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...

Dyson is 64 years old! He wouldn't have needed to go through any rigorous interviewing process!

How can you work for yourself these days without literacy skills? Writing business plans for bank loans, etc, etc?

I didn't have to give the child anything to get the peg idea to hold up the tarpaulin. He just thought of it. He was using his brain creatively. This child will never succeed in school.

Re: the lowest common denominator.

Xenia was talking about the dangers of "teaching to the 'lowest common demonitor" in response to my post on 'mediocrity for all'.

BusterGut I agree that our education system often fails the 'non-academic' child. And these children often have much to offer. But this is tied up with the selection taboo. Just look at the fuss made by some over this government's [following the last] plans to create 'technical colleges' for 14+

Our less academic pupils are expected to follow broadly the same curriculum as the more academic pupils until they are 16. All because of the perception that a more practical based curriculum is second class.

It's quite interesting to see how the more affluent middle-classes prepare their "less-academic" dc's for the world of work. I've noticed how several of my friends in this situation have encouraged hobbies and part-time jobs which build on practical skills. They have also chosen schools with better practical subject options (taking less notice of league tables). And they, of course, support their dc's post 16 training (researching it all thoroughly).

Good points and work experience. You can help with that too whether the child is bright or not.

I don't think comprehensives which stream do desire to lower child expectations but if you're in a selective school where 100% will go not just to universities but good ones you will do better. Thus why won't Cameron let free schools be selective?

Not all boarding schools are for bright chidlren but Eton is. Bar Prince Harry very few not clever boys get in. It's not a question of just being able to pay, ditto private schools like Manchester Grammar, Habs etc Selection works really well for children. Most of the children at Oxbridge are from private selective schools or selective state gramamrs in the rare areas where teh Govenrment seems to think the DNA of children or some weird differentiator means they can have grammar schools whereas in other parts of Britain ( most) selective state education is banned.

Eg my daughter went tio a school whereL:

"77% of entries were graded A, and for the sixth year running, over 96% of all results were graded at A or A. Over half the girls in the year obtained 9 or 10 A grades, and 33 students gained straight As"

I am certain she did better there than in a comp which has streamed classes. if all your peers 100% are going on to be successful and have good university places etc you are likely to follow that herd. If half have under the average IQ of 100 which is of course what should happen in every comp because they are comp and half of people have an IQ under 100 then that won't happen.

Surely that would be the median common denominator then?

I live closer to the free school then toby and we didn't get a place, ironically got Acton High dispite not applying for it! Would be very curious to know if Toby, Hugo et al managed to secure places at the Free School.

I wondered that too!

Of course they did.

You don't know that.

I'm not even sure that any of Toby Young's children would have been looking for a place this year. At most one of them would have been. Not sure who Hugo is.

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6155740
strongly suggests he knows what he is doing wrt getting his kids places.

On the contrary. West London Free School does not have anything in its funding agreement that would allow it to provide places for the children of its founders. It would therefore be in breach of its funding agreement and the law if it gave any priority to founders' children.

The WLFS is consulting on this adjustment to the Admissions Code for 2013.

www.westlondonfreeschool.co.uk/userfiles/WLFS%20Admissions%20Arrangements%202013.pdf

It would be a more honest and transparent consultation if Young submitted his proposal to give priority places to founders' children as a stand-alone consultation.

I disagree. This is part of the normal consultation for any changes to admission arrangements. By law Young cannot separate this and have a separate consultation. And if he did I think interested parties would be more likely to miss it.

prh47bridge - I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You're saying further up the thread that people are wrong to suggest Toby Young is trying to get his own kids in by the back door, but now Rosebud05 has posted a document showing that is exactly what WLFS are trying to do (as many of us have suspected was the plan all along).

For anyone that doesn't want to read the whole document, it says that the way the school would like it to work is that first priority for a place after looked after children, will be 'children whose parents are Founders'.

I think the founders do alot of work and their kids should get in. Whether or not free schools should exist is a different question, but if the government wants them to exist then the people who put the effort into setting them up should get something out of it. That's the main reason he did it , and why most parents who set uf free schools do it after all.

If people think priority for the founders is a tad unfair, they may want to respond to the consultation. There is a quiet link to the document Rosebud05 posted on the WLFS admissions page, with the line "To tell us what you think, email [email protected]" which is presumably the extent to which they are consulting...

I agree with 2rebecca. I couldn't be arsed to do all the work to set up a free school. He could. Over 1000 people applied for 120 places this year so they must think it's a good idea. There has to be a perk for putting in all the work ( and taking the not inconsiderable flack). I don't have an axe to grind as I will not be applying to WLFS but I wish it well.

banditqueen - You misunderstand me.

This started with some people suggesting that Toby Young has had his children admitted to WLFS this year when they were lower priority than other children who have not been admitted. There is nothing to indicate that has happened and plenty of reasons to believe it has not.

It is the case that there is nothing in the WLFS funding agreement that would permit it to ignore any aspect of the Admissions Code. I am dubious about the legality of the proposed change but I need to have another read of the new Admissions Code before I offer a proper opinion - admissions this year are still under the old code and I am not yet as familiar with the new version. If it is allowed I would not regard it as admitting his children through the back door, any more than looked after children are admitted through the back door. Just for clarity, I have no strong views on whether or not free schools should be allowed to give priority to the children of those involved in setting up the school.

And just to make that completely clear, I have not said that Toby Young is not trying to get his children into WLFS. I was saying that I doubt that he has broken the rules in the way suggested.

I'm surprised he didn't have this in the original rules though, if I was setting up a school I would want to ensure my kids could go to it before I bothered doing all the work. I think teachers should be able to have their kids at the same school they work at as well, to save disruption to their work dropping them off etc. Most jobs have some perks associated with them. I'm fairly sure initially he will have enquired about how his kids were going to get in as he certainly talked about that when the school was just a pipe dream.
The original rules seem silly if they didn't make allowances for the founders' and teachers' kids.

He didn't have it in the original rules because he repeatedly said that he'd abide by the Code of Practice on Admissions.

Now he's gone back on his word about that. The Secretary of State has the power to give him the freedom to opt out of the Admissions Code of Practice.

I think lots of people might 'do a lot of work' if they were given millions of pounds of public money to do it with.

He had no choice but to abide by the Admissions Code. The funding agreement mandates adherence.

The situation with regard to the Secretary of State's powers is more complex than that. The WLFS funding agreement includes a clause allowing the annex covering admissions to be amended at any time by agreement between the Secretary of State and WLFS. However, the change needed for the proposed new admission criteria to have any effect would potentially be open to challenge through a judicial review. I am by no means certain how that would pan out.

Toby Young has not, of course, been given a single penny of public money. The West London Free School Foundation Trust has been given public money but Toby Young is a trustee and therefore is unpaid for any work he does for or on behalf of WLFS. So the question is, if you ran an organisation that was given public money to do something but you weren't allowed to take a single penny of that money for yourself, would you then be willing to do a lot of work?

I think 'willing' and 'able' are 2 different things.

I think that TY et al have been rather duplicitous, myself. Of course no one would be likely to go to that much trouble if their own DCs couldn't be guaranteed to benefit. I have just a hunch that he knew bleddy well when he set up his FS that 'the rules' would be quietly changed once the hooha had died down a bit.

We will see absolutely the same thing happening with the NHS if this government get its way. The private 'willing providers' will, on paper appear to have to abide by the same rules as the NHS providers- but the devil will be in the detail (Item 2, subsection 24 of a school's Proposed Admissions Document, anyone?). The private providers know they will fail to make handsome profits if, like the NHS, they are forced to treat all-comers, because those pesky old, ill people with chronic conditions will keep coming. So they will be quietly allowed to 'opt out' of the non-profitable stuff- the government will have to facilitate this or otherwise, no private providers will step forward and the NHS privatisation will fail.

In the same way, the rules will have to be quietly changed re FS admissions to ensure that privatisation of state education by stealth can continue.

FWIW if someone set up a FS which wasn't complete loons-ville near me, one which found ways of selecting by middle-class'ed-ness, enforced parental involvement, 'exclusion' of disruptive DCs, a rigorous (but to my liking!) curriculum and free- I'd be first at the door, MC sharp elbows flailing, eager to advantage my DC over the hoi-polloi.... but I don't think I should be allowed to do that, certainly not using everyone else's tax paying ££ to advantage my DC over theirs.