School being set up by wealthy city types "snubs" poorer children

[ISNT]

I saw this headline in the shops today - article is here. If what it says is correct it's terrible, surely. Does anyone know anything about it? Aren't there any rules about how these new schools can choose their pupils? It all seems very strange.

I've been waiting for this thread.

Frankly, i don't think there is any way of stopping it. It was virtually assured as soon as the government changed.

The feeder schools thing is just .

There's been much moaning about the fact there isn't a secondary school convenient to Nappy Valley, thus forcing the residents, who have paid enormous sums to access excellent state education at primary, to have to slum it with the oiks in the scramble for what's on offer, state-wise, at secondary.

Distance criteria would make this new school open to H. and B.

So why the feeder thing? It has to be about exclusion, and guaranteeing access. ie. Pay once for your house at primary, and guarantee a pleb free state education.

Already funding for the purchase of the site is being transferred from other schools. It is really, really, really depressing.

Top tips for a good education system:

• abolish the admissions code.
• remove national pay-bargaining and allow Heads to set pay for individual teachers.
• lift ban on opening new grammar schools.
• abolish education authorities.
• abolish testing until GCSEs.
• add monies saved to per annum sum currently spent per pupil.
• give every parent a voucher to this amount, to be spent on any school in the country (topped up by own money if seeking to 'go private').
• abolish grade 'standards' and re-introduce 'bell-curve' marking.

Sit back and watch the standards rise across the board as true competition works its wonders.

pascoe - your last post seemed to kill the discussion .

Reading this thread - the thing that strikes me is that the two main objections to Free Schools are contradictory.

1. Free Schools are a device to enable the middle classes to gain a better education for their dc's at the expense of the tax payer.

1. That Free Schools will be inferior to other state schools as they won't follow the national curriculum and will employ unqualified teachers.

Both can't be true.

My objection to point 2 is not as you report it.

My objection is that if the national curriculum and qualified teachers are unnecessary, then change the rules for all the schools. It makes no sense for traditional schools to have to jump through all of these hoops if they do not need to be adhered to by the new breed. Either you need a national curriculum, or you don't. Either you need qualified teachers, or you don't.

It's illogical.

I haven't seen anyone say that these new schools will be inferior.

Anyway I've had a thought.

Currently independent (private) schools can hire who they like, and do not have to adhere to the national curriculum.

The only reason I can see for waiving the usual rules for the new schools is to encourage the situation that marsha raised earlier, where one of her local fee paying independent schools is applying for this status so that the taxpayer will pay the fees for these (obviously privileged) children. The idea that this is what the scheme had in mind when it was set up would explain why the rules for it reflect the current situation in independent schools and are miles away from the statutory obligations of all other state funded schools.

Fair enough ISNT.

I see Free Schools as an opportunity for some innovation and creativity within our education system. If Free Schools find better ways of doing things - then this can be fed back into state schools. If not then the Free Schools won't survive long.

This is the perfect time - as we having a small baby-boom and extra senior school places would need to be funded anyway.

Actually - I think this could be an opportunity for those convinced that a 'truly mixed ability' comprehensive is the optimum school. This gives them the chance to set one up, control the admissions (to ensure a balanced intake) and run full mixed ability teaching.

Well we'll see.

So far I'm not convinced - of the three free schools that I've heard about being set up, one appears to have fiddled its entry criteria to leave out less well off children, and another is a fee paying independent school which will presumably keep all of its existing children and then run a sibling policy, and god knows how they will fix their entry criteria. All 3 of them are being set up by extremely wealthy groups. I haven't seen any propositions for new free schools in difficult areas, or set up by charities, or anything like that.

I would like to think positively about all of these initiatives but I'm dubious to say the least.

Free Schools = Schools for the wealthy subsidised by the plebian masses.

Academies = educational borstals for the poor.

Our local Steiner school is doing this. Aside from the fact Steiner is no better than a cult it also picks and chooses it's pupils ie not everybody can go so never in a million years a "free" school.

Totally shocked that the gov are going to be just allowed to throw money away with this policy.

Also in 5 years time when the Tories are kicked out and whoever in power gets rid of this ridiculous policy what is going to happen to all the kids at these schools? There will be major upheaval when their parents realise they'll have to pay for their private (at the taxpayers expense) education but can't afford to do so.

The steiner schools comment reminds me - when this was announced I imagined that a lot of religious schools will be set up. There are many schools which at the moment have to be set up as private, as the things they teach do not coincide with the national curriculum. These schools will now be eligible for state funding under the free school criteria.

It will be interesting to see how everyone reacts when schools aimed at various types of fundamental religious beliefs start to spring up.

I've been waiting for this too TBH I expected someone local to start it but I think they are all scared of spoiling the cash cow (or whatever phrase suits)
The Bol closed ages ago and now Georges need to sell the site to balance the books (first issue note to council once family silver has gone it's gone had they not sold off lots of other Wandsworth schols they would not be in this mess).
The issues include whether this school is needed at all and especially in this area, also whether it can be afforded, the feeder schools thing is such a blatant attempt at keeping others out I'm surprised even Wandsworth dares to be that naked about it. What people havn't said is that although Wix and High view are included as feeder schools distance (in propertion to applications) will then come into it (note to Wandsworth why bring in the admission criteria for almost every other school in the borough after feeder schools? please name other schools with feeder schools and show how this is suddenly fair) since Belleville is now 4 form and Honeywell 3 you can see the chances for Wix/Highview kids getting to the school are pretty low.
There are complicated stats about the number of chidren from these schools passing the exams for Graveney etc leading to misguided support for the new school from Tooting parents in the belief that they will be more likely to get places and others concerning the number of applications for places at another local school (Chestnut Grove) the figure quoted is high since they include everyone who put the school anywhere on the list despite the fact that a large number come from far further away than BTC (ie there would be lots of room at the school) there was I believe a very low (ie single figure) number of students at CG from these primaries. There is also an issue about the need for places vs the popularity of good schools ie can you ever create enough for schools like Honeywell/Belleville. Apparently the poor delicate little children from BTC are unable to walk a few hundred meters to school at the age of 11 so need one closer (interestingly there is another campaign for a bus to connect CG to Clapham Junction and sending BTC kids to CG would presumably help with that too )

I have seen nothing from ARK as to why they intend to set up a school here (I had thought they were interested in helping out more needy inner city type areas but I'm not sure where I got that from) it of course begs the question why they don't just take over CG. I have heard nothing from either headmaster (Belleville or Honeywell) about the whole thing. Wandsworth have provided no reason for the feeder schools that I am aware of.

Interestingly (again) sorry is the fact that arguably 'unfair' admissions criteria are being applied to the Belleville primary annexe again favouring BTC parents over all other local children in need of school places.

It will be interesting to see what happens George's needs the money yet I think it is a done deal.

House prices around them around 1,000,000 for a typical London 3/4 bed terrace usually massively overextended with loft and side return and the gardens are tiny.

Honeywells postcode is SW11 6EF if anyone cares to google

sorry about typos

Ilovecrisps: I completely agree with you about the Belleville annex plans. On current plans, children who live a mile away (BTC) will be favoured over those living opposite the school! And those living 2 streets from it will be completely excluded from catchment.

I would have catchments based on the door of each site, or no catchment just distance to each site. Especially as the streets round the new Belleville satellite are completely swamped by schoolrun traffic already from the 4 private schools and nearby lycee.

The Bolingbrooke site though is a good place for a new secondary, and Wandsworth does need one.

No catchments I cannot see any justification for having catchments unless you bring them in for all schools the council will never do that because there are significant areas where large numbers of children get no school until the Summer holidays.

I'm not sure the site is good no outdoor space is it big enough? no parking poor road access? what about space to expand? space for Science/dining hall/indoor sports/kitchens etc etc pretty poor disabled access.
Why shouldn't ARK take over CG then the huge numbers of bussed in Lambeth/Tooting/further out students can be pushed out by BTC kids.

I just don't know enough about Wandsworth needing a new sec sorry what about expansion of existing ones (take the old was it Hernville site back and expand CG further)

Sorry should be distance to each site like other schools in borough and Henry Cav and Streatham site in Lambeth

ISNT - this Guardian article has a profile of Sanid Hussain who is setting up a Free School in a deprived area.

The comments at the end are hysterical. At first the anti faith league vent - assuming that as he has a muslim name he must be setting up a muslim school. Then the Guardian intervines to correct this - all is quiet until someone googles the school, finds out the major sponsor is a Christian and away they go again...

The Guardinista's at their best .

Hello omniplops and ilovecrisps.

I think I can see the point of a secondary school around there, in fairness. There are a lot of children in that area.

So agree with the comment about the feeder schools thing being so blatant is seems unbelievable.

Distance, surely, would give them what they want. The feeders school thing is blatantly about securing the school against children from lower-income families.

Regarding the OP. The 'feeder school system' is an excellent method for excluding pupils of local private primary schools.

I wonder what these 'rich bankers' think of that?

jackstar - I think I'd need you to expand on that a bit, because I don't quite get what you mean.

I'm interested in what Michael Gove would think. Maybe I am really, really naive, but it does seem to go against what he was talking about wrt education.

the feeder schools chosen for this school, at this stage, really do exclude closer schools, in favour of those further away, with higher family incomes. If you live around here, they leap at you.

I think there is one, token, "poor-children's" (!!!! irony alert !!!) school included. But, clearly, it's a beard, and the children are to be included in very diluted numbers, so as to diffuse objections, and not de-rail what will be a largely (very) middle-class intake.

Basically, children from lower-income families cost money, and stretch resources. Its what makes it hard to cover the bases in comprehensive state schools. The sad, unfortunate truth hidden in lots of Sutton Trust figures, is that streaming in comprehensive schools has a hidden socio-economic component.

(Clearly, I'm not saying poor = less academically able - please give me credit for not thinking that. It is, obviously, really complex. But it really does come up in lots of Sutton Trust reports into education.)

Running a small school (as BS is going to be) would be impossible if they had to stretch their resources to cover all the abilities and complex needs most state schools in London face. Hence limiting that range by limiting the socio-economic range of their intake.

I think the people setting it up are just desperate to avoid a "Clapham Manor" effect. (And again, I have friends with dc at CM, doing well - I am merely trying to get into the heads of the people proposing this ghastly feeder school idea.)

animula - regarding feeder schools.

A private school can't normally be a recognised 'feeder' into a state school. And certainly not in this case. So if a Free School choses a feeder school admissions system and is over-subscribed - only those children in the feeder schools get a place. Children who attend a local private school will not get a place.

I live in an area that operates a 'feeder system' and it actively prevents migration from private to state schools (whether you consider that a good or bad thing).

I understand what you are saying about scale - and agree. But then I find the idea of massive intake comprehensives pretty appalling - I attended one and think the pupils' emotional and well-being costs, outway the ideological gain.

I know a little bit about Bolingbroke School and the reason that they want to use local feeder schools is two-fold:

1. there is a desperate shortage of secondary school places in that area. Of the four schools chosen as feeders which have something like 240 pupils leaving, they went to 49 different secondary school the year before last (I don't know the figures for last year).

2. the area is very wealthy and over-represented by children at private schools. By insisting that children who attend Bolingbroke have been to one of the local state schools, they are trying to stop it becoming a school populated only by the super-rich. My children attend one of the state schools (I don't want to out myself by saying which one) that is mentioned in the piece and I can assure you that there is a mix of children and cultures. I don't know where the Mirror got those average earnings from but they will, presumably, be an average for the area not the school (how the hell, could anyone know?) and include those with children in private schools or those without children at all.

The man who has been behind setting up the school is a builder, not a fatcat . As far as I can tell, the banking companies mentioned have nothing to do with the proposed school directly but have, in the past, supported ARK which was set up as a charity, initially, by Arpad Busson, the hedge fund manager. He used to (perhaps still does) hold a glamorous charity event once a year that had various sponsors and whose guests mainly came from the finance sector. The article very cynically tried to conflate this event with support for this particular school.

ilovecrips ARK is involved because the school proposal was originally set up by local parents (the builder mentioned above and a few others, one or two of whom I know and who do not work in finance or seem to live especially lavish lifestyles) but it got to a point where they could only take it so far. They can't run the school themselves so they invited applications from organisations that do manage schools and ARK was considered the best (on what grounds, I have no idea).

Incidentally, the Hearnville Rd site you mentioned, now houses a (private) school, Hornsby House - the LA can't just take it back.

Regarding the proposed Belleville catchment areas, I believe that they are an attempt by the council to make it fairer for parents who live near the new Belleville sattelite site to get admission into the school. From what I understand from parents with children at Belleville, the school desperately wants to keep its current arrangement that uses traditional siblings and then distance to sort out admissions.

lala I think the extent of the shortage of sec. school places in that area rather than Wandsworth generally is as yet unproven I again refer you to Chestnut Grove and again make the point that ARK could have taken that over, there is admittedly limited room to extend on the CG site without using Hernville.

I'm well aware it houses HH you will have to agree though that Wandsworth has sold/leased a lot of schools in the area, off the top of my head I can think of Hernville, Thomas' and 2 by the Latchmere leisure centre
I don't know how many are leased or sold I'd guess mostly sold in view of all the extensions etc tis a shame it would have been far cheaper/more sensible to use these sites but there again the residents just love that low council tax.

I think the private school issue is a non-issue but thanks for telling me how they are attempting to justify feeder schools, I hadn't heard that but why don't they just name the closest 10 state primaries then? I suspect the majority of parents using private schools have no intention of using a state secondary (excluding religious-maybe! and grammar) None of my friends who choose private primary intend using a state secondary unless it is by moving house or grammar. There is also usually a good chance of getting a B or H place higher up the school if money becomes an issue.

Being in London it would be hard not to have a mix of cultures but the more trad markers of eg no English at school start and fsm are VERY low in both schools compared to others in the area.

I made no mention of fat cats/bankers or builders in my post I'd mearly said that I thought ARK was more interested in operating in slightly more challenging areas, do you know what's in it for them?

i don't understand your comment about the Belleville annex

That article is hilarious. I can't believe such biased and screechy reporting can be classed as "journalism".

Will be a while before I stray into the Mirror again ...

...and why are we surprised that terribly middle class folk are setting up a school only "for people like us dahling"?

So bloody obvious that this was there agenda - set uop a school only for those who meet their criteria so little Jocasta does not have to mix with the oiks from the council estate down the road - heaven forbid.

Or do I owe them apology?