an interesting thread on mumsnet about school options in this part of London a few weeks back.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/1246734-Hammersmith-Academy

Why is it acceptable to exclude a child from a school because of his or her faith or lack of it but not from a hospital?

I find it astounding.

Claig, you're just not listening. They are 'better' because they select.

Do you seriously not understand the link?

And can you seriously not understand how if you take all the middle class kids with pushy supportive parents out of a school and put them in another then that school would get better results and become more and more oversubscribed while the school left behind would become less popular and get less good results?

I do find it worrying that this stuff has to be explained to adults who should know better.

Because hospitals are a matter of life and death

Eh? What the hell sort of argument is that?

So what if it's not about life and death? What about libraries? Is it acceptable to have Catholic only libraries and Seikh only libraries? Even though all our taxes pay for these?

You are a prescriptive socialist who wants to dictate what is available to millions of parents because you think you know what is best for them. You won't listen to them, you won't consult them and you won't give them choice.
You are more interested in social policy, social exclusion, social engineering and socailsm than you are in education. New Labour would love you to join them.

Eh? I don't think I've mentioned my politics anywhere on this thread and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions.

I have never, ever presumed to say what is best for parents.

I am simply saying that having more 'choice' of schools does not necessarily mean more choice at all. Especially not for disadvantaged parents.

Try to stick to the ARGUMENTS.

Can you answer my question about the libraries. Would you be happy if your local library became Seikh only? And you had to travel 5 miles down the road to get to the Catholic one? And then another couple of miles for the secular one?

A library contains all of teh possible books, so nothing is excluded. You have the choice to choose whatever book you like. A school is limited in what it can choose to teach over teh years of a child's education. Some parents will choose to have their children educated at schools which teach their faith, just as others will choose technology schools or language schools. That's freedom, that's Britain and not the Soviet Union.

'You are more interested in social policy, social exclusion, social engineering and socailsm than you are in education.'

I have taught in the state sector for 15+ years. Do you think that could possibly be seen as a sign that I am interested in education?

It is plain stupid not to think about the impact on society of having schools that divide our children according to social class, ethnicity and faith.

The report on the Oldham riots made it absolutely clear that faith schools had a part to play in these and has made some progress in addressing the sorts of divisions in this town.

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.

Actually, fivecandles, they haven't. Although the school is in a very nice part of Hammersmith, they have extended their catchment to a 5 mile radius which, while that was probably designed so that all the steering group could get a place, does take in some very poor areas.

Here:

'The Cantle report wasn't the only report to blame segregated schools. The Ritchie report into the Oldham riots, commissioned by the government, borough and local police authority concluded that "in our view it is desirable in principle that as many schools as possible should have mixed intake so that children growing up can learn one another's customs and cultural backgrounds and accept that stereotypes and racism are unacceptable."'

'Faith schools, of course, are not just ethno-religiously, but also socio-economically selective. A community school is likely to have about 50% more pupils requiring free school meals than a voluntary aided (faith) school is. Pupils are also, on average, weaker academically when they start at the school. Why is this? It is because the simple fact that the school is selecting at all means that wealthier, more ambitious parents can work harder to manipulate the system and get their children into the stronger schools. In other words, the selection in itself cuts out the pupils from the poorest backgrounds, and so the school attracts pushier parents from wealthier backgrounds, and so the cycle perpetuates. And this, rather than anything inherent about the religious ethos of the school, is what leads some faith schools to achieve such outstanding exam results.'

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/13/faith-schools-fragment-communities

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.

Strange that you should be linking Cambridge-educated Diane Abott wih working class parents.

'I have taught in the state sector for 15+ years. Do you think that could possibly be seen as a sign that I am interested in education?'

Don't you think that teh people who have taught in private schools and faith schools for 15+ years are just as interested in education as you.

Setting up a free school from scratch sounds like a right load of hassle. My bet is that anyone who goes through that whole process is just as interested in education as you.

We live in a diverse society and people have different views and that includes teachers who teach in faith schools, free schools and private schools etc.

'A library contains all of teh possible books, so nothing is excluded.'

That's not true at all and sorry, but it really isn't a good argument. The state could argue that nobody could read all the book in the library so why not just have books with a religous slant?

And I don't get why when it comes to life and death religion doesn't matter (arguably death is when it matters most) which is why hospitals can't exclude on the basis of faith but schools can.

Your arguments don't stand up.

Most countries have a clear division between education and faith and there's no good reason why this country shouldn't.

Claig, you're trying to make it a personal attack (presumably because you haven't got any arguments left that stand up).

I'm not saying that other people aren't as interested in education as I am. But you said that I'm not interested in education at all which is patently ridiculous.

'We live in a diverse society and people have different views'

Absolutely, what a shame that so many of our schools don't reflect that diversity.