| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:In the news today ... | |
| Posted by: | Toby Young | |
| Date/Time: | 09/07/10 10:05:00 |
| That's exactly right, Charlie. Setting up Free Schools in leased buildings is a more cost effective way of meeting the anticipated rise in demand for secondary school places than sticking up new builds. Equally cost effective would be to expand existing secondary schools, but that's not what parents want. With a few exceptions, parents want a wider choice of smaller schools, not a narrower choice of bigger schools. Anne Brown says that her impression at the first meeting held at my house to discuss the West London Free School is that the parents who attended wanted a taxpayer-funded private school. If you substitute the word "independent" for "private", I wouldn't quibble with that. What's wrong with wanting a school that delivers the sort of education that's available at Latymer Upper School or St Paul's but which is free at the point of entry? Provided you design the admissions policy so there's no way that middle class parents can secure preferential treatment for their children -- which we intend to do -- I can't see why anyone would object to it. You can describe a rigorous, academic education as "middle class" if you like, but as Maire points out it appeals to plenty of non-middle class parents as well. In response to the lady from the South Acton estate, please tell any parents you come across with children in Year 5 or below to email newfreeschool@googlemail.com with their contact details and what year their children are currently in. Then, when the time comes for them to apply on their children's behalf, I can email them a reminder. If they don't have access to a computer, then perhaps she could do it on their behalf, including their addresses so I can send them a reminder by post. |