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.

You've told me I'm ignorant and irrational for not agreeing with you and questioning how IQs are measured at birth, but now I'm deeply stupid as well. Will you start throwing some swear words in next?

'The danger in believeing that poor children are doomed to fail at the age of 3'

Once again, you have misinterpreted the date and misunderstood the argument. Nobody is saying that poor children are doomed to fail at the age of 3.

The EVIDENCE is that there is a significant disparity in 'school readiness' between children from different social backgrounds by the age of 3. This disparity then increases at school. The EVIDENCE is that children from deprived backgrounds are more likely to leave school with few or no qualifications.

No, it doesn't have to be this way. But this is the way it is at the moment. It doesn't mean there aren't exceptions either.

Holland Park has lots of social housing within striking distance, that will be why. Just as Pimlico does.

'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.'

On the whole I agreee with that, but that is due to social factors outside the sphere of education and the often failing schools they go to.

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

So it is not poverty alone that is the determining factor.

Free Schools can't raise overall standards unless the pupils are representative of the local population as a whole, and they collaborate with other local schools as much as possible, whilst being incredibly ambitious for all their pupils and those of the surrounding neighbourhood. The charity Villiers Park works on this basis, has done since the 1930s, and achieves great things for G & T pupils. Now we need work like this for the rest.

In fact Ofsted agrees with me that high expectations is a key factor in the success of deprived children

'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.'

Research that shows that poor children are behind by 9 months at the age of 3 and that the gap is doomed to increase at GCSE level may create low expectation.

'Once young people are more able to travel independently some distance, at 16,'

Eh? I guess you've not heard about the scrapping of EMA.

Only today they were saying that there's been a 14% drop in the number of level 1 students going on to FE post 16 since the scrapping of EMA.

Plus actually there's lots of evidence that says kids do better at large sixth form colleges (even though they get less money per student) than small colleges and school 6th forms. Sixth form colleges are indepednent to a certain extent already anyway aren't they? They manage their own finances. SInce incorporation. Not sure how they work exactly.

I know BoffinMum. But if there was a corresponding wealth index, I think Holland Park would probably be on that as well. It is probably more socially diverse than the overwhelming majority of schools.

Boffin, the vast majority of the free schools are faith schools, primarily Christian with 1 Seikh and 1 Jewish. There is therefore a very clear and in my view troubling agenda that comes with them. YOu are right that there are a minority of free schools that are ex independent or, like TY's, that emulate independnet schools and these are clearly trying to attract a particular sort of indepedent school would-be parent. Either way these are not schools who are going to be taking in large amounts of disadvantaged kids.

Well you see, on Planet Boff nobody would have to pay any fares at all to school or to college. Scrapping of EMA was really alarming and short-termist. Meanwhile my (wealthy) parents get free bus passes, free TV licences and £75 a week each which just about buys a tank of fuel for the Merc. We have our priorities so very wrong.

'I don't believe in this deterministic, fatalistic view of children's development'

I don't think you understand the way these stats work.

It is not about determinism. It's about looking for patterns and seeing what you can do about them. Just as you would do in health. It is important that the performance of children and schools is measurable and benchmarkable. It is important that you know where and how to spend your money.

It is important to look at patterns between social class and academic performance and patterns of intake and FSM and results in different sorts of schools.

"So it is not poverty alone that is the determining factor."

No, quite evidently the astonishing work ethic of the Chinese has something to do with their success at school.

China is also top of the PISA international league tables, by the way.

'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.'

Not often actually. Chinese students are exceptional. It is interesting to look at. Chinese people tend to have different attitudes towards education.

'the best way to help them is to give them access to teh best schooling '

This is absolutely what I believe. The best way to give them access to the best schooling is by making sure that every school is a good school.

If you leave it to the invisible hand of the market you get a very polarised, expensive, random sort of system (think US healthcare, for example) , so churning the stats is a nifty way of distributing resources to best effect while keeping an eye on outcomes.

Yes, but I am questioning the part from birth until the age of 3. I am not convinced that the measures are as meaningful as you suggest.

And by integration and inclusion rather than division and elitism.

'But some schools are failing and are in special measures '

These are almost always in areas of social deprivation. And they have been abandoned by middle class parents because of league tables and the 'choice' agenda.

'Not often actually. Chinese students are exceptional. It is interesting to look at. Chinese people tend to have different attitudes towards education.'

Yes they tend to have higher IQs, but I don't think that that is what makes teh difference. I think it is parents who promote a good work ethic. I believe most kids could get similar results with teh same type of ethic and good teaching.

'If all schools were equally good, then we wouldn't need selection.'

Or if we didn't have selection schools would be more or less equally good.

'These are almost always in areas of social deprivation. And they have been abandoned by middle class parents because of league tables and the 'choice' agenda.'

Yes I agree with that. But I don't blame teh middle class parents, why should they stick around in failing schools? They need choice to escape what has been imposed on them.

'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.'

There is no evidence at all for this. I argued earlier that if all the kids in an independent school (already selected) swapped buildings and teachers with the neighbouring sink comp (non selected) the students would get almost exactly the same grades as they would have if they'd stayed put.

'Or if we didn't have selection schools would be more or less equally good.'

No, this is our fundamental area of disagreement.
Ofsted would still list lots of failing schools.

The question is what is a failing school?

'There is no evidence at all for this. I argued earlier that if all the kids in an independent school (already selected) swapped buildings and teachers with the neighbouring sink comp (non selected) the students would get almost exactly the same grades as they would have if they'd stayed put.'

So you think teh pupils teach themsleves? That there is no difference between teachers? That there is no such thing as a failing teacher?

'Don't private schools still have to do scholarships for economically disadvantaged kids?'

Ah, but you have to know about them and apply for them or rather your parents do. Think about all of the barriers in the way of this for a disadvantaged kid.