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...

I couldn't read the whole article as Cosmo and his cronies make my skin crawl BUT the thought that keeps coming into my mind is that if they put even half the time and energy into the existing state schools that they're putting into creating a middle class elite that tax payers pay for, then just think how much the schools could improve and benefit ALL our children.

the thing is Rosebud - there seems to be so little one can actually do, if a school is being run centrally.
I am a governor at a local school and I volunteer there, and although I dearly wish it were different, I know am pissing in the wind.

The things that would really help, cannot be changed.

Which is where I guess the ida of a free school comes from. You could see what needs to be changed and actually have the power to do it.

There was a long discussion on here a few weeks ago about this.

What I said then, and still say, is that you cannot have a 'comprehensive grammar' school without selection!!

What Toby Young et al want is a 'comprehensive private' school educating the children with 'traditional' subjects etc etc.

They will have to have a mixed ability intake but the results will presumably mirror those of private schools now who have such an intake but who manage to get 'good' results (i.e. better than the local comp). Presumably this is down to smaller classes and exclusion of disruptive pupils, rather than the natural brilliance of the pupils admitted.

Personally, I imagine they will achieve this by the intake being pretty bright to start with (note all the parents/people involved seem to be Oxbridge and other graduates for a start.....).

Sorry if this has been covered on the thread - I have skimmed - but what happens when the children of the people who set up the school leave school?

Do they keep their involvement? What if they lose interest? What if no other parent really wants to be involved?

But Loungelizard that goes back to my initial question of admissions. How will they get this bright involved intake? Surely admissions will have to be geographical in which case they can't cherry pick and they can't even make sure their children have a place (if the location is 3 miles from Toby's home, jeez i live the other side of london and I'm practically closer).

I agree with you Polly, I can't see him being that philanthropic as to set up a school which isn't going to admit his children . But I am ready to stand corrected.

I imagine they must have sorted out getting their own children in first of all their admissions procedures or they are going to look a bit foolish (and cross).

Well I'm a governor and volunteer at a school where my children don't attend.

So why not?

May be he will set up a school then that doesn't admit his children.

Perhaps he will then send his children to the local private school as he isn't happy with the local state provision already there.

Let's wait and see

That's effectively what the project manager has said she'll do if hers don't get in in the lottery system (OK, she was hedging her bets talking about how she'd have a difficult decision to make between state and private, but her meaning was fairly clear).

To be personal about Toby once more (and why not since the only time I've met him he was spectacularly rude to me), I kind of get the feeling that state education might be his only option since he has four children (ie would need a spare 80k before tax pa to pay for them to go private). Great though his self promotion journalism may be, this is quite a challenge. His original article in the Observer did definitely couch in terms of "my children".
I'm torn because part of me thinks, well if you put in all this work you deserve for your children to go to the school you set up (presuming it's as good as you intend for it to be), but the other part of me thinks this is fundamentally unfair.

Crap, my first attempt at striking out (words self promotion) was a dismal failure. I don't need Latin, I need Emphasis coaching...

(You need to put the '--' around each word ).

I thought the whole purpose of these schools was that they were being set up by parents who wanted them to be middle-class ghettoes Otherwise, what's the point?

Well, yes they do want them to be middle-class selective schools ghettoes but they don't want to be seen to be wanting that. It's all very difficult (esp if one's own children aren't even guaranteed a place).

Can't see it working myself. It's going to be just too complicated to make sure they get the right kind of intake to guarantee the excellent results they are going to promise

Toby Young is an excellent self promoter journalist.
I can do it I can do it! I could get a GSCE in Mumsnet Emphasis and everything (cue free-school committee member hurrumphing 'there probably is a bloody GSCE in message board posting at some of these comprehensives')

Polly, you may enjoy this article -- I reckon John Crace likes Toby Young even more than you do.

[snurk]

I will reserve judgement for the moment on the whole plan. I'd like to not be cynical about it, I really would. And I am trying.

'The whole point of grammars is that they are selective'. Exactly!!!!

On the last thread about this, someone linked to the reply Toby Young made to this article.

Toby Young explains a 'comprehensive grammar' in his blog. Is Comprehensive Grammar a contradiction in terms? What fascinates me about this article are the quotes from the 1964 Labour Election campaign.

"Labour will not do away with grammar education or abolish the best traditions of this type of education.
Labour?s aim is to greatly increase the opportunities for children to receive the undoubted benefits of grammar education."

Basically what our parents / grandparents were voting for in 1964 was not for abolition of grammar education - but rather for a significant widening of it.

Yes, I appreciate that parents and governers have very limited powers in the current system. My point is that if energies were focused into improving the WHOLE school system eg enabling more parent and governor input throughout, there is much more potential of benefit for more of our children, not just those of a privledged, well-connected and affluent elite.

If/when free schools become the ONLY focus of energies of interested, empowered parents, it will be sapping these energies from the state system, where they're greatly needed.

Adair - refreshing point of view voiced that schools should be inclusive, even if you child does go there. Thanks.

What often people seem to forget (besides Adair) is that our job as parents is not to turn out kids with the best GCSE's / A levels / University Degrees. It is to turn out happy, confident, resiliant, well adjusted adults....

And I don't think there is any correlation between happy adults and the number of GCSE's you have....

Indigobell - My priority is for my dc's is to be happy, confident, resiliant and well adjusted adults. I don't think they will be made any less so by attending good, academic schools. Quite the opposite.

And bright children are still children. They have their own issues and needs - which can, sometimes, be more challenging than those of less able children. I don't agree that they will do fine regardless of their schooling. However, the cost of failing them is disproportunately high.

And there it is you see.

Many parents believe their children will be served by inclusion, many by selection. Some belive a school should be progressive, others traditional.

The only ones who have the choice right now are those of us who can afford to pay - isn't the idea of free schools simply to introduce different types of schools for those reliant on state education.

At the moment we seem to have a certain type of state school that everyone is forced to embrace wether they like it or not...and any attempts to change are met with such ferocity.

I'd add that, on the education threads here, those of us who believe in having a state system for everyone are immediately accused by our detractors of wanting a "one size fits all" education. As if that is all it could possibly mean. As if we automatically support the current state system and somehow love all its imperfections and want to keep them.

Agree, UnquietDad.

Btw, I'd also like to add how heartening Adair's words are about qualifications and inclusion. I'll exclude you from my declaration that "I want what's best for my child" is always a selfish statement! I'm particularly heartened by your experiences of teaching in an inner city school (from entirely selfish perspective, since that's where I live, to the extent that our neighbour told me that there was no point her looking round the outstanding primary, which my kids attend and which she can see from her house, because it is "an inner city state school". This led to a rather tetchy conversation about the implications of her statement and I now hide when I see her!)