Private school wants to open free school near me. Why?

[Dibbets]

A private school on the other side of the city wants to open a free school near where I live. The idea is quite appealing as there isn't a well regarded school near here and many children bus out to other areas. But I can't help feeling a bit uneasy about the proposal. What's in it for them? They talk about it being a beneficial partnership for both sides but the focus is on sharing knowledge and a moral drive to raise standards across the board. It seems a bit unlikely that they would invest so much effort into this for such woolly reasons.

[mathsmum314]

noblegiraffe - obviously we disagree but nothing I say is meant to be a personal comment.

I look at BCCS and I see a very selective school, most likely the same children (and their siblings) there from when it was private. I would even doubt that any of the 29 random allocations are given to high achieving working class students. I only see a burden on the state that it didn't previously have, less resources for the other schools and yet the stats are improved so that's ok. What about that is good?

[Dibbets]

The opening of Redland Green school had an immediate impact on Bristol private schools. Another one has just closed (Redland High). It's in an area where previously parents would have used private education and many would/still do if they can't get in. The catchment is now ridiculously small and getting a place relies on buying a very expensive house making it just as selective as most private schools.

[noblegiraffe]

Which of the categories do you have an issue with, mathsmum? Do you think that siblings shouldn't get in?

[mathsmum314]

[[https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34224/Bristol+Cathedral.pdf/70f2da1f-7cf6-4fe6-85cf-5aee1f3ca90a ALLOCATION STATEMENT FOR ENTRY TO YEAR 7 2016/17
Bristol Cathedral Choir School (BCCS):]]

How the 120 places have been allocated for Year 7 September 2015:
4 places have been reserved at the request of the SEN team for children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN) or Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
The remaining 116 places have been allocated by applying the oversubscription criteria, in order, as set out in the published admission arrangements 2016/17 for the 1st round of allocation:
• ‘Looked after’ children or ‘previously looked after’ children (5 places).
• Probationer Choristers at The Cathedral (8 places).
• Music Specialists (12 places).
• Siblings (61 places).
• Medical & social (0 places).
• Son/daughter of BCCS members of staff (1 place).
• Randomly allocated (29 places)

[noblegiraffe]

Colston’s Girls’ School – Ofsted Outstanding
Former private school now academy
Ward – Ashley (Central BS6)
Admission number 2015 – 140 places
September 2015 on time applications – 583
September 2015 Allocations:
4 SEN
2 Children in Care
14 Foreign Language
25 Siblings
1 Child of Staff
94 Random Allocation

[noblegiraffe]

Here are 2015 admissions to BCCS

Bristol Cathedral Choir School – Ofsted Outstanding

Former private school now academy
Ward – Cabot (Central BS1)
Admission number 2016: 120
September 2015 on time applications – 785
September 2015 Allocations:
9 SEN
3 Looked After Children
8 Probationer Choristers
12 Music specialists
43 Siblings,
1 Medical and Social
3 Children of staff
41 Random Allocation

[Genevieva]

Of course not, but I would question whether the education provided was the best fit for the 5% who didn't get A*-Cs and perhaps even the 23% who didn't get the EBacc. Without more information beyond that raw data it is impossible to know whether those children's needs are being met by the EBacc, whether they enjoyed the education they were given and whether it improved their longterm job prospects.

We are stuck in a rut in terms of the standard model of education that we offer children and, if we are honest, there is really very little difference between most state and private schools. They largely follow the national curriculum and aim for the same exams. There are so many alternatives if you free yourself from trying to get children to fit existing moulds.

A friend in Brussels pointed out that 45 minutes of MFL a day would result in a generation of children fluent in another language. It is possible to think of 100 reason why it isn't possible, from lack of teachers to the need to allow enough time for SATs preparation, but if you put all that to one side it makes you realise that there is a world of possibility out there.

Someone else I know has a son who has just started an apprenticeship. It sounds like an amazing fit for the child in question, who is reasonably academic, but dyslexic. It will be intellectually stimulating, provides plenty of time for study towards vocational qualifications and pays a good starter salary. When I said how impressed I was that the school had such a good careers department, he told me he had found out accidentally through a friend of a friend. Nothing to do with the school at all, which is completely focussed on the A Level - University route.

[noblegiraffe]

academic' subjects are more valuable

Well they are, aren't they, in terms of keeping doors open? No one was ever refused onto a Health and Social level 3 BTEC because they didn't have a level 2 BTEC but a bunch of academic GCSEs instead.

Look at the King Solomon Academy in London. A non-selective state school with exceptionally high FSM, that gets 95% A*-C inc maths and English and 77% of its pupils get the Ebacc. Would you seriously say 'Actually, I don't think we need more schools like that'?

[mathsmum314]

exexpat, yip would agree and that's how the current selective system is letting us down.

If the council/government didn't have to pay for those parents at Cathedral to have a selective elite education then they might have been able to afford to build a school in this deprived instead of a private school having to do it.

[Genevieva]

This is all based on the assumption that 'academic' subject are more valuable, when that shouldn't be the case. They also don't necessarily lead to more lucrative jobs, not that I think high pay should be the primary measure of success, but by way of example, a doctor I know told me that her local private school is now largely the preserve of successful plumbers, electricians and other small business owners, while the local solicitors and doctors who would have used the school a generation ago are now all sending their children to the state primary school.

The IBacc is part of the a system that values academic achievement over any other form of achievement. It is fine for those children who do indeed succeed in it, but it doesn't change the fact that 10% of children leave with absolutely nothing. In the past, when bits of paper proving exam results were less important, they would have found it easier to make something of themselves in their adult lives. Now they are far more likely to be trapped.

Britain and the USA consistently produce mediocre results in Pisa tests, yet have better economies that offer their populations far more diverse job opportunities than many countries with higher Pisa scores. There are a variety of reasons for this, but among them is the fax that our creative industries are enormous.

Minifingerz, you are too easily offended on Noblegiraffe's behalf. It was a theoretical argument, not a personal one. There is no need to take offence. Noblegiraffe said:

"Giving people of wealth and power an opt out from the state system in the form of private education is actively damaging (in my opinion) to state education."

I think that the idea that choice is something that the state should grant where it deems fit is deeply troubling. The idea of preventing people from choosing how to educate their children is akin to a Soviet or Maoist level of intrusion into the freedoms of private individuals. Ironing out inequality by banning education choice would indeed be horribly intrusive. In that context, there is a relevant parallel between private schooling and extracurricular activities.

It is reasonable to extrapolate an idea to its logical conclusion. This is not underhand - it is just playing with ideas. If you wanted to take it a step further you would have a hypothetical society in which everyone wears the same clothes, children are all sent to state-run nurseries from almost the moment of birth... You could reach a theoretical extreme in the other direction if someone wanted to suggest that everyone should contribute towards the costs of educating their children (an argument I have heard from a childless taxpayer before).

Private schools exist. They are part of the history and fabric of this country, in the same way that Christian schools are. I don't see any value in involving them in state education, just as I am opposed to the creation of new faith schools. Nevertheless, I don't see any value in banning them or of creating convoluted ways of 'allowing' them to continue to exist, as if that right can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat.

[EllyMayClampett]

mini you seem to be strongly against private schools. How do you see an end to them without some form of coercion?

[exexpat]

mathsmum - I think an awful lot of BCCS places go to siblings, which may go some way to explaining the low number of randomly allocated places. The only actual selection the school can do is up to 10% on musical aptitude and a handful of choristers. Offspring of staff members also get priority, but lower down the list than looked after children, medical need etc.

Of course, there is the argument that the pupils at BCCS (and also Colston's Girls, another ex-private turned state academy) are self-selecting from better off families/families who prioritise education (and are therefore likely to perform better than average), because they are prepared to travel from quite long distances, at their own expense, rather than going to their local school.

[mathsmum314]

Just looking at the ex private school Bristol Cathedral Choir and in its last admissions only 29 pupils (from across the whole city) were allocated a place by random selection. So what has actually happened is that its probably more selective than when it was private.

So the state are now paying to selectively educate these children but that's ok because it makes the stats look good.
It would have been better for the state children in Bristol if that school had stayed private and the extra money used to make their schools better.

[noblegiraffe]

I don't think that every child should have a curriculum filled with grammar school subjects though

But if you say that, we know that the more advantaged kids will have a curriculum stuffed with academic subjects and the disadvantaged are more likely to be shuffled into the 'vocational' subjects.

Also, Progress 8 does allow for a vocational offering even if the student takes the Ebacc.

Interesting info coming out about how a huge increase in Ebacc take-up may possibly improve results in core subjects:

Critics of the EBacc worry it crowds out the creative subjects, it forces less academically-orientated students into subjects for which they have neither aptitude nor interest, and that it distracts the focus on the core subjects of English and maths for low achievers. We find no evidence for the last two of these concerns in schools who have already made substantial curriculum shifts: pupils were more likely to achieve good GCSEs in English and maths, achieved higher average grades across the board, were 1.7 percentage points more likely to be taking an A level or other level 3 qualification after the age of 16 and 1.8 percentage points less likely to have dropped out of education entirely.

We wouldn’t want to make causal claims about the relationship between EBacc entry and GCSE attainment. It is possible that whatever drove the decision to make radical curriculum changes at these schools was also driving improvement in maths and English, for example. But there is a perfectly plausible argument that students who have weak literacy skills at age 14 benefit from taking subjects (such as geography) that involve extensively practising these skills over the next two years.

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/07/changing-the-subject-why-pushing-pupils-from-disadvantaged-backgrounds-to-take-more-academic-subjects-may-not-be-such-a-bad-thing/

[minifingerz]

"I don't like the sound of such a controlling society. How far would you go? Would you prevent parents from taking their children to extracurricular activities after school? Would you prevent parents from reading to their children at bedtime because the most deprived children don't have that opportunity"

I'm not aware that anyone on this thread has suggested these things.

Actually those arguments are insulting and underhand - implying that if you have grave concerns about the unfairness inherent in our current system of schooling, and state that you wish for it to change, you are automatically declaring that you would support a system of soviet style cruelty and oppression in order to achieve this.

[mathsmum314]

Why are the motives relevant? The only thing that should matter is the chance of getting a good school.

The area doesn't have a good school, no one else is chomping at the bit, its this or nothing. So its all very well to say you want Nirvana High but high ideals don't get you a good school. So until there is something better on offer I say with a very positive attitude, this is a good thing to try.

The private school might or not have huge expertise in working with low achievers, but they have experience in running a school and they can employ people that do have experience in teaching low achievers.

We know the current selective comprehensive system isn't working for all. Allowing different types of schools,including grammars is the way forward to change our current unequal system.

[Genevieva]

sorry - full of typos, but comprehensible I hope.

[Genevieva]

Interesting article. I agree that every child can pass Maths, and we should aim to reach a point where every child does. I don't think that every child should have a curriculum filled with grammar school subjects though. Even if,in theory, every child has the capacity to get 8 Cs in GCSEs like History and Physics, we have consistently proven ourselves unable to make headway towards reaching that point this in practice. Looking again about what subjects and skills interest less academic children would enable us to focus their sitting still time on Maths and English and develop curricula that inspire and interest them during the rest of the day. As long as they are widely respected and offer a route back into tertiary education later on then the child and their teacher would end each day feeling fulfilled and successful rather than downtrodden.

[noblegiraffe]

This post is thought-provoking on the topic of 'forcing' poor kids to take academic subjects:

www.emaths.co.uk/index.php/blog/item/every-single-child-can-pass-maths-12

[noblegiraffe]

A couple of Bristol private schools actually became state because of the economy. Those teachers and facilities can now benefit state kids m.bristolpost.co.uk/state-schools-driving-standards-city/story-22930350-detail/story.html

[Genevieva]

But the recession won't have helped improve the results of the children who were there anyway. It will only have massaged the figures. The funny thing is, despite a very different view on the existence of private schools, we actually agree a lot on this new government policy. The creation of new grammar and the involvement of private schools in the state sector isn't going to meet the needs of the lowest achievers. Both have expertise in the same area - the provision of education for academic children. We need to start valuing children who are less academic.

Vast numbers of children fail to get 5 C grades at GCSE (nearly 40% - a percentage that has remained almost static ever since GCSEs were introduced). And 10% are failing to get any C grades at all!!! They are not being failed by the existence of private schools. They might be being failed by their parents, but without massive and draconian state intervention in the pre-school life of our nation's children, it would be impossible to know.

They are being failed by a system that seeks to give every child a grammar school style education covering 8 academic subjects and taught in a traditional classroom environment, ultimately assessed with a written exam. What some children need is very different from that. Many low-achieving children who act up in the classroom come into their own when they are outdoors or engaged in hands-on activities that make them feel confident. I can't imagine anything worse than being a child who struggles academically, but is forced through day after day and year after year of lessons that involve sitting still, reading, writing and looking at the board. Yes they need strong literacy and numeracy skills, but beyond that there is room for a massive rethink of how subjects are taught to them and what subjects are prioritised, particularly at 14+. There are many different types of intelligence and our education system really only values one or two of them. A child who doesn't fit the GCSE model can feel completely worthless and can leave education without any sense of what they should do next.

The centre that the OP describes is really important for engaging teenagers in developing skills that interest them and which might provide future career opportunities. We need more of them and we need a more joined-up approach to careers guidance based on preparing children for jobs that interest them.

[noblegiraffe]

No, I don't propose we start closing down private schools but given how they damage state education I'm certainly not going to start cooing about how marvellous they are if they, as Sam Freedman says, take state money to set up schools to educate kids who are already doing well, or, as mini points out, give bursaries to kids who can only possibly enhance their school.

This proposal is interesting because the proposed school is not selective. However, without further details of how they intend to tackle the deprivation of the area, I'm not convinced. Bristol is an area that has suffered hugely from a proliferation of private schools - they're one of the reasons Bristol languished at the bottom of the state league tables for so long, and that has been a massive job to turn around. I think the recession leading to people not being able to afford school fees and having to take the state offering has helped.

[Genevieva]

So is your solution to nationalise all private schools and force people to use the state education system? If not what is it exactly?

I don't like the sound of such a controlling society. How far would you go? Would you prevent parents from taking their children to extracurricular activities after school? Would you prevent parents from reading to their children at bedtime because the most deprived children don't have that opportunity? Inequality exists and removing choice does not improve the opportunities of the most disadvantaged children. In those circumstances many more people would choose to home educate rather than be dictated to. Or they would emigrate.

Our private schools are the envy of the world and I think they have done a lot, by example, to encourage the state to aim higher in what it offers. Taking a step back, I think that it is completely amazing that our country manages to provide so much education for children free of charge. For the most part, children have access to an enviable education in a clean, safe and pleasant environment with well-trained teachers. For the most part, teachers work incredibly hard to give every student they teach the best possible chance of excelling. The amount of money a school has access to is not dependant on the affluence of the local community in the way it is in the USA and there are impressive programmes for gifted and talented, free school meal and SEN children in many schools. I really think we should be proud of what the state provides compared with most countries and compared with a generation ago. The state education system isn't perfect and there are pockets of problems, some of which are difficult to solve, but state education at its best meets the needs of its pupils just as well as the private sector at its best. They don't need private school or the abolition of private education to achieve that. Equally, private schools do not always meet the needs of all their pupils either. There are many threads on here of parents who feel let down by their chosen private school.

Teachers face huge challenges beyond the remit of simply teaching their subject - the management of serious behaviour problems, liaising with social services, dealing with the implementation of political diktats... The stress and workload created by all this is huge and seen to be largely responsible for teachers leaving the profession. The same issues play a part of the decision-making for parents in a position to afford private school fees, often making huge sacrifices to do so. It is not unreasonable to want the best for your child. Many parents paying fees would dearly love to live in an area with a state school that meets their needs, but work commitments or the cost of moving house result in them choosing a private education for their children.

There is never going to be a perfect system, but if we start judging people for making choices about where they send their children and whether they work in the public or private sector, then we are on a very negative and sanctimonious slippery slope.

[noblegiraffe]

I agree that sometimes people just need a job, but there can't be many people working in a private school because they couldn't find work in a state school (don't even need a teaching qualification any more). There's a desperate shortage in a lot of subjects at secondary.

[Dibbets]

This has been really interesting. I do kind of agree with your last post noble, but people sometimes just need a job so I don't feel judgemental of individual teachers.

genevieva It would be good if competing proposals could be put forward and the community allowed to vote on them. Unfortunately this proposal has gone in first, and in a very cloak and dagger manner, so there isn't a chance now for anyone else to have a go unless it's rejected.