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 want better schools in the existing model and want to solve lots of social problems at the same time, while restricting parents' freedom to send their kids to faith schools etc.'

I don't want the existing model. I want a genuinely comprehensive system. Which was so successful in Scandinavia where they have significantly more social mobility than we do.

It is not restricting parents choices if every school is a good school and no school excludes on the basis of ability or ability to pay or faith.

You have agreed already that in any system of choice only some people will actually be able to take advantage of those choices thus increasing social division. Allowing a few more kids to get through the barrier into the exlusive schools might make things easier for them but it does nothing for those left behind and nothing for society as a whole.

You ignore and neglect the most disadvantaged kids at your peril. You only have to look at the recent riots to see htat

'So, you don't think the fact that most independnet schools have highly competitive selection process involving exams and interviews have anything to do with it?'

Yes that is a factor, and I would like more of it in teh state sector too. But I believe teh most important factor is the teachers. Schools are just buildings. It is people who make the difference from teh headteacher downwards. Pupils are there to learn and it is the input that counts and that is supplied by teh teachers.

'Don't you think that some teachers are better than others, can explain things better, can enthuse and inspire children better?'

Of course there are. But it's ridiculous to assume all the best ones are in independnet schools and all the worst are in state schools. I've seen and work with some fantastic, truly gifted teachers in both sectors and seen some shocking examples in both too (but far, far worse in the indepednent sector).

I'm not talking about every private school in the country. I'm talking about the top schools. I think they have top teachers, just as I think that the top universities attract the top lecturers on teh whole.

'I think everyone would be a winner. I don't think it would hurt their self esteem.'

Oh come on! How would you feel if one of your own kids didn't pass the exam? Have you not listened to any of hte heart-rending tales of people who failed the 11+?

What would you class as a 'top school', claig?

'You have agreed already that in any system of choice only some people will actually be able to take advantage of those choices thus increasing social division'

I'm interested in education and maximising every child's potential. Social division and social mobility is a separate problem. I don't want to prevent the social mobility that was fostered by grammar schools.

'I believe that some don't maximise their potential there and they would in a selective school.'

What's your evidence for this? And even if you were right at what cost to the academic standards and aspirations of the schools and students left behind???

You cannot divide children in this way and think this makes sense for society.

So, in your world how many kids would get the privileged education?? What percentage? And on what basis? Selection by exam?

Grammar schools educated about 30% of children fyi.

'What would you class as a 'top school', claig?'

The schools at teh top of teh league tables.

'Oh come on! How would you feel if one of your own kids didn't pass the exam? Have you not listened to any of hte heart-rending tales of people who failed the 11+?'

Of course it is a great disappointment. But children get over it. It's not teh end of teh world.

'What's your evidence for this? And even if you were right at what cost to the academic standards and aspirations of the schools and students left behind???'

I haven't got an evidence-based report on it. I don't thgink there would be any cost to the other children, because they would be in teh same school they are in now, taught by teh same teachers

So, basically you're arguing for a return to grammar schools notwithstanding the fact that they would exlude the majority of our kids and only a very tiny minority of kids from disadvantaged kids would get in?

By the way I do think the idea that the most important factor in private schools results is the teachers (rather than the selection) is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on here.

'You cannot divide children in this way and think this makes sense for society.

So, in your world how many kids would get the privileged education?? What percentage? And on what basis? Selection by exam?'

I think it does make sense as it maximises everyone's potential.
As many as possible would get it. New schools and new models would be formed and teh competition would create improvement which would affect all schools. Yes academic selection.

Which league tables, claig? Local ones? Based on results or value added?

My school is the top state school in the area based on results.

We have a nice leafy suburban intake. If little Johnny looks like he might be struggling to get his GCSEs, the parents hire a tutor.

I really don't think that the teachers at my school can take all the credit. Although to be fair we work hard etc etc.

at the thought the best lecturers being in the best universities. Ah, if only ... I think you mean the best researchers, and even then it depends on what subject you are talking about ...

claig, have you got much recent experience of schools private and state and teachers? Where did your own kids go to school? Sorry if you've already menioned this earlier in the thread. Just that it doesn't sound like you do.

Yes I am arguing for selective state schools (grammar schools) but lots of them.

Yes, I believe it is teachers that make the difference not the pupils.

My DS has just started grammar school

'it maximises everyone's potential'

Have you heard anything that anyone's actually said on here?

'If little Johnny looks like he might be struggling to get his GCSEs, the parents hire a tutor.'

Yes I agree lots of people hire tutors as well

This is bound to be more evidence that you ignore or dismiss but here goes:

'The argument that, in the past, selective education provided poor children with a ladder of opportunity compared with comprehensives today is equally dubious. The percentage of the population deemed working class by the Registrar General 50 years ago - 75 per cent - was three times that of today. So to accurately compare the academic achievement of working-class children today with those in the 1950s, the performance of the poorest third from then, those from unskilled and semi-skilled families, needs to be analysed. In reality, only a very small number went to grammar schools and many who did ended up with no, or few, qualifications.

A 1950s Ministry of Education study found that fewer than 0.3 per cent of pupils leaving with two A-levels were from the unskilled working class. Even among the top grammar school streams, a third from the poorest backgrounds left without an O-level. Many poorer children left even before taking public examinations.'

,

''it maximises everyone's potential''

It maximises teh potential of teh most academic and doesn't harm teh potential of the less academic

I thought we were making progress for a bit back there, but I am going to give up now as the data are not, in fact, falling on fertile ground at all.

Night, all.

Night, BoffinMum