Be notified by email of each new post.
Nice try Ian, but 23.5% of the children currently at the WLFS are on free school meals. What percentage of the children at your school are on free school meals?
thanks Jake..will swot up some more
Several of the first 24 free schools have published their funding agreements so there is no reason why the rest shouldn't follow their example.
Your last sentence in no way constitutes a reasonable reason not to publish your funding agreement.
I interpret it as the WLFS trust will consider itself to have two separate schools , one primary , one secondary . As such presumably attendance at the prep....er sorry I mean Primary... won't guarantee a place at the secondary- soooo actually a fairer school structure than expansion of the WLFS secondary across the age range.... surely ???
It is no guarantee - unless there is a preemptive clause in the WLFS funding agreement that allows a feeder system from a future primary set by the same trust... But by virtue of having the admissions as they are in the 'upper school' and as it is exactly twice the size of the primary, it will be the rare child at the 'lower school' that doesn't get to WLFS.
We're going to submit an application to set up the WLFS primary as a new free school then, assuming it's approved, join the primary and secondary schools together to create an all-through school. As such, pupils at the primary will automatically qualify for places at the secondary. We haven't yet decided what the admissions policy for the primary will be and nor would it be appropriate to do so at this stage. If our proposal is approved, we'll consult the local authority and the local schools before drawing up our admissions arrangements.
aaah thinking about it a bit more ...a guaranteed place in senior school due to place in primary school might (????) promote social inclusion from the point that 11 year old peer pressure is reduced...i.e. a parent chooses a school at 5 but a child has an opinion at 11 and can veto attending WLFS if his mates are off somewhere else.
Ian Taylor is accusing the governors of the West London Free School of operating a socially selective admissions policy. It seems fair, therefore, to ask how socially inclusive his school is. Why no reply, Ian? Is it because your school actually has a lower percentage of children on FSM than ours?
The figure you're citing is for taxpayer-funded primary and secondary schools in LBHF, Marigold. Hence the discrepancy.
Publish the Funding Agreement. That is the issue here Toby. It would help if you didn't detract attention away from it by inflating a side issue about FSM.
How good a measure is FSM for determining how well a child may achieve? I do not understanding why if the WLFS was going to be a 'grammar school for all' at the very least children were not banded and then drawn by lottery from each band. This would have produced a wide range of abilities and a truer test of whether every child can thrive with an academic curriculum.
Unfortunately, Guest, there is a strong correlation between FSM and lower educational achievement. Toby is trying to demonstrate that a significant proportion of children at WLFS are in receipt of FSM, but fails to put the figure in context, ie that it is not truly representative of the area.
Again, you're using the figure for taxpayer-funded primary and secondary schools in LBHF. The fair comparison is with taxpayer-funded secondary schools. According to the latest data made available by LBHF, 28% of children at the borough's taxpayer-funded secondary schools in the academic year 2011-2012 are on FSM. So we're not far off.
When in a hole stop digging Ms Doyle. You accussed the WLFS of not putting their FSM in context but in fact you were wrong - perhaps you should have the good grace to apologise? This is typical of the Luddite spin on this site and similar to a recent similar attempt to smear the WLFS on the basis of 'average house prices' in the area - another incorrect 'factual' claim that got shown up for the nonsense it was.
Good grief. Are you seriously offering up the 'schoolduggery' blog as an objective source of data? A random blogger who opposes free schools unilaterally decides how to define FSM profiles and you take that as reliable evidence? Brilliant.
Allan, Given how keen you are on transparency, can you disclose what percentage of the children at your school are on FSM? How does that stack up against the borough average? And can you also tell us what percentage of the children on FSM at your school got five or more GCSEs at grade C or above including Maths and English this year? Given your passionate opposition to education reform, it would be good to know how adequately your own, unreformed school is serving the poorest pupils in your area. Thanks in advance.
Potts and kettles Butthead. Stick to the day job.
Answer the questions, Allan.
I believe Ian Taylor is a teacher at a secondary school in Devon and Allan Beavis is the Chair of Governors at a secondary school in Lambeth. Could be wrong. Perhaps they could enlighten us. Why should it just be me answering questions, Janet? Seems a little one-sided.
The reality is Janet that thankfully you and the other left wing Luddites on this site are in a very small minority indeed. Most people in the country support Gove and recognise the need for reform. Some of the tough decisions Gove has had to make are not driven by an over zealous right wing ideology but by a simple lack of money - in no small part caused by the previous Labour government on whose watch this financial meltdown occured. As far as I can see, the main suggestion on this site is to be a bit like 'like Finland' but as has been debated ad nauseum (bit of Latin for Toby) that is not possible due to the independent sector in this country. Will Gove's reforms work? Its too early to say of course. But the majority in this country would prefer him to try rather than see many of our pupils suffer in a stagnating system.
Publish the Funding Agreement
Toby - your question in partly answered in the post above. Asking such questions about the schools of other posters is rhetoric designed to deflect attention from the main questions - the proposed expansion of WLFS to an all-age school and the non-publication of the funding agreement. The question about the number of FSM pupils gaining five or more GCSE grade C at the schools is particularly irrelevant because it will be five years before WLFS pupils take these exams.
What exactly Butthead are you expecting to see in these funding agreements that will be so shocking? Enlighten us with your Luddite wisdom about what the publication of these agreements will show! Those published to date have hardly made front page news so while will the WLFS or others but any more different?
More information about text formats