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.

Ok, well she said born with the same IQ.

"you would probably measure it at 3 and 6"
I still think these type of measurements at 3 and 6 months are not valid. Children develop at different stages. Einstein is a prime example.

Here is the report,

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

Kathy Sylva's work on early years education is very interesting if you are interested in how policy comes to pass. She was one of the people instrumental in introducing wider provision for state funded nursery education for 2 and 3 years olds, and her research successfully identifies links between poverty and poor attainment levels at these ages, tracking it through children's later school careers and employment.

Claig, there is no point just being irritated with 'experts' if you are only taking soundbytes and contesting them. To understand the basis for their claims, you really need to engage with the work they have published as well, and think it through. Now I heard Kathy Silva speak recently, and I have to say I took exception to one or two of her assumptions in her data gathering, and told her so at the time, but overall her work is sound when you burrow down, in my opinion. I would be interested in hearing what you think of her published work as well, and where you think potential fault lines might be.

3 and 6 years!!

'These children may be from households that were very educated in their home country.'

They may be, but they may also not be. I don't believe that a poor child from an uneducated home is any less clever than a middle class child. I think it's all about brain matter, not poverty. So if that poor child is given access to great teachers, then that child will soak it up and learn. That's why teh government created teh 1-to-1 teaching scheme for children who were struggling. It created improvement. It's about the quality of education they receive, not their relative poverty.

Claig, that's why measuring one or two children is pointless in scientific terms, if you are seeking to understand the population effect of various things. You will find growth charts in the back of children's red health books are based on cohorts of thousands, and the same happens with studies into cognitive development.

Claig, population data on IQ would agree with you to a large extent. However the effects of poor maternal health in pregnancy, household overcrowding, poor school attendance, poor nutrition, domestic violence, unsettled and disorganised households and so on cannot be influenced by teachers very much, however good they are. Teachers can only help the children if they are in school and ready to learn. Breakfast clubs and parent supporters are sometimes in place to help, but schools are limited in what they can and should be doing outside school hours.

Interesting, the University of East Anglia has started the country's first social pedagogy course aimed at ameliorating the social welfare problems that teachers can't reach, and I hope this initiative becomes more widespread across the UK. Properly integrated care and support of children cannot fail to help them achieve higher academic standards and be happier, so I am hopeful.

I had a very quick look at eth Child Poverty report. If I am not getting it wrong, it measured the use of words etc at the age of 3 and could then determine which children had fallen behind.

But some of these families may not have had English as their first language.
I can accept that some poorer children may have a smaller vocabulary because they may have received less time and attention, so their attainment at teh age of 3 may be lower. But this says nothing about their intelligence and can be rectified by great schools. Einstein had trouble with speech until he was 9 years old. Children develop at different stages. It is good schools and teachers that make teh difference and being poor does not make you less able than Tim Dim But Nice.

'Claig, population data on IQ would agree with you to a large extent. However the effects of poor maternal health in pregnancy, household overcrowding, poor school attendance, poor nutrition, domestic violence, unsettled and disorganised households and so on cannot be influenced by teachers very much, however good they are. Teachers can only help the children if they are in school and ready to learn. Breakfast clubs and parent supporters are sometimes in place to help, but schools are limited in what they can and should be doing outside school hours.'

I agree with all of that. But that is really about social policy, not education.

One thing that I think we never speak about on such threads, and in research, is teachers' perceptions of children and how this affects educational outcomes.

In the independent sector, the 'ideal type' of pupil would be someone who is in the sports teams, plays the clarinet nicely, and gets lots of As at GCSE whilst doing gold Duke of Edinburgh and a load of sponsored walks for charity. You know the sort of thing. Teachers push children towards the top, as this is where the 'ideal pupil' is situated on their mental maps.

In the maintained sector, the 'ideal type' of pupil is someone who gets a minimum of 5 A-Cs at GCSE (or gets through KS2 SATS with a level 4) and doesn't cause too much trouble, turns up and responds politely in class discussions. Teachers sometimes, perhaps more often than sometimes, inadvertently push children towards the middle, as this is where the 'ideal type' of pupils sits on their mental maps, and even get a bit shirty with parents who demand more, calling them 'pushy' behind their backs. This is not just because maintained school teachers are unprofessional, this is because the reality of their jobs in the maintained sector can be quite alarming, and they get compassion fatigue from being asked to solve all the ills of society in 40 minutes a week per class (note how many Teacher First trainees drop out after two years, as they realise their social mission is not up to carrying on in challenging schools).

This is why social pedagogy is a good idea for the UK. If the bottom 10% of pupils could be supported better outside the school environment, then teachers would be able to draw breath and get back to something approaching the first kind of ideal pupil, hopefully whilst making the system more socially inclusive. But schools can only reflect the society around them, so that has to become more socially inclusive as well, if the system is to be fit for the 21st century.

When you see the eagerness which the poor street children in India have for education that great teachers voluntarily offer them, you know that these children are every bit as bright as privileged children with all their Ipads etc. These kids may come from disadvantaged families but they have exactly teh same capabilities as their more privileged peers.

Giving them access to top quality teachers and lighting the spark is what will make all teh difference.

But of course, we also need to improve social policy, try to eliminate poverty, and get rid of tuition fees that hold poor people back.

'One thing that I think we never speak about on such threads, and in research, is teachers' perceptions of children and how this affects educational outcomes.'

Yes perceptions are crucial because they are very closely aligned with expectations. If teachers have low expectations of their pupils then they will create a self-fulfilling prophecy and their pupils will have low attainment.

This is also closely linked to competition and surpassing expectations.

The danger in believeing that poor children are doomed to fail at the age of 3 or doomed to be behind, is that it may create a perception that these children can't catch up and are doomed to do less well than middle class children. This may lead to a defeatist attitude of low expectations and create a self-fulfilling prophecy that should never have occurred.

Despite my pro private school bias I was surprised by the Boffin M comment. I woudl have assumed teachers in state schools too (plenty of which get children to RG universities) also were working 5to ensure pupils got their grade 6 - 8 music exams, were in the sports teams, did Duke of E, had interesting hobbies and broad general knowledge and their As in GCSEs and A levels.

I don't think private schools for children who aren't very bright seek those things any the less (except for high exam results if the child has the average 100 IQ I suppose) and nor need state schools.

Family background makes a big difference. the Ugandan Asians have done so well in the UK. the local Indians and Pakistanis and of course teh Chinese work tremendously hard in school. The impoverished Somalis who were farmers back home don't have the same ethos (and nor do the poor low IQ whites in many places).

The more variety of schools the better so that parents can make an informed choice but if the schools want state funding then I am not sure they shoudl be allowed to peddle lies whether that is that women are not fit to rule or that dinosaurs never existed or that if women drive cars the world will come crashing down.

Boffin Mum, interesting remarks. We keep being told about the Govt expectation for children and if our children meet that target all is apparently fine. I expect and hope for far more from mine, that's the thing. Many are academically capable of far more I believe, this should be a minimum expectation.

If I tell the school I hope my children will do far better than the Govt expectation they privately roll their eyes I think. You see, they've already largely decided who are the small batch of high achievers. They are the G&T children with superior ability identified in reception. It's neater that way somehow.

BTW they will never bring back grammars because they're a massive election loser for the Tories (cf 1964 election I think). There were so many disgruntled conservative voters whose children had not got into them that the Tories knew they'd have to do something about it. The same would happen today if they brought them back unless they could guarantee that every child of a conservative voter would get a place which would kind of defeat the object.

Good point, PollyParanoia. So they won't do the right thing because they want to win votes. That's unusual for them. They are usually more principled than that.

Frabnkly, I would expect that sort of behaviour from an Islintongista. It's disappointing to see it from the Tories.

Maybe Clegg would do the right thing and stand by principle.

That's what I was alluding to, Cortina.

Xenia, in schools that take in very mixed groups of pupils, those who have the means to study instruments privately and take Associated Board exams are seen as not needing as many resources as those who, for example, are sent to school unwashed, not having had breakfast, and who kick off mid-morning because their mother's latest cohabitee cuffed them round the ear and chucked them out the house with their younger siblings. This is everyday life for all too many pupils. It breaks your heart to see it, really, and is frustrating in equal measure. I can't begin to express how tiring and upsetting it can be as an inner city comprehensive school teacher, going home each night knowing that there is only so much you can do to change this, no matter how conscientious or vocationally gifted you are. I used to go into school, wonder why Year 8 was unsettled, and then be told someone's brother had been shot the night before, for example. This is dreadful stuff. What the hell do you tell kids who are experiencing that at home? Seriously? My answer was to go into research, and train the next generation of educationalists to be uncompromising in their pursuit of academic excellence, as I felt changing the world one classroom at a time was going to take too long. I also have dealings with leading philanthropists who buy into this as well, fortunately.

The really canny state schools, the ones that do as well as independent schools, take all comers and push them until they have achieved a decent level of education. They simply do not give up on the kids at all, ever. There is no room at all for children to slip through the net. Schools and teachers are on their case the whole time. They are incredibly thorough in everything they do.

However in today's very large, noisy and comparatively impersonal comprehensive schools, even if you have good teachers, nice buildings and good intentions, it is all too easy to overlook certain individuals, because teachers are trying to juggle too many conflicting imperatives. It is why initiatives like social pedagogy and extended schools are quite a clever way of addressing all this.

I would urge anyone out there who is concerned in any way about the academic and social achievement of British pupils to get involved in any way they can to promote, fund and develop the extended schools initiative, as this has to be the only realistic way of tackling problems at source in the current climate. A particularly good way of volunteering to mentor kids with aspirations and take a medium to long-term interest in them. If the first school you contact is too frazzled to accept your offer, be persistent and try others, as it is important work, and to the benefit of all.

Re: Grammar schools. They are not really necessary any longer, but there would be a case for adopting some of the characteristics of grammar schools instead, for example a calm and comparatively formal working environment, formal dress codes, regular structured, monitored homework, thorough formative assessment with internal moderation, formal examinations (good for intellectual stamina and personal resilience), extensive physical education programmes and character building programmes such as the D of E for all, special support for the top and bottom 10%.

Re: Choice. Only people in larger towns and cities have choice, and the catchment area problem is always there anyway, so I think we need to move away from that and towards rigour. Once young people are more able to travel independently some distance, at 16, then choice can really come into play. I wonder if there is a case for semi-privatising all post-16 education and seeing whether the independent sector could shift over to supporting that rather than 11-16. But before anyone flames me I haven't quite thought through what this would mean as a policy in every respect, it's just an idea at the moment.

Is that close to what free schools are supposed to be?

Well, Free Schools are meant to add to the supply of places rather than be formed out of existing institutions, and they are meant to add to the diversity of state school provision (eg Montessori, Steiner, extended schooling on tap, etc). So they are not all like grammar schools.

Based on my other posts, I am not sure Free Schools will do anything to improve overall standards - I imagine a large number of pupils will just be shifted from independent provision into the maintained sector. Interestingly in 1975 we had a shift the other way, as direct grant (Government funded) grammar schools refused to go comprehensive and instead converted to independent status. They same types of pupil attended them both before and after the shift from state to private.

In terms of more extensive change, I think I am seeing more of a revolution in post 16 education and training with more ebb and flow between state and private sectors than there is at present. I think a lot of the damage comes from one side making assumptions about the other side and not having the facts to hand. The more mixing of teachers and pupils you get, the higher the educational standards overall. However it takes time to get there and this is where previous Governments have probably not been brave enough.

PS I am very approving of the Haberdashers Company as they have a number of linked fee paying and non-fee paying schools, and I think this is an example of best practice in both sectors. I am something of a Federation fan for that reason.

Boffinmum and Fivecandles, I've found your posts on this thread really interesting. Many thanks.

Out of interest, how many people making comments here are or have been school governors?