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.

'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.'

That's what I believe but we don't have the resources to do it.

"why don't our top schools expand"

No, no, no, no horrible idea! The larger the school the more anonymous the student. It is important that teachers and students know each other to get a sense of community, and also to ensure that students don't fly under the radar.

100 pupils per year intake

Yes but couldn't there just be loads more teachers. Why do they need to know all of the teachers?

A lot of it is to do with catchment and travelling distance etc unlike for universities

My school has over 200 per year group and it's not a huge school. A big school with loads of students and loads of teachers would be horribly impersonal. And it is so much easier to deal with incidents of poor behaviour in the corridor etc if the chances are you know at least one of the kids.

We have elite universities which not everyone can go to, why can't we also have elite state schools which compete with our private schools?

'And it is so much easier to deal with incidents of poor behaviour in the corridor etc if the chances are you know at least one of the kids.'

Good point.

Are schools the same size in the States or do they have huge intakes?

LOL noblegiraffe . I see what you mean but I think that's where extended schools come in, to do the complementary stuff out of hours. It also represents a shift in philosophy as much as anything else, away from certification for every and credentialism towards something deeper. However the curriculum is always a highly contested issue, always has been and always will be. I certainly don't have all the answers.

WRT elite state schools, we already have these, but while a bit of competition is probably good, I think pulling comparatively young children away from their homes, families, siblings and early friendship groups for the sake of corralling them in specific academic institutions comes at a terrible price, and it doesn't necessarily do what you want in terms of capitalising on intellectual ability across all the social classes and ethnic groups in the UK.

WRT elite universities, one problem is that we only have two of them in England, whereas our population would suggest we need about eight compared to other EU countries. The Russell Group does its best to push itself forward as comprising all the quasi-elite universities, but this is not a comprehensive list, for example Durham is entirely absent and belongs to the what's known as the 1994 group instead. In this country, interestingly enough, the older the institution, the greater the respect for its degrees, in the main, whereas in other countries the link between age of foundation and perceived standards is less apparent.

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.

Would you be able to give some actual examples of these schools, Boffinmum? Because, as far as I can see, school attainment does seem to reflect the nature of most schools' catchments.

One example might be that school I think in Hackney which got a lot of children into Oxbridge last year. I can't remember its name. There are very few such schools.

Also if you want an elite university then it can't take everyone otherwise it is no longer elite. These places are good because of how many they don't let in just like employers. Probably most of us on this thread could get a job as a cleaner but most of us couldn't as a surgeon. Hence surgeons are paid more.

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?

To some extent they do. Well the more popular ones anyway. And the less popular close. In both London and Brighton, there are probably about half the number of secondary schools that there were when I was a teenager.

CecilyP, that's interesting. I think it probably makes sense, a bit like economies of scale in industry.

Not always. I have been trying to get some data out of the Families of Schools document but it is taking forever to download on my machine (may be my broadband) but dig around in there and it will tell you some interesting things.

Mossbourne Academy in Hackney?

Interesting article here on outstanding schools in deprived areas

Most surgeons don't train at elite universities, training is organised by the Deaneries and the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board. In fact the medical deanery model is a really interesting one for education - linking together different agencies and organisations, including schools, with the aim of being as effective as possible.

It's interesting that high expectation is the key factor

'In the report, Ofsted identifies "high levels of expectation" for pupils - regardless of what they have achieved in the past - is a critical factor in a successful school serving a poor community. Such schools are determined to deliver good teaching for every child, Ofsted say.'

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

You cannot separate the two.

Children are products of society. As are schools.

It is even more difficult to separate the two when the education system so clearly exacerbates social divisions. In many countries there is a legal separation between church and education, whereas in this country churches can run schools.

This country is indeed replete with divisions of one kind or another. Social fragmentation is practically a national sport

'But some of these families may not have had English as their first language.'

I imagine that researchers would factor that in don't you?

'Children develop at different stages.'

Well, yes but that doesn't alter the FACT that children from deprived backgrounds make less progress than children who aren't.

'It is good schools and teachers that make teh difference and being poor does not make you less able than Tim Dim But Nice.'

FGS. Good schools and teachers do make an enormous difference but once again, kids from deprived backgroudns are less likely to get in to good schools. And with all the expertise and will in the world a good teacher cannot compensate for poor parents.

Thanks BoffinMum. Pleased to see Hurlingham and Chelsea on the list and hope more local families will choose it. However, I am astonished to see Holland Park listed; it would be difficult to find a wealthier area - with the possible exception of Mayfair.

It is also deeply stupid to argue that the fact that Prince Harry who is thick attended highly competitive schools is somehow a sign that competitive schools (state or private) are really quite accessible for bright, working class children and actually not that competitive. Does it have to be pointed out to you that Prince Harry got into top schools because he is Prince Harry? If you have money and power you can access the best education on a continuum of the amount of money and power you have. And if you have as much money and power as Prince Harry you don't need an education anyway. It's the kids absolutely without money and power who most need the best education.

'Good schools and teachers do make an enormous difference but once again, kids from deprived backgroudns are less likely to get in to good schools.'

Well finally we agree on something. I am hoping that creating new models such as free schools might make things better.

'you know that these children are every bit as bright as privileged children '

That is not the argument. The argument is that kids from deprived backgrounds for a whole bunch of reasons fail to make the same academic progress as kids from more privileged backgrounds.