Another Headteacher gone from West London Free School?

[orangecurd]

According to the Good Schools Guide, Mr Naismith 'left abruptly in May 2014'. This must obviously have been in the last few days. Do any current parents (or anyone else) know more?

Windymill plenty of low income parents I know are self-selecting not to even apply to the WLFS, because of the very high cost of the uniform, the "voluntary" monthly donation the parents are asked to make, and the other extras. Somehow, I think this is neither a surprise to the WLFS, nor something they are particularly interested in addressing.

That's quite interesting because the school we sent our DD to wasn't entirely different and the school SLT nd governors and those who wanted everything for nowt seemed to have not a worry that half the population subsidised the other. The school would have been a far better place if some families had decided not apply. I am perfectly happy to subsidise those who are poor; I shall never be happy to subsidise those who think they can piss on everyone else's parade. H&F has schools designed specially for them and there is no need for them to destroy the education of those who wish to be educated. If they can't behave there are alternatives and there is no need to dilute the education of girls who want to learn, whatever the background of any girl.

Windymill - you do know there's a difference between "badly behaved" and "poor", don't you? The people I am talking about are ambitious for their smart, well-behaved children, but are self-selecting out because they can't afford what should be a free education at WLFS, but isn't.

I'd also be sinply fascinated to know which school in H&F you think are designated especially for the feckless poor.

As it stands, the ones being subsidised are the sharp-elbowed middle classes who think that free schools are a way of making the rest of us pay their school fees.

I most certainly do Titus. I also think school rules need to be applied fairly to all children and not differentiated becasue of different backgrounds.

Oh, in H&F, let me see - Hurlingham and Chelsea for one. Lots of children have swerved that one since the selection rules changed and I don't think the overall results for H&F will be rising as a result.

I disagree with you about the overall ethos because I disagree fundamentally about the race to the bottom and the fact that standards for all should not be diluted because of excuses made for those who should not be in mainstream schools. H&F has a lot of form not managing that.

There are many middle class parents who simply don't have an extra 16k after tax to educate their children. The alernatives in London are grim - there used to be alternatives for girls - we tried one - and whipped dd out sharpish because of the way it was going. We were actually committed to supporting non fee paying alternatives but were back footed over it.

You say subsiding the sharp elbowed middle classes. I'd say the middle classes who aren't well off enough to live in London and pay school fees but who also want the best education possible for children who might not be in the Tiffin league.

There needs to be middle way and diluting standards for everyone isn't it. It certainly isn't appropriate that state schools should dilute and betray those who support them most; this helps no-one, not least the well behaved girl of the estates who wants to achieve but is pulled between doing so and the chav threat from those on her estate who might not have got a place in that school a generation ago. A generation ago that girl might have had an assisted place at Putney High or the boy an asssisted place at Emmanuel.

How has the present situation benefitted children who deserve to be allowed to thrive academically.

Wow, Windymills, you seem to think that middle-class parents automatically have a right to a better education for their children than poor ones. I don't think you have any idea what people out of your price-bracket are like, beyond the "chavs" you so clearly despise, so I'm not wholly convinced there's any point to this conversation.

OK, Windymills, one last go at this: what do you think the low income parents of averagely bright, well-behaved children should do, when they can't afford the extra money that somewhere like the WLFS would charge them? Should they just abandon any ambitions they have for their kids, as obviously the middle-class kids whose parents don't want to pay school fees deserve the chances more?

NO. I think boroughs like H&F need to deal with those who can't behave in the mainstream and fund the units required to deal with them so that EVERY child had equal opportunities. Unfortunately H&F won't do that and has one of the worst reputations in the London area for not doing it. Therefore those who can pressure, pressure for schools like WLFS. The system stinks from top to bottom but if all that prevails is an excuse based culture and many heads buried in the sand the WLFS is the outcome.

Every poor child deserves an education as good as every middle class child but that will only come about if H&F make proper provision for those who cannot and should not be in the mainstream. Stuffing them into formerly revered schools does not resolve the problem.

Why do you keep on bringing up kids who should not be in the mainstream into a conversation about how poor kids are being excluded from WLFS? They are not the same category.

I thought the whole point of the WLFS strict old-school ethos was that if you put an oik in a school with high behaviour expectations, they'd suddenly shape-up (see Gove and Wilshaw).

It seems that instead the whole point of the WLFS is to provide the middle classes somewhere to get their kids away from the oiks without having to pay for it, by pricing the oiks out by stealth?

Because H&F don't deal with this as effectively as do other boroughs. Bangs head

noblegirrafe you've hit the nail on the head.

Windymills ...but that is a totally separate argument from the "poor kids having their education money appropriated my middle-class kids via the medium of free schools".

No it isn't. If HandF dealt appropriately with these issues the middle class parents wpouldn't resort to WLFS type tactics.

What exactly don't H & F deal with effectively?

I've no idea about their SEN provision, but I also have no idea how not being able to manage mainstream school fits into discussion about W L F S, or the schools that you mention.

And you still haven't answered the question about what families who have kids who are in mainstream schools should do if they can't afford the uniform for WLFS or the like.

They do not have adequate provision for those who cannot cope in the mainstream.

Is WFLS uniform any more expensive than anyone else's uniform? Funny when dd went to an HandF outstanding school, it was the DC from the estates who had the designer clothes, Iphones and bags - not the MC children. Don't quite understand how a 12 year old has an i-phone when mum can't afford uniform???

Yes, WLFS uniform is quite substantially more expensive than a lot of other schools.

Are you seriously saying that all poor people are like that, just because you encountered a teen with bling? What about all the poor people who spend their small budgets in a way you approve of (perhaps you could visit their houses with a tape measure to check that their telly isn't too big), but who nonetheless cannot afford the uniforms, the monthly "donations", and all the other extras that a school like WLFS would cost them?

(Seriously, do you base your class analysis on once having watched an episode of Benefit Street?)

No, I base it on having sent my dd to an HandF state school for two years.

In what ways don't children 'cope' in the mainstream?

Are you talking about children with SEN or something else?

Agree that SEN provision often not adequate but don't think this unique to H&F.

No, I'm talking violence, theft, pyromania, gross insubordination to staff alongside continual low level disruption.

Ah.

What types of solutions do you think H&F should or could come up with?

I noticed you didn't answer my question on what about the poor people whose spending you would approve of.

nearthewindmill the issues you describe would not be dealt with by sending a child out of the mainstream system. If they were not dealt with appropriately then that is due to weakness in the school's disciplinary policy.

titus the argument is not about approving other people's spending and where on earth do your comments about benefit Street come from.

christina in my opinion H&F needs more Pru's and needs to be far more supportive of schools who need to permanently exclude. I agree some of it is a leadership issue but good and healthy organisations deal with leadership issues hence my earlier argument about WLFS.

Dame Sally Coates is stepping in at WLFS 'to keep an eye' on the place until they appoint Head Teacher 3:

<a class="break-all" href="http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&link=nnet-server.com/server/common/hffreeschool013.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&link=nnet-server.com/server/common/hffreeschool013.htm

Stepping in, but not a 'formal role; according to TY>

windymill. So you're proposing that H&F need help to send children from families whose behaviour/spending habits you don't approve of to PRUs?

It was YOU who brought up spending habits of other families at 22.49 last night, which didn't add much to your argument, imvho, and those types of sweeping generalisations actively contribute to the 'apartheid' between the haves and have nots that you earlier mentioned.

Windymill exactly, the argument is what poor people should do when they cannot afford the uniform and other extra costs that places like WLFS impose. Which you still haven't addressed.