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.

'The difficulty arises in that my definition of a good school is different from yours, as even I suspect mine is different from Xenia's or claig's, even though we all support choice.'

Well, yes, I think I've been through this one earlier in the thread. We have to accept that there could not be a school EXACTLY suited to every individual child within travelling distance.

As I said earlier, what if I want my kids to have a secular, arts-based school but my neighbour wants a Catholic, co-ed, science based school and the lady across the street wants a single sex, Muslim school with an emphasis on languages but the town can only support 2 secondary schools?

I also made the point that these are by and large PARENTAL preferences and not the choices of the children themselves. If I had had my choice of school I would never have discovered dd1's ability in sport and science. I have taught enough students whose parents have pushed them into science (when their heart was in English or they simply didn't have the ability to become doctors) to know that specialist schools can be dangerously restrictive of opportunity.

Having said that, my view is that schools can and should offer more choice within the school to better address the needs of individual children.

A large school workign cooperatively with others in the LEA should be perfectly able to offer support to the least able, Oxbridge programmes for the most able, science strands, arts strands, vocational subjects etc etc.

There is no good educational reason for faith schools in the 21st century but nothing to stop a school having a Christian union, a prayer room for Muslims etc, etc as extra-curricular activities.

And all schools should be offering a curriculum and methods that are EVIDENCE-BASED as opposed to based on the whims of politicians or anyone else.

It would make much more sense for the whole LEA to work together to offer any specialisms that any single school in the area could not provide i.e. a science summer school for gifted scientists and literacy catch up etc, etc just as they offer coaching in certain sports and competiton.

Wasn't it Toby Young's dad who damned the grammar system with his Rise of the Meritocracy book?

I always thought the real reason behind scrapping the grammar system was because too many nice middle class kids ended up in secondary moderns, which was of course unacceptable.

' like academic selection, because it eliminates teh advantages of snobbery and privilege and creates a meritocracy'

WHAT???????

You must have missed the link earlier that said that if you take 2 children born with the same IQ there will be a 9 month difference in school readiness by the age of 3 if one of them is living in poverty.

you have also wilfully ignored all of the information on here and widely publicised about any system of selection (from state grammar schools to faith schools) hugely disadvantaging wrokign class kids.

Look, if you are happy to live in a society whre there is huge social divisions and no social mobility then that's fine but please don't come on here saying you give a f* about kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and then saying more selection is the answer.

Fivecandles, your vision would be nice, but of course give it a couple of years and there won't be any LAs left to offer science summer schools etc.

'presumably Eton produces good academic results'

And so it bloody well should. BECAUSE IT SELECTS.

You just don't seem to be moving on in your thinking at all.

I went to grammar school and so did some of my friends in my street and none of us were well off, but we were probably all brighter than lots of more privileged kids. I believe there are lots of very bright kids from disadvanrtaged backgrounds and I want them to have access to the best academic schools, and since my parents and teh parents of teh children in my street could not have afforded to pay, I think the state should pay based on academic excellence.

That brings social mobility.

'And so it bloody well should. BECAUSE IT SELECTS.'

well why don't we create more schools that select then, because there are thousands of working and middle class children who are much brighter than the kids currently at teh top schools. Let's have some great state schools that select and show the truth that ordinary children can get better results than those at Eton.

The grammar schools achieved more social mobility as does selection by IQ. The comps have failed in that. That ought not to bother me as I pay school fees but I do think it's a bit silly that the state school rules and free school rules do not allow choosing children by IQ.

claig, where there are still grammar schools you get some well-off families tutoring their kids from the age of 3 to pass the 11-plus.

So your bright but poor kids are disadvantaged by because they are now competing against middle class tutored to the hilt kids.

Tutoring won't make a silk purse from a sow's ear necessarily, but it will give a boost and it is another form of money buying educational privilege.

'If they took the children from a sink school and sent them all to Eton, I guess their academic results would probably improve, which I would put down to the teachers.'

FGS. There was a programme a while ago where they put the headteacher of some incredibly high performing school into a school in Stoke NEwington (I knew someone who worked there) and she was embarrasingly bad. OFSTED would have failed her instantly.

I don't mean to be unpleasant but I do find your naivete utterly staggering. Private schools take the top 7% of kids in the whole country and educate them with other kids in the top 7% in small classes with more resources and yet you assume that they get good results because they have better teachers???!!!!

'You must have missed the link earlier that said that if you take 2 children born with the same IQ there will be a 9 month difference in school readiness by the age of 3 if one of them is living in poverty'

I don't believe this sort of research. We have poor immigrant children and children of asylum seekers who enter the country at teh age of 9 etc. wityhout any English skills who quickly catch up and often surpass the other pupils. I don't believe these soom-laden reports that suggest that everything is set in stone and poor children are doomed from teh age of 3.

There are very good teachers in the better private schools everyone knows that. Also just look at the qualifications. You are more likely in a private school to get a teacher with a degree in the subject they are teaching, more likely to be able to spell, speak properly etc etc.

Right to choose by IQ would help free schools. Also rights to exclude chidlren who disrupt lessons is one of the most useful thing to have and ensuring teenagers can learn in a class with other children who allow them to do so.

'Private schools take the top 7% of kids in the whole country '

No they don't. I think state school kids are smarter. Is Prince Harry smarter than the kids who get all A's at hundreds of our state schools?

Private schools take children who can afford to get in.

'well why don't we create more schools that select then'

Claig, you're not really getting this are you?

What happens to those kids who AREN'T selected? Who don't pass the exam and get into the schools? WHat happens to those kids whose parents can't or don't put them in for the exams? Don't or can't pay for tutors? Don't or can't pay for music lessons? Don't or can't adopt a faith?

'FGS. There was a programme a while ago where they put the headteacher of some incredibly high performing school into a school in ...'

The headteacher can't run around teaching all teh lessons. It's teh teachers that make teh difference.

Xenia, there probably are very good teachers at teaching top set kids in the better private schools.

That doesn't make them a better teacher than an excellent teacher who manages to teach both top and bottom set in a state school. I have worked with some wonderful teachers who were inspiring whether they were teaching A-level Further maths or Y8 set Z.

'What happens to those kids who AREN'T selected?'

They go to teh current comprehensives that you say are so good.

'I think state school kids are smarter'

Claig, you have your own rather peculiar views.

In the real world if you take 2 children born with the same IQ there is a 9 month difference in their educational achievement by the age of 3 if one is born into poverty.

Your literacy skills are unlikely to be developed if you live in a one parent family and your mother is on a low income with learning difficulties..

Do you think that the child of such a mother is less deserving of a good education because his mother has to send him to the local school.

State grammar schools have a ridiculously wealthy profile. If you have more selection you'll have more middle class kids getting an exclusive education and what's left for the working class kids will get even worse.

Do you not believe what I'm saying?

Here look at this,

'This study looks at the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) at the top 200 secondary state schools (6% of schools), and the levels of FSM eligibility in the postcode sectors in which the schools are sited. The study finds that the overall rate of FSM eligibility at the top schools is 3.0%, compared to a national secondary school average of 14.3%.'

[http://www.suttontrust.com/research/rates-of-eligibility-for-fsm-at-the-top-state-schools/]]

'Tutoring won't make a silk purse from a sow's ear necessarily, but it will give a boost and it is another form of money buying educational privilege.'

Tony Blair paid for tutors. That's life. Let's create more grammar schools so that teh competition is less intense. If parents want them why won't the government allow them?

'Your literacy skills are unlikely to be developed if you live in a one parent family and your mother is on a low income with learning difficulties.'

That's why we need much better schools. I don't believe that children on FSMs are any less able than middle class children. David Davis MP grew up on a London council estate brought up by a single mother. He went to grammar school and is probably cleverer than the son of Lord Snooty. It is opportunity and good education that counts.

''This study looks at the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) at the top 200 secondary state schools (6% of schools), and the levels of FSM eligibility in the postcode sectors in which the schools are sited. The study finds that the overall rate of FSM eligibility at the top schools is 3.0%, compared to a national secondary school average of 14.3%.'

Yes but this is probably to do with rich people moving into teh catchment area of teh best schools.

Claig, the point which I have made repeatedly and supported with copious amounts of evidence, is that any system of selection effectively excludes children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Now, how do you feel about that honestly? Because your posts suggest that you either don't follow what I'm saying or you don't care.

So, do you care that more there are some kids are losing out because of selection (whatver form that takes) and do you care that those kids will lose out even more if there is more selection?

'Let's create more grammar schools so that teh competition is less intense. If parents want them why won't the government allow them?'

What parents want them? Because grammar schools provide a 2 tier education system whereby some kids are told that they are second best at the age of 11?

How would you feel if that was your child?

In what way would that make competiton less intense?

'Tony Blair paid for tutors. That's life'

OK. So your position now seems a little different from earlier in the thread. Now you're basically saying if you've got money you can buy a better education for your kids however you choose to do it. And we should just accept 'that's life' and sod the kids who don't have rich mummies and daddies to pay for tutors?

Is that your position?