Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Will free schools drive up standards? Read Toby Young's guest post and join the conversation

705 replies

ElenMumsnetBloggers · 01/12/2011 10:46

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.

OP posts:
TalkinPeace2 · 05/12/2011 14:17

I was for 6 years and am waiting for the next slot to come up early next term
I was also classroom helper for 4 years
and helped with the PTA for 6 years

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 14:19

Cheers, Hester. It is officially work for me in a sense, as I can put it down as outreach/engagement Wink

Cortina · 05/12/2011 14:32

BoffinMum assigning mentors would be a great idea. Strangely enough I am thinking of friends who have sponsors in AA and similar and how supportive & vital these have been over the years. These sponsors have helped people find and hold down good jobs and relationships etc and helped mend and sustain lives.

I'd love to help a child all I could in the sense you describe, especially after my own children had left home. Offer help with work, a safe place to come and study etc. Share my knowledge and particular experience...

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 14:35

That's great. Prepare yourself to knock on a few doors first, as many schools are preoccupied with the here and now, but as I said it's worth being persistent.

Xenia · 05/12/2011 15:24

BM, I remember that, parents at school wearing badges saying "save our direct grant schools". I think my brother's school went private having been a direct grant school.

fivecandles · 05/12/2011 18:13

'what utter rubbish. How are they measuring their "educational achievement".'

Claig, have you actually bothered to read the report?

It's relatively easy to measure educational readiness. A huge amount of it has to do with literacy and there's a huge difference between vocabularies. This would be easily explained if for example you have an educated family talking to their babies and singing from birth compared to a family who don't have good literacy skills themselves. Without basic literacy you cannot access the curriculum at all and you start school at a disadvantage. THose kids with a good vocab and good literacy skills start with an advantage. Both the disadvantages and advantages are compounded as the teacher praises the kids who are 'school ready' while the kids who are not soon switch off.

This is why the gap continues to grow.

PLease read the report before you dismiss it.

It make you sound really quite ignorant to dismiss the findings of researchers and evidence when so clearly haven't bothered to read it and so obviously don't understand it.

Here's another report which you might find easier to understand

'Research from the Sutton Trust*, which draws on work conducted by the Millennium Cohort Study, shows that, by the age of five, children from low-income families are significantly less advanced in their educational development.

In particular, the vocabulary of five year old children growing up in the poorest fifth of families is already almost one year (11.1 months) behind that of children from middle income families and more than 16 months behind those from the most affluent families.'

www.shinetrust.org.uk/site/pages/43_news.php?pg=352

fivecandles · 05/12/2011 18:20

'I don't believe that a poor child from an uneducated home is any less clever than a middle class child.'

I think you are being wilfully obtuse. They may not be born less clever but a succession of factors from birth mean they are less likely to progress academically and much less likely to get good qualifcations. One of these factors is that they're less likely to get into good schools. LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE WAY LEAGUE TABLES AND COVERT AND OVERT SELECTION DISADVANTAGE THEM.

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

fivecandles · 05/12/2011 18:23

'It's like measuring their height at birth and then saying they are behind at 3 years,'

We DO measure height at birth and it is plotted on those centile graphs. You can work out with some accuracy the height your child will end up as as an adult from their height at age 3 for example.

Have you heard about the sort of assesmment for entrance used by private schools e.g. at age 3?

Durham university PIPS are used in many schools and again, they plot fairly accurately the sort of GCSE grade profile will have at age 16.

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 18:48

It is very sad when you realise that actually, despite everything that has been done since the 1944 and 1988 Education acts, so many children's talents are stifled for the same reasons that their talents were stifled in the 1930s. It's even sadder when you know they have good teachers standing in front of them (because most teachers are absolutely fine, believe me), patiently trying to deliver a quality education, and only 10% of it is falling on fertile ground, so to speak, because the social problems are so monumental for some families. I think many teachers (who are predominantly from pro-school, white middle class homes - let's face it) go through moments of utter despair, wondering why parents don't just get their acts together and sort their lives out, for the sake of their children if nothing else. But it's so much more complex than that.

However social deprivation need not be an excuse for poor standards. Making children want to come into school and want to engage, and being on their case about homework and layout of work in their books and so on does help raise standards, as does reducing hustle and bustle in classrooms where they are supposed to be doing read/write activities or having a class debate with one person supposed to speak at a time. I used to get fantastic GCSE results for my pupils, simply because I used to leap about like a lunatic in lessons, making my teaching quite theatrical, whilst interrogating them constantly about what they did and didn't understand. If I set work, I always marked it laboriously and made them go through the corrections with me. I organised out of school things and personally drove them there and back. I was a class tutor as well. However I remember being utterly exhausted, and frankly I don't think I could have kept that up for decades at a time. It needs more than enthusiasm to sort out the nation's woes. Wink

claig · 05/12/2011 18:49

'One of these factors is that they're less likely to get into good schools. LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE WAY LEAGUE TABLES AND COVERT AND OVERT SELECTION DISADVANTAGE THEM.'

Yes, I agree with that.

'Have you heard about the sort of assesmment for entrance used by private schools e.g. at age 3?'

Yes I have heard about it, but I don't believe that the children they reject do any worse than the ones they take. I don't believe in this deterministic, fatalistic view of children's development, just as I don't believe that you can spot a future criminal from the age of 3, which you also sometimes hear.

claig · 05/12/2011 18:51

How do they mark a quiet child who doesn't respond to their tests and doesn't play along with the tests?

claig · 05/12/2011 18:56

And what about the children who don't have English as their first language or whose parents don't speak good English?

claig · 05/12/2011 19:09

Why do poor children with English as a second language often do better than poor children whose mother tongue is English? They're all poor, but some do better than others. It's to do with hard work and effort. They are all equally capable.

Research that brands poor children as falling behind at teh age of 3 and then predicts GCSE underperformance may possibly be counterproductive and lead to low expectations and failure. If you tell poor parents that their children are behind by 9 months at the age of 3 and that the gap will only widen, what hope is there? Personally, I don't believe it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380964/The-poor-white-pupils-foot-exam-table-worse-school-worse-speak-English-second-language.html

claig · 05/12/2011 19:11

'Researchers also found that the most deprived Chinese British pupils are out-performing the wealthiest white British children by the age of 16.'

claig · 05/12/2011 19:24

'Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said that ?improving social mobility? is a key goal for the Coalition. Last November a study found that pupils from ethnic minorities match or outshine white British children in exams at the age of 16 despite falling behind at five.'

Nothing is set in stone at the age of 3. Of course social problems and social deprivation can affect children's results. Short of solving those social problems, the best way to help them is to give them access to teh best schooling because tehy are equally as bright as their more privileged peers.

That;s why these educational philanthropists are great because they give poor children the chance to go to the best schools, which is what makes teh real difference

'Commenting on the results, educational philanthropist Sir Peter Lampl said: ?If the Coalition is really serious about raising social mobility, it will need to find a way to crack the problems of the English, white working class.? Sir Peter, who ran a seven-year project to open up Liverpool?s best performing academy to the poorest children, said low attainment by the least wealthy pupils was ?a huge problem in the northern working-class cities?.

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 19:34

Claig, that's why I don't see the point in selection, really. I think efforts are better concentrated on what you actually do with kids in school (and out of school) rather than screening individuals in or out. We seeim to be obsessed with that in the UK, along with fussing about elite universities as a means to an end, and seeing apprenticeships as some sort of consolation prize for kids who didn't manage to study criminology or European studies or creative writing or whatever for three years. I think the Bedales philosophy of 'head, hands and heart' should be a given for any education system and if kids are leaving with one of this triad inadequately addressed, then we need to do more.

claig · 05/12/2011 19:47

If all schools were equally good, then we wouldn't need selection. But some schools are failing and are in special measures etc. We read about these kids who pass maths A level at teh age of 8 or 9. They need to be identified and allowed to go into top schools, because a special measures school is not sufficient for their abilities.

But teh most important thing is to study what makes a good school good, what differentiates it from teh failing school and then try and replicate best practice across teh country.

If you took all the children from teh top school and put them in teh special measures school, their attainment levels would fall. So there is a difference between schools. That needs to be addressed.

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 19:49

I would add that if a pupil can read and comprehend formal and informal texts fluently and easily, complete forms accurately, file documents sensibly and reliably, compose a business letter properly, type speedily and accurately, write straightforward reports, do basic everyday arithmetic, trigonometry and algebra with confidence and accuracy, understand basic scientific principles such as proof, controls and risk, and conduct a simple conversation in another language, then this will equip them well for a lifetime of employment with only short periods out of work.

If he/she has a practical skill, which could be anything from DIY, computer coding, decorating and curtain making to playing piano, gardening and woodwork, then he/she can either choose that as a career, or use it as a basis for earning extra money whilst following an office-based career, or whilst between jobs. Similarly pupils need to learn to cook and sew, manage their finances and deal with their health, etc.

If he/she also has a sense of being valued, of being part of something worthwhile, of belonging to society in a wider sense and mattering to that society, then he/she is more likely to be happy whilst doing the rest.

Where we fall down is making kids draw pictures of things they could make instead of actually making them; making kids think it doesn't matter if they can't do their times tables or spell or complete work neatly if nobody comments on it at the time; making kids think nobody cares what they are up to in the bigger scheme of things because it is all a matter for them individually, and so on. Nobody means to do this but it still happens, and it is not always confined to the state sector by any means. (You only have to stand there in Freshers Week and see inept Cambridge undergraduates struggling to cope with loading a washing machine, or getting a cold, or managing their money, to realise that even the brightest in academic terms are not well served by our current education system).

noblegiraffe · 05/12/2011 19:49

Don't private schools still have to do scholarships for economically disadvantaged kids? Surely the A-level maths genius would qualify for one of those.

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 19:53

Claig, this is true but if you look, many of the schools in special measures have transient pupil populations and/or are in areas of extreme poverty and/or have incredibly high staff turnover. They have complex problems requiring complex solutions. That's why federations are such a good idea - it means good schools can work with them to bring them up to the same standards quickly and comparatively easily without everyone standing around breast beating about how hard the kids have it, etc.

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 19:54

WRT to 'geniuses', in all cases you will find they have been coached intensively. Coach most kids in this way and they will make exponential progress. But it is not a formula for creating functional adults, in the main.

BoffinMum · 05/12/2011 19:57

Realistically there aren't enough scholarships out there to do any good at all, and independent schools might be better served by twinning with a local state school and working to help wider society that way.

claig · 05/12/2011 19:57

Yes, agree it was very complicated or someone would have solved it all by now. And yes this idea of federations sounds very good.

'Don't private schools still have to do scholarships for economically disadvantaged kids? Surely the A-level maths genius would qualify for one of those.'

Let's hope so, but there are tens of thousands of other pupils that could also benefit and there aren't enough bursaries to go round.

noblegiraffe · 05/12/2011 19:58

Boffin, from your post it looks like you think the education system should be responsible for teaching kids everything from buying Lemsip to making curtains. You will surely know that there is precious little curriculum time as it is for teaching trigonometry (B grade GCSE topic by the way, and therefore beyond a lot of school-leavers) without having to do everything else.

claig · 05/12/2011 20:00

Yes, twinning sounds very good.

Just out of interest, why don't our top schools expand and become similar to universities that take in thousands of students in different forms etc? Why are they limited to 100 or so pupils?