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.

'copious amounts of evidence, is that any system of selection effectively excludes children from disadvantaged backgrounds.'

But your copious evidence didn't mention Tory MP and leadership challenger David Davis MP who came froma disadvantaged background and doesn't include teh tens of thousands of other disadvantaged pupils who came through teh grammar school system, which created teh likes of Margaret Thatcher etc. That's why social mobility has declined and teh cabinet is now fuill of toffs - because grammar schools were scrapped and teh Thatchers now get less opportunities.

'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?'

No I believe that kids gain from selection and only teh toffs and Islintongistas lose out because tehy then face real competition from teh brighter Thatchers.

No one loses because teh other kids go to our excellent comprehensive schoools. The only people that lose are the toffs because they no longer have an easy run.

claig, you say that you want grammar schools and selection in order to promote social mobility and better academic chances for working class kids.

The data shows that selective school systems actually causes greater social inequity, the earlier the selection, the worse the outcomes.

"Across the OECD countries, mean student performance in reading literacy tends to be lower in countries with a high degree of institutional differentiation and selection at an early age, as compared to countries with integrated secondary school systems where selection has not taken place at the age of 15. Even more importantly, the share of the OECD average variation in student performance that lies between students and schools tends to be much higher in countries with early selection policies. While this, in itself, is not surprising because variation in school performance is an inevitable outcome of stratification, the findings also show that education systems with lower ages of selection tend to show much larger social disparities.
The reason why the age at which differentiation begins is closely associated with social selectivity may be explained by the fact that students are more dependent upon their parents and their parental resources when they are younger. In systems with a high degree of educational differentiation, parents from higher socio-economic backgrounds are in a better position to promote their children?s chances, whereas in a system in which such decisions are taken at a later age students themselves can play a bigger role.
In sum, PISA 2000 results show that students in integrated education systems perform, on average, better than those in selective education systems, and that their educational performance is less dependent on their background. Many factors may be at play here. A higher average performance suggests that the more heterogeneous student groups or classes in integrated education systems could have a beneficial effect for the lower-performing students. Also, the flexibility offered by an integrated system may allow students to improve their performance while keeping their academic options open."

This is the result of a study of many different school systems in various countries.
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/20/34668095.pdf (see page 89)

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

what's teh difference with setting, where some kids are in teh top set and some aren't. That's life. Some children are more academic than others and some are better at sport and some are better at music etc.

'The data shows that selective school systems actually causes greater social inequity, the earlier the selection, the worse the outcomes.'

Who commissioned this data? Was it the toffs?

Thatcher and Davis and Ken Clarke and John Major were all in teh top positions in government. Grammar schools were abolished. Now look at it, we now have Etonians.

''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.'

Staggering. Truly.

Here's the report again BTW

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

There's no point discussing this with you if you simply refuse to 'believe' evidence which challenges your view.

Do you also believe the world is flat?

"what's teh difference with setting, where some kids are in teh top set and some aren't."

Because the 2nd set is only in the class next door and it is relatively easy to move a child from one set to another if they are misplaced. Much harder to move a misplaced grammar/non grammar child.

'And we should just accept 'that's life' and sod the kids who don't have rich mummies and daddies to pay for tutors?'

I accept that's life that Tony Blair will be far richer than me and can afford tutors and is more privileged than me. So what?

Being privileged doesn't make you smarter. I don't say sod the other kids, I say give them teh chance to compete with teh privileged by creating great schools, some of them selective, where the Thatchers of tomorrow can go.

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

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

I thought earlier you were arguing that we should increase the opportunities for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. Maybe I imagined that because that's clearly not your position now. Now, let's be honest, you're saying you don't give a shit about them.

And I think I've said repeatedly that I'm very concerned about the quality of 'comprehensives' in areas where there are a large proporition of selective schools. Apart from aynthing else they're not comprehensive any more.

"Who commissioned this data? Was it the toffs?"

No. It is an international study led by the OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

There's no point discussing this with you if you simply refuse to 'believe' evidence which challenges your view.

I think lots of what you call "evidence-based" research is political. I must admit I have doubts about some of it.

'Being privileged doesn't make you smarter.'

It means you have on average a 9 month educational advantage on a child born into poverty at the age of 3 and this gap widens. It means you have all sorts of educational and life opportunities available to you that a disadvantaged child does not?

The fact that you were born with the same IQ as another more privileged child may not be a huge consolation to you if you are stuck in a sink comp failign to make the progresss and missing out on the opportuniteis of your more privileged peer.

Just a thought.

'I think lots of what you call "evidence-based" research is political. I must admit I have doubts about some of it.'

You have 'doubts' about it on the basis that it challenges your opinions. What you don't seem to have is any evidence that refutes it or any arguments that actually stand up in this discussion.

And what you don't seem to have is a huge amount of concern for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.

'I thought earlier you were arguing that we should increase the opportunities for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. Maybe I imagined that because that's clearly not your position now. Now, let's be honest, you're saying you don't give a shit about them.'

Are current comprehensives good schools or aren't they? If they are, then why is supporting thema sign of not giving a shit?

I think alongside our comprehensives we should create an additional layer of selective state schools to educate teh brightest children. I think this will improve social mobility.

I have 'doubts' about the number of calories in a packet of crisps when I'm about to eat them. Sadly, the evidence of those calories is in black and white on the packet as well as on my hips!

What are your doubts about the massive international PISA study, claig? Which governments are they buttering up and why?

'compete with teh privileged by creating great schools, some of them selective'

FGS. Selective schools select children who are already privileged. That is the point of selection.

Oh, what's the point??

'You have 'doubts' about it on the basis that it challenges your opinions.'

I had doubts about the final cost of the Millenium Dome. I didn't have any evidence, but my doubts turned out to be true.

'I have 'doubts' about the number of calories in a packet of crisps when I'm about to eat them. Sadly, the evidence of those calories is in black and white on the packet as well as on my hips!'

But unlike my doubts, your doubts were misplaced.

'Selective schools select children who are already privileged. That is the point of selection.'

I was selected for a grammar school and so was Margaret Thatcher and David Davis. We weren't privileged unless you mean we were academic.
Isn't that what education is all about.

OK, well, you're not really engaging in rational debate are you Claig? As I say, you might as well be arguing that the world is flat because you want it to be.

Night all.

What is PISA? Is that teh OECD one?

Disagreeing with you makes one irrational? Again, I have my doubts.
Night, fivecandles.

Yes, claig. PISA is the OECD one.

You know that the plural of anecdote isn't data and Margaret Thatcher going to a grammar school doesn't beat the evidence collected in a huge international study, don't you?

The entire governing body and all bar one of the teachers at WLFS are white.

It's not screaming diversity, is it?

Did teh PISA study look at the data about grammar schools and social mobility in Thatcher's time? Did they have access to data from those days or did they only consider the situation now when far fewer grammar schools exist?