Article on Toby Young's west london free school - I don't understand admissions

[PollyParanoia]

Ok article is here from yesterday's standard.
I do find all this stuff about "we want a school with high standards" a bit strange - is there anyone head or parent who actively wants a crap one?
But my main question is one of admissions. It says that the site is 3 miles from Toby Young's house. Presumably that would mean that his four children wouldn't get in if it's done on catchment. Is this the case? If true, it seems strangely admirable and altruistic of him to be doing all this hard work. I suppose I should be applauding his philanthropy rather than assuming he wants an education he can't afford to pay for...

[shudder]

Omg, all is revealed, "The True Path of Xenia".

Xenia, you're as mad as a box of frogs and I love you

Xenia, regardless of whether I agree with you, I appreciate the fact that you have a sense of humour and, unlike some, always stay above the personalized insults.

Thanks.

I'm not against free schools and variety is good in the educational sector.However I do think bright children thrive in a school where everyone else is bright and yet the state sector except bizarrely in a few geographical areas where it tolerates state grammars, does not accept that.

Are free schools allowed to be academically selective?

Xenia - Free Schools are not allowed to be academically selective and must follow the same admissions code as all state comprehensive schools.

My instinct is to agree with you on selection. I think bright dc's need a significant number of bright peers, as well as teachers who enjoy teaching bright pupils.

However, I think Toby Young's Free School is something different. He believes that children of all abilities will benefit from a robustly academic school and high expectations.

It'll be very interesting to see how that works out.......

Why must they not be selective? The one thing so many parents want and pay for and which results in most of the best exam results in the UK is the one thing the supposedly free schools can't do. I supose it means Cameron is wedded to the comprehensive ideal of general falling down to the lowest common denomiator - a kind of very anti elitism stance. Silly him.

Sadly academic selection is the big taboo of British state education. The scars of the 1944 Education act are still very deep.

It is a toxic subject for the Tory party. Although many Tory voters and some high profile 'lefties' (such as Nick Cohen) support academic selection.

In my option:

Those who think state education should encourage meritocracy and social mobility - tend to favour academic selection. Those who believe the main objectives of state education are developing equality and social inclusion favour comprehensive education.

It is somewhat ironic that parents pay good money to put their dc's through the 'evils' of academic selection. Whilst poorer dc's are protected from this harm .

The findings of the 1937 Spens report were used to set up the 11 plus system & the ideology behind Grammar schools etc. It was found that we could apparently judge intelligence by administering an IQ test quite young and this was as permanent as eye colour or hair colour and set in stone. This sump of intelligence would follow you from music to maths to drama etc and your ability in all was pre-determined by your performance at 11 in a cognitive test. It was decided that logic puzzles and examining high status subjects could determine who had the most potential to thrive in a grammar school.

I would like to see some selection on 'character', this is at least as important as intellect in determining success. Passion and 'grist' can do much to drive an average intellect to a set of A stars in GCSE for example. If a student lacks grist, drive and self control they might not do as well at school or enrich a school community. There's a whole raft of research out there now that shows 'IQ' (whatever that is) might not quite be as set in stone as once we thought.

There's an interesting recent article in the WSJ that suggests schools should introduce a C.P.A (a character point average) test for pupils and that students answers to questions such as 'I always finish what I begin' told a school quite a lot and was a powerful predictor of future academic success or otherwise.

I was also reading yesterday about a well regarded science professor (with Phd) who has an IQ of 90 (this is what comes up in all tests administered). He writes brilliantly apparently. Cognitive tests don't show his brilliance.

I wonder how many of us have great potential but might not perform well on IQ tests or be considered conventionally bright but have huge drive, grist, character and ambition and can ace tests and do very well in time?

Late developers can't exist after all if you believe the ideology behind most school selection tests. They must be a myth.

There are lots of non-selective independent schools that get superb results.

Cortina I don't think anyone would suggest a return to the '1944 style' intelligence test. As you say, much has been discovered since then.

Character is important and private schools are able and do, select on it, by interviews and school references. This is not allowed under the state school admissions code - even for grammar schools (although performing arts schools may be exempt).

ativa Yes - there are some excellent, non-academically selective, private schools. Though in my (limited) experience their success is often due to very small class sizes, extremely well managed streaming/setting and excellent pastural care. Hence - the fees can be high.

ativa Yes - there are some excellent, non-academically selective, private schools. Though in my (limited) experience their success is often due to very small class sizes, extremely well managed streaming/setting and excellent pastural care. Hence - the fees can be high.

yup [knackered]

Oxbridge has interviews which means you can also assess character. Also a good school may help develop character anyway if the raw materials (IQ etc) are high enough. Do I earn what I do because of my IQ ( supposedly 152 I think it was when I was at university) or because I work harder than most people or my personal skills, personality? I would argue it's a mixture of all of those.

I certainly agree with the comment above that hard work and determination make people do well too.

If we are going to allow all kinds of schools set up by parents I don't see why the one thing many parents want ( selective education) which benefited people like Cameron so very much is to be denied them.

" I know someone who attended William Ellis school - probably around similar sort of time as TY. Got 4 A's, went Oxbridge on merit not through a mixed up letter, earns a lot of money, could send kids to private school - actively chooses not to. William Ellis at the time Toby Young would've attended was a few years out of being a grammar school and was one of the best state schools in London."

Highnoon - to me that explains Toby Young. You see he only transferred into William Ellis in the 6th Form. Previously he'd been at a very poor comprehensive. I expect it was the contrast between the low expectations and poor teaching at his comp, and the excellence of the grammar which has informed his attitude to education.

I can empathise. I also went to a very poor comp and blagged my way into a good sixth form (strangely with the same qualifications as TY - 4 O'levels and a CSE grade 1 ). It was quite culture shock!

Jackstarb I am not sure the selection criteria have changed much since 1944. Certainly the 'thinking' behind selection/testing at eleven plus (views on IQ I outlined as per Spens report) hasn't. In that IQ can be determined young, is fairly fixed and certain tests can show us who is academically brighter & therefore suited to a Grammar school education etc.

Cortina certainly some of the current 11+ exams appear somewhat odd and selecting 'the top' 15% or so of applicants (as with the 'super-selectives) is little more than a lottery. My point is there are probably some more nuanced and sophisticated ways we could use academic (or character) selection - but the 'taboo' nature prevents this.

It is worth considering what 'measured IQ' at age 11 tells us. If IQ's aren't fixed - how much do they vary? Do pupils often move from say bottom 30% to top 30% in later test? If so it surely strengthens Toby Young's case for giving all children a 'grammar' school education - so that no one with potential misses out.

Hi Jackstarb. Just to be clear I believe IQ tests are flawed and don't predict potential accurately. Why is character selection taboo? Because it's hard for it be truly objective?

I subscribe to the all can get incrementally smarter argument but the point is most don't. All too often there's a patronising pat on the head for the GCSE student who exceeds expectations and beats those grade predictions/tracking system that were set into motion much earlier after a weak performance in cognitive tests in maths and english at eleven. Most would think that an unusually strong performance from a student who had scored poorly in cognitive tests came about due to hard slog (which we don't as a society revere as much as 'natural brilliance') rather than an increase in intelligence.

You can test if the child will have 2 sweets later or one now. You can test how they react in a group etc etc.

I remmeber when my daughter's school Haberdashers which usually in the top 10 or 20 for A levels in the whole country across both sectors moved from 7+ entry to 4+ and they said they had found they could tell at 4 just as well as at 7 (at 7 there were written tests at 4 none) who was bright and woudl fit in and who not. There A level results are no worse since they started 4+ entry than when it as 7 (although there is also entry at 11 anyway) In other words some schools are very good at sifting out the bright.

Of course you could argue that you could take any group of children at 4 hwoever bright and by 18 turn them into AAA A level students on the basis that nurture wins out over nature bu t I doubt that is so and plenty of children are born with 100IQ or less (100 is only the average), some 80 even so I just can't see how you could take those ones up to academic brillianc e.

Hard work pays off too. Often someone who suddenly as a teenager decides to work hard and has a goal does really well whereas someone else happy to coast along doesn't both with the same IQ.

Would selective education be the top of most parents wish list?

I'd say it would be smaller classes (or at least, I would prioritise that over selection given the choice of one or the other).

And I say that with a measured IQ of over 150 .

Just wait for the TV docs and press articles when Toby Youngs school has been open for a term. He knows about PR

Smaller classes would be my preference, around 16 or less. The curriculum could then be rolled out to the individual. I am not convinced 'IQ' is an accurate measure of how far someone will go or even in some instances whether they are 'bright'. I think early cognitive tests can effectively brand children as 'bright' or 'dim' and they tend to be treated subconsciously thus and more often than not live up to their billing. Prizes for those students who have the best 'value add' at GCSE as they've exceeded their apparent ability ceiling make me uncomfortable. I know a student who sees his A*s as having less worth then the 'cream' of the school as these weren't predicted. His overachievement (value add) has been celebrated separately. He is a separate animal from his apparently brighter peers. He has decided to steer away from tougher/more academic subjects at A'level as his confidence is low. Cognitive science is starting to show that it's possible to get smarter but I don't think this will ever be widely believed.

Xenia, some have said all you need is an IQ of 120 and from there on in hard slog, grit, passion and determination cant take you to the top. I know children who have been turned away at 4 from selective schools (usually for shyness in the interview) who have gone on to excel. The schools have lost out on some brilliant pupils in every sense.

I think if we did away with tracking and predicted grades etc but treated all as if they were extremely bright whether we'd see some unexpectedly positive results from 'B' and 'C' level students. I do appreciate these tracking systems etc have their place. Given nearly all educators believe 'you can't get out what God didn't put in' I am uneasy about them.

Certainly plenty of children do well if they think that they are good at XYZ and then they put effort into it.

If you have a child with an IQ of 120 plus without a doubt they do miles better in classes with chidlren of that IQ. The comprehensives do this left right and centre. They stream all the time in the best ones. No one doubts this. I don't see why you can't therefore apply it to the entrance criteria.

I think interviews are sensible as well as the academic tests. Some children are just coached and are very very boring children and an interview whether at 4 ot 11 13 or for univesrity is a great way to find out who will be fun to teach and who terribly dull.

Because streaming is based on continuous assessment and entrance exams are based on one or two 'interviews' or tests.

I agree with cortina that schools that 'select' certain children at 4 are selecting on confidence, ability to follow instructions etc rather than 'intellectual potential'. I'd be very suspicious of any sort of educational establishment that tried to tell parents otherwise.

I think it's reassuring to parents who choose selective schools for their children to believe that the schools 'knew' who the bright ones were at 4 or 7 which is why they've 'do well', rather than engage with the reality of self-fulfilling prophecy.

PS I couldn't give a stuff about IQ. Xenia is the only person in the world who I have ever felt the need to share this information with.

I agree with Xenia, that peer pressure can be a great motivator, driving up learning and performance

I think that class size is related to spread of ability. The wider the ability range - the smaller the class size required to meet the individual needs of each pupil.

The obvious problem with selection (and also with setting and streaming) is pupils can end up in the wrong school or stream. And will be denied the appropriate teaching and (if too low a set) the bright peers they require.

Cortina - You seem to favour the Toby Young solution of treating all pupils as able for as long as possible. It'll be interesting to see how that works at the West London FS with state school sized classes.

Other state schools appear to manage it, to some extent - The London Oratory and Camden Girls School seem to offer reasonably academic curricular and have high academic expectations.

But many in the state system see this attitude as elitist. They do believe that "you can't get out what God didn't put in" and a fear of stigmatising these 'less able' pupils can easily lead to "mediocrity" for all.