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.

Looking into this a bit further, the Bristol Free School is sponsored by an education trust which has also been involved in London Challenge schools. This would presumably give them some expertise at setting up schools in deprived areas.

I do hope Bristol Grammar School are going to link up with a similar organisation.

Ah, I did wonder about haberdashers. So the livery company are involved in both the independent and state schools of that name? What benefits has that had?

I've not once used the word selfish.

If it looks like a fcuk, swims like a fcuk, and quacks like a fcuk, then it probably is a fcuk. Look mum I didn't use the 'd' word!

If teachers in private schools were concerned with the wider community then they should not be in private schools...

If their priority was the wider community, then they would be working in state schools...

selfish: a person, action, or motive that is lacking consideration for other people. aka how noble described people in private schools

I know what the word pleb means, and yet you keep using it repeatedly, which is why I regard your comments as nasty.

-------------

I said people like Corbyn, send their DC private, it was late and couldn't be arsed googling it. Now I can so e.g. His ex lover the shadow health secretary, Dianne Abbot has, Jeremy himself went to an independent school but his children only went to a grammar, so I suppose he thinks they are plebs?.

minifingerz
Private schools educate children at no cost to the state. They allow tens of billions more to be spent on children in the state system. Is this not a benefit to society?

minifingerz
"Private schools educate children at no cost to the state. They allow tens of billions more to be spent on children in the state system. Is this not a benefit to society?"

...using teachers trained by the state, who are then not available to state schools where there is a very serious teacher shortage.

But in the end some people believe that equality of opportunity for children is something to strive for and other people don't.

"Jeremy himself went to an independent school "

So did I. I was a child and my education was decided by my parents. As an adult I don't have to share their principles. The fact that you're accusing JC of hypocrisy on the basis of this shows how illogical and weak your arguments are.

"but his children only went to a grammar, so I suppose he thinks they are plebs"

JC's opposition to his children attending grammar was the source of his marriage breakdown from what I understand.

And a very much doubt he thinks they're plebs. Actually that comment makes you sound like a knuckle dragger.

Don't pretend you're quoting me when you're not, mathsmum.

...using teachers trained by the state,
either they are paying back loans or are unqualified, how are they costing the state money?

"But in the end some people believe that equality of opportunity for children is something to strive for and other people don't."
I agree and forcing everyone into the same school regardless of ability doesn't give everyone 'equality of opportunity'.

I accused JC of hypocrisy for giving his ex lover an important job despite being a hypocrite. And I pointed out his socialist parents and his wife surrendered their principles to use selective schools. So that either makes socialists hypocrites or JC put his beliefs before his children's.

noblegiraffe, I don't quote you anymore because your beliefs are narrow abusive claptrap.

"I agree and forcing everyone into the same school regardless of ability doesn't give everyone 'equality of opportunity'."

Actually there is EVIDENCE that putting children into separate schools creates and deepens inequality.

Evidence

You know, proof

"So that either makes socialists hypocrites "

What, all of them?

"because your beliefs are narrow abusive claptrap"

I think Noblegiraffe has acquitted herself fairly honourably on all of the grammar threads. She's kept a cool head and referred to the evidence.

...using teachers trained by the state, who are then not available to state schools where there is a very serious teacher shortage.

This is not a clearcut argument.

If all the children in the private sector were forced back into the state sector, it would be extremely expensive for the state sector.

Now some of the teachers in the private sector do come from the state sector, but quite a few teachers in the private sector actually were not trained in the state sector and wouldn't teach in the state sector. For example, PhD educated science teachers and teachers from abroad. Some of those teaching in the private sector who were trained in the state sector would not return to the state sector anymore - they would quit teaching rather than do so.

It is fair enough to aim for equality of opportunity (although I think no country in the world actually has this, the wealthy/educated parents always find a workaround to get something better) but forcing kids out of the private sector back into the state sector would cost money which could be better spent elsewhere.

PhD educated science teachers do teach in the state system, as well as PhD educated historians.

Who has suggested closing down private schools? I seem to have missed something as this thread was about private schools opening up state schools.

I did see a headline in the Times that said 'private schools to open grammar schools to help the poor' with Sam Freedman (conservative and former advisor to Gove) commenting "willing to take state cash to educate kids who are already doing well. How noble of them". Still, I expect he's a militant socialist too.

PhD educated science teachers do teach in the state system, as well as PhD educated historians.

Of course they do, but there are many more in the private sector. Many PhD scientists I know have gone into teaching with no intention of ever teaching in the state sector. Similarly I've known many Oxbridge graduates who went into teaching (top public schools) who again would not have considered teaching in the state sector. The top public schools actively recruit teachers directly from Oxbridge and train them in house.

I have read that article too noble and that is one of my suspicions that his proposed school will do. (Obviously it's far enough away from the independent school not to affect demand for places there).
I don't think that having a degree from Oxbridge or even having a PhD makes you a better teacher across the whole ability range by the way. Not really an issue in a proposed school that won't have a sixth form.
In answer to another poster, there have been no riots in this area.
The (first) Bristol Free school wanted to use a site that had been occupied by a failed independent school noble. Unfortunately for them, the council bought the site and it now houses an academy primary school. I am not sure who owns the proposed site for this new school (that may be significant in whether it gets the go ahead).

there is EVIDENCE that putting children into separate schools creates and deepens inequality

What exactly do you mean? Where is the evidence that this (in)equality is caused by the school and not the family and environment they are born into?

Where is this unselective system you are comparing our selective comprehensive schools to?

Are you defining 'equality' as statistically having more children getting the same grades at GCSE?

Why has there been a significant decrease in relative mobility between those born in the fifties and eighties?

Why has decades of educational expansion and reform had little effect on increasing upward social mobility?

So I see scant evidence that proves separate schools always causes this ill-defined inequality.

Proof that private schools save the state tens of billions on pounds on education? Do you really need evidence of how self evident it is that this is good for our country?

"So that either makes socialists hypocrites "
What, all of them? - Yes socialists that send their children private, yet try and stop selective schools, are ALL hypocrites.

This thread has gone bugfuck since I last looked in.

There seems to be some amount of defensiveness on the part of people who think parents who send their kids to state schools should be grateful for any crumbs from the private school table. I wonder why?

Some evidence that selecting pupils at an earlier age perpetuates social inequity:
aissr.uva.nl/news/content/2015/10/early-selection-in-secondary-education-increases-differences-between-social-groups.html
From OECD: www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf

There's loads of evidence internationally. Germany's school system was condemned by the United Nations for this very problem.

You still need a pgce to become a qualified teacher, even if you do have a phd.

Difference being you must have a pgce to teach in state schools. The private sector has its own rules as can employ someone without a pgce if the choose to.

Why has there been a significant decrease in relative mobility between those born in the fifties and eighties?.....Why has decades of educational expansion and reform had little effect on increasing upward social mobility?
Because social mobility is more to do with having a buoyant economy than the education system. The economy was boomed in the fifties as the post war reconstruction got underway. It is no longer booming.

noblegiraffe, I don't think it is fair to opine so much about teachers in the state and private sector. Jobs exist in both, as they do in public and private settings for a whole range of professions. I know teachers who teach in the private sector and send their children to state schools and other who teach in the state sector and send their children to private schools (as well as teachers who teach in the same sectors that they have children in). They end up where they do for whole variety of reasons, from something as practical as applying for the job that was advertised in the right area that year, to choosing to work in an environment that suits their skill set. Teachers are individuals like anyone else - some are going to excel at teaching in a selective grammar environment, others love teaching in schools in deprived areas. The challenge is equal but different. Swap them round and they and their students will be worse off. One private school teacher I know went into that sector because he wanted the full 7 day immersion in school life experience, whereby you liven site and don't just teach an academic subject, but a host of extracurricular sports as well. Other teachers would loath that. Everyone is entitled to look for a job that fits their interests and expertise without being judge to be lacking a sense of public service.

Fuck's sake. Will people actually read what I posted and not the ramblings of a poster who seems to be a bit unhinged?

I said "If people who ran private schools genuinely were concerned with the wider community then I have a sneaking suspicion that they would not be running private schools"

This was not about teachers but people who run private schools. People who genuinely care about the wider community generally don't seek to run elitist institutions that exclude most of the wider community. I would have thought that was reasonable.

Secondly I said about private school teachers "However, if their priority were the wider community, then they would be working in state schools, surely?"

Again this takes into account the fact that teachers may have other priorities when selecting where to work like convenience or 7 day experience or whatever, but if their priority on selecting their teaching job were helping the wider community then a state school would better fit the bill than a private one (even if they offer bursaries).

Again, not sure how that is contentious.

Round where I live, all the private schools are run by teachers. Dunno why some posters are suggesting they selfishly dont care about any one else, they are very nice caring people.

Lets ask those expert educationists at the United Nations?

Difference does not equal inequality!

Difference being you must have a pgce to teach in state schools No you don't.

social mobility is more to do with having a buoyant economy than the education system So its nothing to do with so called 'different' schools, its all to do with how the economy is doing. As I was saying.

Pretty much every private enterprise I know isn't supposed to benefit the 'wider community' does that make all private companies and the people that work in them somehow wrong? No of course not, that is just socialist propaganda.

I'm getting the suspicion that mathsmum is rambling on about socialist propaganda and making up stuff that other people are supposedly saying because she hasn't actually got a coherent point to make but hopes that if she flings enough mud about, some might stick.

Is that the plan, mathsmum? To attempt to paint opposition to this appallingly thought-out Green Paper which has been condemned by education professionals from the left, centre and right of the political spectrum as some sort of socialist plot?

It's not. There's opposition to it because it's shit.

I'm told the football metaphor "play the man not the ball", means when losing an argument attack the person not the argument. I prefer to say if you can't stand the heat get outta the kitchen.

To get back to the OP, Lets celebrate that a private school is trying to open a school in a deprived area.