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 should, by the way, point out that the PISA study only happens once every 3 years. The 2009 figures will be released in December.

Fair enough, perhaps I am relying too much on anecdotal evidence. But from reading the Gothenburg Post (which is not usually a very sensational paper) and speaking to parents and teachers, I get the distinct impression that state schools are finding it much harder to a) retain enough students to sustain adequate resources b) insist on high standards, as students think they will get an easier ride in the free schools. Lack of resources is the main reason behind the independent learning: it's not ideology, it's lack of funds. My nephew's school gave up on supply teachers (or cover teachers) years ago, because there is no money. They may try to couch it in terms of independent learning, but no headteacher really believes that a bunch of 10yos left to their own devices for hours on end will actually do as much learning as the same group led by a qualified teacher.

There is immense pressure on state school headteachers to seem as pupil friendly as the free schools. My nephews' school is now offering free laptops as an incentive, not because they have any plan as to how to use them, but because the free schools are very liberal with introductory offers and they feel they have to keep up. Seems a ghastly waste of money that could be used better elsewhere, but they are desperate.

Of course, there is a big difference between the Swedish and the British system, in that Swedish schools have continuous teacher assessment rather than an externally marked coursework/exam system. This means that many (shortsighted) students will try to get into the schools with perceived lower standards, because that means less hard work and they will not get measured against students from more demanding schools until they have already got into university. And they don't think that far ahead.

Cory -

As far as I know, none of the Gove 'Free Schools' approved to move to the next stage, follow the 'Swedish independent learning' model.

(Happy to be corrected - but could find no evidence of one).

There are 2 Academies (set by Ed Balls) run by Swedish Free School operator Kunskapsskolan (a leader in independent learning). If these go well then Kunskapsskolan plan to open more schools.

As is clear from your and PH47's posts - seperating the impact of independent learning from the impact of the 'free market for schools' on the stats from Sweden is difficult.

Ironically - Toby Young's motivation in setting up his school seems to be (in part) to avoid the independent learning environment of Action school.

I'm glad you mentioned the need for more school places Trying2begd - there has been a spike in the birth rates over last five years and therefore there is a basic need for new schools.

Why not allow interested, motivated people create new schools to fulfil that need - otherwise it will be local authorities who do it - and they are generally lacking in vigour and imagination (apols to all those LA employees who are creative and dynamic - as a system they are slow, ponderous and backward looking). I know I would rather see a parent/ teacher led school.

Goran, what are your objections to the West London Free School? I am genuinely interested to know. As far as I can see they are adding to the educational offer in Ealing and that can surely only be a good thing?

Ealing Council had purchased a very good new high school site and had approval to build. It was potentially to have been managed by Twyford High School which is a school Toby himself says he wants to emulate.

So the fact that AFTER the council lost their approved funding, Toby then had his awarded sticks in many an Ealing throat.

From the Standard article the ambitions of the school make little sense to me. So a fully comprehensive school is going to make every child study eight compulsory subjects at GCSE, and expect them all to do well at all of them? Although I note that their ambitions don't include anything about pass rates, so maybe all the children forced to do subjects that they aren't very good at will just do badly? That doesn't seem to fit into any choice agenda to me (unless choice is the exclusive preserve of parents that is).

Anyone know the latest on this. he advertised for a head in the TES recently. It seems quite bizarre that parents can apply for a school that doesn't exist and has no teachers.

I think Toby Young's free school is opening in Hammersmith this September. From what I understand 50% will be admitted by catchment and the rest by lottery.

Will be interesting to see if all of TY's kids will gain places to his own school as they are not in the catchment area and if the lottery is run fairly.

AFAIK his kids are younger - so none in current year 6. They have a head apparently, ex-private school i understand, and a site which they haven't announced (not sure if it is for good or a temp site) Applications are in tandem with the CAF - the idea being you get your regular offer plus an offer of place there if you get in on offers day.

Can you tell it was Y6 mums catch up last night?

how can they decide to do half catchment and half lottery?

Doesn't seem to really make sense.

Was it Adair further down who wanted inclusive schools? I couldn't agree more tbh. The dc's school is fully inclusive and it works very well (is fully wheelchair friendly and seems to have quite a good SENCO set up).

I do agree with UQD tbh - I think there is something good for society about being able to go to your local school. Almost every child on the street here goes to the same school so if there are ever any drop off/pick up issues, they are easily sorted out. Families can support each other better and most children walk to school.

I would love to be able to think of an admissions solution that took all the local children but didn't discrimate on house price. I suppose the difficulty is successful schools attract more admissions, the catchment gets smaller and the smaller it gets, the more some people feel the need to manipulate and the house prices go up.

The obvious paper solution is that all schools were acceptable to all parents thus stopping this rat race fight for the so called best ones. I do think, in this case, league tables have a lot to answer for. They certainly don't give a full picture and I do think prospective parents rely on them an awful lot. You tend to get a more well rounded picture of education once your children are in school, not before they join, when you have to make your decisions!

I think the lottery idea was to stop it becoming a refuge for middle class kids whose parents use selection by mortgage.

I wonder if the intake will be self-selected to some degree. I see a lot of 'oh it's run by people called Cosmo and Toby' stuff which may possibly put off people who perceive it as being run for the middle classes by the middle classes. And compulsory Latin, aiming for good universities and 100% passing five GCSEs plus no non-traditional subjects may well put others off.

My daughter's only four so I have faced no harder decisions than where to choose for primary education (which I think is less fraught than secondary choices). If I found that she was struggling at primary level, I don't think I'd really want to send her somewhere that was aiming for Oxbridge as the ultimate prize, because I would want her to be happy not struggling. I wouldn't want a child struggling with basics to be faced with compulsory Latin, either, nor to have no choice of easier subjects that might allow her to gain some good grades and perhaps along the way some confidence in her own abilities. However, if she turns out to be fairly academic this kind of school might well be a good fit for her and I would certainly consider it. I went to school in Hammersmith (somewhere I could never afford to send my DD) and lived slightly further out of London than I do now, which is well within travelling distance to Hammersmith.

I don't see a major problem with 'self selection' if it's truly academically based (and not socially based). It seems to be what they do in several European counties such a Germany at 11+ and even Finland at 16.

What is odd to me is the idea that academically mixed intakes are the optimum way to run a school.

Fox - you are lucky to have a good local school with a truly socially mixed intake. Unfortunately, many good schools will have a socially exclusive intake. Which basically means that most of bright, poor children end up in less good schools.

Do you not realize that even at aged 3 there is very clear correspondence between academic performance and social class jackstar??

Any sort of selection is going to involve exclusion (primarily of those already most disadvantaged) and an addition leg up to those who are largely already ahead.

oh I'm not sure it does jacks, but it certainly doesn't turn away disabled or special needs children (like some schools do)

I wonder if anyone has done a study of school success and say average income of the intake because people often quote the poor, bright child getting a poor education but I do wonder if this is not only the case (i.e. statistically, there must be a fair amount of poor, bright children going to good schools too).

I mean I think the only reason people believe that wealthier families' children don't get a 'poor' education is that they can opt out and pay for private or select a school on house prices but that can't always be the case either surely?

There's loads of research which confirms that poor children are more likely to go to poor schools. It's not only by going private that middle class parents work the system, it's affording houses in leafier areas and going the church school route. It's also working the league tables and being able to travel. Poor parents are usually stuck with the nearest school which will take them which is v often a poor school.

It's also well known that covert selection goes on at highly performing schools i.e. by interview or by cost of school uniform. Oh, and selection at grammar schools and at foundation schools which can select a proportion of students by 'aptitude'.

I read somewhere that the top performing state schools have a ridiculously low percentage of kids on free school meals and actually rival private schools in terms of the wealth of their intakes parents.

Read this www.suttontrust.com/research/the-social-composition-of-top-comprehensive-schools/

It's pretty depressing.

The admissions the the West London Free School are in three categories:

• a few musically gifted places awarded after a musical aptitude test (the test looks for natural ability not coached performance)
• lottery within a defined catchment area. Everyone within that catchment area has the same chance, those closest to the school have no more chance than those further away but still in catchment (48%ish of places)
• lottery outside of catchment area (48%ish of places). anyone can apply for these. The purpose of this is partly that it allows Ealing children a chance to get in now that the school won't be in Ealing.

thanks fivecandles

very interesting paper, I mean the grammar school stuff utterly predictable

when you look at the stats though, the 'normal' comps (i.e. totally non selective, LA admission based) do reflect their local area but are located in areas with a low FSM percentage anyway

it is bloody depressing though

why does it happen that way do you think?

There was some research done on admissions last year for Banardos. The research found that one reason why there are less poor children in good schools was they just didn't apply to the better schools.

For a variety of reasons their parents chose to send then to, what was often, the most local school, regardless of how bad it was.

But it's not much of a choice is it?

If you are poor and badly educated and don't understand league tables or have other things on your mind like how to pay the bills, don't go to church and don't understand the whole notion of pretending to go to church to get into a better school, can't afford to get a tutor for the whole grammar school fiasco and don't have transport you're probably going to send your kids to the nearest school aren't you?

As for those state 'comps' which are high performing but not selective, they're probably in leafy areas that have always been well to do. There are lots of examples in places like St Albans where you have to have loads of cash to live. Or they could be ex grammar schools in middle class locations which have held on to their reputation despite not selecting.