Be notified by email of each new post.
Allan you are governor at Stoke Newington right?
Because you're the one who's just set up a school and the other two are a teacher and governor respectively?
I thought the DfE were publishing when the first 24 were opened? That was back in September. It is looking increasingly as if both the DfE and Free School supporters don't want us to know something.
On your last point, me too. Some of the primaries near WLFS have 60% pupils on FSM. That's a huge difference.
Out of interest Toby, did you consider banding as a way of selecting pupils for your school?
Incredible! After all the guff from the LSN about FSM numbers at free schools and segregation all you can say about Stoke Newington's numbers is 'who cares'? Clearly, and predictably, FSM data only matters to you when it affirms your own opinion.
You never actually say anything of any interest do you Butthead? All you do is spend considerable time criticising or insulting anyone who disagrees with you on the Luddite Schools Network. What do you actually add to the reform debate by way of any progressive dialogue or positive ideas of your own? Change the record. Its really boring. Left wing versus right wing - its so dull. You're so dull. What we need is a Third Way!
I think the difference is more profound than that. Learning Trust describes itself as "not for profit" rather than "a charity" which suggests it isn't a registered charity, but, rather, a for-profit company that has decided not to try and turn a profit from this particular line of work. The West London Free School Academy Trust, by contrast, is a registered charity. Perhaps you could clarify, Allan?
No Leonard. What is incredible, clear and predictable is your inability to understand text. I did not say FSM data doesn't matter. It was The Hon Toby Young who introduced it into the thread in a misguided and patronising attempt to argue that a school in Stoke Newington is less socially inclusive than the WLFS because it doesn't have enough data busting underprivileged children. The point I made was that the intake was very diverse but drawn from its immediate catchment area. How this misuse of data is supposed to affirm my opinion says much more about your prejudices than it does about me, Leonard
No I haven't. Learn to understand what is written Ben.
I see. But how do you know that free schools are not drawing from thier 'local cathment area' - you have implied that selection caused the observations regarding their FSM numbers.
The "covert selection" charge against us only makes sense if you take it for granted that a group of mixed ability pupils can't tackle an academic curriculum. We would dispute that. The founding principle of the WLFS is that every pupil can benefit from an academically rigorous curriculum, regardless of background and regardless of ability.
Actually, I do think I dispute this. Pupils who are are working at grades E, F, and G at GCSE need a curriculum that is catered for their needs. (Pupils can be operating at this level for a variety of reasons. For some pupils however hard they try they are not going to achieve C grades in Maths and English etc.) I think your headmaster recognises this. Why would some people defend the existence of grammar schools if they did not think that some pupils benefit from an academic curriculum and others would not. The schools where I live (not London- few private schools and no grammars) recognise this and pupils after discussion with parents and teachers chose different pathways at GCSE. This is not necessarily a straight academic/ vocational split either. All the schools have an academic pathway and bright children from whatever background are not prevented from following it. If you take an alternative pathway this does not mean you will not be challenged to think and question what you are doing.
Thank you for the link Toby to the accounts of the Learning Trust. I note from their financial statement that the Council's contract with the Learning Trust ceases in 2012 and the Council has agreed to take over the company on 1 August 2012. The company will retain fewer financial resources in 2011/12 and will pass more resources to schools who will be able to decide how best to deploy these resources. I presume (but correct me if I'm wrong) that any surplus in the Trust's accounts would be transferred to the Council on 1 August.
Suppose you divide all the applicants into four bands according to ability: top 25%, middle 50% and bottom 25% and then allocate places within each band according to straight-line distance. If the distance you have to live from the school to qualify for a place in the top or middle band is smaller than the distance you have to live to qualify for a place in the bottom band, parents who don't live close enough for their children to qualify for a top or or middle band place have an incentive to encourage their children to do badly in the test in order to qualify for a bottom band place. These conditions arise quite often. The more academically successful and popular the school, the more likely the school is to have band-specific catchment areas that sit within each other like concentric circles, with the smallest circle belonging to the top band. Why? Because academically successful schools will inevitably have more applicants from children of above average ability.
Surely the Learning Trust is accountable to Hackney Council ?
I think the key piece of information to look out for with free schools is whether their FSM figures are significantly different to those in the surrounding community and other local schools. If they are not there is a good chance they are managing to engineer a more favourable intake from elsewhere.
Yes it is and it is clear they do, as their website makes crystal clear.
Glad we've cleared that up Janet.
I can assure you the WLFS does not get £825,000/pupil. We get the same amount as maintained schools and academies in LBHF, as Nick Gibb said.
Boy ...that would be some school if £825,000 per pupil...meant £825,000 total for year as stated in Hansard..which I think works out at £6875/pupil.....allowances do tend to be higher in poorer urban areas..on the assumption that all schools in an area address the same proportion of socio-economic problems.
Illuminating in what way? Other than 'proving' that Stoke Newington is pretty upmarket these days and, by using the Fair Admissions Protocol aka LBH, it's intake is pretty middle class. The nearby primaries have FSMs of between 17-26%, so all seems pretty coherent to me.
The LSN has used such comparisons as evidence of free schools causing segregation. Glad to see that you are against the practice.
Illuminating only if the school had something to conceal. Much more illuminating would be the contents of the WLFS Funding Agreement.
Why are less disadvantaged children attending Stoke Newington then Allan? Remember you have implied that Toby is covertly selecting his intake on the basis of similar figures.
No I didn't. Why do you find it so difficult to understand what you read? I did not imply anything of the sort. It was Toby Young who brought up FSM figures to detract from the fact that he was being asked to publish his Funding Agreement. Stoke Newington School was not founded by an attention seeking individual who was given £15m to set up a school largely on the boast that its existence was to give opportunities to the poor. Stoke Newington School does not parade its FSM or SEN figures to score points - it is an inclusive school which admits its intake from the catchment area, which is a mix of a diverse population of people. What would you like SNS to do? Bus in hundreds of poor children from miles away and outside the community to satisfy your FSM fetish?
Anyone interested enough to read what Leonard means by @schoolduggery "sticking it to the free schools" can read his rebuttal here on his blog http://educationalopinion.blogspot.com/
More nonsense Leonard. You're on a carousel of circular arguments chasing your own confused tail. I'm done.
If you think I am wrong debate with me instead of resorting to misrepresentation and ad hominems.
More information about text formats