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...

Musical aptitude will take up exactly 10% of places. Looked after children, probably, hardly any. The number of sibling places - obviously none in the current year - will increase as the school establishes and could go up to around 25%. 45% of the remaining places will be allocated by distance from the school.

No, that isn't what their admission criteria say. 50% of the remaining places are allocated by distance from the school, not 45%. And two thirds of the places left after that are allocated by random lottery to children living within 3 miles of the school.

The 45% figure (which does appear on the school's website) refers to the proportion of the total places that will be allocated based purely on distance assuming there are no siblings and no looked after children.

Doh! I'm slow. I see how it works now. 50% of 120 = 45% x 120. I suppose the 45% will become a bit more fluid once the siblings start to apply.

And I still can't get it right. I meant 50% of 108 = 45% x 120.

For those of you, preening yourself for sending your dc to the local comprehensive school, it's worth noting that the attendance of bright, well supported, middle class children has a minimal impact on the academic outcome of the least affluent pupils at their school.

A recent article in the FT (you need to register) revealed that for the poorer pupil, whether they attend a good school or a poor school had little impact on their academic achievement - they did pretty badly everywhere.

blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2012/02/22/social-mobility-and-schools/#axzz1q9jLmFCq

Of course, it's important that mc parents do send their dc to state schools both for social cohesion and for giving all children the experience of mixing with pupils from a range of backgrounds. But closing the achievement gap will take much more.

Toby Young and his group think they have an answer. That all children, whatever their background or ability, will thrive if given an aspirational, academically robust education. Whether they are right of not I have no idea. But I do not begrudge them trying.

Equally, I think Peter Hyman's, more progressive, School 21 - a Newham Free School looks very interesting.

These are intelligent, passionate, committed people putting tremendous efforts into improving educational outcomes for our children. They should at least be given credit for their efforts.

Looks to me like TY's priority is his own children.

If it's about 'our children', why try to amend the Admissions Criteria to give priority to his own children?

The correlation between poverty and reduced educational attainment is very well documented - reducing the number of children living in poverty would be the most efficient way of closing the achievement gap.

Jackstarb - I agree. I can't believe how against free schools people are.

I shouldn't be surprised. Because UK society is very risk adverse.

But every time I come up this extreme risk aversion I'm still astounded.

Rosebud - while there is a correlation between poverty and academic underachievement - that does not mean poverty is the cause of it.

For example, read this article

Rosebud - it makes no sense for a policy which aims to encourage parents to set up schools, not allow said parents to send their own dc's to the school they've set up.

Of course TY's top priority is his own dc's education and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that he wants them to attend a state school with a broad social mix, rather than a private school or leafy middle-class dominated comprehensive is all the more commendable.

Indigo - yes, I'm also amazed how anti free-schools many people are. To some extent you could blame Gove, for over-selling and politicising them. But, also many on 'the left' seem to have be so busy loudly opposing them, they haven't had time to consider the consequences.

There are signs that the 'progressive left' are finally waking up to the opportunities presented by Free Schools and Academies. This from Matthew Taylor is a more considered 'centre left' analysis - looking in more depth at pro's & cons. It addresses risk & innovation.

www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/politics/are-coalition-ministers-the-biggest-threat-to-free-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-12538

Also, from a Blog by a teacher I follow on Twitter:

www.restart-ed.co.uk/2012/02/08/waiter-theres-an-ideologue-in-my-soup/

"Yes, it?s true that the highest profile early free schools have been created along highly ideological lines by people on the right of the political spectrum, but that?s not their fault. It?s ours for not being quicker off the mark. It?s a complete waste of breath and energy to wail and moan about politics or economics; about how it?s not fair or will not provide for the disadvantaged. In the current climate, those arguments are lost before we even open our mouths. And they?re mostly wrong."

I agree that there's nothing wrong with a parent's priority being their own children's education.

Surely the point is that most of us aren't given millions of pounds of public money to create privilege for own children.

It's extremely unlikely that TY would have set up a free school if his own children weren't going to benefit. It's not about 'our children', it's about his own.

No, rosebud. The point is there's absolutely nothing stopping you setting up your own school.

You have decided not to do so.

TY has decided to do so.

And everyone who wants to is welcome to apply to his school.

Like every other school in the country that is oversubscribed you may or may not get in.

If this was really just about his own children he would have just sent them private. Or moved to a grammar school area.

Hi Indigo, I agree with what you've said.

One thing to note though is that TY has said he can't afford to send his children privately and didn't want to move from his area (from memory).

Sure. He didn't want to move. But there is no way it's easier to start your own school than move house. Even paying for private school is still probably easier than starting your own school.

He's got to have put in an enormous amount of hours. Suffered an enormous amount if stress. And been attacked continuously.

It will have been bloody long and bloody hard.

A very daunting task.

A task that you, me or rosebud could do - but it would be far too hard for me.

I agree. I think he has had a very hard time in the press etc. Some left wing critics seemed to try to get the boot in just for the sake of it - unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture.

I am very interested to hear how things are going now. Surprisingly little seems to have been reported since it opened?

Cortina - I heard that the WLFS was heavily over subscribed for September 2012 entry. As were many London schools.

It's too early to tell how successful they'll be academically. It'll be interesting to see how the concept of high aspirations and high academic expections for all, regardless of ability, works out for them.

No, indigo, I haven't 'decided not to set up my own school'. I've no idea where you got that idea from.

I couldn't afford to. I have to work in a meaningful job, have 2 young children and am involved in various community roles (inc school governor). I can't afford to stop work to find the time to set up a school and, most importantly, I am not mates with any Tory ministers.

I'm also not an expert in education although, of course TY hasn't let a minor detail like get that get in his way and neither has Gove and his mob who have handed over millions of public money to him.

Rosebud - I think most of the WLFS team also have full time jobs and young children.

They actually started their plan to open a 'Free-school' whilst Labour were in power. In fact, a small number of parent led schools were opened under the last government.

All new schools costs money to set up. Free schools (which are often in old premises) can be cheaper than LA schools and certainly much cheaper the last government's academies. In London we urgently need new school places because of the demographic rise in school pupils.

In my opinion, LA's vary greatly in their ability and interest in opening and operating schools. The LA which hosts the WLFS doesn't seem to have objected to it's opening. And my LA is very keen to get anybody else to run it's schools including businesses and the church.

My concerns about Free Schools are the long term impact of this policy and why some schools are being set up when there are already too many places available? I appreciate the situation in London is particularly dire for school places, but I can't help wondering what's in it for those who set up these kind of schools; and I don't mean just a choice of school for their little darlings! If you want to ensure all children gain from their educational experiences, become a governor. There were times when as a governor, I had to make choices that I knew would not benefit my own children, but would benefit the majority of the children attending the school. If only all of these ideological parents thought about this option first, then all our children would gain from a fantastic state education system. Instead it's majorly flawed and worsening with the introduction of academies and free schools.

Just my opinion and yes I am quite obviously against the scheme because I fear we will end up with a multi tier state education system which fails those most in need more than it does already. Rant over.

There are not enough school places in London and the birth rate keeps going up as the population increases. We need more schools. The WLFS was the most oversubscribed secondary in the borough (9 applicants per place) so it would appear that the local population is voting with its school choice form and there is a demand for this school. They are opening a primary WLFS in 2013 and I think that it will be just as popular.

Good luck to them....and good luck to the group trying to set up Fulham Boys School using the ethos of Lady Margaret as their template. That school will be super popular too. There is such demand for schools like these - the lack of them is why so many people in the borough go private or outside borough.

Personally I don't care if TY gets his DC into the school he set up. He put in the hard graft and 120 children in each year group will benefit.

Mutteroo - The promoters of a free school have to show that there is demand for their school. That is obviously easier where there is a shortage of places. Of course, there may be plenty of demand in areas where there is already a surplus of places if parents are not happy with the existing schools.

Gove's speeches suggest that he is determined to ensure that the state education system does not fail those most in need, hence measures such as additional funding for the poorest children. Rosebud05 suggests that reducing the number of pupils in poverty would be the best way of closing the achievement gap. Gove takes the view that closing the achievement gap would be the best way of reducing the number of pupils in poverty. One can, of course, argue about who is right and whether Gove's policies will have the effect he says he wants. And of course there are those who do not believe that Gove's goals are as stated.

Personally I don't pretend to know which policies are best and I have previously stated that I am uncomfortable with some of the things Gove is doing. I do, however, tend to agree with him that a good education is one of the best ways out of poverty and therefore we need to ensure that schools in deprived areas are turning in results at least as good as schools elsewhere.

My biggest concern is not wether their childen go to the school or not - it was expected. My concern is what happens afterwards. If one of TY's children is keen on drama, and the school has to give the lead role to a child in Yr 9 let's say, who will get it? If a boy/girl tells mum or dad that the child of a founder is bullying him/her, who will win that battle? Are you really telling me those children will be treated exactly the same way, given exactly the same opportunities, given the same discipline? These are the things that most concern me.

prh, I agree in principle with your final 2 points (though don't believe that Gove is driven by trying to improve education for all).

The point I was making is that research and empirical studies show that living in poverty makes it much harder for children to access the education available to them.

I do think it's illogical to say that closing the achievement gap will reduce numbers of children in poverty, as any benefits from a decent education won't be reaped in their childhood. And it's looking like there won't be many jobs or a decent benefit system around when they grow up, so this is sounds like a pretty flimsy and narrow argument.

hardboiled, lots of children go the school where their parents teach or are governors (not through privileged admissions, but just because they live nearby or pay or whatever).

I'm somewhat less concerned over who gets the leading role in the school play or extra homework, but the move towards the free market in education. We're on the cusp of for profit FE colleges and free schools and the Coalition's end game is clearly profit making companies running schools.

I know some people think this is a good idea, btw.

Rosebud, "lots of children go the school where their parents teach or are governors"

Of course they do. But their parents' status as governors is very clear. Whereas the status of the WLFS founders is different and higher in the scale of influence, or so it semmes, as the first don't get priviledge admission and the second do. What else, is what I'm asking.

my spelling when typing is a mess sorry