Private schools have a 'moral duty' to their pupils - not the Government's academies

The history of education in the UK is a history of private success and public failure.

Research regularly tells us the best education systems in the world are those with little central interference.

This is not the model I see in the academies and free schools initiatives.

Over the years state education has become less about children and more about the fortunes of governments and individual ministers.

Schools have become caught up in an unseemly web of legislation that blows this way and that.

The independent school model works because it responds to a fundamental right and a fundamental responsibility.

Parents have the right to have their children educated as well as possible. They therefore have the responsibility to pay for it.

The partnership between hard-working parents, motivated students and committed schools has ensured no stakeholder rests on their laurels.

The freedom of schools as charities to charge fees in order to make a surplus means investment can be made in a school’s provision.

It is a virtuous cycle. Introducing the state into the equation removes motivation of all parties.

The over-involvement of government in many areas of our lives is a socialist hang-over that has infantilised the nation for generations.

All that has resulted is a lacklustre parade of cheap and low quality provision funded by an agency, the state, which has failed to create successful and lasting change in the way children are educated.

I believe the state, among many things unrelated to education, is there for the most vulnerable. It is there for those who cannot help themselves.

I am the first in line to pay my dues to a government that will lavish care on the unloved, the problematic and often unruly in our society.

That is the original philosophy of the Welfare State.

Dr Seldon says the perceived difficulties associated with fee-paying schools sponsoring academies “need not be burdensome” and the practical difficulties “are much exaggerated”.

As I see it, transforming a failing school or starting a new one is a Sisyphean task.

If an independent school wants to sponsor an academy properly, they need to invest time and energy into it.

If the practical difficulties are easily overcome, the task is not challenging enough and the reward not worth the effort.

We do not have money to spare to send teachers and deputies to form schools elsewhere. And we are behoven to our parents who are already paying twice for education.

As regards private schools “perpetuating social divides”, I want rather to perpetuate the right sort of divide – where the deserving are rewarded and the indolent do not prosper.

However we have lost sight of what a genuine meritocracy is.

Too many do well because of unearned advantage. Others expect help when they are unwilling to give of themselves.

By making education something all parents buy into and make sacrifices for, we have more chance of seeing motivated pupils and united families working towards common goals.

The engine room of the private sector is the hard working school that has to pull together a tough budget each year and strain every sinew to ensure that the educational offering is as high quality as it could be.

It is a tough ask, because they live in an unpredictable and unstable environment and must deliver or die.

As I walk the corridors of my school, I am acutely aware of the sacrifice families are making in financial terms to enjoy the first class education we offer. I am under pressure, as are my fantastic colleagues, to give value for money.

It has created, in the vast number of cases, a co-operation between parent and school for the success of those children in my care. It works. And it has worked here at Taunton School for 164 years.

I often get told independent schools do not live `in the real world’ and commercial organisations know all about survival in tough economic conditions.

Yet I know of few organisations that have lasted more than 100 years.

However, I know of dozens and dozens of fee-charging independent schools who have thrived and been successful over generations.

I believe education should be paid for – yes with a contribution through the tax system from the Government, called by many a voucher scheme.

Otherwise, parents should be allowed to top up what they want and go where they choose.

Schools, logically, would be free to teach and deliver as they please, and charge whatever top up they saw fit.

An inspectorate would guarantee basic standards. Such vouchers would be allowable also at independent schools.

A marketplace develops.

Competition between schools ensues. Schools improve or go under.

Parents see where their hard earned money is going.

Parents are more likely to work better together as a family for the good of their children if they are paying for their education.

‧ Dr John Newton is the Headmaster of Taunton School.

Weird and wonderful university traditions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8888676/Weird-and-wonderful-university-traditions.html

How to set up a Free School

Ironically, the West London Free School has become such an instant hit – over 1,000 children have applied for our 120 places next year – that my own children might not get in. I hope they do, but it will have been worth it no matter what. I’ve written an international bestseller, performed in a one-man show in the West End and co-produced a Hollywood movie, but nothing I’ve ever done has come close to producing the sense of satisfaction I feel about having started this school. I thoroughly recommend it.

The Chicago Way

The only way to win the propaganda war is to be every bit as energetic and relentless as your opponents. In some cases, more so. Every time a damaging story about your proposed new school appears in a newspaper or on the internet, you need to respond immediately. Create a Google alert with the name of your school so you know about any story the moment it appears.

I remember sitting down one Sunday lunchtime to tuck into a roast with my wife and children when I discovered that Fiona Millar, ex-adviser to Cherie Blair, had just written a post for an anti-free-schools website accusing my group of trying to throw some handicapped children out of their special school so we could move into the building. Not true, obviously, but I had to get up from the dinner table that second, go to my garden office and spend the next two hours composing a “comment” to leave beneath her piece that rebutted every element of the story. If I hadn’t done that – and if I hadn’t used the phrase “false and malicious”, indicating that the piece in question gave me ample ammunition to bring a libel suit against anyone repeating the allegations – the story could have ended up in the following day’s Mirror.

Whenever I talk to free-school proposer groups on this topic, I like to quote a bit of dialogue from The Untouchables: “You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way – and that’s how you get Capone.”

The Elevator Pitch

As soon as you go public with your proposal to set up a free school, you need a pithy one-sentence description of your school that captures its essence. The Reach Academy in Feltham, due to open in 2012, announces itself on its website as follows: “Our vision is that all children, regardless of background, benefit from a first-class education and realise their full potential.” The Free School being set up in Newham by Peter Hyman, a former strategy adviser for Tony Blair, goes with: “School 21: For success in the 21st century.”

These are good examples of what’s known in the business world as the elevator pitch: a brief, punchy description of your idea that conveys its essence in 30 seconds or less, as if you were a post boy who found himself in the lift with the CEO and had that long to present him with your career-changing idea.

Once you’ve decided on your elevator pitch, get it out there. Make sure that all the members of your group memorise it and trot it out at every available opportunity.

This is how you win a political argument: you repeat the same thing over and over again. It’s boring – it’s one of the reasons politicians often give the impression of being robotic – but you’ve got to do it. Your enemies know this and they’re good at it.

On Message

Often you’ll find that your opponents come from some well-oiled political machine – a union, a local authority – where orders are given and discipline is imposed. Most Free School groups, by contrast, are reluctant to organise themselves too hierarchically. Plus, no one’s being paid. You can’t ring up a voluntary worker in the middle of the night and order him or her to have a piece of work on your desk first thing tomorrow morning. He – or she – will tell you to get lost.

Nevertheless, your group will need to respond immediately to a negative publicity hit and there won’t be time to convene a meeting of the Steering Committee. Not only that, but you need to make sure that the lines going out to the media are consistent – that everyone stays “on message”. The best thing is that just one person be responsible for communications – and no one apart from that person ever give a quote to a newspaper, talks on the radio or makes any media appearance in connection with your school.

The Adonis Encounter

From the outset, I decided to make the campaign for the West London Free School as public as possible. I wrote about it whenever I could and never hesitated to appear on radio or television to talk about it, often engaging in heated debates with Fiona Millar. The upshot was that our group, and I in particular, became the focus of national opposition to the free-schools policy, with the leaders of all the main teaching unions singling me out for criticism – not to mention Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and God knows who else. Whenever I bumped into other free-school proposers during the set-up process, they would often thank me for being their “human shield”.

Not everyone on my steering group thought this was the right approach and they weren’t afraid to tell me so. They worried that people might think the West London Free School was just one big ego trip for its publicity-crazed founder or, worse, a Tory school. Often the Labour and Lib Dem voters on the steering group were just freaked out by being under attack from people they thought of as being on the same side as them. When I hit back, branding our opponents “loony lefties”, they were embarrassed. They thought this Punch-and-Judy style of debate would mean our school wouldn’t be taken seriously.

I began to doubt whether I’d made the right call myself, and when I appeared on Any Questions? with former education minister Lord Adonis, I decided to seek his advice. This was just after the last general election.

At bottom, I said to him in the car afterwards, the anti-free-schoolers and I all wanted the same thing – good local schools for everyone – so couldn’t we engage in a constructive dialogue about how best to achieve that?

Adonis gave me a look of withering contempt, much like the look Prospero gives his naive daughter in The Tempest when she expresses admiration for the rogues that have washed up on his island.

“They’re not interested in 'constructive dialogue’,” he said. “Don’t you get it? If you extend any sort of olive branch to them they’ll see it as a sign of weakness and move in for the kill. I dealt with exactly the same people – the Socialist Workers’ Party, the Anti-Academies Alliance, the NUT – for most of my ministerial career and, believe me, they would rather stick pins in their eyes than admit they have common ground with someone like you.

“Their attitude to Free Schools is the same as their attitude to Academies: they won’t rest until every last one has been razed to the ground.”

I decided to stick to my guns and I’m convinced it was the right strategy. The acid test was when we advertised for staff in the Times Educational Supplement. Would any teachers want to work at “the Toby Young school”? The answer was yes. We had more than 600 applicants for our eight full-time teaching positions. We’ve never had any problem attracting pupils, either. At the time of writing, the West London Free School has approximately 10 applicants for every place.

The War Room

If you want to know how to mount an effective political campaign, rent The War Room on DVD. It’s a documentary that takes a behind-the-scenes look at Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. The star of the film is James Carville, Clinton’s campaign manager and a supreme master of the dark political arts.

Among Carville’s litany of pithy phrases, one of my favourites is the battle cry he always utters at the beginning of a campaign: “Follow me if I advance, kill me if I retreat, avenge me if I die.”

I’m afraid that’s the kind of martial attitude you’ve got to take when it comes to dealing with your opponents. By all means try to give the impression that you are reasonable people who would gladly engage in “constructive dialogue” with them if only they were a little less ideologically hidebound – but only as a tactic to discredit them. In reality, don’t give an inch. No retreat, no surrender. It’s a battle to the death and there can only be one winner.

Free school facts and figures

24
Number of free schools that opened this September, most of them primary (for now)

87
Number of free school applications approved by Government for opening 2012 and beyond (plus 8 already at planning stage)

1,400
Number of Academies (operationally the same as free schools but either created from existing state schools or set up by organisations rather than volunteer/parent groups) as of now

1,463
Number of existing schools seeking academy status

70% of free schools... are in the 50% most deprived areas in the country
Michael Gove to Parliament, October 10

Children to be taught to create software

In response to a report on the video games industry, the coalition admitted that current technology education was “insufficiently rigorous”.

The “Next Gen” report, published earlier this year, found that pupils should be taught computer science and how to write software code, rather than just how to use existing software, as is often the case today.

“The Government recognises that learning the skills to use ICT [Information and Communications Technology] effectively and acquiring the knowledge of the underpinning computer science are two different (albeit complementary) subjects,” the Department of Culture Media and Sport said today.

“Furthermore, the Government recognises that the current ICT programme is insufficiently rigorous and in need of reform.”

An ongoing review of the National Curriculum is considering whether ICT should be a discrete subject in schools.

“As part of that process the review will consider the teaching of computer science within ICT,” the Government said.

“The Government recognises that, in the event of ICT not remaining part of the National Curriculum, attention would still need to be given to ensure children could acquire computer science skills.”

It follows criticism of the education system by technology giants including Google and Microsoft. Earlier this year, Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman, gave a major speech in which he condemned the technology curriculum in British schools.

“Your IT curriculum focuses on teaching how to use software, but gives no insight into how it's made,” he said.

“That is just throwing away your great computing heritage.”

Ian Livingstone, the life president of the video games firm Eidos and an author of the "Next Gen" report said he was "hopeful that there has been a realisation that it [computer science] is essential knowledge for the 21st century".

"It's no coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, was taught computer science at school, a subject which gave him practical skills and provided the intellectual underpinnings of his business," he wrote in a newspaper article today.

"Faced with a world in which they will be surrounded by computers and the opportunities they create, Britain's schoolchildren deserve the same chance to succeed."

Tory students burn Barack Obama effigy

Authorities at St Andrews University - where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge studied and first met - said they were looking into reports of the incident on Friday evening on the town's East Sands beach.

Matthew Marshall, president of the St Andrews Conservative Association, told the BBC: "President Obama is an important ally to the British Government. It was a stupid thing to do and we apologise for any offence caused."

John Park, Labour MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, whose constituency includes the university said: "This is gravely offensive and way beyond a student prank."

He urged David Cameron and the Conservative Party to take action against the activists responsible.

"Burning an effigy of anyone is offensive, let alone the first black President of the United States. The overtones are deeply unpleasant."

James Mills, a former chairman of the university's Labour society, said it was "disgraceful".

He said: "I can't imagine any other student activists of a major political party would behave in this manner.

"It's disgusting and I hope the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister completely come out and condemn this obscene act."

The BBC reported that the same society had burned effigies of Gordon Brown and Nelson Mandela in the past.

A spokesman for the University of St Andrews said: "We are aware of reports of this incident and have asked to meet the society president to discuss the very understandable concerns which these reports have raised.

"Until that meeting has taken place, it would be inappropriate to make further comment."

St Andrews Students' Union said those who took part in the effigy burning "don't represent St Andrews students".

A statement from the Student Representative Council said: "As students we believe in political debate, with engaging those who disagree with us and that all students at St Andrews have a valid opinion to contribute.

"While it does not violate any laws, we believe that the burning of political or public figures in effigy can be an act of hate, stifles productive engagement and can be offensive.

"We believe that St Andrews students should hold ourselves to a higher standard and actively demonstrate that we are ready to engage with and respect the opinions of others."

Sam Fowles, director of representation at the union, said: "I do not believe this was a racist act but I don't believe that makes it any less disgusting. Student representatives have shown that the vast majority of St Andrews students are much better than this sort of puerile and offensive behaviour."

University admissions: best pupils 'losing out'

Some admissions chiefs like to get a range of abilities and skills on their courses and so make a range of offers.

Academically strong pupils with higher predicted grades may therefore have to get higher grades to secure a place, while those predicted lower grades may get lower offers if they can persuade admissions staff they have other qualities.

The problem is that the admissions systems vary considerably and are complicated, according to the report in the Times Educational Supplement.

A pupil predicted three top grades at A-level may be made an offer of AAA, whereas a candidate expected to achieve As and Bs may be offered AAB or ABB for the same course.

Roberta Georghiou, the head of Bury Grammar School for Girls in Greater Manchester and co-chairman of the Independent Schools’ Universities Committee, said: “The danger is that universities admit candidates who are unable to capitalise on the opportunity they have been offered, while others who meet the criteria are excluded.”

Pia Pollock, the admissions policy adviser at Manchester University, said: “Some of our academic schools use what we call a range of offers to ensure that they recruit and select the best students.” Lower offers were made to candidates unlikely to achieve the highest grades if they could convince staff that they had the potential to succeed, she added.

Details of the variation in admission systems were laid bare in a Freedom of Information Act request.

“Students and their teachers are being put in a difficult position by the complexity of the university admissions system and the lack of predictable patterns, with each university setting its own rules,” said Dr William Richardson, the general secretary of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference.

Michael Gove: don't let militants bring Britain to a halt

Michael Gove: From its welfare and education reforms to a revolution in the running of public services, the Government has a Big Idea worthy of all the attention we can give it?

"On Wednesday, TUC leaders will call on their members to bring Britain to a halt.

"Among those Union leaders are people who fight hard for their members and whom I respect.

"But there are also hardliners, militants itching for a fight.

"They want families to be inconvenienced.

"They want mothers to give up a day's work, or pay for expensive childcare, because schools will be closed.

"They want teachers and other public sector workers to lose a day's pay in the run-up to Christmas.

"They want scenes of industrial strife on our TV screens; they want to make economic recovery harder; they want to provide a platform for confrontation just when we all need to pull together.

"I'm speaking out today because I know what it's like to go on strike because some people at the top of a Union leadership wanted to prove a point.

"I lost my job. So did more than one hundred others. I was lucky - young, unmarried, without a mortgage. I got another job soon enough.

"Many others didn't. They never worked again in the profession they loved. And the deal we were offered before the strike never improved.

"So today I want to appeal directly to teachers - and other public sector workers: please, even now, think again."