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.

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

Working class children go to Cambridge and probably outperform the members of the Athenaeum Club, just as at Oxford they outperform the Bullingdon Club members.

'you said that I'm not interested in education at all'

No I didn't say at all, I said you are more interested in social policy, social exclusion etc. than you are in education. What I meant by that is that that seems to be teh factor that you concentrate on most, as opposed to standards, choice of subjects, or teh choice to learn Latin etc.

Sigh. Claig, increasingly, I think you're not prepared to acknowledge the education system as it is (riddled with social and other sorts of divisions and inequality) but persist in your vision of the system as you would like it to be (where all parents have choices and everyone can choose a great school for their child).

Perhaps you don't know that 50% of students who go to Oxbridge are privately educated although 7% of our children are educated privately?

Perhaps you've never heard of the extraordinarily disproportioante number of people educated privately in parliament and law etc, etc?

Or maybe you honestly think that Toby Young and the free schools and just a little bit more Latin for the masses will change this situation?

Claig, you cannot separate the two.

I really think you've had enough evidence of that now. The schools highest up the league tables are independent (selective), followed by state grammar (selective), followed by faith (selective) followed by affluent.

Wake up, really.

^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.^

No claig, you are missing the point. We live in a predominantly Christian country and perhaps the majority would describe themselves as C of E. Therefore, on the surface, it seems entirely fair that a C of E school should offer places to C of E applicants first, and other Christian denominations second. However, we are not a nation of churchgoers. And, while there are people of all backgrounds who do choose to go to church, it is only likely to be a certain sort of parent who would attend church just to get their child into a certain school when otherwise would otherwise they would not attend church. If a C of E school makes certified church attendance a stipulation for getting a place, it is the children of these parents who they will be able to select.

'Sigh. Claig, increasingly, I think you're not prepared to acknowledge the education system as it is (riddled with social and other sorts of divisions and inequality) but persist in your vision of the system as you would like it to be (where all parents have choices and everyone can choose a great school for their child).'

No, I agree with you that social mobility declined more under Labour than it did under Thatcher and I agree with you that parents at the moment cannot choose the best schools for their children.

These things were denied to teh population in teh past. I am hoping that with more choice, things will change for the better and Labour's shocking social mobility record will be turned around, because I believe that there are millions of working class children who can do much better if they receive the same education that Diane Abbott's son and Tony Blaiir's children received.

I'm aware of all sorts of arguments why free schools, faith schools and other sorts of specialist schools are not good for social cohesion or for increasing social mobility or for improving the life chances of disadvantaged children.

I have heard not one argument why we should not instead put all our resources into makign sure EVERY school offers a range of choice and caters for the needs of all of its pupils (from Latin to vocational subjects, from potential Oxbridgers to those who struggle with basic literacy) and encouraging parents to send their children to this school.

Anyone?

'Perhaps you don't know that 50% of students who go to Oxbridge are privately educated although 7% of our children are educated privately?'

That's why we need change. I don't believe that the private school children are any cleverer than millions of working class people. I beleve that teh only difference is that they have bought their way to a better education. Let's increase the standard of education for all of our people and release teh potential of teh millions so that social mobility becomes a reality and the country benefits from teh wealth of talent currently lying dormant.

'I believe that there are millions of working class children who can do much better if they receive the same education that Diane Abbott's son and Tony Blaiir's children received.'

Claig, once again, I do think you have good intentions but I do have to repeat the question can you not understand how selective schools by definition cannot be open to everybody and if they were they would no longer get the best results???

Please, think about this.

Having Eton or Harrow or even the London Oratory or even Toby Young's free school accept a small percentage more working class kids is not going to change anything.

'Let's increase the standard of education for all of our people and release teh potential of teh millions so that social mobility becomes a reality and the country benefits from teh wealth of talent currently lying dormant.'

Now this I agree with.

But I think the way to do it is by making sure that EVERY school is a good school.

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?

I think you might find that,on average, middle class children, especially those with professional parents, are brighter. But even those who are pretty average will attend school regularly, will do their homework and be encouraged to do the best they possibly can. And, if mumsnetters are typical, they will get masses of extra help from home.

In a sense, the one good school doesn't make the surrounding schools significantly worse, but it is a vicious circle as other schools lose what would have been their higher achieving more motivated pupils.

OK, imagine that tomorrow all the kids going to my local indepedent secondary school went instead to the nearest sink comprehensive and all the kids from that school went to the local indepedent school. If nothing else changed, not the curriculum, not the teachers, not the buildings what sort of results would each school get in 5 years time?

And what about if you mixed up randomly half of the cohort?

'I have heard not one argument why we should not instead put all our resources into makign sure EVERY school offers a range of choice and caters for the needs of all of its pupils (from Latin to vocational subjects, from potential Oxbridgers to those who struggle with basic literacy) and encouraging parents to send their children to this school.'

Because that is what they have been promising us for years and it hasn't happened. It's time for new thinking, but not New Labour.

This is interesting:

'By age three, being in poverty makes a difference equivalent to nine
months? development in school readiness.
At each stage of compulsory schooling, the poverty gap grows. In
particular, there is a big jump early in secondary school, with poor
children nearly two years behind by the age of 14.
Children who do badly at primary school are less likely to improve at
secondary school if they are poor. Children who are only slightly
below average at primary school are more likely to be among the
worst performers at secondary school if they are poor.
Young people with parents in manual occupations remain far less
likely than others to go to university. Even though their prospects
have improved, they have not been the main beneficiaries of
university expansion. Children of non-manual workers are over two
and a half times as likely to go to university than children of manual
workers.
Children from poor families are more likely to have poor
qualifications. There are more teenagers outside education,
employment and training in the UK than in most other countries, and
the rate has been rising.
The association between growing up in poverty and being poor in
adulthood has become stronger since the 1970s. This effect is
closely linked to education, but its growth is also associated with a
strengthening impact of child poverty itself on future outcomes.'

www.cpag.org.uk/campaigns/education/EducationBriefing120907.pdf

It tells us that having middle-class, educated parents is a huge educational advantage. So, yes, putting all the middle class kids together in one school will compound that advantage.

Also, it is true that faith schools get more runding (from the church).

'Because that is what they have been promising us for years and it hasn't happened.'

I agree it hasn't happened. But there's no reason why we shouldn't want it to happen and why it isn't the most desirable model.

Every school a good school.

That's my manifesto.

Must go. Have markign to do.

^'Perhaps you don't know that 50% of students who go to Oxbridge are privately educated although 7% of our children are educated privately?'

That's why we need change. I don't believe that the private school children are any cleverer than millions of working class people.^

On what do you base that lack of belief? You do know that the sort of private schools that send a lot of their pupils to Oxbridge have stiff entrance examinations. They don't just take anyone who can afford the fees. On the other hand, they do offer scholarships to very clever children whose parents cannot afford the fees.

Ther are lots of interesting point.

1. If a society has had great social mobility in the past there is an argument that eventually you reach the point when those at the bottom will stay here because they have the 80 IQ and there has been such success in letting the bright poor move up those at the bottom will always stay there. I don't necessarily subscribe to that view but you might reach a point when social mobiltiy has been so good that those left at the bottom are those rightly so and they will remain there (except IQ tends to rise to the average and two very bright parents have a child a bit less bright etc)

1. I doubt we have reached the point of (1) yet but it's possible.

1. To have social mobiilty you need people dropping down too - you don't move up without others going down as we are all competing against each other, fighting tooth and claw.

1. The country needs children who can spell and read and concentrate and turn up to work on time and not skive off sick. Even Tesco cannot recruit enough who can. Many countries abroad are doing education better than many of our schools and people are sending their children back to school in the Caribbean rather than vice versa to get a better education than here. We certainly could work on the basics more and copy the best aspects of the private primaries.

1. There is an argument that you h ave one type of state school only without religion in it and if parents want something else they pay or you go my route and have no sttae schools and vouchers to spend where you choose or you pay for bright, musical or whatever poor children to go to fee paying schools.

1. I don't agree that clever poor children who get to oxbridge do better than those who aren't. My older children are at post univesrity stage. What jobs you pick can depend on your family background and expectations and what you wear and your accent. not all poor clever children are able to ape the accent of the rich and get jobs where you need the right way of speaking to get on.

I am saying that the difference is teh schools, not teh children.
Poorer children have less choice than richer children and they end up in schools that are not as good. I believe that they are just as bright as teh richer children but they are denied teh same quality of education.

I want them to have teh same quality of education as teh rich kids get. But that doesn't mean letting them choose to go to Eton. I believe we can create schools that are just as good as Eton for working class children. That should be the priority. What we have now is not working, so we should try new ideas, provide more choice and new schools and see what works best.

" You do know that the sort of private schools that send a lot of their pupils to Oxbridge have stiff entrance examinations. "

I have been having a look around the website for Toby Young's school and I am getting the unsettling impression of a cargo cult. Calling the Head 'Headmaster', calling the terms 'Michaelmas, Lent and Trinity'. Teach them Latin and they'll all go to Oxbridge just like the posh kids who passed the entrance exam and went to a fabulously well-funded school with a network of privilege behind them.

I don't doubt that his school will get good results, schools with supportive parents who take an interest in their kids education (the sort who might pick a Free School which teaches Latin, for example) always do.

'I don't agree that clever poor children who get to oxbridge do better than those who aren't. My older children are at post univesrity stage. What jobs you pick can depend on your family background and expectations and what you wear and your accent. not all poor clever children are able to ape the accent of the rich and get jobs where you need the right way of speaking to get on.'

Jobs is different to clever.
I bet that most of our top scientists, top engineers, top business people were state school educated. It's different in the Labour shadow cabinet and the cabinet, but that has nothing to do with cleverness.

Where I live, there is no selection and no private schools. Our top achieving school has a very mixed catchment but, sorry to say, it is largely the children from the professional homes that do best there and make its results what they are.

Eton is highly selective. Gone are the days when you put your son's name down at birth. We do have state schools that are as selective as Eton. They are the super-selectives, many of which are to be found in outer London and the home counties. Do they take many working class children? You tell me!

State grammars which are hard to get into get good results as do private schools which are hard to get into. However children who do get in are well served too because everyone else is bright and you bounce ideas off each other and it all works well. It is harder to achieve that even if you set in comprehensives and free schools which are not allowed to select by IQ.

There are lots of private schools for children who are not very bright too and some add a lot of value. Toby Young's might manage the same although if he has lots with free school meals from poor homes he might find it harder to add that value.

He could teach them to speak with received pronunciation and what to wear and that alone perhaps unfairly gives children a big advantage when they apply for many jobs.

calling the terms 'Michaelmas, Lent and Trinity'.

That struck me as odd too, for a non-denominational school.

I don't doubt that his school will get good results, schools with supportive parents who take an interest in their kids education (the sort who might pick a Free School which teaches Latin, for example) always do.

I am sure it will be a great success. And I do have a sneaking admiration for TY and his group for getting off the ground. The danger is if people think that it could be easily replicated.